# hubiera/hubiese



## sonal.bahl

Hola,
What's the difference between HUBIERA and HUBIESE ? My Spanish teacher told me that they can be used inter-changebly, but I'm not so sure.
I think hubiese/fuese are old fashioned ways of saying hubiera/fuera, like 'shall' and 'whom' are hardly used nowadays.
Right or wrong ? 
Diverse thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks.
- Sonal


----------



## Vespre

Both forms are used indistinctly. So choose what you feel more comfortable with


----------



## Isa27

they are used indistinctly, none of them is old fashioned. they are correct both.


----------



## friedfysh

they are both used in spain exactly the same way, however in mexico i have never heard hubiese. In fact I have only heard fuese once and the rest of the time I have just heard the -era versions.


----------



## Mr. Bear

Un saludo,

While I'm only a student myself, it's my understanding that only in Spain will you hear the -ese endings.  They mean exactly the same thing, but I never see or hear them when I'm in Mexico, and all of Latin America is reputed to use only the -era endings. (with the possible exception of small pockets of populations.  Supposedly every possible variation of Spanish can be found somewhere in Latin America, but the more unusual ones, or ones used primarily only in Spain are limited to small pockets of people.)




sonal.bahl said:


> Hola,
> What's the difference between HUBIERA and HUBIESE ? My Spanish teacher told me that they can be used inter-changebly, but I'm not so sure.
> I think hubiese/fuese are old fashioned ways of saying hubiera/fuera, like 'shall' and 'whom' are hardly used nowadays.
> Right or wrong ?
> Diverse thoughts would be appreciated.
> Thanks.
> - Sonal


----------



## Alelo

Yes, the -iese ending is pretty much still used in Spain, while in Mexico, it is pretty much extinct (the first time I saw it was on these very forums!) Just like os and vos are not used in Mexico either (but I believe some south american countries still use them.)


----------



## képi

I agree with Alelo. 
I have to say that it's been a long time since I heard "-iese." MY Spanish teacher said that the *-iera* eding is more common worldwide....


----------



## Jellby

sonal.bahl said:


> What's the difference between HUBIERA and HUBIESE ? My Spanish teacher told me that they can be used inter-changebly, but I'm not so sure.
> I think hubiese/fuese are old fashioned ways of saying hubiera/fuera, like 'shall' and 'whom' are hardly used nowadays.



When they are used as a real subjunctive, both "-ra" and "-se" forms are *exactly* the same and they can be freely interchanged. Different speakers or regions may have different preferences, or you can choose one or the other according to what sounds better: I would say "esperase" better than "esperara" or "quisiera" better than "quisiese".

However, in some cases the "-ra" form can be used with indicative or conditional meaning ("el que fuera ministro...", "te lo hubiera dicho antes, pero..."), the "-se" form would be incorrect here. This is an advanced topic, anyway.


----------



## friedfysh

This is interesting, could you give more examples of where -era can be used but -ese can't please?


----------



## cheetrowe

I see that this thread was opened a while ago, but I have the same question.  

I was taught in Guatemala that the two forms were interchangeable, but I was corrected by friends in Venezuela and Ecuador when I used the iera form "incorrectly"  when apparently, I was told, I should have used iese.  I've also heard both forms used regularly by speakers of various ages in Colombia, Venezuela, and Mexico.  It's been a while now so I can't remember the examples, but my friends were sure that there was a difference, even though as native speakers they had trouble dissecting when and why one form would be used over the other.  Their best guess at the time was that the difference had to do with the recency of the event being referred to with the verb, but I don't think that ended up working as a rule very well.

So, my intention with this post is basically to reopen this important thread.  Does anyone have some clues as to why one form is used more commonly in a given situation?  Is it that some verbs sound more natural in the iera or iese form as mentioned by one respondent above, or is there an actual rule that accounts for most situations? (I know no rule is perfect, but if it can account for 80% of situations, that's an excellent start from my perspective.)

Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide!


----------



## Kraken

As some members have previously stated, both are exactly the same, with no difference whatsoever.
I speak from Valladolid, in the heart of Spain. Maybe others will tell you different, since the Spanish language bears slight differences (and sometimes not that slight) depending on the country.
But if you want to know it from the horse's mouth, every Spanish around will tell you what you already know: they are the same.


----------



## cheetrowe

Thanks for your response Kraken.  Your comment is definitely helpful  

Also, if anyone out there from South America can share their thoughts on this issue, that would be very informative, as my only experiences with being corrected on iese/iera usage have come from some Andean region countries, and I'm not sure if certain verbs just sounded better to the few speakers who corrected me, or if I really should improve my usage in this area.

Thanks again Kraken and anyone else who can contribute!


