Subjunctive exercise 5-1

[laepelba]

A quick question about this particular exercise (dealing with the subjunctive in adverbial phrases....)

1) Ellos no soltaron ni un centavo, hasta que su tío __________ en la Bolsa y se ganó un millón de dólares. (invertir)
** The answer in the book is "invirtió". Why is this indicative and not subjunctive? I thought this would be like saying "Yo fui al teatro antes de que Juan me llamara." How is it different?

Any ideas you could give me would be greatly appreciated!

[chileno]

Originally Posted by laepelba

A quick question about this particular exercise (dealing with the subjunctive in adverbial phrases....)

1) Ellos no soltaron ni un centavo, hasta que su tío __________ en la Bolsa y se ganó un millón de dólares. (invertir)
** The answer in the book is "invirtió". Why is this indicative and not subjunctive? I thought this would be like saying "Yo fui al teatro antes de que Juan me llamara." How is it different?

Any ideas you could give me would be greatly appreciated!

Ok, remember that subjunctive is used for suppository cases?

In the first case it is a matter of having done something that's going to be backed up. They didn't give out any money until their uncle won some money, else they were not going to invest.

Second case, supposedly was going to call you, but you decided to go out before he did (call you).

[wrholt]

Originally Posted by laepelba

A quick question about this particular exercise (dealing with the subjunctive in adverbial phrases....)

1) Ellos no soltaron ni un centavo, hasta que su tío __________ en la Bolsa y se ganó un millón de dólares. (invertir)
** The answer in the book is "invirtió". Why is this indicative and not subjunctive? I thought this would be like saying "Yo fui al teatro antes de que Juan me llamara." How is it different?

Any ideas you could give me would be greatly appreciated!

In past tense sentences, there is a reference time, and the sentence may describe what happened before that reference time, what was happening at the reference time, or what was possible but had not yet happened after that reference time.

In "Ellos no soltaron ni un centavo hasta que su tío invertió...", every event occurs before the reference time, and is asserted as fact; there's nothing hypothetical or unrealized.

In "Yo fui al teatro antes de que Juan me llamara", the reference time is the moment when I went to the theater, and as of that moment no phone call had happened: it was still a future, unrealized or hypothetical event.

[Perikles]

I'm still trying to understand the examples given in the Oxford dictionary:

2 hasta que until, till; esperamos hasta que paró de llover we waited until it stopped raining;

hasta que + subj: espera hasta que pare de llover wait until o till it stops raining;

decidieron esperar hasta que parase de llover they decided to wait until o till it stopped raining;

I suppose the difference here is that with the indicative + indicative, both events actually happened. With indicative + subjunctive, the second event (at the time) was not certain.

[aleCcowaN]

It's exactly the way wrholt explains.

I'd only add this: indicative, past and certain events, one adding on top of the previous; subjunctive, as said, one event being future -thus uncertain- at the moment when that first action occurred, being that the time frame the speakers are "standing on" when they say the sentence AND/OR mutually exclusive events (they are not simultaneous nor one event happens during a time when the other event has consequences or it's historic to the matter)

Quería irme antes de que comenzara la lluvia

...the subject is speaking from a time frame before the rain started.

Te fuiste antes de que lloviera.

... it is not completely clear the time frame, but surely it's not the present moment. Besides both actions are mutually exclusive, that is, there is no reality with "you leaving" and "it raining" happening at the same time, therefore one action has to be presented using subjunctive in order to coexist in the same frame with the other. The action expressed using indicative sets finally the time frame.

Llovió después de que te fuiste. (it can be fueras for other reasons -that's why students get confused so often-)

... the time frame is the time of saying that and both facts are historic, certain and we can tick them in exact points of the time line.

[laepelba]

I understand the concept of the "reference point", but I still don't understand how the two sentences are different...

Ellos no soltaron ni un centavo, hasta que su tío invirtió en la Bolsa y se ganó un millón de dólares. (Main clause reference point with "soltaron" happened in the past, but with anticipation of something that had not yet happened yet future to that reference point, "invirtir".)

