#imperfect subjunctive

When is the future/hypothetical subjunctive used? What are the common triggers?

This is a very unique topic because to explain it properly I have to touch on multiple things, so bear with me on this it's going to be a whole lot

They do sound alike which is part of the problem. Even in Spanish there are times when imperfect subjunctive sounds like conditional.

I’ll sort of get into that just let me explain the part that makes the most sense first:

The basic distinction is that imperfect subjunctive can happen in the past or the future [that wasn’t always the case]. So it sounds more distinct if you’re talking about the past. Imperfect subjunctive in that case makes more sense when used for hypothetical situations, or things that haven’t actually happened yet and might not happen. It makes more sense if you translate this imperfect subjunctive as “if it were to happen”

The conditional is always a more future kind of setting, and it normally appears where there’s an implied imperfect subjunctive clause. Conditional normally needs a “condition” to be met for it to be used.

In that very basic distinction, consider a statement like “if X, then Y”…

The “if X” part is imperfect subjunctive [a hypothetical situation that might not happen], and “then Y” is conditional [a possible outcome dependent on an “if” as it’s “condition”]

Si hubiera preparado [Lat. Am] / Si hubiese preparado [Spain]

“If I would have prepared”

“If I had prepared”

“If I were to have prepared”

You see imperfect subjunctive translated along these lines all the time. I personally think “if I were to have prepared” makes the most sense for making the distinction.

But all of these are contrary to fact statements or hypotheticals. The idea is that the person possibly did not prepare, or they don’t believe they prepared enough. And so they’re saying “if I had prepared before…” then Y

Habría preparado

“I could have prepared”

“I would have prepared”

“I should have prepared”*

*“should have” usually translates as debería haber preparado in this case, where debería is “I should have”

The conditional here is kind of like talking in hindsight. “if I had known [imp subjunctive], then I WOULD HAVE ___ [conditonal]”

You can also see conditional used when the future isn’t so uncertain, or when you’re just being polite. Like podría is a slightly uncertain “could”, podría haber preparado is like “could have prepared” or “would have had the ability to prepare”

[even in restaurants or likes/dislikes, podría or me gustaría read as very polite “could I have” or “I would like”, and talk about the future]

You might end up in a situation where you use both together:

Si pudiera haber preparado (algo), lo habría preparado. = If I could have prepared (something), I would have prepared (it).

The English translation makes it difficult.

But it’s saying “if I were to have been able to prepare [implying that the person was not able or could not for some reason in the past], then I would have prepared [if that condition had been met]”

But conditional is a wishy washy tense, and there are times when people use imperfect subjunctive to replace conditional.

So it is weird, but keep in mind that you’re in two different linguistic moods.

Subjunctive on the whole deals with doubt and uncertainty and hypothetical things, and the indicative deals with more hard facts.

Conditional is wishy washy, but it implies more certainty and belief, or it deals with an outcome that could very well happen, while imperfect subjunctive deals with an outcome that may never happen but it possibly could.

Conditional and imperfect subjunctive are things people debate all the time because they’re hard to exactly parse.

Try to think of imperfect subjunctive as “I could have, but I probably didn’t” or “if I were to have”… and conditional as “it could/may/possibly will… and there’s a good chance it actually will happen” and “I could/should/would have” [with certainty]

And feel free to join me in screaming in the void because I get tripped up by this stuff too

30 Day Blogging Challenge – Day #23

If You Won The Lottery…

It’s funny because this question always reminds me of language classes when trying to learn how to use the subjunctive/if-clauses/imperfect subjunctive. Usually the responses were fairly run-of-the-mill because everyone was too freaked out with trying to understand the subjunctive.

In reality, my response is boring… I’d buy a house, a detached house, and preferably it…

Imperfect subjunctive is sometimes used in place of conditional in the case of if/then statements

It really comes into play in the “apodosis” which is the “then” part of if/then statements. The if is almost always imperfect subjunctive.

It’s more common that conditional is replaced, not imperfect subjunctive.

Imperfect subjunctive si pudiera is used because imperfect subjunctive covers two tenses.

Once upon a time there was imperfect subjunctive and future subjunctive. Present subjunctive was for present, imperfect subjunctive was for past, and future subjunctive for future.

Future subjunctive is now obsolete for the most part [but it ends with an -e so it’s si pudiere “if I were able to”, not that you see it much]. The only time you see future subjunctive is with contracts, “in the event of” which is normally si fuere menester or more literally “if it should become necessary”

Today, imperfect subjunctive pulls double duty and takes on the future subjunctive’s role which was for very unlikely situations that haven’t happened yet but might, and contrary to fact or hypothetical things.

Mi madre quería que pusiera la mesa. = My mother wanted me to set the table. [past; imperfect subjunctive… she “wanted” me to “do something” which is framed as a past tense statement]

Si fuera presidente/presidenta… = If I were president… [future; imperfect subjunctive… “if I were” is a contrary to fact statement, saying “if I were” means that CURRENTLY you are not but you may eventually become one. This is hypothetical, so it is imperfect subjunctive]

The reason you say si pudiera volver atrás is because imperfect subjunctive is always the “if”; linguistically this is called the protasis. A “protasis” means that it stands before aka it’s the “if”, while the “apodosis” means it comes after as “then”

Si pudiera volver atrás, podría hacerlo mejor. = If I could go back, I would be able to do it better.

