Les era una tragedia que

Les era una tragedia que
 

¡Hola!


I would appreciate it if you could verify my understanding with regard to the following sentence (from an exercise book).

Les era una tragedia que sus padres no vinieran durante la Navidad.

1. Grammatical analysis
It’s an impersonal sentence where les is an indirect object, and una tragedia is a direct object.
It came as a tragedy for them that…
They (married couple) perceived it as a tragedy that her parents didn’t come for Christmas.

2. The imperfect vs. the preterite
The way I see it is that the imperfect form of the verb ser underlines continuance (ongoing condition), as if they needed some time to reconcile themselves to the prospect of her parents’ not coming.
while in
Fue una lástima que sus padres no vinieran durante la Navidad.
It was a pity/shame that her parents didn’t come for Christmas.

Fue refers to a sharply defined event as if the couple took her parents’ not coming in their stride and carried on with their lives regardless.
Thank you.

Your analysis looks OK, but the original sentence looks forced and unnatural.

I'd said

Los* afectaba profundamente que sus padres no vinieran para la temporada navideña. Tomaban el hecho como una tragedia.

(* correct pronoun, only used in Chile, Argentina and Uruguay. The rest of the Spanish speaking world prefers and accepted leísmo - This I say for you to analyse the grammar)

In the book example the sentence is

Era una tragedia que sus padres no vinieran durante la Navidad.

Les is added as what is known as dativo de interés, an indirect object that shows how deeply the situation affected them. So les plus tragedia ends up sounding hyperdramatic, novela-like. Plus that "venir durante" as if the trip and not their visit were the important thing.

I forgot the preterit/imperfect part.

It would strictly be an ongoing action were the phrase "sus padres no estuvieran viniendo" ("their parents weren't coming" is the best match for that)

Yet the use of imperfect, with its disregard for the beginning and end of the action, talks about a lasting effect. The fact the parents weren't coming "les aguaba la fiesta". Knowing that, they weren't able to enjoy the season. And the most important thing is that imperfect placing us in the time frame this was happening.

The perfect fue just tells it all ended. That situation is a matter of the past. There's nothing sharp in it. The action was still a lasting one that brought sadness to the season.

Thank you, aleCcowaN.

I have made a mistake in the analysis of

Les era una tragedia que sus padres no vinieran durante la Navidad.

It is an impersonal sentence where
era is a copula, una tragedia is a complement, les is an intensifying indirect object pronoun, and the that-clause is an extraposed (postponed) subject.

Let's say you're right, I would like to see what you think the sentence would look were the subject not extraposed. I think you will be surprised.