# oraciones condicionales



## miguel07

El subjuntivo y el condicional tenemos que entenderlo bien para traducirlo al inglés, entonces:
1.-¿estas oraciones estan en condicional o en subjuntivo del español?
a.-Yo lo hubiera hecho mejor
b.-Asi durmiese o durmiera mucho, seguiría cansado.
2.-¿Cuál sería sus respectivas traduccines al inglés en 'a y b'?

Thank friends!;-]

-Creo que en español hay oraciones condicionales que no necesariamente llevan ''si''(''if'')
¿me equivoco?
-Si me equivocara entonces podríamos decir que en español las oraciones que no están en condicionales (que no lleven ''si'') estarían en subjuntivo.
it is right?


----------



## virgilio

miguel07,
            1a,   I would have done it better
            1b     However much I  might sleep, I would still be tired.
(alternativamente)
            However much I slept, I would still be tired  
Pero me parece posible que "durmiese", "durmiera" y "seguiría" puedan ser de la tercera persona singular. En ese caso:
           However much he might sleep, he would still be tired.
(alternativamente)
           However much he slept, he would still be tired.

Se podría decir también "he (I) would remain tired" o "he (I) would go on being tired".

Spero que esto ayude.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Anakin59

La 2 también podría ser:
Even if I slept a lot, I would still be tired.

¿no?


----------



## stooge1970

miguel07 said:


> El subjuntivo y el condicional tenemos que entenderlo bien para traducirlo al inglés, entonces:
> 1.-¿estas oraciones estan en condicional o en subjuntivo del español?
> a.-Yo lo hubiera/habría hecho mejor = condicional
> 
> b.-Asi durmiese o durmiera mucho [subjuntivo] , seguiría cansado [condicional].
> 
> 2.-¿Cuál sería sus respectivas traduccines al inglés en 'a y b'?
> 
> a. I would have done it better.
> 
> b. Even if I slept a lot, I would still be tired.
> Even if I were to sleep a lot, I would still be tired. (bastante formal)
> 
> Thank friends!;-]



Saludos!


----------



## stooge1970

Anakin59 said:


> La 2 también podría ser:
> Even if I slept a lot, I would still be tired.
> 
> ¿no?



 Sí, creo que ésta es la mejor traducción aquí.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Actually, friends -- and I just learned this last year from my Latin American friends -- 'hubiera', in his 1a example, is the idiomatic way Spanish says 'should have' in the sense of "you missed something good or tried for". That 'hubiera' is not the substitution 'hubiera' for 'habriá' which is more seen in Type 3 conditionals. So:

Yo lo *hubiera* hecho mejor = I *should have* done it better. (Darn it -- I usually do better) -- and 'not'--  I would have done it..

Si lo hubiera enseñado mejor, hubieras (habrías) aprendido más.

So in 1a -- it's not really conditional at all nor subjunctive in coming over to English -- at least not of 'haber'.


----------



## stooge1970

NewdestinyX said:


> Actually, friends -- and I just learned this last year from my Latin American friends -- 'hubiera', in his 1a example, is the idiomatic way Spanish says 'should have' in the sense of "you missed something good or tried for". That 'hubiera' is not the substitution 'hubiera' for 'habriá' which is more seen in Type 3 conditionals.



Very interesting! I'd always thought it sounded a little weird to simply substitute "hubiera" with "habría" in those cases but I thought it was correct anyway. Thanks for pointing that out!


----------



## NewdestinyX

stooge1970 said:


> Very interesting! I'd always thought it sounded a little weird to simply substitute "hubiera" with "habría" in those cases but I thought it was correct anyway. Thanks for pointing that out!



I had been studying for a very long time -- when boom -- he dropped it on me. I too always wondered why that strange, seemingly lone hubiera, was just dropped in.

He's a trilingual from birth -- English, Mexican Spanish and Portuguese. Awesome guy and a very good teacher of all that tough to translate stuff interlingually. Imagine having 3 languages floating around in your head for 35 years. ;-)


----------



## Anakin59

NewdestinyX said:


> Yo lo *hubiera* hecho mejor = I *should have* done it better. (Darn it -- I usually do better) -- and 'not'--  I would have done it..



No NewdestinyX, it's not like that.
Yo lo hubiera hecho mejor means "I would have done it better" (than someone else)
I should have done it better is "Debería haberlo hecho mejor"


----------



## Ivy29

Anakin59 said:


> No NewdestinyX, it's not like that.
> Yo lo hubiera hecho mejor means "I would have done it better" (than someone else)
> I should have done it better is "Debería haberlo hecho mejor"


 

I agree with you 100%, we have to differentiate 'hindsight advice' with 'should ' and the conditional type 3.
I failed my math class. You should have talked to your teacher. (deberías haber hablado con tu profesor)
I hurt my back. You shouldn't have carried that heavy box up two flights of stairs. ( no deberías/no debiste haber subido esa caja pesada dos tramos de escaleras).

'hindsight possibilities' 
I failed my math class. You could have talked to your teacher or you could have asked Mary to help you with your math.

Past unreal situation = Would have+pp or wouldn't have +pp.

Ivy29


----------



## bmxican47

Pues después de leer todo esto me he quedado pensdando un poco y me da que hubiera/hubiese puede traducirse a "would have" y también a "should have" dependiendo del contexto. Veamos...

Juan sacó un 8 en el simulacro. Pues, yo lo hubiera hecho mejor. 

Aquí "hubiera hecho" nos da "would have". 

En otro contexto...

(Me llama mi novia) ¿Dónde estás?

yo: En el parque. 

Ella: Joder, me lo hubieras dicho!

Aquí se ve claramente que mi novia está diciendo "should have" (you should have told me) y también que me echará la bronca en cuanto me vea. A veces también puede decirse simplemente "habérmelo dicho" pero me parece más coloquial de Andalucía. ¿Qué pensáis?


----------



## Anakin59

bmxican47 said:


> Ella: Joder, me lo hubieras dicho!
> 
> Aquí se ve claramente que mi novia está diciendo "should have" (you should have told me)



Para mí esto sería: You *could *have told me.


----------



## bmxican47

Anakin59 said:


> Para mí esto sería: You *could *have told me.



Interesante. Para mí la idea de "could have" expresa habilidad y requiere el verbo poder (podrías habérmelo dicho), y a mi "me lo hubieras dicho" no me comunica esa idea, sino la de "should" (la de obligación).


----------



## virgilio

stooge1970,
                Re your comment:"I'd always thought it sounded a little weird to simply substitute "hubiera" with "habría" in those cases but I thought it was correct anyway."
I'm not sure whether you were referring to replacing "hubiera" with "habría" or _vice versa_.
In cases where any 'replacement' happened, it was, if I remember aright,  "habría" which gradually (around 500 years or so ago) replaced the imperfect subjunctive "hubiera".
In other words the 'conditional' tense is, so to speak, the 'new kid on the block'.

However, as the above posts seem to indicate, there is some doubt in this case about whether any replacement has taken place.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Anakin59

bmxican47 said:


> Interesante. Para mí la idea de "could have" expresa habilidad y requiere el verbo poder (podrías habérmelo dicho), y a mi "me lo hubieras dicho" no me comunica esa idea, sino la de "should" (la de obligación).



Bueno, tal vez sea el contexto lo que te lleva a decir "could have" o "should have" para "me lo hubieras dicho". Por cómo se planteó el diálogo entre bmxican47 y su novia, a mi por lo menos me suena a "could have", porque me resulta muy equivalente a "podrías habérmelo dicho"


----------



## bmxican47

Anakin59 said:


> Bueno, tal vez sea el contexto lo que te lleva a decir "could have" o "should have" para "me lo hubieras dicho". Por cómo se planteó el diálogo entre bmxican47 y su novia, a mi por lo menos me suena a "could have", porque me resulta muy equivalente a "podrías habérmelo dicho"




Quizá de haber escrito un poco más me habría quedado un poco más claro...

¿qué tal esto?

Novia: ¿Dónde estás?
Novio: En el parque
Novia: Joer, me lo hubieras dicho...hubiera ido contigo. 

Bueno, ahora que lo leo así no estoy tan seguro como antes. Quiero expresar...

You should have told me. I would have went with you. 

Pero ahora estoy imaginando un "si" al principio y parece que dice...

If you would have told me, I would have went with you. 

No sé. Siendo dos frase distintas quizás mantenga la idea que originalmente he querido comunicar. jaja. Ideas????


----------



## Anakin59

bmxican47, una pequeña corrección:

(si) Me lo hubieras dicho, hubiera ido contigo

If you had told me I would have gone with you


----------



## bmxican47

Anakin59 said:


> bmxican47, una pequeña corrección:
> 
> (si) Me lo hubieras dicho, hubiera ido contigo
> 
> If you had told me I would have gone with you



Me refería justamente a lo que tu has dicho. Las dos ideas están seperadas en frases distintas y comunican algo diferente (un if/then clause creo que se llama). 

¡Me lo hubieras dicho! Hubiera ido contigo.   (You should have told me. I would have gone with you.)

versus

Si me lo hubieras dicho, habría ido contigo.   (If you would have told me, I would have gone with you.)

Por mucho que se parezcan, comunican dos cosas distintas.


----------



## Ynez

¡Muy bien bmxican47! Cuando he leído lo que dijo Newdestiny, que era incorrecto, he pensado que debía de haber algo de verdad en esa historia, pero no se me ocurría ningún uso que fuera lo que él estaba explicando.

Está claro que es un uso informal, y yo opino que en este caso concreto da un poco igual que la idea sea "me lo podías haber dicho" o "me lo deberías haber dicho", o incluso -como dice Anarkin- la idea podría venir de "si me lo hubieras dicho...". Pero lo que está claro es que la persona que habla está expresando su queja por no haberle dicho tú lo que sea que era el tema. 

¿No creéis?

Otro ejemplo del estilo:

María: He estado en tu ciudad unos días. Me quedé en el Hotel Don Miguel.
Yo: !Me lo hubieras dicho! ¿Por qué no te quedaste en mi casa?/Te podías haber quedado en mi casa.

o también:

¡Te hubieras quedado en mi casa!

Aquí vuelvo a ver que si digo "Me lo deberías haber dicho", o "Me lo podías haber dicho" (hmm cambia un poco) la idea es parecida.

Te deberías haber quedado en mi casa/Te podías haber quedado en mi casa.


----------



## stooge1970

virgilio said:


> stooge1970,
> Re your comment:"I'd always thought it sounded a little weird to simply substitute "hubiera" with "habría" in those cases but I thought it was correct anyway."
> I'm not sure whether you were referring to replacing "hubiera" with "habría" or _vice versa_.
> In cases where any 'replacement' happened, it was, if I remember aright,  "habría" which gradually (around 500 years or so ago) replaced the imperfect subjunctive "hubiera".
> In other words the 'conditional' tense is, so to speak, the 'new kid on the block'.
> 
> However, as the above posts seem to indicate, there is some doubt in this case about whether any replacement has taken place.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio



Hi Virgilio,

I was referring to replacing "hubiera" with "habría", which to me seems like the most correct choice even though I know the RAE accepts "hubiera" too, and it is probably more common. Anyway, I'd only do the substitution if I could tack on a "si hubiera" clause after the newly substituted "habría" clause. I just don't like the "si hubiera...hubiera" construction even though it was the only construction I ever used until my study abroad director (pretty much native/bilingual in both Engish and Spanish) informed me that "si hubiera...habría" is the correct way of saying it. Then a Peruvian friend told me that it just varies from region to region. 

To me "I would have done better" is clearly the conditional (hence "habría") and has nothing to do with the actual subjunctive mood. 

Does that make sense?

Best.


----------



## Anakin59

> I just don't like the "si hubiera...hubiera" construction


Stooge, the hubiera/hubiera construction is wrong. 
Si quisiera saberlo, tendría que averiguarlo.
Estaría tranquila si supieras (o supieses) que hacer
In conditional sentences it's always habría/hubiera or the other way round.



> a Peruvian friend told me that it just varies from region to region


Hmmm. I don't think it's a regional variation. As far as I know, conditional in Spanish is the same everywhere, but there are many native speakers who say it the wrong way.



> To me "I would have done better" is clearly the conditional (hence "habría") and has nothing to do with the actual subjunctive mood.


I believe that if you say "lo habría hecho mejor" you need to say the "if" and whatever follows after that. If not, it's "lo hubiera hecho mejor"


----------



## Ivy29

Anakin59 said:


> Stooge, the hubiera/hubiera construction is wrong.
> Si quisiera saberlo, tendría que averiguarlo.
> Estaría tranquila si supieras (o supieses) que hacer
> In conditional sentences it's always habría/hubiera or the other way round


 
si + pluscuamperfecto de subjuntivo + pluacuamperfecto de subjuntivo o condicional compuesto.

a.- Si no hubiera sido por la salud, hubiera seguido adelante.
b.- si Ud. no me hubiera recibido, hubiera pasado por delante de la verja de su casa-quinta.