----------



## Giorgio Lontano

cheetrowe said:


> I see that this thread was opened a while ago, but I have the same question.
> 
> I was taught in Guatemala that the two forms were interchangeable, but I was corrected by friends in Venezuela and Ecuador when I used the iera form "incorrectly" when apparently, I was told, I should have used iese. I've also heard both forms used regularly by speakers of various ages in Colombia, Venezuela, and Mexico. It's been a while now so I can't remember the examples, but my friends were sure that there was a difference, even though as native speakers they had trouble dissecting when and why one form would be used over the other. Their best guess at the time was that the difference had to do with the recency of the event being referred to with the verb, but I don't think that ended up working as a rule very well.
> 
> So, my intention with this post is basically to reopen this important thread. Does anyone have some clues as to why one form is used more commonly in a given situation? Is it that some verbs sound more natural in the iera or iese form as mentioned by one respondent above, or is there an actual rule that accounts for most situations? (I know no rule is perfect, but if it can account for 80% of situations, that's an excellent start from my perspective.)
> 
> Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide!


 
Hi! Did you study in Antigua? Panajachel? They have some fine Spanish schools in those towns. 

Do you remember the phrase that your friends "corrected"? That should help...

Cheers!


----------



## cheetrowe

Hi there Giorgio,

I studied in Antigua and had a great learning experience there.  I apologize for not being able to give more context, but all I can remember is that I was corrected one time when I used hubiera and my friend said I should have used hubiese.  Knowing my level of Spanish at the time, I was most likely saying something like

Si no hubiera gastado mi dinero, habria comprado el carro. (not really that sentence, but the same tenses)

I was corrected a couple of times by at least two and I believe three different speakers in South America, for different sentences that unfortunately I can't remember.  I'm just not certain if it's a personal or regional preference or really something I should pay more attention to.  Thanks for any thoughts and take care!


----------



## Kraken

cheetrowe said:


> Si no hubiera gastado mi dinero, habr*í*a comprado el carro.



La construcción gramatical es impecable.


Maybe it's just a matter of "local usage", and, well, what can I say. When in Rome do as the Romans do. _But_ knowing that your sentence was genuinely Spanish and by the rules.


----------



## Ynez

cheetrowe said:


> Si no hubiera gastado mi dinero, habria comprado el carro. (not really that sentence, but the same tenses)



Creo que es bastante probable que en algunas zonas digan "hubiese" en vez de "hubiera" en tu oración  (suena muy familiar) , pero en general, usamos cualquiera de las dos.


----------



## TetrikFreak

Not every south/central american knows how to correctly use these words. So, do not expect to find a completely right answer. The common (poor/ignorant) spanish-speaking individual does not even use this pair of words. In most common spanish conversation you would hear hubiera and not hubiese. Always check with a professor.


----------



## Ynez

TetrikFreak said:


> In most common spanish conversation you would hear hubiera and not hubiese. Always check with a professor.



Yes, we use "hubiera" a lot. What's the problem? 

Make sure a professor is not telling you something inaccurate.


----------



## chamyto

Hubiera / hubiese is the same for me.


----------



## Ynez

I think we need to differentiate which type of linguistic answer we are going to get from normal people or teachers. Any of them could give us a perfect answer (which is difficult sometimes), but in general a normal person will put more emphasis on what is normally said and a teacher will focus on what is in theory the best thing to say.

Explaining language points can be really difficult at times and we all can be confused and confusing.


----------



## cholis

I'm from Argentina, and both are the same.

Remember one thing: not all the spanish speaking people use the lenguage correctly. In fact, I have friends that pronounce or write or use wrong some words. My mother is a teacher, so she corrects me all the time (and that bothers of corse ha ha).

When one is studing another lenguage, you are almost obliged to use the lenguage right according to grammar. Then, if you are lucky and live at least 2 years in a country where speaks that lenguage you can learn other expressions and uses. But there are a lot of countrys where speak spanish, so you'll find a lot of expressions, uses, variants and connotations.

_I allaways say: sorry any spelling mistake, I just know some enligsh._


----------



## PACOALADROQUE

sonal.bahl said:


> Hola,
> What's the difference between HUBIERA and HUBIESE ? My Spanish teacher told me that they can be used inter-changebly, but I'm not so sure.
> I think hubiese/fuese are old fashioned ways of saying hubiera/fuera, like 'shall' and 'whom' are hardly used nowadays.
> Right or wrong ?
> Diverse thoughts would be appreciated.
> Thanks.
> - Sonal


En este enlace de la RAE puedes ver la conjugación del verbo haber y comprobar que es intercambiable hubiera/hubiese.

http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=haber


----------



## CarlosKr

I am from Peru and for me both "hubiera" and "hubiese" are absolutely interchangebly. It would even be hard for me to know which one I used more. I think I am equally likely to use either one. I also think that it is wise for Spanish language learners to ask for feedback from teachers rather than from any native speakers. Oftentimes, for us Spanish speakers, when we go to school, we care more about orthography and spelling rather than grammar and there might be some people that are not aware that both are the same and yet use both forms indistinctly.


----------



## cdowis

Si hubiese llegado Bobby, ya me hubiese ido. 
If Bobby had arrived, I would have left.

This is from a telenovela in Yabla with the country of Argentina


----------



## aprendiendo argento

Yup, in Argentina -_se _is a pretty frequent alternative, it does not sound formal or dated, like in Spain, and unlike in Mexico.
Language courses focusing on Mexican Spanish tend to advise: _don't  bother with -se forms because they're rarely used._


----------



## ryandward

When I was studying abroad in Sevilla, my host mother told me that they were _not_ the same, but when I asked her what the difference was she couldn't explain it. 