Yo fui al teatro antes de que Juan me llamara. (Main clause reference point with "fui" happened in the past, but with anticipation of something that had not yet happened yet in the future to that reference point, "llamar".)

To me, it seems like in both sentences, the main clause (past) anticipates something that did eventually happen (we know now), but at the time of the main clause, it was not known. I feel like the first sentence would be different if it were a sentence written in the affirmative.....

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Llovió después de que te fuiste.

Am I right in thinking there is a difference between Spanish Spanish and American Spanish here? As I understood it, in Spain you would always use the subjunctive after después de referring to the past. (Just to make things really confusing)

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Perikles

Am I right in thinking there is a difference between Spanish Spanish and American Spanish here? As I understood it, in Spain you would always use the subjunctive after después de referring to the past. (Just to make things really confusing)

You may find about 70% of subjunctives following "después de", no matter the region, and that is correct, because there are many reasons a subjunctive is found there (known information, measure of time, not implying causality, etc.). That's why I think of the triggers' theory as a travesty or as a technique to cheat in exams ("antes de que" is followed by subjunctive, "después de que" is followed by -choose either by flipping a coin-).

To avoid the "todo tiene que ver con todo" so common when subjunctive is dealt by examples and frequency, I focused on the fact that Lou Ann is asking about indicative and subjunctive in adverbial clauses that state threaded events -related in different ways, but related indeed- (hasta que..., después de que..., antes de que...,etc.). In just stating the facts it is "antes de que viniera" and never "antes de que vino", and it is "después de que vino" although "después de que viniera" is used with other things in mind -so often used that it makes some 70% of instances as the 'other things in mind' amount 70% of instances-.

The key points here about stating the facts -and just stating the facts-

. . . . . . . . . . . .te fuiste . . antes de que . . lloviera

(.....irte tú....................] øøøøøøøøøøøøøøøø [........... llover......)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[ tú ido .............................................)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .llovió
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .después de que te fuiste


while in the exercise:
..................................... [.... ellos soltaron centavos .........)
...............................[..... (su tío) ganó un millón de dólares .......?)
....................[......su tío invirtió en la bolsa .................?)

[wrholt]

Originally Posted by laepelba

I understand the concept of the "reference point", but I still don't understand how the two sentences are different...

Ellos no soltaron ni un centavo, hasta que su tío invirtió en la Bolsa y se ganó un millón de dólares. (Main clause reference point with "soltaron" "no soltaron" happened in the past, but with anticipation of something that had not yet happened yet future to that reference point, "invirtir" and terminated by an event marked by "hasta que" + indicative.)

"Hasta que" = "until" can play two roles: it can identify a condition that has not been satisfied yet [implied by choosing a subjunctive form] or it can identify a condition that has been satisfied already [implied by choosing an indicative form]. In sentences that contain "hasta que", the tense in the main clause establishes a time frame, and the choice of indicative vs. subjunctive in the "hasta que" clause sets the time of its event as being either before [established fact] OR after [not yet realized] the key moment in the time frame.

"Antes (de) que" differs from "hasta que" in that a.d.q. (almost) always is used to identify not-yet-realized or hypothetical events within the time frame of the sentence, and as a result it (almost) always demands the subjunctive.

Originally Posted by laepelba

Yo fui al teatro antes de que Juan me llamara. (Main clause reference point with "fui" happened in the past, but with anticipation of something that had not yet happened yet in the future to that reference point, "llamar".)

To me, it seems like in both sentences, the main clause (past) anticipates something that did eventually happen (we know now), but at the time of the main clause, it was not known. I feel like the first sentence would be different if it were a sentence written in the affirmative.....

[laepelba]

Sorry, folks - my week has been CRAZY!! I meant to return to this sooner......

Thank you for the input.......... SOOOOooooo, is it as simple as "hasta que" in the past requires the indicative, "hasta que" in the present or future requires the subjunctive? But "antes de que" always requires the subjunctive?

That easy?

[wrholt]

Originally Posted by laepelba

Sorry, folks - my week has been CRAZY!! I meant to return to this sooner......