*En las condicionales tipo 3* , irreales en el pasado:

La prótasis= antepretérito de subjuntivo o pluscuamperfecto de subjuntivo.
*Prótasis*   : *Si hubiera fumado*, hubiera sido mayor la estupefacción.
*La apódosis* : pospretérito ( condicional simple), condicional compuesto ( antepospretérito) y subjuntivo pluscuamperfecto sólo con hubiera, muy raro hubiese+pp.

Ivy29


----------



## stooge1970

Hola Ivy. 

  Gracias por tu aportación pero en realidad no entiendo muy bien qué quiere decir. No te pido que la escribas de nuevo en inglés, pero si pudieras explicar un poco los ejemplos que nos has dado lo agradecería. 

  Saludos.



Ivy29 said:


> si + pluscuamperfecto de subjuntivo + pluacuamperfecto de subjuntivo o condicional compuesto.
> 
> a.- Si no hubiera sido por la salud, hubiera seguido adelante.
> b.- si Ud. no me hubiera recibido, hubiera pasado por delante de la verja de su casa-quinta.
> 
> *En las condicionales tipo 3* , irreales en el pasado:
> 
> La prótasis= antepretérito de subjuntivo o pluscuamperfecto de subjuntivo.
> *Prótasis*   : *Si hubiera fumado*, hubiera sido mayor la estupefacción.
> *La apódosis* : pospretérito ( condicional simple), condicional compuesto ( antepospretérito) y subjuntivo pluscuamperfecto sólo con hubiera, muy raro hubiese+pp.
> 
> Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

stooge1970 said:


> Hola Ivy.
> 
> Gracias por tu aportación pero en realidad no entiendo muy bien qué quiere decir. No te pido que la escribas de nuevo en inglés, pero si pudieras explicar un poco los ejemplos que nos has dado lo agradecería.
> 
> Saludos.



I can't speak for Ivy29 but I can say that 'hubiera' in the 'then' clause of a Type 3 conditional is used for 'habría'. This is more common in LatAm than in Spain. But the RAE notes it and does not discourage it. They do not accept as common the use of 'hubiese' for 'habría'.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Anakin59 said:


> NewdestnyX said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, friends -- and I just learned this last year from my Latin American friends -- 'hubiera', in his 1a example, is the idiomatic way Spanish says 'should have' in the sense of "you missed something good or tried for". That 'hubiera' is not the substitution 'hubiera' for 'habriá' which is more seen in Type 3 conditionals. So:
> 
> Yo lo *hubiera* hecho mejor = I *should have* done it better. (Darn it -- I usually do better) -- and 'not'--  I would have done it..
> 
> Si lo hubiera enseñado mejor, hubieras (habrías) aprendido más.
> 
> So in 1a -- it's not really conditional at all nor subjunctive in coming over to English -- at least not of 'haber'.
> 
> 
> 
> No NewdestinyX, it's not like that.
> Yo lo hubiera hecho mejor means "I would have done it better" (than someone else)
> I should have done it better is "Debería haberlo hecho mejor"
Click to expand...


I have my input from an educated man who speaks Spanish fluently and is a teacher. Es posible que me haya explicado mal.

Cuando algo bueno sucedió y te lo perdiste -- y cuando oyes hablar del evento y deseas haber estado allí -- o tú u otra persona puede exclamar:

"¡Hubiera(s) estado allí!" --exclamando que deseas haber estado allí -- o que a otra persona le habría encatado estar allí. 

¿Es eso tu experiencia con la frase 'hubiera estado allí'?

Si sí --- entonces esa exclamación 'no' es "would have" en inglés, sino "should have".

¡¡Hubieras estado allí anoche en la fiesta!! = You "should have" been there last night at the party.

Según mi amigo profesor 'hubieras', en esta oración, no es 'would have' en inglés -- sino 'should have'. Y coincido con él. 

Dime cualquier problema que veas. Tal vez en mi primer ejemplo con "hubiera hecho mejor" el modismo no funcione.


----------



## stooge1970

Creo que la construcción puede significar “would have” tanto como “should have”. Tu ejemplo se parece bastante a él de Ynez, y creo que la mejor traducción es “should have”. Sin embargo, la construcción puede significar “would have” también.


----------



## NewdestinyX

stooge1970 said:


> Creo que la construcción puede significar “would have” tanto como “should have”. Tu ejemplo se parece bastante a él de Ynez, y creo que la mejor traducción es “should have”. Sin embargo, la construcción puede significar “would have” también.



I can't see using 'would have' in English for that situation at least not where I come from. You could say" If only you 'would have' been there. That works. But not the 'would have' alone.

Regards,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Anakin59 said:


> I believe that if you say "lo habría hecho mejor" you need to say the "if" and whatever follows after that. If not, it's "lo hubiera hecho mejor"



Anakin -- it's actually the opposite. It has to be (for a normal conditional sentence) --

"Si" lo hubieras hacho mejor, (entonces) no habríamos tantas........

'hubiera' en la claúsula con 'si' y 'habríamos' (conditional) en la claúsula con 'entonces'.

Pero las '2' hubieras se aceptan la RAE. No es incorrecto -- sino menos común.


----------



## Ynez

Anakin, you say you do not use "hubiera hecho" for "habría hecho", but then in your last example you state the right option is "lo hubiera hecho mejor", when in fact the rightest is "lo habría hecho mejor":

(if I had been given the opportunity,) I would have done it better

(Si hubiera tenido la oportunidad), lo habría hecho mejor


Newdestiny, in your last sentence you are getting close to the true meaning of this last example you set now:

Hubieras estado allí anoche en la fiesta (I would say "Si" before "hubieras")

Here "hubieras" is in its most authentic meaning (literal translation to English) =

Si hubieras estado allí anoche en la fiesta (,habría sido estupendo)



We need some context to give an example of the use you commented about yesterday (=should have done).

Antonio: Agh, qué dolor de cabeza tengo, el Madrid perdió ayer y me pillé un cabreo...
Sonia: ¡Hubieras venido a la fiesta! Fue muy divertida y nos lo pasamos fenomenal.


----------



## stooge1970

NewdestinyX said:


> I can't see using 'would have' in English for that situation at least not where I come from. You could say" If only you 'would have' been there. That works. But not the 'would have' alone.
> 
> Regards,
> Grant



No no. I think you missed my point, but rereading my post I realize it's pretty confusing. What I meant is that in OTHER constructions, it can mean "would have". An example is the original "Yo lo hubiera hecho mejor" which, according to Anakin means "I WOULD HAVE done it better". Personally, I'm willing to say that it can also mean "I SHOULD HAVE done it better" as you have argued. There's a lot of variation in the Spanish language.

However, I am not quite sure that "would have" can't work. I'm going to give an example but I'm not quite sure it works. It feels like a stretch.
Lamento no haber encontrado a nadie      con quién ir de marcha anoche.
Pues, ¿por qué volviste a casa después      de la cena en vez de quedarte con nosotros? Fuimos a una fiesta en la casa      de Miguel. ¡Hubieras estado allí anoche (si te hubieras quedado con nosotros)!
Best.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> Anakin, you say you do not use "hubiera hecho" for "habría hecho", but then in your last example you state the right option is "lo hubiera hecho mejor", when in fact the rightest is "lo habría hecho mejor":
> 
> (if I had been given the opportunity,) I would have done it better
> 
> (Si hubiera tenido la oportunidad), lo habría hecho mejor
> 
> 
> Newdestiny, in your last sentence you are getting close to the true meaning of this last example you set now:
> 
> Hubieras estado allí anoche en la fiesta (I would say "Si" before "hubieras")
> 
> Here "hubieras" is in its most authentic meaning (literal translation to English) =
> 
> Si hubieras estado allí anoche en la fiesta (,habría sido estupendo)
> 
> 
> 
> We need some context to give an example of the use you commented about yesterday (=should have done).
> 
> Antonio: Agh, qué dolor de cabeza tengo, el Madrid perdió ayer y me pillé un cabreo...
> Sonia: ¡Hubieras venido a la fiesta! Fue muy divertida y nos lo pasamos fenomenal.



Ah -- Thanks Ynez so -- this really is a shortened version of "SI" hubiera venido... habría sido genial... or something like that? I knew my friend wasn't steering me wrong and I think to the native Spanish speaker, learning English it would be natural for them to want to translate these sentences (starting with 'hubieras') as 'would have + PP'. But what I want the Spanish speakers to understand is that when we make these 'exclamations' in English it's neither 'would have' nor 'could have'. -- but 'should have'. 
So in these types of exclamations:
"If you would have been at the festival!!" is not said as commonly as "You should have been at the festival!!" (no obligation intended but rather "¡Ojalá!"
¿Tiene sentido?

¿Y tú sí dices que este tipo de exclamación se usa 'como modismo' para comunicar que alguién se perdió algo divertido? (Hubieras ....) ¿Y podrías opinar para mí, Ynez, si se usa también cuando se refiere a ti mismo? (Yo hubiera estado allí!)

Grant


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      When you write:" "If you would have been at the festival!!" is not said as commonly as "You should have been at the festival!!", you seem to me not to be comparing like with like. 
I don't know how you folks speak over there in the 'colonies', of course, but here in the UK " "If you would have been at the festival!!" is not interchangeable with "You should have been at the festival!!".
In the sense which you seem to imply for "you should have been there", we sometimes say "If only you had been there!" (ojalá hubieras estado allí),
 Expressions of the type "if you would have been there" are in my experience always abbreviated to "if you'd have been there" - an abbreviation which confuses many English people into thinking that the "'d" stands for "had" (which is impossible on syntax grounds) rather than "would" - and in any case such expressions never support an inferred protasis. A protasis in the UK must be stated after such protases:
e.g.
If you'd have been there, you'd have had a wonderful time.

I'm beginning to think, you know, that  George Bernard Shaw may have been right, when he said: "One thing the British and the Americans have in common is that they don't speak the same language".

All the best
Virgilio


----------



## Ynez

It took me so long to write this message, that I got logged off, so I hope you read it Newdestiny   

Funnily, the informal use in English it is right the opposite to Spanish regarding this 3rd type of conditionals. In your example, you tell me people sometimes say:

If only you would have been there = if you had been there

If you would have been at the festival = if you had been at the festival

Now, this is important. In Spanish that part of the sentence always has to be "si tú HUBIERAS estado allí". So, when you think in informal English, you need to reflect on the idea you are trying to express and restate the sentence to "if you had been at the festival, it would have been great". Because that is what literally translates into Spanish.

For us it is the opposite. We think:

Si hubiera estado en la fiesta hubiera sido estupendo.

We need to rethink and realize that, in order to be able to translate in English literally, we need to have in mind "si hubiera estado en la fiesta habría sido estupendo".

If you watch carefully all the posts of Spanish native speakers (from wherever) relating this topic, you'll see we mostly use "hubiera" for all these ideas, especially when we just don't use the second clause. Some say "no, no I don't use that" and then make a mistake that shows they are not aware they are using "hubiera" for "would have". Examples using just one clause:

1.(estuve en tu ciudad y tú no estabas) Qué pena, me hubiera gustado conocerte.

2.(me voy de viaje y no puedo seguir con este tema) Vaya, hubiera estado genial poder terminar la discusión.

3.(pagué solo 3 días de hotel) Me hubiera quedado dos días más.

In the 3 examples the "official" "abstract" idea is "habría", but I dare saying it's much more common to say "hubiera" in Spanish (I can't be totally sure of the average use).

In all, there is some "hubiera" idea hidden which would make for the second clause (this "hubiera" part can't be changed in Spanish when it is expressed).

1. Si no hubieras estado de viaje...
2. Si no te hubieras tenido que ir...
3. Si lo hubiera pensado antes...


Newdestiny, if I say "me hubiera quedado allí" (which is a very normal sentence), I mean "me HABRÍA quedado allí".

Now, that other use of "hubiera" you made us aware of...is not so commonly used. I cannot think of any examples for "I". But yes, we can use it for "he/she/they".

Jorge: Dice Virginia que está muy aburrida y que hace un calor impresionante en Toledo.
Manolo: (Pues) que se hubiera quedado con nosostros en la playa. (=she should have stayed with us at the seaside).

María José: A papá y a mamá les duele hoy la barriga.
Teresa (son hermanas): Que no hubieran comido tanto anoche (=they shouldn't have eaten so much last night).

But, Newdestiny, I'd say this use is exceptional. It is much more important to remember that:

Si you hubiera....habría = If I had.....woud have

and that it's normal in Spanish to express that same idea as:

Si you hubiera....hubiera


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> It took me so long to write this message, that I got logged off, so I hope you read it Newdestiny



Ynez -- I always read ALL of your posts!! They are very helpful and you're a great help to this forum. Thank you. I understand everything you said and agree with most of it. The contrast of the hubiera and 'habría' is very clear -- although I need to say that the double 'hubiera' is pretty much confined to LatinAmerica and not all countries. Spain and several other countries only use 'hubiera' and habría. But it seems that the 'should have' examples of the translation to English are only for 'he/she/it/you' -- which makes a lot of sense considering it's real essence as part of "si hubiera..... hubiera.."

Thanks for your input. At least I know that it is used and that my friend was correct -- but also we foreigners need to be careful in trying this usage without hearing it and reading it a bunch.

