# el hecho de que + pasado



## FC7user

Hola,

Cual es el modo correcto?  Creo que es el subjuntivo, pero quiero asegurarme.

El hecho de que el presidente Kennedy muriera/murio en 1963 me interesa.

Gracias de antemano,

FC7user


----------



## Lulitoons

Hola!
Podés utilizar, muriera o muriese
"El hecho de que el presidente Kennedy muriese en 1963" 
es por la que más me inclino... saludos y suerte!


----------



## FC7user

Muchas gracias Lulitoons!


----------



## SnowGirl

¿Por qué se usa el subjunctivo aquí?

"El hecho de que el presidente Kennedy muriese en 1963"


----------



## FC7user

I really don't think there is an explanation.  That's just how it is.


----------



## JB

I do not believe a statement of a fact in the past takes the subjunctive.  I would say "se murió" or "se falleció".

I would like input from a native speaker.

P.S.  I have moved this to Grammar, because this discussion (subjunctive vs. indicative) is very definitely a grammar topic in a specific cotnext.


----------



## Vanysh

'Muriera' o 'Muriese' son correctos, pero para mí, a diferencia de Lulitoons, me suena mejor así:
El hecho de que el presidente Kennedy muriera en 1963 me interesa.


----------



## Tazzler

It may be because this would take the subjunctive: Me interesa que JFK se muriera en 1963.


----------



## mhp

jbruceismay said:


> I do not believe a statement of a fact in the past takes the subjunctive.


   If what you are saying is known then subjunctive mood is used. 

  Me interesa que <some well known fact in subjunctive mood>

  El hecho de que <some well known fact in subjunctive mood> me interesa.

  The focus of the sentence is on the indicative part: Me interesa. The rest is just something that we all know: he died at some point of time in past. The part that does not receive the focus goes in subjunctive mood. If what you are saying is new information, then the clause can be in indicative mood. But then you have a sentence that has two different focus points. Time for rewrite.


----------



## Sersol

Además afirmar que:
*"El hecho de que el presidente Kennedy muriese en 1963, me interesa." *
Nos lleva a esperar una fuerte razón para destacar el año de 1963.
¿Qué es lo que te interesa?
La muerte de Kennedy o que muriese precisamente en ese año.

No se usa en español "se falleció". El uso como verbo reflexivo (se murió) es informal.

Lo formal es decir: "Kennedy murió en 1963". "Falleció por heridas de bala". 

Saludos


----------



## FC7user

OK, so would this sentence be correct?

El hecho de que haga frío en el vierno es cierto.


----------



## Vanysh

FC7user said:


> OK, so would this sentence be correct?
> 
> El hecho de que haga frío en el *in*vierno es cierto.



Yeah, kind of... it is really redundant, because is obvious that the winter is cold. What do you want to say?


----------



## FC7user

I know the sentence is dumb.  I was just testing to make sure that the subjunctive after "el hecho de que" has nothing to do with the main clause.  

"El hecho de que hace...." could never be correct, right?


----------



## Vanysh

FC7user said:


> I know the sentence is dumb.  I was just testing to make sure that the subjunctive after "el hecho de que" has nothing to do with the main clause.
> 
> "El hecho de que hace...." could never be correct, right?



Actually no, there's one exception. For example you can say:
"El hecho de que *hace tiempo* no coma bien es debido al negocio de golosinas de la esquina". Reffering to _a long time_.

But I think that's the only exception in that kind of phrases. Just used with nouns of time, like when you use years/months/days/hours/minutes, etc.


----------



## FC7user

Got it.  Thanks very much for your help!


----------



## Pinairun

Vanysh said:


> Actually no, there's one exception. For example you can say:
> "El hecho de que (*hace tiempo*) no coma bien es debido al negocio de golosinas de la esquina". Reffering to _a long time_.
> 
> But I think that's the only exception in that kind of phrases. Just used with nouns of time, like when you use years/months/days/hours/minutes, etc.


 

El hecho de que no *coma (!) *bien hace tiempo es debido al negocio de golosinas de la esquina.

El hecho de que + no coma (subjunctive) + hace tiempo (adverbial)


----------



## Vanysh

Pinairun said:


> El hecho de que no *coma (!) *bien hace tiempo es debido al negocio de golosinas de la esquina.
> 
> El hecho de que + no coma (subjunctive) + hace tiempo (adverbial)



En esa frase sería
El hecho de que no coma (!)bien *de* hace tiempo es debido al negocio de golosinas de la esquina.

