The Rest of Us

[Bobbert]

I want to say: It’s a good thing that the rest of us didn’t go. Translating the rest of us is confusing me.

Some possibilities that come to my mind are the following, but I'm really unsure which, if any, are even correct.

Qué bueno que los demás no fuimos.
Qué bueno que todos los demás no fuimos.
Qué bueno que los demás de nosotros no fuimos.
Qué bueno que el resto de nosotros no fuimos.

Are any of the above correct?

[Rusty]

'It's a good thing (that)' can be translated as «Menos mal que», but there are places where you'll hear «Qué bueno que» (in Spain use «Qué bien que»). Be warned that you need to assess whether "a good thing" is objective or subjective and correctly cast the clause that follows the conjunction in the indicative or the subjunctive mood.

Using «los demás» and «no fuimos» together get the idea across just fine.
So, that combination or the last possibility you wrote work well, paying attention to regional usage.

[aleCcowaN]

The only wrong version is "los demás de nosotros".

I agree with Rusty that the last one is better. That's the one I like the most, though I'd say

Qué suerte que el resto de nosotros no fuimos.

or

Menos mal que el resto de nosotros no fuimos.

meaning "how fortunate that the rest of us didn't go", that is, some unexpected inconvenience or negative consequence was averted.

but it may say "resultó ser bueno que el resto de nosotros no fuéramos" when there's an unexpected positive outcome. Also "terminó siendo para bien que..."

In all this I suppose in your sentence "it's good" means "it was good"

[poli]

Could you use lo bueno as in lo bueno es que.... It sounds OK to my ear, but Spanish is clearly not my first language.

[aleCcowaN]

It all depends on the answer to the question "why is it a good thing that the rest of 'youse' didn't go?"

[Bobbert]

Thank you, aleCcowaN and Rusty. Since this forum has been down for a while, I wasn't able to sign in until just now to thank you for your input.

Qué bueno que el resto de nosotros no fuimos is very close to a direct English translation, so I am just going to use that construct.

[Tomisimo]

Followup question, can you use the following two options at the end of the sentence interchangeably?

"... que no fuimos"
"... que no hayamos ido"

[Rusty]

I don't think these could be used interchangeably. The first usage is indicative; the second, subjunctive. The meaning is different if there's a change in mood.

Interestingly enough, in the UK they tend to use the past perfect («no hemos ido») where American English speakers would choose the preterit («no fuimos»). Why we differ in tense is difficult to understand, but each would argue that the way they speak sounds quite natural.
I say all this because our Argentine friend pointed out that the mood could go either way depending on how one feels.
He has also assumed we are speaking our mind in the past about something that happened ("it was good"), where I understand the statement as current rationale ("it is good") instead of having the thought in the past, in the same time frame.
I believe we can, in American thought, express our present feelings about a thing that happened, as well as have past feelings about the same event, but NOT have the two feelings coincide. "It's (it is) a good thing the rest of us didn't go." (Present thought process, looking back on an event that happened.) "It was a good thing the rest of us didn't go." (Past feelings about the same event in the past.) All very interesting.

[aleCcowaN]

Though I find all of that to be very valid, I see this just as a matter of informing about some fact versus comenting about a known fact.

"bueno que no fuimos" (I hereby inform you that we didn't go and that's good)

"bueno que no hayamos ido" (as you already know, we didn't go, and that's good)

In the last one the subjunctive mood is just telling the action didn't happen

ve/no vayas ---> hemos ido/ no hayamos ido

que bueno que fuimos
que bueno que hemos ido

with both cases having some geographic parallel with the use in English, with this caveat: in the Spanish speaking mind both cases are equally perfect, but the periphrastic perfect (hemos ido) may inform in Spain that the facts happened during the current period (day, week, month, season, year) while in América it tends to mean that the fact has enduring consequences in the present time.

Some people will say

bueno que no fuéramos

just to stress the action didn't happen, but the imperfect aspect is problematic as it may imply an impending action. Phrases like

bueno que no fuéramos tan temprano

are quite allright, though.

I appologize -not- for such an entangled yet incomplete explanation, but, besides overstretching my English, I find that carefully laid out explanations are misleading when Spanish subjunctive is involved, because they foster the false notion that some complex alchemy is needed to manage it correctly.

Mood selection in Spanish is like walking. You can't freeze when you have one feet in the air. You have to make your choice and make it quickly. Generally that decision rests on one single consideration. Inaction, defocus, contrast, commentary, etc. are in the palette, and the decision tree can be modified by the meaning of the words.

[Tomisimo]

Thank you for all the info and examples on the subjunctive. Very helpful!

[aleCcowaN]

My pleasure!