Grant


----------



## Ynez

I read you attentively Newdestiny, you express yourself in way I can easily understand. And that is not only a question of language, but also of ideas. On the other hand, this understanding makes me see you still don't believe what I am telling you hahaha


----------



## virgilio

It must be that Spanish people have a keen sense of their history (ojalà tuviéramos los ingleses un senso semejante!) because until the 'conditional' tense was invented somewhere around the 14th and 15th centuries, the imperfect subjunctive was used in both protasis and apodosis of  hypothetical conditional sentences.
e.g.
si tú hubieras estado allí, hubieras visto al rey".

As they say, what goes around, comes around.
I suggest that the best thing for a student of Spanish to do in hypothetical conditional sentences is sometimes to use the conditional in the apodosis and sometimes the imperfect subjunctive.
They say that you can't please everybody but in that way you can get pretty close, I think. 
And besides, when they hear those imperfect subjunctives coming out, some people might think that you are a historian.  Happens to me all the time!

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Ynez

virgilio, if you want to go on looking like a historian, we can teach you some other expressions


----------



## swt

virgilio said:


> e.g.
> si tú hubieras estado allí, hubieras visto al rey".



 si tú hubieras estado allí, habrías visto al rey".


----------



## Ynez

Esto es el cuento de nunca acabar....


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> I read you attentively Newdestiny, you express yourself in way I can easily understand. And that is not only a question of language, but also of ideas. On the other hand, this understanding makes me see you still don't believe what I am telling you hahaha



What part made you believe that? I guess I'm saying that when i use the 2 hubieras -- I am immediately corrected as if it's bad Spanish. You're telling me it isn't -- so I do believe you -- it's just that in teh context I am in, speaking Spanish, I don't use it -- because I also don't hear it.

Is there another part of my response that seemed like I didn't learn something? 

You made the exclamation uses of 'hubiera' for 'should have' *very, very* clear. And thanks!

Gracias de antemano y por los cumplidos cariñosos.,
Grant

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

swt said:


> virgilio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> e.g.
> si tú hubieras estado allí, hubieras visto al rey".
> 
> 
> 
> si tú hubieras estado allí, habrías visto al rey".
Click to expand...


Así que ¿no coincidas con lo que Ynez nos contaba sobre los 2 «hubieras»?


----------



## virgilio

swt,
      Sí, señor. Como Ud ha escrito " si tú hubieras estado allí, habrías visto al rey"" pero antes de la invención bastante reciente del tempo condicional, la gente decía  (me parece):
 si tú hubieras estado allí, hubieras visto al rey".

No le parece probable?

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      Me parece que Ynez y yo digamos los dos la verdad, Ynez siempre y yo de vez en cuando.

Virgilio


----------



## swt

virgilio said:


> swt,
> Sí, señor. Como Ud ha escrito " si tú hubieras estado allí, habrías visto al rey"" pero antes de la invención bastante reciente del tempo condicional, la gente decía  (me parece):
> si tú hubieras estado allí, hubieras visto al rey".
> 
> No le parece probable?
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


No, no me parece ya que estamos en el siglo XXI.


----------



## virgilio

swt,
      Gracias por su respuesta.  Es probable que Ud tenga razón pero aquí in Inglaterra a veces sería posible creer que no fuéramos en el siglo 21 tampoco.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## swt

virgilio said:


> swt,
> Gracias por su respuesta.  Es probable que Ud tenga razón pero aquí in Inglaterra a veces sería posible creer que no fuéramos en el siglo 21 tampoco.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio



Ahora estamos de acuerdo... un saludo para Usted.

Espero que tengamos una conversación mas fluida a partir de ahora. Gracias por su dialogo.


----------



## NewdestinyX

swt said:


> No, no me parece ya que estamos en el siglo XXI.



Swt,
Para asegurarme de entenderte bien -- ¿dices que, al menos en Argentina, el uso de dos 'hubieras' en menos común -- y hasta suena mai?


----------



## swt

NewdestinyX said:


> Swt,
> Para asegurarme de entenderte bien -- ¿dices que, al menos en Argentina, el uso de dos 'hubieras' en menos común -- y hasta suena mai?



dos "hubieras" es incorrecto y suena mal. Siempre desde mi punto de vista.


----------



## NewdestinyX

stooge1970 said:


> No no. I think you missed my point, but rereading my post I realize it's pretty confusing. What I meant is that in OTHER constructions, it can mean "would have".


 Well it very much can but only when 'hubiera' sits in for 'habría'. Sometimes the best translation of 'hubiera' in a subjunctive-requiring dependent clause is 'would have' in English too.

Me entristecía mucho que hubiera hecho algo tan malo.
It saddened me a lot that he would have done something so bad.

But that is, of course, very different than the syntax we're zeroed in on.

If you accept the two 'hubieras' syntax as correct -- which several natives have said no to already -- then, of course, it's 'would have' in the 'then clause'. But the specific syntax I mentioned was 'hubiera' *starting* a sentence. And even more exactly a 2nd person use of 'hubiera' which Ynez was telling us gets closer to the 'should have' in English than any 1st person utterances. 



> However, I am not quite sure that "would have" can't work. I'm going to give an example but I'm not quite sure it works. It feels like a stretch.
> Lamento no haber encontrado a nadie      con quién ir de marcha anoche.
> Pues, ¿por qué volviste a casa después      de la cena en vez de quedarte con nosotros? Fuimos a una fiesta en la casa      de Miguel. ¡Hubieras estado allí anoche (si te hubieras quedado con nosotros)!
> Best.


With respect -- that's too much of a stretch for me. If anything that 'hubieras' would be closer to 'you could have' -- like another forero offered. But my teacher friend said this was clearly an idiomatic way in Spanish to express someone 'should have been there and then they would have experienced something desirable'. And it seems to be the only case where 'hubiera(s)', alone, starts a sentence without a 'si'.


----------



## NewdestinyX

swt said:


> dos "hubieras" es incorrecto y suena mal. Siempre desde mi punto de vista.


Gracias.  Tampoco lo oigo en España. Pero la RAE habla de su uso -- Creo que en varias partes de LatinoAmerica. Ando tratando de buscar la entrada en linea. Aunque no creo que la RAE diga que es incorrecto.


----------



## bmxican47

Me entristecía mucho que hubiera hecho algo tan malo.
It saddened me a lot that he would have done something so bad.

No te parece mejor...

It saddened me a lot that he had done something so bad.

Es que de tu traducción podría interpretarse que dicha persona no hizo lo que fuera (lo que le entristecía a la otra persona) pero lo que yo entiendo del texto es que sí lo hizo.


----------



## bmxican47

NewdestinyX said:


> Gracias.  Tampoco lo oigo en España. Pero la RAE habla de su uso -- Creo que en varias partes de LatinoAmerica. Ando tratando de buscar la entrada en linea. Aunque no creo que la RAE diga que es incorrecto.



Yo lo oigo diariamente en España. De hecho, me parece a mi que es más común donde yo vivo.


----------



## NewdestinyX

bmxican47 said:


> Me entristecía mucho que hubiera hecho algo tan malo.
> It saddened me a lot that he would have done something so bad.
> 
> No te parece mejor...
> 
> It saddened me a lot that he had done something so bad.
> 
> Es que de tu traducción podría interpretarse que dicha persona no hizo lo que fuera (lo que le entristecía a la otra persona) pero lo que yo entiendo del texto es que sí lo hizo.



En inglés, en este tipo de sintaxis -- 'would have' transmite que sí pasó algo pero es casi increible. Y 'had done' funciona también.



> Yo lo oigo (2 hubieras) diariamente en España. De hecho, me parece a mi que es más común donde yo vivo.


¿Vives en Cádiz? ¿no? -- ¿Y Cádiz es en el sur? Eso tendría sentido. Lo que se dice en el sur de España, por lo general, es más como LatinoAmerica que en el norte de España. Yo debería haber dicho que no lo oigo en el centro ni el norte. No he viajado ni trabajado en el sur todavía. Me encantaría... ;-)


----------



## NewdestinyX

swt said:


> dos "hubieras" es incorrecto y suena mal. Siempre desde mi punto de vista.



El el DRAE dice esto:

*condicional**.*
 (Del lat. _conditionālis_).
* 1.     * adj. Que incluye y lleva consigo una condición o requisito.
* 2.     * m._ Gram._ Tiempo que expresa acción futura en relación con el pasado del que se parte. _Prometió que escribiría_. *En ciertos casos es permutable por el pretérito imperfecto o el pretérito pluscuamperfecto de subjuntivo, más en las formas compuestas que en las simples, excepto en los verbos modales. Deberías (debieras) estudiar más. Si hubiera venido antes, le habríamos (hubiéramos) acompañado.* El condicional, simple o compuesto, puede expresar, igual que el futuro, la probabilidad, pero referida al pasado, y su valor temporal equivale entonces al pretérito imperfecto o pretérito pluscuamperfecto de indicativo. A _Juan no vino hoy; estará enfermo,_ correspondería _Juan no vino ayer; estaría enfermo._


----------



## nightlone

bmxican47 said:


> Ella: Joder, me lo hubieras dicho!
> 
> Aquí se ve claramente que mi novia está diciendo "should have" (you should have told me)





Anakin59 said:


> Para mí esto sería: You *could *have told me.


Para mí sería "You *might *have told me". Es una expresión que se usa mucho, al menos donde yo vivo.


----------



## Anakin59

nightlone said:


> Para mí sería "You *might *have told me". Es una expresión que se usa mucho, al menos donde yo vivo.



Sí. Totalmente de acuerdo. Ahora que lo decís, "might" asemeja mucho más al sentido que tiene en castellano.



			
				swt said:
			
		

> dos "hubieras" es incorrecto y suena mal. Siempre desde mi punto de vista.


Coincido también con esto. En Argentina no se usa así. Por eso es que al principio dije que estaba mal, desconociendo que en otros lugares lo usan.


----------



## NewdestinyX

nightlone said:


> Para mí sería "You *might *have told me". Es una expresión que se usa mucho, al menos donde yo vivo.



This use of 'might' is more a British usage. In America we would prefer 'should' in this sense.

Grant


----------



## nightlone

NewdestinyX said:


> This use of 'might' is British but not American. In America we would only use 'should' in this sense.
> 
> Grant


Oh, okay. So in bmexcan's example...

_(Me llama mi novia) ¿Dónde estás?

yo: En el parque. 

Ella: Joder, me lo hubieras dicho!_ 

For _"Me lo hubieras dicho" _you would say "You should have told me"?

That sounds more like "me lo deberías haber dicho" to me.

In the UK, we would say "You might have told me" (I prefer this one) or "You could have told me".


----------



## NewdestinyX

nightlone said:


> Oh, okay. So in bmexcan's example...
> 
> _(Me llama mi novia) ¿Dónde estás?
> 
> yo: En el parque.
> 
> Ella: Joder, me lo hubieras dicho!_
> 
> For _"Me lo hubieras dicho" _you would say "You should have told me"?
> 
> That sounds more like "me lo deberías haber dicho" to me.
> 
> In the UK, we would say "You might have told me" (I prefer this one) or "You could have told me".



Yeah.. Actually in America we would and could use all 3 just fine. In preference order for this context:

should have
might have
could have

It expresses an exasperation on the part of the speaker -- or a desire that another person had done or experienced something with you. So in a real sense -- 'should' is still fulfilling its role for 'obligation' -- but softened. 'Might have' sounds very much more polite -- like you Brits always sound to us Yankees. ;-) 'Could' adds too many other potential semantics so an AMerican would tend to steer clear of it. But I would say that if a foreigner used any of the three of them they would be understood. My take on this was to make sure that students of Spanish recognized this 'seemingly' non-standard use of 'hubiera' at the beginning of a sentence without 'si'. And that students of English did not translate this one to 'would have' -- which it never is in this context. It's the only one that' doesn't work. ;-) If you actually uttered 'debería haber..' in this context the person hearing would not receive it as what this idiom is transmitting. They would feel you feel they did something wrong. It would sound too aggressive.


----------



## nightlone

Okay, thanks for the clarification, I didn't know that you used "should have" that way in the US.

From a BrE point of view, I agree with Anakin in that _"might" asemeja mucho más al sentido que tiene en castellano _(in that sentence)_. _For me, that particular usage of "might" is not really to do with politeness, but it seems to capture the sense of the way the Spanish imperfect subjunctive is used in the quoted phrase. But that's just my opinion...


----------



## Ivy29

stooge1970 said:


> Hola Ivy.
> 
> Gracias por tu aportación pero en realidad no entiendo muy bien qué quiere decir. No te pido que la escribas de nuevo en inglés, pero si pudieras explicar un poco los ejemplos que nos has dado lo agradecería.
> 
> Saludos.


 

Me gustaría saber cuál de las oraciones no entiendes y te las explico.

1- El uso de pluscuamperfecto de subjuntivo tanto en la Prótasis ( if clause) y en la apódosis es CORRECTA. Sé usa más la terminación -ara y escasamente -ese.
Si tu hubieras estado esa noche, seguro *hubieras cantado* Malagueña.


