Subjunctive bedbugs

[Perikles]

Santa Cruz de Tenerife, newspaper

No se trata de crear alarma entre la población chicharrera, pero sí de tomar las medidas necesarias para evitar futuros problemas. Uno de los molestos inquilinos que ha regresado de nuevo, "después de que no se supiera nada de ellos desde hace muchos años", es la chinche de cama, el llamado pequeño drácula, que se esconde en los colchones, ropa, muebles, madera o alfombras, y que "ataca por la noche chupando la sangre".

Because the topic is bedbugs, chinche, I spent ages wondering what the hell chicharrera meant, thinking la población chicharrera was a population of bedbugs until i realised that the spelling was not quite the same. You live and learn. Anyway, can anyone tell me why there is subjunctive supiera here, bolded?

Thanks

[aleCcowaN]

First of all, though it's tempting to "correct" it from supiera to supo -guessing some indicative use of subjunctive, something that happens in Spain now and then- the real intention here is referring to something that is well known, is not happening and implies non-existence, three good reasons to deemphasize the verb.

We use infinitive instead: "...después de muchos años de no saber nada de ellos ..." but journalists tend to slip some bold touches in order to embellish the narration.

Perhaps that "después de que" triggered some expectation that indicative would follow (and should follow).

[Tomisimo]

Bedbugs are not subjective—you either have them or you don't. Wait, need to go back and read that title again.

As for the use of the subjunctive, I think it's simply a case of not having heard from the bedbugs, making it a non-event—something that has not happened—and thus needs to go into the nebulous realms of the Spanish subjunctive. The indicative is used for things that have happened.

[JPablo]

I agree with Davidísimo and AleCcowan.

Here is one example that may help,

"Te lo diría, si lo supiera". = "I'd tell you, if I knew."

While the case in point "después de que no se supiera nada de ellos desde hace muchos años" is not an "if" sentence it is however a "premise" [or rather 'protasis'] in the sentence... as in "if that was the case" or "given that nobody knew anything about them for many years" or "after the fact that nobody knew anything..."
Even if talking about the fact of "not knowing" I tend to believe the use of the subjunctive in Spanish is due to this "premise" conceptual construction. "If A were X then B would be Y" type of idea.

(Yes, Moliner seems to confirm this idea.)

Moliner gives a good explanation under her item "VERBO" (you can spend more time on it than reading Don Quixote... to get all the nuances...) I copied from her below and marked in bold green what seems to be the best answer to your question. (I was going to condense her a bit to get to the point but you can check it out in full, if you want and/or ask me any questions about it.) (Otherwise I think the bolded green section will suffice.)

Here follow Moliner examples,
Hay que tratar por separado la conjunción «si» y las equivalentes a ella.
Oración adjunta con «si»: En la oración condicional hipotética con «si», si la apódosis (oración sin conjunción, que expresa la consecuencia del cumplimiento de la condición) está en indicativo, la prótasis (oración con «si» que expresa la condición o hipótesis) está también en indicativo: ‘Te lo diré si lo sé’. Si la apódosis está en condicional (lo cual ocurre cuando existe poca probabilidad de que se realice la condición expresada en la prótasis) o se da esa condición como no realizada, la prótasis se pone en subjuntivo: ‘Te lo diría si lo supiera’.

[I don't know if you need the rest of examples below. Hopefully the above answer your question! ]

