temporal logic with antes de que

[Nfqufktc]

¡Hola!
I would appreciate it if you could check my understanding with regard to the temporal sequence of the actions in the past in the following sentences with the adverbial expression antes de que:

Please find the above-mentioned sentences for copying/pasting:
1. Antes de que la reunión terminara, Marta y Luisa se fueron.
Marta y Luisa left before the meeting ended.
2. Su madre murió antes de que él hubiese cumplido los dos años.
His mother died before he had been two.
3. (José dijo que) su madre murió antes de que él hubiese cumplido los dos años.
(Joseph said that) his mother (had) died before he had been two.

Thank you.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Nfqufktc

¡Hola!
I would appreciate it if you could check my understanding with regard to the temporal sequence of the actions in the past in the following sentences with the adverbial expression antes de que:

Please find the above-mentioned sentences for copying/pasting:
1. Antes de que la reunión terminara, Marta y Luisa se fueron.
Marta y Luisa left before the meeting ended.
2. Su madre murió antes de que él hubiese cumplido los dos años.
His mother died before he had been two.
3. (José dijo que) su madre murió antes de que él hubiese cumplido los dos años.
(Joseph said that) his mother (had) died before he had been two.

Thank you.

You have legitimate reasons to feel a bit stumped. All but the first sentence are odd and ambiguous to say the least.

Marta y Luisa se fueron antes de que la reunión terminará (the original order is possible but sounds literary)

"Su madre murió antes de que él hubiese cumplido los dos años" suggests he died too, renderering the phrase an absurdly complex tragedia griega, otherwise, as you correctly detected, the phrase is "su madre murió antes de que (él) cumpliera los dos años" ( his mother died before he reached age two) or better "perdió a su madre antes de cumplir los dos años"

I'm racking my brains to complete the original sentence so it makes some sense, logically and grammaticaly, but I got nothing, unless I change the tense

Su madre había muerto antes de que el hubiese cumplido los dos años.

It's a bit overkilking, because cumpliera is enough (imperfect subjunctive is adaptable, kind of a wildcard), but it's grammaticaly correct. If you tend to analyze everything as a timeline it may surprise you that había muerto happens before hubiera cumplido. But subjunctive is also used to say certain action didn't take place, which antes is demanding here

Your patch "Jose dijo que su madre había muerto ... " is correct. You should apply the same logic to the last sentence "Juan ya se había abrochado el cinturón de seguridad antes de que el avión despegará cuando el compartimiento portaequipaje se abrió de repente" "John had already fastened his seatbelt before the take-off when the overhead compartment suddenly opened."

[Nfqufktc]

Thank you, aleCcowaN.

[Nfqufktc]

1. Would you look at this table and tell me if it makes sense?

P.S.
Now I seem to have understood what you meant by overkilling the verb cumplir with the pluperfect.

2.
A) Ana se había ido antes de que lo supiera Pedro.
Anne had left before Pedro knew.
B) Ana se fue antes de que lo supiera Pedro.
Anne left before Pedro knew.
In which way are they different?
My understanding is that in sentence A the precedence is shown, and with supiera in the adbverbial clause it is relevant up to the present.


In the grammar manuals there is a point about the preterite being preferred in colloquial speech, when it is preceded by expressions such as en cuanto, luego que, después (de) que, or tan pronto como but not antes de que.
It is applicable to the sentence above?

3. Juan ya se había abrochado el cinturón de seguridad antes de que el avión despegará cuando el compartimiento portaequipaje se abrió de repente.
John had already fastened his seatbelt before the take-off when the overhead compartment suddenly opened.

There are two hard facts and an anticipated event (with anticipation relevant up to the moment the utterance was made) in this sentence. We don’t know whether the takeoff happened at all and it’s irrelevant. What matters is the temporal logic to set up the correct order of actions.

Thank you again.

[aleCcowaN]

EsLet's go chunk by chunk. A few things now as it's nearly midnight here.

About #3, you're right, though common sense makes me think the plain was still on the tarmac. One hard fact happens first but we are interested in its lasting efects; it works as context to the other hard fact, which happens all of a sudden.

I'm not sure about what you mean with the term "anticipation" because it sets kind of expectations in my mind, sort of "I'm looking forward to it". Maybe it's just me that doesn't know the full scope of the term. I understood you meant it as one action preceeding the other, like in "reserve sus entradas para el evento con suficiente anticipación".

I know you want to wrap your head around this subject by resorting to some kind of algorithm set, but things are not that absolute

La madre de Juan murió antes de que él hubiera cumplido los dos años is in the end an ambiguous phrase. As a standalone phrase it suggests Juan's death because here the subjunctive suggests an aborted action: he wouldn't reach two so he should have died before

But suppose this slightly convoluted paragraph

Juan sería acreedor de un legado millonario al alcanzar los dos años de edad y su madre, como su apoderada, contaba con ello para mejorar su situación personal. Pero sucedió que la madre de Juan murió antes de que él hubiera cumplido los dos años.

Here Juan clearly lived on, and here the subjunctive speaks of disjointed facts: there's no point in the timeline when the living mother coexist with a two-year old Juan. The sentence is totally unambiguous.

I'm sorry for the complicated paragraph, but sometimes specific levels of speech are required to trigger specific interpretations. A sensible approach is required, not an algorithmical one. That's the beauty (and horror) of Spanish subjunctive.

Tomorrow I'll give it another look to reply regarding what's left.