----------



## NewdestinyX

nightlone said:


> Okay, thanks for the clarification, I didn't know that you used "should have" that way in the US.
> 
> From a BrE point of view, I agree with Anakin in that _"might" asemeja mucho más al sentido que tiene en castellano _(in that sentence)_. _For me, that particular usage of "might" is not really to do with politeness, but it seems to capture the sense of the way the Spanish imperfect subjunctive is used in the quoted phrase. But that's just my opinion...



I think your opinion is very valid -- in the comparison.

Interestingly enough -- British English uses 'should' for many places where America uses 'would' and 'were to'. So there still are difference -- So imagine how hard it is to teach these modals with differences even in the English language with things as major as these modals.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Me gustaría saber cuál de las oraciones no entiendes y te las explico.
> 
> 1- El uso de pluscuamperfecto de subjuntivo tanto en la Prótasis ( if clause) y en la apódosis es CORRECTA. Sé usa más la terminación -ara y escasamente -ese.
> Si tu hubieras estado esa noche, seguro *hubieras cantado* Malagueña.



Pero en muchas regiones del mundo hispanohablante no le parece correcto a la gente y jamás se diría. En estas situaciones creo que es mejor diferenciar entre lo que la RAE 'decribe' y lo que ellos 'precriben'. El DRAE reconoce el uso de 'hubiera' en la apódosis -- pero no lo prescribe para nada. Si tienes una fuente que lo prescriba -- me encantaría leerla.

Grant


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> En inglés, en este tipo de sintaxis -- 'would have' transmite que sí pasó algo pero es casi increible. Y 'had done' funciona también


.

Sorry to disagree, Grant. All my English grammar books state that would+have+ pp, is related with an imaginary past situation or something that might have happened in the past but didn't.

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Pero en muchas regiones del mundo hispanohablante no le parece correcto a la gente y jamás se diría. En estas situaciones creo que es mejor diferenciar entre lo que la RAE 'decribe' y lo que ellos 'precriben'. El DRAE reconoce el uso de 'hubiera' en la apódosis -- pero no lo prescribe para nada. Si tienes una fuente que lo prescriba -- me encantaría leerla.
> 
> Grant


 
Creo que tienes a Emilio Alarcos, 'prótasis con subjuntivo' Numeral 448,
Quoting : ' En el segundo caso , el verbo de la apódosis alterna entre el antepretérito de subjuntivo (hubiera cantado) y el antepospretérito de subjuntivo (habría cantado).
(correction of the ALarcos original statement).
Si ya compraste la monumental obra de NEBRIJA-BELLO tomo 3, numeral 57.2.4.2.

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

bmxican47 said:


> Interesante. Para mí la idea de "could have" expresa habilidad y requiere el verbo poder (podrías habérmelo dicho), y a mi "me lo hubieras dicho" no me comunica esa idea, sino la de "should" (la de obligación).


 

Being his girlfriend, there is a relation of some obligation, and should is germane.
If it were anyone as a friend and the situation does not demand an obligation could is proper.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> .
> 
> Sorry to disagree, Grant. All my English grammar books state that would+have+ pp, is related with an imaginary past situation or something that might have happened in the past but didn't.
> 
> Ivy29



There are some things your grammar books can't teach you. Unless you believe in a 'cardboard use of language'. I prefer a broader use. You have to read and read and read and read. Which I know you do.



Ivy29 said:


> Creo que tienes a Emilio Alarcos, 'prótasis con subjuntivo' Numeral 448,
> Quoting : ' En el segundo caso , el verbo de la apódosis alterna con el antepretérito de subjuntivo (hubiera cantado)  y el antepospretérito de subjuntivo (habría cantado).
> 
> Si ya compraste la monumental obra de NEBRIJA-BELLO tomo 3, numeral 57.2.4.2.
> 
> Ivy29



Gracias. I have verified it in Alarcos. Pero sigo creyendo que el vocabulario que usa Alarcos muestra una "descripción". Fíjate cómo, en su párrafo -- dice: 'alterna con' y no 'se puede alternar con', la segunda de la cual sería una descripción de una norma. No tengo suficiente dinero para comprarme - Nebrija-Bello todavía.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> I have my input from an educated man who speaks Spanish fluently and is a teacher. Es posible que me haya explicado mal.
> 
> Cuando algo bueno sucedió y te lo perdiste -- y cuando oyes hablar del evento y deseas haber estado allí -- o tú u otra persona puede exclamar:
> 
> "¡Hubiera(s) estado allí!" --exclamando que deseas haber estado allí -- o que a otra persona le habría encatado estar allí.
> 
> ¿Es eso tu experiencia con la frase 'hubiera estado allí'?
> 
> Si sí --- entonces esa exclamación 'no' es "would have" en inglés, sino "should have".
> 
> ¡¡Hubieras estado allí anoche en la fiesta!! = You "should have" been there last night at the party.
> 
> Según mi amigo profesor 'hubieras', en esta oración, no es 'would have' en inglés -- sino 'should have'. Y coincido con él.
> 
> Dime cualquier problema que veas. Tal vez en mi primer ejemplo con "hubiera hecho mejor" el modismo no funcione.


 

"hubiera estado allí = ¡/I/He/she should have been there!
Hubieras estado allí=  ¡You should have been there!

La razón es que el hablante le hace una crítica porque no fue a la fiesta y le afirma como consejo que si hubiese ido a la fiesta habría pasado de maravillas.


Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> There are some things your grammar books can't teach you. Unless you believe in a 'cardboard use of language'. I prefer a broader use. You have to read and read and read and read. Which I know you do.
> 
> 
> 
> Gracias. I have verified it in Alarcos. Pero sigo creyendo que el vocabulario que usa Alarcos muestra una "descripción". Fíjate cómo, en su párrafo -- dice: 'alterna con' y no 'se puede alternar con', la segunda de la cual sería una descripción de una norma. No tengo suficiente dinero para comprarme - Nebrija-Bello todavía.


 

Lo siento, dice : *alterna entre*... ( of course , speaking of conditional type 3 past).

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> There are some things your grammar books can't teach you. Unless you believe in a 'cardboard use of language'. I prefer a broader use. You have to read and read and read and read. Which I know you do.
> 
> 
> 
> Gracias. I have verified it in Alarcos. Pero sigo creyendo que el vocabulario que usa Alarcos muestra una "descripción". Fíjate cómo, en su párrafo -- dice: 'alterna entre' la segunda de la cual sería una descripción de una norma. No tengo suficiente dinero para comprarme - Nebrija-Bello todavía.


 
*Es alterna entre...*

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> There are some things your grammar books can't teach you. Unless you believe in a 'cardboard use of language'. I prefer a broader use. You have to read and read and read and read. Which I know you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEWDESTINYX said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some things your grammar books can't teach you. Unless you believe in a 'cardboard use of language'. I prefer a broader use. You have to read and read and read and read. Which I know you do
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping Mr, Marting Hewings, famous author, British by the way, is an excellent author, and very knowledgeable person.
> 
> Ivy29
Click to expand...


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> "hubiera estado allí = ¡/I/He/she should have been there!
> Hubieras estado allí=  ¡You should have been there!
> 
> La razón es que el hablante le hace una crítica porque no fue a la fiesta y le afirma como consejo que si hubiese ido a la fiesta habría pasado de maravillas.
> 
> 
> Ivy29



I agree with your translations, Ivy -- but let me ask this. Is there any grammatical reason for this use of 'hubiera' that matches its other uses? Or is this simply an idiomatic use in the language? I'm pretty sure this is not 'hubiera' for 'habría' -- but what use is it 'syntactically'?


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> I agree with your translations, Ivy -- but let me ask this. Is there any grammatical reason for this use of 'hubiera' that matches its other uses? Or is this simply an idiomatic use in the language? I'm pretty sure this is not 'hubiera' for 'habría' -- but what use is it 'syntactically'?


 
*Always the pluperfect subjunctive is related with contrafactual situations*, something that you could/should do/would do but weren't done. These are typically hindsight advices, hindsight possibilities.
AS you well know the ending *-ara* of the subjunctive in its origin is placed in the indicative mood; remember also that the past subjunctive or imperfect subjunctive has connotations of past, present or future.
Hubiera ido a la fiesta y de seguro la habría pasado muy bien.
*should I have gone to that party, I would have enjoyed it for sure. **BUT if I had gone to that party...*

*In this context 'hubieras estado allí' has not the same meaning of 'habrías estado allí' in this particular context.*

*But in a conditional type 3 ( past unreal) the usage of either one keeps the context and meaning.*

*Ivy29*


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Hubiera ido a la fiesta y de seguro la habría pasado muy bien.
> *Should I have gone to that party, I would have enjoyed it for sure. *(not the right translation)
> I should have gone to the party and I surely would have enjoyed it.



Thanks for your input - but I have to correct one thing here. Your translation in blue is not the right translation of the Spanish above it. Your Spanish sentence is not a conditional syntax with a protasis and apodosis -- but the English sentence is a conditional. "Should I have gone to the party, ..." = (protasis) = If I had gone to the party. (This "should I have" usage is more British --> meaning--> If I had). So you can't leave out the 'si' to transmit that meaning into Spanish.

_Hubiera ido a la fiesta._
Should I have gone to the party, .. (wrong translation)
I should have gone to the the party. (expresses regret as the Spanish sentence without 'si' does.)
_
Si hubiera ido a la fiesta, ..._
Should I have gone to the party, ...
If I had gone to the party, ...

Should I have gone, then...{protasis}(British) = If I had gone, then...{protasis}(American) = _Si hubiera ido, entonces...
_Should I have gone? (una pregunta) = ¿Debería haber ido?

_Hubieras ido a la fiesta_ - semantically =  La persona con la que hablas no fue -- y se perdió algo estupendo.


----------



## Ivy29

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Ivy29* 

 
Hubiera ido a la fiesta y de seguro la habría pasado muy bien. 
*Should I have gone to that party, I would have enjoyed it for sure. *(not the right translation)
I should have gone to the party and I surely would have enjoyed it.



			
				 NewdestinyX said:
			
		

> Thanks for your input - but I have to correct one thing here. Your translation in blue is not the right translation of the Spanish above it. Your Spanish sentence is not a conditional syntax with a protasis and apodosis -- but the English sentence is a conditional. "Should I have gone to the party, ..." = (protasis) = If I had gone to the party. (This "should I have" usage is more British --> meaning--> If I had). So you can't leave out the 'si' to transmit that meaning into Spanish.


 
I* am sorry to disagree. I would recommend you reading in NEBRIJA-BELLO *
*Tomo 3, numeral 57.6 the following :*

*Condicionales paratácticas*
'La condicionalidad' se puede expresar a través de estructuras pseudo-coordinadas de tres tipos :

a.- Con la partícula copulativa (y)

Hubiera ido a la fiesta Y de seguro la habría pasado muy bien.
Aprueba todo el curso en junio Y te compraré una moto.

b.- Con la partícula disyuntiva (o) 
Acaba la comida *o *no verás tele.
No tomes más el sol *o *acabarás con un melanoma.

c.- Con un primer miembro interrogativo total

¿quieres beber algo? voy a buscártelo.
¿ Quieres pelea? pues la tendrás

*Todas equivalen a condicionales con 'si'*

Si apruebas todo el curso en junio, te compraré un auto.
Si no acaba la comida, no verás la tele.
Si tomas más el sol, acabarás con un melanoma.
si quieres beber algo, voy a buscártelo.
si quieres pelea la tendrás

*Hubiera ido a la fiesta y de seguro la habría pasado muy bien=*
*Si hubiera ido a la fiesta, la habría pasado muy bien.*
*Should I have gone to the party, surely I would have enjoyed it.*
*I should have gone to the party, surely I would have enjoyed it .*

*My sentences is a 'paratáctica' conditional*

*Ivy29


*


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> *I** am sorry to disagree. I would recommend you reading in
> NEBRIJA-BELLO * *Tomo 3, numeral 57.6 the following :* *Condicionales paratácticas*
> 'La condicionalidad' se puede expresar a través de estructuras pseudo-coordinadas de tres tipos :
> 
> a.- Con la partícula copulativa (y)
> Hubiera ido a la fiesta  Y de seguro la habría pasado muy bien. (¿es éste tu ejemplo o uno de Nebrija-Bello? -no se construye como los demás)
> Aprueba todo el curso en junio Y te compraré una moto.
> 
> b.- Con la partícula disyuntiva (o)
> Acaba la comida  *o *no verás tele.
> No tomes más el sol *o *acabarás con un melanoma.
> 
> c.- Con un primer miembro interrogativo total
> ¿quieres beber algo? voy a buscártelo.
> ¿ Quieres pelea? pues la tendrás
> 
> *Todas equivalen a condicionales con 'si'*
> 
> Si apruebas todo el curso en junio, te compraré un auto.
> Si no acaba la comida, no verás la tele.
> Si tomas más el sol, acabarás con un melanoma.
> si quieres beber algo, voy a buscártelo.
> si quieres pelea la tendrás
> 
> *Hubiera ido a la fiesta y de seguro la habría pasado muy bien=*
> *Si hubiera ido a la fiesta, la habría pasado muy bien.*
> *Should I have gone to the party, surely I would have enjoyed it.*
> *I should have** If I had/Should I have gone to the party, surely I would have enjoyed it .*
> 
> *My sentences **is a** are 'paratáctica' conditionals.*
> 
> *Ivy29*



"Paratactic conditionals"??. Interesting... But, for all practical purposes a paratactic conditional is a pretty far-fetched structure and not seen as a conditional in every day speech in Spanish. So it's interesting that they're 'possible' - and have a technical name in academia, but it's not a practical structure for the student learning Spanish to learn -- que opino yo -- since those structures (a,b,c-above) are all normal imperative or interrogative sentences. They are not seen as conditionals and wouldn't translate to English as conditionals.