En la oración en indicativo las correspondencias de tiempos son las que aparecen en el cuadro 7.1. («oración con adjunta en indicativo o potencial»), con la única restricción de que, en la oración con «si», en vez de los futuros y los potenciales se emplean el presente y el pretérito perfecto: ‘Te lo diré si lo sé. Lo habrá hecho para ese día si ha encontrado antes materiales’. Otras restricciones son sólo cuestión de significado, ya que la condición no puede ser posterior al resultado de su cumplimiento y, por ello, no se puede decir, por ejemplo, ‘se lo pagué si lo hace’ o ‘lo hago si me lo pagarás’.
En la oración con adjunta (prótasis) en subjuntivo, las correspondencias propias o específicas son éstas: para el presente, prótasis (oración con «si») en pretérito imperfecto de subjuntivo y apódosis (oración principal) en potencial simple; para el pretérito, prótasis en pretérito pluscuamperfecto de subjuntivo y apódosis en potencial compuesto; para el futuro, prótasis en futuro imperfecto o perfecto de subjuntivo y apódosis en potencial simple. Ejemplos:
Presente: ‘Si estuviera aquí, lo sabríamos’.
Pretérito: ‘Si lo hubiera sabido, no habría venido’.
Futuro: ‘Si así lo hiciere, pagaría la pena. Si no lo hubieres hecho para ese día, ya no me serviría de nada’.
Ahora bien: En lenguaje actual, los futuros de subjuntivo son sustituidos por el pretérito imperfecto y el pluscuamperfecto de subjuntivo; de modo que las construcciones para el futuro son:
’Si así lo hiciera, pagaría la pena’.
’Si no lo hubieras hecho para ese día, ya no me serviría de nada’.
Por otro lado, el pretérito imperfecto y el pluscuamperfecto de subjuntivo de la prótasis son sustituibles en lenguaje popular por el potencial simple y el compuesto; inversamente, el potencial simple y el compuesto de la apódosis son sustituibles por el pretérito imperfecto y el pluscuamperfecto de subjuntivo; y unos y otros son sustituibles por el pretérito imperfecto y el pluscuamperfecto de indicativo. Por tanto, resultan para estas oraciones las siguientes construcciones posibles:
’Si estuviera aquí, lo sabríamos’ (específica).
’Si estuviera aquí, lo supiéramos’ (anticuada).
’Si estuviera aquí, a estas horas lo sabía todo Madrid’ (enfática).
’Si estaría aquí, lo sabríamos’ (popular).
’Si estaría aquí, lo supiéramos’ (popular y anticuada; teóricamente posible para completar la serie, pero no documentada).
’Si estaría aquí, lo sabía hasta el gato’ (popular y enfática).
’Si estaba él aquí, lo arreglaría enseguida’ (popular).
’Si estaba él aquí, lo arreglara enseguida’ (popular en cuanto a la prótasis y anticuada en cuanto a la apódosis; teóricamente admisible para completar el cuadro, pero no documentada).
’Si estaba él aquí, lo arreglaba enseguida’ (popular en cuanto a la prótasis y enfática en cuanto a la apódosis).
Tienen el mismo significado que «si» en los usos en que puede acompañar a un verbo en subjuntivo las siguientes expresiones condicionales-hipotéticas: «a base de que, a calidad de que (anticuada), como, con que, a condición de que, cuando, dado -dar- que, de, de no, siempre que, siempre y cuando, con sólo que, con tal que» y «ya que».
Todas ellas exigen el subjuntivo en la oración a que afectan, con las correspondencias regulares del cuadro 7.1. de correspondencias de las oraciones unidas por subordinación: ‘Te lo diré a base de que me prometas no decirlo a nadie. Como se enterase, se enfadaría. Con que me des la mitad, me conformo. Se lo habría dado a condición de que lo guardara bien. Cuando no hubiera otro remedio, trabajaría. Dado que lo supiera, se callaría por la cuenta que le tiene. Me conformaré siempre que [siempre y cuando] me prometan compensarme en otra ocasión. Con sólo que [o con tal que] hubiera dos metros, tendríamos bastante. Ya que lo digas, mantenlo con firmeza’.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by Tomisimo

The indicative is used for things that have happened.

Originally Posted by JPablo

"Te lo diría, si lo supiera". = "I'd tell you, if I knew."

While the case in point "después de que no se supiera nada de ellos desde hace muchos años" is not an "if" sentence it is however a "premise" [or rather 'protasis'] in the sentence... as in "if that was the case" or "given that nobody knew anything about them for many years" or "after the fact that nobody knew anything..."
.

Many thanks for all three responses above. I hear what you all say, but I'll need to think about this. I really do understand the use of the subjunctive for hypothetical event, (I know when to use it in German, French, Greek and English, and the rules are different for each language) but it seems to me "nothing has been known of them for several years" or "we haven't had a problem with them for years" or "after not hearing about them for years" is about as indicative as any statement. At the moment I can't see any hint of subjunctive here. There again, it's so hot here I can't think properly. I'm going off to read some books....

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Perikles

... it seems to me "nothing has been known of them for several years" or "we haven't had a problem with them for years" or "after not hearing about them for years" is about as indicative as any statement. At the moment I can't see any hint of subjunctive here. ...

It's any of them -specially this one- but having a touch of de-emphasis, sort of those not-heard-about-for-a-long-time bugs. Remember that infinitive in Spanish means that the verb is "doing" so "después de que no se supo nada de ellos durante años" means that you are actively "no sabiendo en el pasado" so you expect the story to build on top of this. Instead, "después de que no se supiera nada de ellos durante años" is just a remark. Look at the structure of the paragraph:

Uno de los molestos inquilinos que ha regresado de nuevo, "después de que no se supiera nada de ellos desde hace muchos años", es la chinche de cama, el llamado pequeño drácula, que se esconde en los colchones, ropa, muebles, madera o alfombras, y que "ataca por la noche chupando la sangre".

Source

The phrase is quoted -as if it's taken from an interview- and isolated by commas, so you can read the whole paragraph without that phrase and it all makes sense -you just lost complementary info, in this case a reminder that the bugs didn't coexist with us for a long time-. All of it, quotation marks, commas and imperfect subjunctive, works like a police officer saying "nothing to see here, keep moving".


But I insist that in this example infinitive suits better.

[poli]

I think no se supiera nada de ellos desde muchos años
translates to they have all but been unknown for many years.

The forgotteness of them is tentative. People knew of them but they weren't an issue. I'm not sure if the all but term is a remnant of the
English subjunctive.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

The phrase is quoted -as if it's taken from an interview- and isolated by commas, ...

But I insist that in this example infinitive suits better.

Good point - it makes a difference. I'm glad though that you think the infinitive might be more appropriate.