Thank you for the input.......... SOOOOooooo, is it as simple as "hasta que" in the past requires the indicative, "hasta que" in the present or future requires the subjunctive? But "antes de que" always requires the subjunctive?

That easy?

Almost. It's more accurate to say: [Is it] as simple as "hasta que" in the past in relation to the focus time of the sentence and that describes a completed event requires the indicative, "hasta que" in the present or future in relation to the focus time of the sentence or that describes a hypothetical event requires the subjunctive. The main verb of the sentence may itself be past, present or future, although in practice when the main verb of the sentence is in the future, the verb in hasta que typically is in the subjunctive.

On the other hand, "antes de que" really is that simple: by virtue of its meaning, it demands the subjunctive almost automatically.

[laepelba]

Originally Posted by wrholt

Almost. It's more accurate to say: [Is it] as simple as "hasta que" in the past in relation to the focus time of the sentence and that describes a completed event requires the indicative, "hasta que" in the present or future in relation to the focus time of the sentence or that describes a hypothetical event requires the subjunctive. The main verb of the sentence may itself be past, present or future, although in practice when the main verb of the sentence is in the future, the verb in hasta que typically is in the subjunctive.

Would it be possible for you to give an example or two?

[wrholt]

Originally Posted by wrholt

Almost. It's more accurate to say: [Is it] as simple as "hasta que" in the past in relation to the focus time of the sentence and that describes a completed event requires the indicative, "hasta que" in the present or future in relation to the focus time of the sentence or that describes a hypothetical event requires the subjunctive. The main verb of the sentence may itself be past, present or future, although in practice when the main verb of the sentence is in the future, the verb in hasta que typically is in the subjunctive.

On the other hand, "antes de que" really is that simple: by virtue of its meaning, it demands the subjunctive almost automatically.

Originally Posted by laepelba

Would it be possible for you to give an example or two?

The simplest examples for "hasta que" are in the past:
a) No quería hacerlo hasta que José llegó. Focus time is in the past, after José arrived. Following sentences may continue with what happened after he arrived.
b) No quería hacerlo hasta que José llegara. Focus time is in the past, when José had not yet arrived. Following sentences may continue with what happened while waiting for José to arrive.

The meaning of "hasta que" allows this distinction.

With "antes de que" we have:
c) No quería hacerlo antes de que José llegara. Focus time is in the past, during a time when José had not arrived yet.

However:
d) *No quería hacerlo antes de que José llegó. This sounds like nonsense, because by meaning "antes de que" places the focus time before the arrival, which is inconsistent with using the indicative. Native speakers who want to say that José had arrived would normally use "hasta que" and say (a).

Examples in the present and future will have to come later: I'm about to head out to an event and I'll be back this evening.

====================

Ok, I had some time to do a little bit of checking.

In the case of present tense sentences that use "hasta que", you might say:

e) Quiero hacerlo hasta que José venga. Focus is now, and identifies what is happening now: José has not arrived yet.

f) Siempre quiero hacerlo hasta que José viene. This sentence describes habitual action, rather than what is happening right now. (I'm not certain that this is vailid with "hasta que", but B&B has examples with other conjuctions of time.)

[laepelba]

Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner. I was out of town this weekend. I have finally printed it out, and am working on it. THANK YOU for the wonderful examples and explanations.

By the way ... what is "B&B"?

[aleCcowaN]

I suppose B&B is either 'bed and breakfast' or 'Butt and Benjamin'.

[wrholt]

Originally Posted by laepelba

....

By the way ... what is "B&B"?

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

I suppose B&B is either 'bed and breakfast' or 'Butt and Benjamin'.

And the prize goes to....aleC! Yes, I have Butt and Benjamin's 4th edition (2004). For my purposes it is an excellent reference at a more affordable price than RAE's publications. I've looked at a couple of other grammars in my local foreign-language bookstore (Schoenhof's in Cambridge, MA), but the prices were much higher than I was willing to pay.

[laepelba]

Cool! Now I will have another Spanish grammar book in my Amazon Wish List!