And in English "I should have gone to the party, surely I would have enjoyed it" is a *run-on* sentence. (See Oxford & American Heritage) A period must be between the two sentences. The comma is impossible and incorrect.

Grant


----------



## bmxican47

NewdestinyX said:


> "Paratactic conditionals"??. Interesting... But, for all practical purposes a paratactic conditional is a pretty far-fetched structure and not seen as a conditional in every day speech in Spanish. So it's interesting that they're 'possible' - and have a technical name in academia, but it's not a practical structure for the student learning Spanish to learn -- que opino yo -- since those structures are all normal declarative sentences or interrogatives or imperatives. They are not seen as conditionals and wouldn't translate to English as conditionals.
> 
> And in English "I should have gone to the party, surely I would have enjoyed it" is a *run-on* sentence. (See Oxford & American Heritage) A period must be between the two sentences. The comma is impossible and incorrect.
> 
> Grant




En realidad, lo que tenemos en esa frase no es un "run-on sentence" sino un comma splice. Puede corregirse facilmente con el uso de un punto y coma, un "subordintating conjunction" o  un "co-ordinating conjunction". 

A pesar de todo, cabe agregar que así se habla y de eso se tratan estas traducciones. Es normal que haya errores a la hora de escribirlas, teniendo en cuenta que la mayoría de los angloparlantes ni sabe lo que es un "run-on sentence" y aún menos es capaz de corregir uno. 

De todas formas, habéis currado mucho en cuanto a este tema y yo he sacado un montón de información bastante útil por vuestro trabajo. Así que gracias y seguid...seguid


----------



## bmxican47

Ivy29 said:


> Being his girlfriend, there is a relation of some obligation, and should is germane.
> If it were anyone as a friend and the situation does not demand an obligation could is proper.
> 
> Ivy29



Perdonad que tarde tanto en contestar...

En verdad aquí no entiendo completamente lo que has querido decir. SIn embargo, yo no creo que la frase se traduzca de formas distintas por el hecho de que la haya dicho la novia. Si fuera mi tío cojo de Cuenca, ¿acaso significaría algo diferente? 

Por mi, el significado de "Me lo hubieras dicho" no cambia en absoluto a medida que cambia el hablante. El contexto, desde luego, puede causar un cambio en la traducción...


----------



## NewdestinyX

bmxican47 said:


> En realidad, lo que tenemos en esa frase no es un "run-on sentence" sino un comma splice. Puede corregirse facilmente con el uso de un punto y coma, un "subordintating conjunction" o  un "co-ordinating conjunction".
> 
> A pesar de todo, cabe agregar que así se habla y de eso se tratan estas traducciones. Es normal que haya errores a la hora de escribirlas, teniendo en cuenta que la mayoría de los angloparlantes ni sabe lo que es un "run-on sentence" y aún menos es capaz de corregir uno.
> 
> De todas formas, habéis currado mucho en cuanto a este tema y yo he sacado un montón de información bastante útil por vuestro trabajo. Así que gracias y seguid...seguid



Gracias por la aclaración entre 'run-on' y 'comma splice'. Se me debe (de) haber olvidado eso.  En cuanto a lo que se dice y se escribe -- éste es un foro escrito.. Y lo que entendemos sobre lo que un forero sepa (o no sepa) solo se puede deducir de lo que escriben. Por eso les trato de mostrar errores a los estudiantes (y profesores). Y me encantan correcciones de otros también. Nuestro asunto aquí es condicionales -- y fue importante que le mostrase a Ivy29 que _"I should have gone to the party, surely I would have enjoyed it"_ *en absoluto* es condicional y además es 'comma splice' como nos has señalado.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> "Paratactic conditionals"??. Interesting... But, for all practical purposes a paratactic conditional is a pretty far-fetched structure and not seen as a conditional in every day speech in Spanish. So it's interesting that they're 'possible' - and have a technical name in academia, but it's not a practical structure for the student learning Spanish to learn -- que opino yo -- since those structures (a,b,c-above) are all normal imperative or interrogative sentences. They are not seen as conditionals and wouldn't translate to English as conditionals.
> 
> And in English "I should have gone to the party, surely I would have enjoyed it" is a *run-on* sentence. (See Oxford & American Heritage) A period must be between the two sentences. The comma is impossible and incorrect.
> 
> Grant


The *paratactic conditional* are of common usage in Spanish. You should buy the 3 volumes of Nebrija-Bello.

It is not a *farfetched structure*, the chapter in Nebrija-Bello is quite long, and with many alternatives. Certainly used in everyday activities.
The sentence in English can be rephrased as :

*I should have gone to the party and surely I would have enjoyed it.*

*ivy29*


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Gracias por la aclaración entre 'run-on' y 'comma splice'. Se me debe (de) haber olvidado eso.  En cuanto a lo que se dice y se escribe -- éste es un foro escrito.. Y lo que entendemos sobre lo que un forero sepa (o no sepa) solo se puede deducir de lo que escriben. Por eso les trato de mostrar errores a los estudiantes (y profesores). Y me encantan correcciones de otros también. Nuestro asunto aquí es condicionales -- y fue importante que le mostrase a Ivy29 que _"I should have gone to the party, surely I would have enjoyed it"_ *en absoluto* es condicional y además es 'comma splice' como nos has señalado.


 

En español es una oración condicional, por estructura, por sintaxis y por semántica.
Se podría construir en inglés :

*Shoul I have gone to the party and surely I would have enjoyed it.* ( this is the closest translation into English).

If you do not have my sources, well known by the way, you cannot state that the paratactic conditional is a farfetched structure, it is not.

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

bmxican47 said:


> Perdonad que tarde tanto en contestar...
> 
> En verdad aquí no entiendo completamente lo que has querido decir. SIn embargo, yo no creo que la frase se traduzca de formas distintas por el hecho de que la haya dicho la novia. Si fuera mi tío cojo de Cuenca, ¿acaso significaría algo diferente?
> 
> Por mi, el significado de "Me lo hubieras dicho" no cambia en absoluto a medida que cambia el hablante. El contexto, desde luego, puede causar un cambio en la traducción...


 
*Me lo hubieras dicho = You should have told me*. El contexto cambia cuando la persona interesada en recibir la información tiene un vínculo familiar y la noticia se le debe dar. No es lo mismo la obligación de una mala noticia a un padre que a un amigo.

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

Ivy29 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ivy29*
> 
> 
> Hubiera ido a la fiesta y de seguro la habría pasado muy bien.
> *Should I have gone to that party, I would have enjoyed it for sure. *(not the right translation)
> I should have gone to the party and I surely would have enjoyed it.
> 
> 
> 
> I* am sorry to disagree. I would recommend you reading in NEBRIJA-BELLO *
> *Tomo 3, numeral 57.6 the following :*
> 
> *Condicionales paratácticas*
> 'La condicionalidad' se puede expresar a través de estructuras pseudo-coordinadas de tres tipos :
> 
> a.- Con la partícula copulativa (y)
> 
> Hubiera ido a la fiesta Y de seguro la habría pasado muy bien.
> Aprueba todo el curso en junio Y te compraré una moto.
> 
> b.- Con la partícula disyuntiva (o)
> Acaba la comida *o *no verás tele.
> No tomes más el sol *o *acabarás con un melanoma.
> 
> c.- Con un primer miembro interrogativo total
> 
> ¿quieres beber algo? voy a buscártelo.
> ¿ Quieres pelea? pues la tendrás
> 
> *Todas equivalen a condicionales con 'si'*
> 
> Si apruebas todo el curso en junio, te compraré un auto.
> Si no acaba la comida, no verás la tele.
> Si tomas más el sol, acabarás con un melanoma.
> si quieres beber algo, voy a buscártelo.
> si quieres pelea la tendrás
> 
> *Hubiera ido a la fiesta y de seguro la habría pasado muy bien=*
> *Si hubiera ido a la fiesta, la habría pasado muy bien.*
> *Should I have gone to the party and surely I would have enjoyed it.*
> *If I had gone to the party,  surely I would have enjoyed it .*
> 
> *My sentence is a 'paratáctica' conditional*
> 
> *Ivy29*


----------



## Ivy29

swt said:


> dos "hubieras" es incorrecto y suena mal. Siempre desde mi punto de vista.


 

Lo siento es correcto y gramatical su uso (dos hubieras)

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> The *paratactic conditional* are of common usage in Spanish. You should buy the 3 volumes of Nebrija-Bello.
> 
> It is not a *farfetched structure*, the chapter in Nebrija-Bello is quite long, and with many alternatives. Certainly used in everyday activities.
> The sentence in English can be rephrased as :
> 
> *I should have gone to the party and surely I would have enjoyed it. *(but this sentence would not be said in English. Muy raro.)
> 
> *ivy29*



The issue is that 'paratactic conditionals' do not translate to conditionals in English. The above sentence marked with  is not a conditional and would not translate to Spanish as any conditional form, paratactic or otherwise. The form of the paratactic in Spanish translates to an 'imperative' or 'interrogative' in English. That's the point.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> The issue is that 'paratactic conditionals' do not translate to conditionals in English. The above sentence marked with  is not a conditional and would not translate to Spanish as any conditional form, paratactic or otherwise. The form of the paratactic in Spanish translates to an 'imperative' or 'interrogative' in English. That's the point.


 

Of course, you can translate it into English, if you write : Should I have gone... it is another way to use a conditional in English.

Nooo, the imperative or interrogative forms are one of the possibilities of the paratactic conditionals. It would be better you buy those books, Nebrija-Bello 3 volumes before you qualify a very standard usage of these types of sentences as farfetched. This assertion is a clear lack of understanding of these sort and common constructions.

I am surprised that you ignore or intentionally do it that in English you have many alternatives to express a condition, instead of (IF).
(The same in Spanish, we have many alternatives to express conditionals)



OXFORD said:


> Should anyone ring. could you take a message.
> Should we not succeed, the consequences would be disastrous.
> were the picture genuine, it would be worth thousands of pounds.
> were the decision to go gainst us, we would appeal.
> *With type 3 conditional.*
> had you taken a taxi, you would have got there on time
> Had the guests not copmplained, nothing would have been done


 
Now, now I think that the best translation to = me hubieras dicho (type3) should be = *had you told me according to OXFORD.*

*Debieras haberme dicho= you should have told me ( certain obligation father-son, president-ministers, Bishops-Pope, teachers-students, etc).*
*Pudieras haberme dicho= you could have told me.*
*In Spanish we have many, many alternatives to express conditionals not only the classical 4 types that express if conditional as you do have in English but also in Spanish. We cannot give the idea that only if in either language are the only standard forms to express conditionals comparing the very long and large chapter of conditionals in Nebrija-Bello.*

*Ivy29*


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Of course, you can translate it into English, if you write : Should I have gone... it is another way to use a conditional in English.



But that's not how you translated it. You said "I should have gone,...." which is an incorrect translation for the paratactic conditional you posed. It's important you compare apples with apples here, Ivy. Should I have gone -- is a formal (and more British) way of saying - If I had gone. "Should I have gone.." as a protasis is a literary style -- not conversational. And it is not a translation for the paratactic conditional. That's the germane point here.



> Nooo, the imperative or interrogative forms are one of the possibilities of the paratactic conditionals. It would be better you buy those books, Nebrija-Bello 3 volumes before you qualify a very standard usage of these types of sentences as farfetched. This assertion is a clear lack of understanding of these sort and common constructions.


 There are 'always' possibilities. The point is which ones are the most common and useful for students. The examples given in Nebija-Bello for the paratactic conditional are 'not' conditionals in English. That's important for students to know and that's why I challenged you.



> Now, now I think that the best translation to = me hubieras dicho (type3) should be = *had you told me according to OXFORD.*


No. The Spanish would be: Si me hubieras dicho...
Me (lo) hubieras dicho..,is 'hubiera' without the 'si', and is an idiomatic way of expressing that someone didn't do something that they should have or would have enjoyed.. In English this is: "should have" or in some instances "could have" but never: "had". This is very difficult to understand unless you are completely fluent in English. 'Had you told me' is a type 3 conditional protasis. "Me (lo) hubieras dicho" is not a type 3 conditional protasis without the 'si'. But the important thing to remember is that the paratactic conditionals as referenced by NebBello in your citations are not conditionals in English - they are imperatives or interrogatives. English does not have paratactic conditionals and that's the germane point.