Originally Posted by poli

I think no se supiera nada de ellos desde muchos años
translates to they have all but been unknown for many years.

The forgotteness of them is tentative.

That is an ingenious interpretation.

Ah - So you are both saying that they weren't entirely unknown, just kind of lurking or dormant, and this fact is expressed by the subjunctive. I'm beginning to see the point.

Thanks both

Afterthought: This idea of de-emphasis with the subjunctive is starting to make sense. In English, we might even use something equivalent, like 'even though we might not have been aware of them for years' The después translated as after prevents this interpretation.

[aleCcowaN]

Certainly, the use of imperfect subjunctive does not qualify the forgottenness of the bugs here, though that could be a nuance in other contexts. The only difference between "no saber de ellos durante largos años" and "no se supiera de ellos durante largos años" is the collective mark in the latter. "No saber" has an indefinite subject, "no se supiera" gives a hint about the whole society being the subject of this, and quotation marks identify an interviewee as the person who holds that opinion, but keeping it all as passive as "no saber". Indefinite subjects default someway to "the whole society", but the reporter avoided to be dull and managed to give a lively speech.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Certainly, the use of imperfect subjunctive does not qualify the forgottenness of the bugs here, though that could be a nuance in other contexts. The only difference between "no saber de ellos durante largos años" and "no se supiera de ellos durante largos años" is the collective mark in the latter. "No saber" has an indefinite subject, "no se supiera" gives a hint about the whole society being the subject of this, and quotation marks identify an interviewee as the person who holds that opinion, but keeping it all as passive as "no saber". Indefinite subjects default someway to "the whole society", but the reporter avoided to be dull and managed to give a lively speech.

Damn - I thought I was beginning to understand it.

[chileno]

"After not hearing from them for so many years..."

[irmamar]

Maybe this link is useful, although I should add that I can't find this form "arcaizante o viciosa" (). Perhaps I'm reading too much and "se me secará el cerebro, como a Don Quijote".

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by irmamar

Maybe this link is useful, although I should add that I can't find this form "arcaizante o viciosa" (). Perhaps I'm reading too much and "se me secará el cerebro, como a Don Quijote".

Irma - thanks

Pero los periodistas utilizan tanto oralmente como por escrito, siempres y solo el modo subjutivo. No sé si es un error mío, o es un error común de muchos españoles. Llevo más de 40 años trabajando en español, y durante los últimos 20 años en España, siempre llevo esta duda, les agradecería que me diesen una respuesta.
R: Usted está en lo correcto. Bajo el esquema «después de que + verbo + oración principal», el verbo va en indicativo si la oración principal está expresada en presente o pretérito:

I think the reference to "arcaizante o viciosa" is just the issue over which of the two imperfect subjunctives is used.

[aleCcowaN]

Mind that the link referred doesn't offer "lograron atrapar al ladrón después de escapar saltando el alto muro trasero" as an option, and that is right as -being any synchronization involved- it should be indicative for past or present events and subjunctive for future events.

The case in the OP is horse of a different color.

[JPablo]

Going back to your original question,

[...] Uno de los molestos inquilinos que ha regresado de nuevo, "después de que no se supiera nada de ellos desde hace muchos años", es la chinche de cama, [...]".
[...]
Can anyone tell me why there is subjunctive supiera here, bolded?

In my view, and to bring things to the utmost simplicity, the reason why the subjunctive is used (even if it is an "arcaizante o vicioso" usage) is simply because this is just one premise of a “conditional” clause, somewhat disguised, (even if it is in actual fact a fact).

The concept I am getting is, “even if nothing was known about them since many years” thus, being a conditional clause, the use of subjunctive is ad hoc in my books.

[chileno]

So I must assume "after not hearing from them for so long/many years" is correct.

[JPablo]

That's right, Chileno. But the question was not how to translate it into English, which you did right, but how come the "subjunctive" mode was used in Spanish.

Aunque supiera que el uso era correcto, me resultaba difícil explicar la razón.

Even if I knew the usage was correct, It was hard for me to explain the reason why.

[chileno]

Originally Posted by JPablo

That's right, Chileno. But the question was not how to translate it into English, which you did right, but how come the "subjunctive" mode was used in Spanish.

Aunque supiera que el uso era correcto, me resultaba difícil explicar la razón.

Even if I knew the usage was correct, It was hard for me to explain the reason why.

You mean the sentence I wrote is in subjunctive?!

[JPablo]

No, your sentence was not subjunctive. I meant the original sentence in Spanish. A more literal translation (to use 'subjunctive' in English and maybe help Perikles) it would be,

“after nobody knew about them for many years”

“even if nobody knew about them for many years”

Would that make sense? (I hope so!)

[chileno]

Originally Posted by JPablo

No, your sentence was not subjunctive. I meant the original sentence in Spanish. A more literal translation (to use 'subjunctive' in English and maybe help Perikles) it would be,

“after nobody knew about them for many years”

“even if nobody knew about them for many years”

Would that make sense? (I hope so!)

Don't worry, You make perfect sense. I wanted to prod Perikles a bit.