La forma de la frase que dije sí se utiliza.


----------



## mhp

Vanysh said:


> Actually no, there's one exception. For example you can say:
> "El hecho de que *hace tiempo* no coma bien es debido al negocio de golosinas de la esquina". Reffering to _a long time_.


No es que la frase no se utilice, sino que el verbo de la subordinada no es HACER, sino COMER.

El hecho de que hace tiempo es debido al negocio de golosinas de la esquina. 
El hecho de que no coma bien es debido al negocio de golosinas de la esquina.

Para algunos ejemplos con el indicativo, véase:     http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=292443


----------



## Vanysh

mhp said:


> No es que la frase no se utilice, sino que el verbo de la subordinada no es HACER, sino COMER.
> 
> El hecho de que hace tiempo no coma bien es debido al negocio de golosinas de la esquina.
> El hecho de que no coma bien es debido al negocio de golosinas de la esquina.
> 
> Para algunos ejemplos con el indicativo, véase:     http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=292443




Era un ejemplo, si quieres uno con el verbo hacer:
El hecho de *que hace* días no haga ejercicio es porque no tengo tiempo.
El hecho de *que hace* tiempo no se haga un Festival es debido a la falta de recursos.


Es utilizada, como dije, para sustantivos comunes abstractos de tiempo.

Tu segunda frase es correcta, pero si quieres o debes indicar cuanto tiempo llevas comiendo mal, es necesario ponerlo.


----------



## JB

OK, but I would still like to know why the subjunctive is required here.  Since we are stating a fact in the past, this seems to contradict the standard rules.

In the thread linked by mhp, examples of subjunctive in the past also employed the negative, but this is a statement of the positive.

I understand "El hecho de que vengan hoy no me molesta."  There is doubt, they may not get here.

But is it not, "El hecho de que vinieron ayer, no me importa", or "...que vinieran . . " and if so, *why?*

In English, I could say "The face that J.Edgar Hoover _might have been_ gay is irrelevant" (one of the remaining pseudo-subjunctive uses in English)
or
"The fact that he _was_ gay . . . "
and there is a subtle shift in meaning.
In the first, I am suggesting that it was not proven, only suggested, and it doesn't matter anyway.  In the second, it is stated as a fact.

I am not arguing with anyone, just trying to figure out the "porque" (or is it the porqué ?).


----------



## mhp

jbruceismay said:


> OK, but I would still like to know why the subjunctive is required here.  Since we are stating a fact in the past, this seems to contradict the standard rules.
> 
> In the thread linked by mhp, examples of subjunctive in the past also employed the negative, but this is a statement of the positive.
> 
> I understand "El hecho de que vengan hoy no me molesta."  There is doubt, they may not get here.
> 
> But is it not, "El hecho de que vinieron ayer, no me importa", or "...que vinieran . . " and if so, *why?*
> 
> In English, I could say "The face that J.Edgar Hoover _might have been_ gay is irrelevant" (one of the remaining pseudo-subjunctive uses in English)
> or
> "The fact that he _was_ gay . . . "
> and there is a subtle shift in meaning.
> In the first, I am suggesting that it was not proven, only suggested, and it doesn't matter anyway.  In the second, it is stated as a fact.
> 
> I am not arguing with anyone, just trying to figure out the "porque" (or is it the porqué ?).



Here comes one of those long posts. 

   In the sentence in question, you pretty much have to use the subjunctive. The fact that you add ‘el hecho de’ is not relevant. The statement that subjunctive is used for uncertain things is far from truth. Consider:

  Me alegra que estés aquí. (I say that while looking at you. You are certainly in front of me).
  Me alegra que estuvieras allí. (again, that you were there is an undisputed fact).

  The grammatical subject of these sentences is the subordinate clause! Although it is not the natural order, you can move this subject to the front of the sentence:

  {Que estés aquí} me alegra 
  {Que estuviera allí} me alegra 

  Aside from “verbs of emotion”, another class of constructions that require the subjunctive is of the form: 

  Es/Está <an adjective> que <subordinate in subjunctive mood>

  The subjunctive mood is “obligatory” if that adjective is not a synonym for cierto, obvio, evidente, seguro, claro, etc.

  Some adjectives that do require the subjunctive mood are: normal, lógico, interesante, necesario, difícil, etc. As before, you can change the order:

  Que <subordinate in subjunctive mood> es <an adjective>.

  In all of these examples, QUE can be replace with “el hecho de que” if the resulting sentence makes sense. This substitution does not change the mood of the subordinate.