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> En español es una oración condicional, por estructura, por sintaxis y por semántica.
> Se podría construir en inglés :
> 
> *Should I have gone to the party and surely I would have enjoyed it.* (this is the closest translation into English).



No that is a grammatically incorrect sentence in English and would never be said. "Should I have gone to the party.. is a protasis that needs an apodosis. The conjunction 'and' is incorrect in a type 3 conditional. I think you seem to believe that 'should I have' and 'I should have' are interchangeable as if Spanish and English have the same flexibility which they do not.

I should have gone to the party and I surely would have enjoyed it. (barely acceptable)
Should I have gone to the party, I surely would have enjoyed it. (Type 3 conditional, literary/formal style.)



Ivy29 said:


> *Me lo hubieras dicho = You should have told me*. El contexto cambia cuando la persona interesada en recibir la información tiene un vínculo familiar y la noticia se le debe dar. No es lo mismo la obligación de una mala noticia a un padre que a un amigo.



Now that's the correct translation of 'hubiera' without the 'si'. You said that to bmexican. Why are you trying to declare it differently to me? "Hubiera + participio" = should have + PP


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> But that's not how you translated it. You said "I should have gone,...." which is an incorrect translation for the paratactic conditional you posed. It's important you compare apples with apples here, Ivy. Should I have gone -- is a formal (and more British) way of saying - If I had gone. "Should I have gone.." as a protasis is a literary style -- not conversational. And it is not a translation for the paratactic conditional. That's the germane point here.
> 
> There are 'always' possibilities. The point is which ones are the most common and useful for students. The examples given in Nebija-Bello for the paratactic conditional are 'not' conditionals in English. That's important for students to know and that's why I challenged you.
> 
> No. The Spanish would be: Si me hubieras dicho...
> Me hubieras dicho..,is 'hubiera' without the 'si', and is an idiomatic way of expressing that someone didn't do something that they should have or would have enjoyed.. In English this is: "should have" or in some instances "could have" but never: "had". This is very difficult to understand unless you are completely fluent in English. 'Had you told me' is a type 3 conditional protasis. "Me hubieras dicho" is not a type 3 conditional protasis without the 'si'. But the important thing to remember is that the paratactic conditionals as referenced by NebBello in your citations are not conditionals in English - they are imperatives or interrogatives. English does not have paratactic conditionals and that's the germane point.
> Grant


 
Nooo, Grant, to understand the paratactical construction you should read a lot of Nebrija-Bello chapter. These sentences are of very common usage, daily basis. 
Now in English the equivalent of :  me hubieras dicho. there is no 'if' in spanish and in *had you told me* either, remember that the pluperfect subjunctive= *me hubieras dicho* belongs to the past contrafactual structure of type 3 conditional. 
*si *me hubieras dicho =* if* you had told me.
Me hubieras dicho  is neutral in the sense of obligation, possibility. Sometimes the tone of the utterance can give you the key of obligation.
You should have told/you could have told me.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Nooo, Grant, to understand the paratactical construction you should read a lot of Nebrija-Bello chapter. These sentences are of very common usage, daily basis.
> Now in English the equivalent of :  me hubieras dicho. there is no 'if' in spanish and in *had you told me* either, remember that the pluperfect subjunctive= *me hubieras dicho* belongs to the past contrafactual structure of type 3 conditional.
> *si *me hubieras dicho =* if* you had told me.
> Me hubieras dicho  is neutral in the sense of obligation, possibility. Sometimes the tone of the utterance can give you the key of obligation.
> You should have told/you could have told me.
> 
> Ivy29



You cited the examples from NebBello and I can tell you that they do not exist in English as a form of conditional. That's a fact.

Now you and I agree that:
Si me hubieras dicho = If you had told me

The problem comes next -- when you try to omit the 'SI' from the SPanish and the 'IF' from the English. They are no longer the same.

Si me hubieras dicho... = If you had told me... = Had you told me... = protasis

Me hubieras dicho. = Deberías haberme dicho. (sin obligación) =  You should have told me. = Declarative sentence. (disappointment implied)

That's the difference you seemed to be confused about in the English. "If you had told me" = "Had you told me"(literary)

Actually where I think you will find a Spanish syntax matching the 'had you told me' literary style is in the DE Conditional.

De haberme dicho (tú) = Had you told me  

¿no?


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> But that's not how you translated it. You said "I should have gone,...." which is an incorrect translation for the paratactic conditional you posed. It's important you compare apples with apples here, Ivy. Should I have gone -- is a formal (and more British) way of saying - If I had gone. "Should I have gone.." as a protasis is a literary style -- not conversational. And it is not a translation for the paratactic conditional. That's the germane point here. Grant


.

Me hubieras dicho is a neutral idiomatic expression indicating that the action didn't take place.

If you had told me =* si me hubieras dicho*( Protasis ( type 3 conditional). The action didn't happen
Had you told me ( without 'if' structure) is the protasis of a type 3 structure. = *me hubieras dicho.*
*Should have you told me* = me (hubieras = debieras) haber dicho. (obligation) 
*You could have told me* = me hubieras = pudieras haber dicho. (possibility)

There is no reason to reject = Had you told me , this structure belongs to type 3 conditional without 'if' as is in Spanish without if. Or you have a grammatical reason to do so ??? or to reject something so simple and clear in both languages.

Ivy29


----------



## Ynez

Some comments on this last discussion:

- would, should (in their normal uses) and all the Spanish -ría are considered "conditional" in Spanish minds. Not only If/Si we think of as conditionals (agreeing with Ivy).

- to say "me hubieras dicho" meaning "si me hubieras dicho" is possible to hear, but it's too colloquial and not good use of the language. (There was a problem at some point with this).

Apart from this, what are you both talking about?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> .
> 
> Me hubieras dicho is a neutral idiomatic expression indicating that the action didn't take place.



Yes! We completely agree. I have said this from the beginning. = should have (but didn't), in English.



> If you had told me =* si me hubieras dicho*( Protasis ( type 3 conditional). The action didn't happen


Absolutely correct. I have said this from the beginning.



> Had you told me ( without 'if' structure) is the protasis of a type 3 structure. = *me hubieras dicho.*


 No. I don't think so. In Spanish you need the 'si'. You just claimed above that "me hubieras dicho" was the idiomatic structure. Are you saying it is also a 'conditional type 3 protasis'?



> *Should have you told me* (incorrect English, never said)= me (hubieras = debieras) haber dicho. (obligation)¿¿?? 'me hubieras haber dicho' ?? Not even Spanish


 -- I think you made several typos in this paragraph.I agree that 'me hubieras dicho' = deberías haber dicho - if that's what you meant.


> *You could have told me* = me hubieras = pudieras haber dicho. (possibility)


 I agree again -- these are all part of the idiomatic usage.

The only part that I have trouble with is you assertion that 'me hubieras dicho', starting a sentence, without 'si', is also a Type 3 protasis. I need proof of that from a source. I never hear or read that. And no other native has supported it either. And you are confused on your English word order possibilities with 'should'. 

In the books I have. And the natives I've consulted:

*Me hubieras dicho.* = Deberías haberme dicho./Pudieras haberme dicho. = You should/could have told me. (no protasis here).

*Si me hubieras dicho... *= If you had told me.../Should you have told me... (British)/Had you told me...(literary) = Type 3 conditional protasis



> There is no reason to reject = Had you told me , this structure belongs to type 3 conditional without 'if' as is in Spanish without if. Or you have a grammatical reason to do so ??? or to reject something so simple and clear in both languages.


 I have never rejected it even once. I have always accepted it. It is perfect English (though literary and formal). But it does not translate "me hubieras dicho". It translates: "SI me hubieras dicho". That's the error in your analysis -- unless you can show me proof that 'hubiera', starting a sentence, without any other particle, is a Type 3 conditional protasis. None of my books teach this. Please cite and write out for us where you see this is possible.

Thanks,
Grant

Ivy29[/quote]


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> Some comments on this last discussion:
> 
> - would, should (in their normal uses) and all the Spanish -ría are considered "conditional" in Spanish minds. Not only If/Si we think of as conditionals (agreeing with Ivy).
> 
> - to say "me hubieras dicho" meaning "si me hubieras dicho" is possible to hear, but it's too colloquial and not good use of the language. (There was a problem at some point with this).
> 
> Apart from this, what are you both talking about?


Ah .. another experienced native voice arrives in this thread.. ;-) Hello, Ynez. Ivy was educating me about paratactic conditionals.. But that was a while ago. ANd you may not be interested in thaty particular tidbit.

I think what I'm saying is that there 'me hubieras dicho' would be heard more by a native as 'deberias haberme dicho' than 'si me hubieras dicho'. We talked early about this idiomatic usage where a person misses a party and it was a great party -- you can utter to them.. "Hubieras ido" and that's like saying 'Deberías haber ido'. You agreed with me early on that one and said that it happens more with 'you, him , them' and not with 'I'. 

So 'Me hubieras dicho' is a 2nd person utterance.. It can have the same meaning -- right? You should have told me. Agreed?


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

NewdestinyX said:


> Pero en muchas regiones del mundo hispanohablante no le parece correcto a la gente y jamás se diría. En estas situaciones creo que es mejor diferenciar entre lo que la RAE 'decribe' y lo que ellos 'precriben'. El DRAE reconoce el uso de 'hubiera' en la apódosis -- pero no lo prescribe para nada. Si tienes una fuente que lo prescriba -- me encantaría leerla.
> 
> Grant


De: Consultas1
Fecha: 12/22/04 07:59:52
Asunto: Consulta RAE (-ra/-se)



* El pretérito imperfecto de subjuntivo en español presenta dos terminaciones: -ra y -se (amara/amase). Aunque por su significado ambas formas son equivalentes en la lengua moderna, no siempre pueden sustituirse entre sí. La primera procede del pluscuamperfecto de indicativo latino (amaveram); la segunda, del pluscuamperfecto de subjuntivo (amavissem). Una y otra absorbieron además significados propios de otros tiempos del indicativo o del subjuntivo, respectivamente. La identificación de significados entre amara y amase es el resultado de un largo proceso histórico que los ha ido aproximando progresivamente, sin que haya llegado a ser tan completa que permita permutarlos entre sí en todos los casos, como se expone a continuación. 
a) AMARA, como pluscuamperfecto de indicativo equivalente a "había amado", predomina en los textos literarios medievales. Por ejemplo: Entendió que el su saber non le tenía pro, pues que non usara dél (introducción al Calila y Dimna), donde vemos usara equivalente a había usado. Según los cómputos estadísticos que se han realizado, parece que en el siglo XV se inicia el predominio de AMARA con valor subjuntivo, el cual sigue avanzando en los escritores del Siglo de Oro. En la segunda mitad del XVII son ya muy poco frecuentes los ejemplos de AMARA (= HABÍA AMADO) como indicativo. Los escritores de fines del XVIII y los románticos, por imitación de los textos antiguos y especialmente del Romancero, restauran el uso primitivo en muchos casos. Esta restauración literaria, ajena a la lengua hablada, persiste más o menos debilitada hasta nuestros días: Clarín, el buen maestro, fracasó también en la ayuda que me prestara (Azorín). A veces se encuentra la forma -ra, no ya como pluscuamperfecto sino como un pretérito cualquiera de indicativo; p. ej.: Se comenta el discurso que anoche pronunciara el Presidente (en vez de pronunció). Esta construcción no está justificada en modo alguno por la tradición del idioma. 

b) En la apódosis de las oraciones condicionales, la forma en -ra conserva el valor indicativo originario, y puede ser sustituida por el condicional en -ría: Si tuviese buenos valedores conseguiría (o consiguiera) el cargo que solicita. De la apódosis pasó a la prótasis, haciéndose equivalente de -se: Si tuviera (o tuviese) buenos valedores... En resumen: Amara equivale a amase en la prótasis de las oraciones condicionales. Amara equivale a amaría en la apódosis, uso que en el habla coloquial solo vive hoy en algunos países de América. En estilo literario su frecuencia es mucho menor que en la lengua clásica. Frases como Si no pareciera o pareciese una descortesía, se lo dijera, se sienten hoy como afectadas; lo corriente es se lo diría. 

c) En cambio, el uso indistinto de -ra o -ría tiene plena vigencia tratándose de verbos modales en frases de significado potencial, tanto en el habla corriente, como en estilo literario; p. ej.: Todo pudiera [o podría] ser, y además, cosas más raras se han visto. (C. J. Cela). 

Reciba un cordial saludo. 
---- 
Departamento de Español al día 
RAE 
*

Un saludo.

Pedro.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> *Amara equivale a amaría en la apódosis, uso que en el habla coloquial solo vive hoy en algunos países de América.*



The most important part of their answer is what I've quoted there. Though the RAE describes its use -- it does NOT prescribe it.

Grant


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

NewdestinyX said:


> The most important part of their answer is what I've quoted there. Though the RAE describes its use -- it does NOT prescribe it.
> 
> Grant


Hola Grant:

De todas formas, en los tiempos compuestos son absolutamente intercambiables: habría amado/hubiera amado .

Un saludo.

Pedro.