She just said something like "Depende de la oración."


----------



## Big Lar

cdowis said:


> Si hubiese llegado Bobby, ya me hubiese ido.
> If Bobby had arrived, I would have left.
> 
> This is from a telenovela in Yabla with the country of Argentina



Muy interesante esta conversación.  A mi me enseñaron con no hay diferencia entre -iera y -iese, pero sí entiendo que es preferable no usar la misma forma dos veces en la misma oración.  Segun este consejo, se diría: Si hubiese llegado Bobby, ya me hubiera ido.


----------



## MysieBlondie

I found a paragraph in the Spanish version of "La Princesita" by Frances Hodgson Burnett, that uses both variations and I thought I'd just revive this thread so we could talk about why they used one vs. the other in this context.

_Si Sara *hubiera* sido una niña común y corriente, la vida que lle- vó en ese colegio de la señorita Minchin durante el transcurso de los años siguientes, no habría resultado bueno para ella. La trataban más como a una huésped distinguida, que como a una alumna. Si su carácter *hubiese* sido egoísta y dominante, con tantas li- sonjas se habría convertido en una niña insoportable. Y de haber sido indolente, nada habría aprendido._


----------



## Icetrance

cholis said:


> I'm from Argentina, and both are the same.
> 
> Remember one thing: not all the spanish speaking people use the lenguage correctly. In fact, I have friends that pronounce or write or use wrong some words. My mother is a teacher, so she corrects me all the time (and that bothers of corse ha ha).
> 
> When one is studing another lenguage, you are almost obliged to use the lenguage right according to grammar. Then, if you are lucky and live at least 2 years in a country where speaks that lenguage you can learn other expressions and uses. But there are a lot of countrys where speak spanish, so you'll find a lot of expressions, uses, variants and connotations.
> 
> _I allaways say: sorry any spelling mistake, I just know some enligsh._



¿En Argentina, cuáles formas se usan en la lengua hablada cotidiana?

_Si yo hubiese/hubiera venido,  te habría/huberia visto._


Saludos


----------



## Chinairon

En el colegio cuando aprendíamos las conjugaciones, me parece que usábamos más el *hubiese. *
Tal vez por eso lo usaba más en aquella época. Ahora uso ambos. 
A ver qué dicen otros argentinos.


----------



## Agró

Icetrance said:


> ¿En Argentina, cuáles formas se usan en la lengua hablada cotidiana?
> 
> _Si yo hubiese/hubiera venido,  te habría/*huberia* visto. _*(Esta seguro que no)*
> 
> 
> Saludos


----------



## lagartija68

Icetrance said:


> Si yo hubiese/hubiera venido, te habría/hubiera visto.


Sí, para mí usamos ambos indistintiamente. Creo que you uso más _hubiera_.
_Si hubiera venido, te hubiera/habría visto._
Uso más hubiera que habría en la principal y no lo considero incorrecto. Hay gente por estos foros que opina que está mal usar subjuntivo en la principal. Para mí, no, es el uso más antiguo de la lengua. Lo que sí es incorrecto (pero mucha gente hace) es usar condicional en la subordinada. "Si habría venido"*


----------



## Peterdg

lagartija68 said:


> Si hubiera venido, te hubiera/habría visto.


No entiendo por qué has borrado "yo" en la frase original. Sin más contexto y sin el "yo", no está claro de quien se trata: de "yo" o de una tercera persona.


----------



## lagartija68

Peterdg said:


> No entiendo por qué has borrado "yo" en la frase original. Sin más contexto y sin el "yo", no está claro de quien se trata: de "yo" o de una tercera persona.


Es una frase fuera de contexto, traté de pensar como lo diría yo. La mayoría de las veces no es necesario expliciar el "yo" o el "él" porque lo da el contexto.

"No, no vine. Si hubiera venido, te habría visto."


----------



## Rocko!

Aquí en WR aprendí que _hubiera _y _hubiese _*significan lo mismo*. Tiempo atrás, yo los usaba a veces como: 1 Hubiera ► indicar que existió una posibilidad/oportunidad en el pasado.., y 2 Hubiese ► indicar que *no sucedió* en el pasado una acción que pudo haber sucedido.
Pero me puse a analizar que no es así en realidad, solamente lo era/es para mí y para otras personas a las que he observado repetidamente su forma de usar estas palabras (personas que son a veces de otras zonas distintas a la mía) y que el uso diferenciado que hacemos es más o menos predecible dependiendo del contexto, pero son pocas estas personas en las que he detectado esta diferenciación, porque la mayoría de las personas (prácticamente todas, en realidad) usan ambas conjugaciones repítiendo simplemente frases que emplean o una u otra con mayor frecuencia y sin ninguna diferencia de significado(s) (lo veo más como un caso de usar automáticamente recursos de la memoria Vs. inútiles e infructuosas intenciones de crear matices que resulten reconocibles para todos).

En resumen: me he pasado del lado de la mayoría.


----------



## Icetrance

Muchas gracias a todos! You're all too kind for helping me.


----------