Standard Spanish says imperfect subjunctive + conditional, but there are some regional exceptions.

Si pudiera volver atrás, pudiera hacerlo mejor. = If I could go back, I would have been able to do it better. [imperfect subjunctive + imperfect subjunctive]

Si pudiera volver atrás, podía hacerlo mejor. = If I could go back, I would do it better. [imperfect subjunctive + imperfect (indicative)]

The use of imperfect subjunctive + imperfect subjunctive is acceptable and more of a regional thing.

The use of imperfect subjunctive + imperfect (indicative) is acceptable but reads as more confident. It’s saying “if I could go back surely I would do it better”, as a foregone conclusion.

Saying podría is a weaker “I could have” not “I definitely would have”… and using pudiera is like “I would be able to (given the chance)”

Normally formal/classical/academic Spanish says imperfect subjuncitve is the “if I were ___” which opens up a condition that could be met, so it should be followed by conditional.

In every day life, when people use conditional by itself, you tend to see it replaced by imperfect subjunctive.

This is more common for polite requests, usually seen when talking about ordering food or asking questions from staff:

Querría una caña. = I’d like a beer. [normally draft beer and this is more common in Spain I think; you could say una cerveza and that’s fine too]

Quisiera una caña. = I’d like a beer.

Both are fine. I tend towards quisiera when I’m making a request because it’s more polite.

But a server would ask you (usted) what you would like in present or conditional, never imperfect subjunctive which feels like you put them below you in social standing so it comes off as a little “you have the honor of being served by me” if you did it:

¿Qué quiere tomar? = What would you like to drink?

¿Qué le gustaría tomar? / ¿Qué querría tomar? = What would you like to drink?

Conditional has its uses but it’s more for polite requests. But in many cases, imperfect subjunctive can be substituted.

*Side Note: Spain tends towards the  -iese/-ase endings for imperfect subjunctive so si pudiese volver atrás “if I were able to go back” or something like si llegase “if I were to return” instead of Latin America which tends towards si llegara “if I were to return”

Today it’s a more regional thing. Spain and Mexico tend to favor the -ase/-iese forms of imperfect subjunctive in some cases, but most of Latin America goes for -ara/-iera

The real difference is historical and today both are listed under imperfect subjunctive and regarded as equal, except in some literary contexts.

So here’s the difference. 

We start with haber which in Spanish today is used as an auxiliary verb to do perfect tenses: he comido “I have eaten”. In older Spanish, haber was more typically used as tener “to have”. That’s why haber looks so much like avere in Italian, avoir in French, and even haben in German.

Because of that, the perfect tenses were a bit different. In particular, the past perfect (pluperfect or pluscuamperfect) was done with a specific tense.

That was the -ara/-iera forms

Older Spanish used them as “had ___”; so comiera would be “had eaten”, but today we say había comido.

To say “would have eaten” it was comiese but today we can pick between comiera and comiese

All of that being said, literary Spanish will sometimes bring back the differences between the two forms for a historical feel. This is like your Lord of the Rings, or King Arthur kind of stories, or even just fairy tells. Basically when you’re set before the 18th century, the two forms show up even more. It feels like how English will sometimes use a “thou” to get into that kind of feeling.

The other main way you see it is in journalism. Sometimes you’ll see the -ara/-iera forms used as pluperfect. For that reason if you read a biography or story about someone you might see nació “was born” or naciera “was born / had been born”… but you’ll never see naciese “would have been born”.

In general, Spain is the one that uses the -ase/-iese forms the most, but certain countries or areas do it as well. Most of Latin America uses the -ara/-iera ones so in US Spanish books that’s the one that gets tested on.

Used when the verb in the main clause is in the past of the conditional 

Use when action in subordinate clause takes place at the same time, or later than a past tense or conditional in the main clause. 

Main clause can be:

passato prossimo

imperfetto 

trapassato

conditional

conditional perfect

To form: conjugation is identical for -are, -ere, -ire just drop the ‘re’ and add the imperfect ending 

All verbs have the same endings, some have irregular stems

essere- fossi

dare- dessi

stare- stess-

bere- bevessi

dire- dicessi

There’s a past tense subjunctive which is the imperfect subjunctive.

But there’s nothing called “subjunctive preterite”. Because “preterite” or “the simple past” refers to actions that have already happened. But subjunctive typically requires clauses. It’s possible that the first verb in the clause will be preterite (or imperfect), but the subjunctive that follows is imperfect subjunctive.

In other words, in your sentence “I hope I heard” would be espero que haya oído “I hope I have heard”… which is using haber and the perfect tenses, which places it in the past somewhat.

Using imperfect subjunctive, with or without haber, is more like this…

Esperaba que lo oyera. = I hoped I would hear it. / I was hoping I would hear it.Esperaba que lo hubiera oído. = I hoped I would have heard it. / I was hoping I would have heard it.Esperé que lo oyera. = I hoped I would hear it.Esperé que lo hubiera oído. = I hoped I would have heard it.

And whether you’re using preterite or imperfect with esperar depends on the circumstances.

There are other subjunctive clauses that don’t have one in preterite or imperfect like… aunque fuera verdad “even if that were true” or antes (de) que comiera “before I ate / before I was eating”.