----------



## Ynez

¡Ah, me *lo* hubieras dicho!
o

¡Me hubieras dicho que bla bla bla (no te gustaba la película/no ibas a venir/no querías ir a comer fuera/estabas enfermo)!


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> The most important part of their answer is what I've quoted there. Though the RAE describes its use -- it does NOT prescribe it.
> 
> Grant


 
Grant you are confusing the *imperfect subjunctive* with the *pluperfect subjunctive*;  they are two things completely different.

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Yes! We completely agree. I have said this from the beginning. = should have (but didn't), in English.
> 
> Absolutely correct. I have said this from the beginning.
> 
> No. I don't think so. In Spanish you need the 'si'. You just claimed above that "me hubieras dicho" was the idiomatic structure. Are you saying it is also a 'conditional type 3 protasis'?
> *Me hubieras dicho.* = Deberías haberme dicho./Pudieras haberme dicho. = You should/could have told me. (no protasis here).
> 
> *Si me hubieras dicho... *= If you had told me.../Should you have told me... (British)/Had you told me...(literary) = Type 3 conditional protasis
> 
> I have never rejected it even once. I have always accepted it. It is perfect English (though literary and formal). But it does not translate "me hubieras dicho". It translates: "SI me hubieras dicho". That's the error in your analysis -- unless you can show me proof that 'hubiera', starting a sentence, without any other particle, is a Type 3 conditional protasis. None of my books teach this. Please cite and write out for us where you see this is possible.thanks,Grant


.

Could you tell me the differences between= 
me hubieras dicho
si me hubieras dicho
Had you told me 
If you had told me

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Grant you are confusing the *imperfect subjunctive* with the *pluperfect subjunctive*;  they are two things completely different.
> 
> Ivy29



Yes, Ivy. I agree. This time I was in error -- in that -- that response from the RAE, that Pedro posted, was referring to and 'imp subj' in the apodosis and not 'plup subj'. The RAE's stance on 'hubiera'  + 'hubiera' is that it exists but it is not prescribed. Do you agree?

Thanks for pointing out that.



Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Hola Grant:
> 
> De todas formas, en los tiempos compuestos son absolutamente intercambiables: habría amado/hubiera amado .
> 
> Un saludo.
> 
> Pedro.



Solo en ciertas regiones, Pedro. Pese a que este uso ha aumentado considerablemente en los últimos tiempos y se documenta con cierta frecuencia en los textos de ciertas regiones, estoy casi seguro de que no es aconsejable según la RAE. La consulta que nos compartiste se refería a 'amara' en vez de 'amaría'. Eso es diferente que " 'si hubiera + PP, entonces 'hubiera + PP' ". ¿Tienes un artículo que específicamente apoya "hubiera" + "hubiera" en un condicional 'tipo 3'?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> ¡Ah, me *lo* hubieras dicho!
> o
> 
> ¡Me hubieras dicho que bla bla bla (no te gustaba la película/no ibas a venir/no querías ir a comer fuera/estabas enfermo)!



Sí.. Eso es.. Así pues -- estamos de acuerdo que este uso con ¡ ! es diferente que 'Si me lo hubieras dicho...." y "Si me hubieras dicho que..." y opinarías que no se puede omitir el 'si' y quiere decir lo mismo. ¿verdad?

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> .
> 
> Could you tell me the differences between=
> me hubieras dicho
> si me hubieras dicho
> Had you told me
> If you had told me
> 
> Ivy29



Surely. But I already have told you the differences in three posts. TO summarize again.
Had you told me, (then)... [literary usage] =  If you had told me, (then)... [common usage] = protasis of Type 3 conditional in English.

Si me hubieras dicho, (entonces)... = protasis type 3 conditional
Me (lo) hubieras dicho, (entonces)...  ungrammatical - you can't elide the 'si' from a Type 3 conditional protasis. You can substitute the DE conditional.
¡Me (lo) hubieras dicho! = Declarative sentence syntax, idiomatic = Deberías/Pudieras habérme(lo) dicho.

I don't know how more plainly I can explain it. Do you have any citations from your grammars that prove that 'Me hubieras dicho, entonces..' = Si me hubieras dicho, entonces.. ?? I would like to read that. Because I can't take only your word on this without some proof since none of my books and no natives support it. 

Thanks,
Grant


----------



## Ynez

Ivy, maybe in your region it is very common to omit "si" in a sentence like:

SI hubieras venido, te lo habrías pasado fenomenal.

I agree that's something one could hear, but I'd bet it is totally incorrect, so we'd better not go on with this...it's not very interesting, is it?

Newdestiny, we always -from the beginning- said that the most correct, official form is "habría" in a sentence like:

Si tú hubieras querido, él te lo habría explicado

But we wanted to point out both forms are correct according to Spanish grammars (Si tú hubieras querido, él te lo hubiera explicado) and that is something everybody must know:

- Foreign learners should know this because they may hear the second version more often than the first one (even if only in some regions, according to your book Grant).

- Native speakers should also be aware of this if they are interested in learning a second language, otherwise they won't know when to express the perfect conditional in the foreign language when having in mind "hubiera".


I don't know much about imperfecto subjuntivo, but in my quest for "Poder", I came across a really interesting webpage dealing with this topic:

http://culturitalia.uibk.ac.at/hisp...F1ola/Imperfecto%20subjuntivo%20literario.htm


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> Newdestiny, we always -from the beginning- said that the most correct, official form is "habría" in a sentence like:
> 
> Si tú hubieras querido, él te lo habría explicado
> 
> But we wanted to point out both forms are correct according to Spanish grammars (Si tú hubieras querido, él te lo hubiera explicado) and that is something everybody must know:
> 
> - Foreign learners should know this because they may hear the second version more often than the first one (even if only in some regions, according to your book Grant).
> 
> - Native speakers should also be aware of this if they are interested in learning a second language, otherwise they won't know when to express the perfect conditional in the foreign language when having in mind "hubiera".
> 
> 
> I don't know much about imperfecto subjuntivo, but in my quest for "Poder", I came across a really interesting webpage dealing with this topic:
> 
> http://culturitalia.uibk.ac.at/hispanoteca/Grammatik-Stichworte/Gram%E1tica%20espa%F1ola/Imperfecto%20subjuntivo%20literario.htm



Un artículo excelente y muy completo. Gracias. Y estamos de acuerdo en lo de ser 'usado' y ser considerado correcto el uso de dos 'hubieras'. 

Grant


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Surely. But I already have told you the differences in three posts. TO summarize again.
> Had you told me, (then)... [literary usage] = If you had told me, (then)... [common usage] = protasis of Type 3 conditional in English.
> 
> Si me hubieras dicho, (entonces)... = protasis type 3 conditional
> Me (lo) hubieras dicho, (entonces)...  ungrammatical - you can't elide the 'si' from a Type 3 conditional protasis. You can substitute the DE conditional.
> ¡Me (lo) hubieras dicho! = Declarative sentence syntax, idiomatic = Deberías/Pudieras habérme(lo) dicho.
> 
> I don't know how more plainly I can explain it. Do you have any citations from your grammars that prove that 'Me hubieras dicho, entonces..' = Si me hubieras dicho, entonces.. ?? I would like to read that. Because I can't take only your word on this without some proof since none of my books and no natives support it. Thanks,Grant


.

Grant, It is very difficult to understand the different connectors of conditionals besides (SI) if you do not have my books. It seems that you are not aware that we have 9 groups of connectors, besides 'si', also we can elide the protasis, we can elide the apodosis, we can use the pluperfect subjunctive without 'Si'. All these possibilities are used and common that many of us use them even without noticing their usage. You have a tendency to focalize, to restrict the richness we have in Spanish for conditional structures besides the (if=conjunction). You have also in English to avoid the (if) conjunction : had you+pp, were you, should you have done, and some of the adverbial clauses with conditional, concessive, causative,etc. WE also have inversion of the subject in 'Universal concessive conditionals'
Again you should buy the 3 volumes of Nebrija-Bello, volume 3, numeral 57.1.1-57.10. In Spanish we have pratactical conditionals, without the usage of (if) and protasis with world creative verbs : Suponer, imaginar.

1- *Hubiera llovido* o no, habría ido a entrenar igualmente. (subjunctive pluperfect)
2- *llegue cuando llegue tu padre*, seguro que lo hará cargado de regalos. ( concesivo-condicional universales) e inversión del sujeto = padre
3- De llover no iría a entrenar ( de+infinitive= conditional).
Tanto haciendo deporte como sin hacerlo, se mantiene/mantenía/matendría/en forma.
4- Ande o no ande, es mejor caballo grande.
5- Sea trabajando sea amando, Milagros todo lo hace apasionadamente.
Con hijos o sin hijos, la vida es siempre complicada.

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

Ynez said:


> Ivy, maybe in your region it is very common to omit "si" in a sentence like:
> 
> SI hubieras venido, te lo habrías pasado fenomenal.
> 
> *Hubieras venido y lo habrías pasado fenomenal* ( condicional paratáctica)
> 
> I agree that's something one could hear, but I'd bet it is totally incorrect, so we'd better not go on with this...it's not very interesting, is it?
> 
> Newdestiny, we always -from the beginning- said that the most correct, official form is "habría" in a sentence like:
> 
> Si tú hubieras querido, él te lo habría explicado.
> *Si tú lo hubieras querido, el te lo hubiera explicado ( correct) Nebrija-Bello, RAE and Alarcos).*
> 
> But we wanted to point out both forms are correct according to Spanish grammars (Si tú hubieras querido, él te lo hubiera explicado) and that is something everybody must know:
> 
> - Foreign learners should know this because they may hear the second version more often than the first one (even if only in some regions, according to your book Grant).


 
Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> .
> 
> Grant, It is very difficult to understand the different connectors of conditionals besides (SI) if you do not have my books. It seems that you are not aware that we have 9 groups of connectors, besides 'si', also we can elide the protasis, we can elide the apodosis, we can use the pluperfect subjunctive without 'Si'. All these possibilities are used and common that many of us use them even without noticing their usage. You have a tendency to focalize, to restrict the richness we have in Spanish for conditional structures besides the (if=conjunction). You have also in English to avoid the (if) conjunction : had you+pp, were you, should you have done, and some of the adverbial clauses with conditional, concessive, causative,etc. WE also have inversion of the subject in 'Universal concessive conditionals'
> Again you should buy the 3 volumes of Nebrija-Bello, volume 3, numeral 57.1.1-57.10. In Spanish we have pratactical conditionals, without the usage of (if) and protasis with world creative verbs : Suponer, imaginar.
> 
> 1-  *Hubiera llovido* o no, habría ido a entrenar igualmente. (subjunctive pluperfect) THis is a new syntax -- and not the same as "me (lo) hubieras dicho".
> 2- *llegue cuando llegue tu padre*, seguro que lo hará cargado de regalos. ( concesivo-condicional universales) e inversión del sujeto = padre
> 3- De llover no iría a entrenar ( de+infinitive= conditional).
> Tanto haciendo deporte como sin hacerlo, se mantiene/mantenía/matendría/en forma.
> 4- Ande o no ande, es mejor caballo grande.
> 5- Sea trabajando sea amando, Milagros todo lo hace apasionadamente.
> Con hijos o sin hijos, la vida es siempre complicada.
> 
> Ivy29



Ivy, I am not trying to encase the amazing Spanish language. You are right that English has several ways to express their conditionals and SPanish does too. I am 'grateful' to learn about the paratactic conditional structure in Spanish. I am a learner -- you know that about me. But the issue is that you want to too broadly apply things and then you make conclusions about translations to English that don't work. In thread you've tried 2 different word orders in a protasis with 'should' that were not even close to correct. That ends up confusing the issue and I have to say something about those errors. Also there is no one on one relationship between every conditional type in Spanish to English. The paratactic conditional in Spanish translates to non-conditional sentences in English. So you can't substitute them as you've proposed. I agree with all the sentences you've shown there. Except the one with 'hubieras llovido o no'. Though it is also a 'different' syntax than "me lo hubieras dicho". You've changed variables again.

But I still do not see this in any of my books and no natives have supported it so far. I am asking you to write a paragraph from you books that would support a protasis Type 3 with the 'si' elided. Up to now -- they are your sentences. And I don't see them supported by any source but you. You would never accept that from me in English. So please prove your case. Otherwise I can't accept the 'hubieras' without the 'si' being a protasis. I'm pretty sure we agree it's the idiomatic expression for 'Deberías/Pudieras haber + PP'.  

I would never want to limit the expression of Spanish -- I just want to make sure that the structures that are posed on a forum are 'common' and 'correct' and not far-fetched or archaic. They may be fun to consider but impractical to learn for a student. That's why I clarify, and clarify and clarify in these threads.

Please take the time to write out what you source says about the 'hubiera' without the 'si'.

I see no examples of 'hubiera llovido o no' on Google. It doesn't exist. I see no examples where the 'si' is elided in examples of a search with 'hubiera * o no'. All the examples show a 'si' before the 'hubiera'. Nor do i see examples of 'Me hubieras dicho' with the 'si' elided. So I just need some proof. 