'Me interesa que <subjunctive mood>' follows the same pattern.

  This is pretty much how they teach this. Most Spanish speakers get upset when they see the word “obligatory” as I used it above. The reason is that the real reason they use subjunctive in these sentences is not because they read it in book, but rather what I said in my previous post in this thread about focus of the sentence and what is being declared. Sometimes these rules just don’t work because the real reason prevails.


----------



## FC7user

mhp said:


> Que <subordinate in subjunctive mood> es <an adjective>.
> 
> In all of these examples, QUE can be replace with “el hecho de que” if the resulting sentence makes sense. This substitution does not change the mood of the subordinate.


But then how about my example, "El hecho de que haga frío en el invierno es cierto"?

The native speakers seemed to think it was silly, but not grammatically incorrect.


----------



## mhp

FC7user said:


> But then how about my example, "El hecho de que haga frío en el invierno es cierto"?
> 
> The native speakers seemed to think it was silly, but not grammatically incorrect.


    I didn’t want to say anything about that sentence because I think the indicative mood should be used in that sentence, similar to the examples given in the thread that I referenced: 

El hecho de que quieras aprender es irritante.
El hecho de que quieres aprender es innegable.

Perhaps, because the subject of the sentence (a phrase in subjunctive mood) comes first, by the time you get to “es cierto” part, it sounds more like “es normal” (which does “require” the subjunctive mood) and the overall sentence sounds fine. That is only a guess on my part.


----------



## FC7user

Good enough for me.  Thanks for all your help, everyone.  I really appreciate it.

Saludos,

FC7


----------



## JB

Ditto.  Igual.
I see that the key here is the use of  the subjunctive with "impersonal" sentences (when the subject is unstated, as in one set of your examples, and as you suggested, the inverted sentence order is the source of the confusion.  The basic sentence is:
Me interesa (el hecho de) que . . . .
(English, It interess me that . . .)

Thanks for clarifying this.


----------



## Ynez

The most common way to express the original sentence is:

_Es cierto el hecho de que en invierno hace frío_

that is, if we want to use "el hecho de que".

I think mhp explained it very well, but I wanted to comment that while thinking of examples it was much easier for me to think of some with "el hecho de que + subjuntivo" than "el hecho de que + indicativo". I think it's just the common use, it is not used here to talk about unreal things, but I don't know the explanation for why we use it. Example:


_El hecho de que las amapolas sean normalmente rojas no significa que todas lo tengan que ser _(las amapolas *son* normalmente rojas).

_El hecho de que vengan hoy no me molesta _(Hoy *vienen*. A mí no me molesta eso)


----------



## hayers

Hi, I'm not sure whether in this sentence I should use subjunctive or indicative:

Opino' que aquellos problemas venian del hecho de que el mundo habia/hubiera sido un "mundo machista" en el que la mujer habia/hubiera sido siempre avasallada.

I think because there is a preposition before 'el hecho de que' that it should take the indicative but I'm really not sure!

Thankyou


----------



## karoshi

Indicative is the correct form in this case


----------



## Maria003

No one ever answered JB's question.  I'd like to know as well.  It's difficult explaining grammar rules in any language to students.  

Thanks!


----------



## SevenDays

Maria003 said:


> No one ever answered JB's question.  I'd like to know as well.  It's difficult explaining grammar rules in any language to students.
> 
> Thanks!



_El hecho de que el presidente Kennedy muriera/murio en 1963 me interesa._

I think many Spanish speakers expect the subjunctive _muriera_ in this construction because the governing verb "interesa" is one of _afección_ o _emoción,_ like "gustar." _Muriera_ doesn't suggest irreality (that JFK didn't die in 1963). The subjunctive fits because verbs of emotion are highly subjective; they originate from within us, from our biased view of the world. But the subjunctive isn't obligatory. The indicative simply reinforces the element of objectivity (after all, JFK did die in 1963) while maintaining the subjective nature of the sentence (expressed by "me interesa"). (Of course, there are other subjunctive explanations, including what's already mentioned: "new" vs. "known" information.) If I understand it correctly, in English, "the fact that" draws you to the indicative: _the fact that he died in 1963 interests me_. But I wonder if you could use the subjunctive, for example: _The fact that he *would end up* dying in 1963/the fact that he *should end up* dying in 1963_, where "would end up" and "should end up" mark for mood and not tense.

Cheers


----------



## Maria003

SevenDays, 

Thanks so much for your help.


----------