Grant


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

NewdestinyX said:


> I agree with all the sentences you've shown there. Except the one with 'hubieras llovido'. I do not see this in any of my books and no natives have supported.
> 
> Please take the time to write out what you source says about the 'hubiera' without the 'si'.
> 
> I see no examples of 'hubiera llovido o no' on Google. It doesn't exist. I see no examples where the 'si' is elided in examples of a search with 'hubiera * o no'. All the examples show a 'si' before the 'hubiera'. So I just need some proof.
> 
> Grant


I'm native. I support it with no reservations.

Hubiera llovido o no, habría/hubiera ido a entrenar igualmente.

Un saludo.

Pedro.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> I'm native. I support it with no reservations.
> 
> Hubiera llovido o no, habría/hubiera ido a entrenar igualmente.
> 
> Un saludo.
> 
> Pedro.



THanks Pedro. I guess I've confused the issue a bit in that -- Ivy, with this example has really changed the syntax here. "Llover" is an intransitive verb and could never be mistaken for any other meaning than a type 3 conditional. Additionally the 'o no' aspect makes it a different syntax as well. The real syntax with which I and other natives have real doubts is the sentence we've been discussing until the example above.

Would you also as enthusiastically accept something like this?:

Me (lo) hubieras dicho, entonces yo (lo) habría/huberia sabido.

Is the 'si' missing from that conditional normal and said every day in your experience?

Grant


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

NewdestinyX said:


> THanks Pedro. I guess I've confused the issue a bit in that -- Ivy, with this example has really changed the syntax here. "Llover" is an intransitive verb and could never be mistaken for any other meaning than a type 3 conditional. Additionally the 'o no' aspect makes it a different syntax as well. The real syntax with which I and other natives have real doubts is the sentence we've been discussing until the example above.
> 
> Would you also as enthusiastically accept something like this?:
> 
> Me (lo) hubieras dicho, entonces yo (lo) habría/huberia sabido.
> 
> Is the 'si' missing from that conditional normal and said every day in your experience?
> 
> Grant



 Would you also as enthusiastically  accept something like this?

You are right. I would not as enthusiastically accept that construction. In fact, I don't like "Me lo hubieras dicho" at all, even as it is, without conditionals. 

Is the 'si' missing from that conditional normal and said every day in your experience?

No. In my experience that structure is scarcely used, if used at all.

Regards,

Pedro.


----------



## Ynez

Hubiera venido María o no, yo me hubiera (habría) ido a la playa de todos modos.

Hubieras venido y te lo hubieras (habrías) pasado genial.

This was not the first type of example....like this, it is correct and the first clause means "you should have come".


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> Hubiera venido María o no, yo me hubiera (habría) ido a la playa de todos modos.
> 
> Hubieras venido y te lo hubieras (habrías) pasado genial.
> 
> This was not the first type of example....like this, it is correct and the first clause means "you should have come".



Thank you Ynez. So without the 'si' -- it ceases to be a conditional in the native mind. Right? And are you saying that the first sentence you wrote is also a non-conditional? That one seems conditional to me. 

Hubiera venido María o no, yo me habría ido....
Had María come or not../Whether María had come or not, I would have gone... =*conditional* (to me)

Hubieras venido y te lo habría pasado genial. =*modismo *que quiere decir: deberías haber venido
You should have come and you would have had a great time. 

That's how they translate to me and from my books.

But it seems that no matter how you slice it -- 'Me (lo) hubieras dicho'.., without the 'si' seems to only be able to be understood as 'You should have told me"

Do all my statements there match your understanding?

Grant
_____________________________________


Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Would you also as enthusiastically  accept something like this?
> 
> You are right. I would not as enthusiastically accept that construction. In fact, I don't like "Me lo hubieras dicho" at all, even as it is, without conditionals.



¿Ni siquiera con su aspecto de un 'modismo'? ¡Deberías habérmelo dicho! = ¡Me lo hubieras dicho! ?

But you would probably accept: 
¡Hubieras ido a la fiesta! Fue fenominal. 
Agreed?


> Is the 'si' missing from that conditional normal and said every day in your experience?
> 
> No. In my experience that structure is scarcely used, if used at all.


 ¿Pero 'con el "si"', sí se usa?

Gracias de antemano,
Grant


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> T
> 
> Hubiera venido María o no, yo me habría ido....
> Had María come or not../Whether María had come or not, I would have gone... =*conditional* (to me)
> 
> Hubieras venido y te lo habría pasado genial. =*modismo *que quiere decir: deberías haber venido
> You should have come and you would have had a great time.
> 
> Grant



I told you, everytime there is some "-ría" is conditional to me.

Grant, I think you are already clear about all this, aren't you? Ask for any example if you want to know.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> I told you, everytime there is some "-ría" is conditional to me.
> 
> Grant, I think you are already clear about all this, aren't you? Ask for any example if you want to know.



I'm sorry I should have been more precise in my question.

Hubieras ido a la fiesta. Fue fenominal.

That one is not conditional to you. Correct?

It is not for me that I am trying to establish an understanding, Ynez. It is for all the students here that are a little further behind on topics like this than I am. We need to know both what the books say and what the natives say. There has been a lot of potentially confusing opposing points of view here, mine included -- so I'm trying to slim everything down to the basics. We've had a broad discussion of conditionals here and I had pointed out early on that there is an idiomatic(modismático) usage in Spanish of 'hubiera', where 'hubiera' starts a sentence and doesn't appear as part of a conditional that is a modismo for 'deberías haber + PP'. As the thread went on it seemed that this syntax was also seen as a conditional where the 'si' had been left off. I have been trying to establish ever since that that is not the case.

I have learned though, that the 'si' can be left off when the syntax is 'hubiera + pp _ o no..., entonces...' and still be a conditional. That's good to know. But is not the same as: ¡Hubieras ido a la fiesta! which is not a conditional. 

Trying to be very precise here.

Thanks,
Grant


----------



## Ynez

I am happy enough if all this is interesting to you, but you must have in mind we are now dealing with very particular modisms/expressions.

Now, the conversation is strictly grammatical: you want to know if "Hubieras venido a la fiesta. Fue fenomenal" is a conditional sentence or not.

I can only say that I don't know the strict definition of "conditional sentence", but to me...the idea in the sentence is conditional as it is referring to things that could have been...because the real meaning is:

"You should have come to the party. It was great" = "Debe*rías* haber venido a la fiesta. Fue fenomenal".

But maybe some of our Spanish grammarians can tell you with more certainty if that sentence is considered "conditional" or not.

It is not one of the three typical types of conditionals with "if", that is not.

Go on asking


----------



## Ivy29

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Would you also as enthusiastically  accept something like this?
> 
> You are right. I would not as enthusiastically accept that construction. In fact, I don't like "Me lo hubieras dicho" at all, even as it is, without conditionals.
> 
> Is the 'si' missing from that conditional normal and said every day in your experience?
> 
> No. In my experience that structure is scarcely used, if used at all.
> 
> Regards,Pedro.


 
*Hubieras venido y lo hubieras (habrías) pasado genial.*
*Condicional paratáctica con la partícula copulativa (y).*
*The meaning of these clause are past unreal, type 3. The coming to a party and the enjoying didn't occur.*

*equivalent to : if you had come, you would have enjoyed a lot*
*Had you come and you would have enjoyed a lot. (type 3).*
*Te habrían acusado, de haberlo dicho es *equivalente* a :*
*te habrían acusado si lo hubieras dicho.*
*Escribir es llorar= si se escribe, se llora*
*Querer es poder = si se quiere, se puede.*

*Prótasis con gerundio :*

Viajando en avión , se gana tiempo= si se viaja en avión, se gana tiempo.
Pagando con dólares, uno no tenía ningún problema= *si uno pagaba con dólares, no tenía ningún problema.*
Este capítulo de los condicionales tiene casi cien páginas , tomo 3, numeral 57,1 pág 3647- numeral 57.10, página 3730. Nebrija-Bello.

Ivy29


----------



## Ynez

Ivy29 said:


> *Hubieras venido y lo hubieras (habrías) pasado genial.*
> *Condicional paratáctica con la partícula copulativa (y).*
> *The meaning of these clause are past unreal, type 3. The coming to a party and the enjoying didn't occur.*
> 
> *equivalent to : if you had come, you would have enjoyed a lot*



I agree the idea behind:

Hubieras venido y lo hubieras pasado genial.

which we already said is the same as:

Deberías haber venido. Te lo habrías pasado genial.

is also the same idea as:

Si hubieras venido te lo hubieras (habrías) pasado genial.

In my mind, the idea is the same one for all, yes


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Thank you Ynez. So without the 'si' -- it ceases to be a conditional in the native mind. Right? And are you saying that the first sentence you wrote is also a non-conditional? That one seems conditional to me.
> 
> Hubiera venido María o no, yo me habría ido....
> Had María come or not../Whether María had come or not, I would have gone... =*conditional* (to me)
> 
> Hubieras venido y te lo habría pasado genial. =*modismo *que quiere decir: deberías haber venido
> You should have come and you would have had a great time.
> 
> That's how they translate to me and from my books
> 
> But it seems that no matter how you slice it -- 'Me (lo) hubieras dicho'.., without the 'si' seems to only be able to be understood as 'You should have told me"
> 
> Do all my statements there match your understanding?
> 
> Gracias de antemano,Grant


 
That is a very simplistic viewpoint to state that no 'if' no conditional. Nebrija-Bello wrote almost 100 pages about conditionals, it is no archaic, it is not farfetched, but real and we use them in a daily basis without even noticing its usage.
WE can do many things with conditionals, no (if) , no apodosis, no protasis, with preposition 'de', 'con' and 'sin'.

*Me lo hubieras dicho y yo te lo hubiera/habría agradecido mucho.* (paratactic conditional with the particule (*y*). type 3 conditional
equivalent=
*Si me lo hubiera dicho, yo te lo hubiera/habría agradecido mucho (type 3.)*
It is not hard to see the type 3 conditional in both sentences.

Nebrija-Bello tomo 3, pág 3642- 37-30.

Ivy29


----------



## Ynez

Yes, Ivy, when you use "y" linking the sentences...


----------



## Ivy29

Ynez said:


> I agree the idea behind:
> 
> *Hubieras venido y lo hubieras pasado genial. (paratactical type 3 conditional)*
> *Equivalent to if you had come you would have enjoyed it a lot (type 3 conditional)*
> 
> which we already said is the same as:
> 
> Deberías haber venido. Te lo habrías pasado genial.
> *It is not the same, and it is not a paratactic conditional. It is simple two sentences with deberías is an obligation maybe a birthday party of your son or the husband or the wife or parents in-law, and the person entitled to come didn't. Almost a reproaching.*
> 
> is also the same idea as: *It is NOT.*
> 
> Si hubieras venido te lo hubieras (habrías) pasado genial.
> 
> In my mind, the idea is the same one for all, yes


 
*No, they are completely different.*

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Ivy, But the issue is that you want to too broadly apply things and then you make conclusions about translations to English that don't work. In thread you've tried 2 different word orders in a protasis with 'should' that were not even close to correct. That ends up confusing the issue and I have to say something about those errors. Also there is no one on one relationship between every conditional type in Spanish to English. The paratactic conditional in Spanish translates to non-conditional sentences in English. So you can't substitute them as you've proposed. I agree with all the sentences you've shown there. Except the one with 'hubieras llovido o no'. Though it is also a 'different' syntax than "me lo hubieras dicho". You've changed variables again.
> 
> But I still do not see this in any of my books and no natives have supported it so far. I am asking you to write a paragraph from you books that would support a protasis Type 3 with the 'si' elided. Up to now -- they are your sentences. And I don't see them supported by any source but you. You would never accept that from me in English. So please prove your case. Otherwise I can't accept the 'hubieras' without the 'si' being a protasis. I'm pretty sure we agree it's the idiomatic expression for 'Deberías/Pudieras haber + PP'.
> 
> I would never want to limit the expression of Spanish -- I just want to make sure that the structures that are posed on a forum are 'common' and 'correct' and not far-fetched or archaic. They may be fun to consider but impractical to learn for a student. That's why I clarify, and clarify and clarify in these threads. ( *almost 100 pages are enough to learn they are serious about the conditional in Spanish, I gave already my source*).
> 
> Please take the time to write out what you source says about the 'hubiera' without the 'si'.
> *I had already given you sentences and its equivalent with if. I wrote down my sources, and I am not willing to copy the whole page just because you do not believe it or it does not sound to you*.
> 
> I see no examples of 'hubiera llovido o no' on Google. It doesn't exist. I see no examples where the 'si' is elided in examples of a search with 'hubiera * o no'. All the examples show a 'si' before the 'hubiera'. Nor do i see examples of 'Me hubieras dicho' with the 'si' elided. So I just need some proof.Grant


*The above statement is a bold one. Then you should buy my books ( Nebrija-Bello) so you can read with your own eyes this extraordinary chapter of conditionals. Strange enough when I cited Google it does not worth a bit. It is certain that GOOGLE  does not have the level of grammar about conditional because the English conditionals are 4 types, we have more, even contrafactual present tense opposite to English.*
*Also we can elide the apodosis, protasis, and drop (if) with 9 group of connectors. *
*Me hubieras dicho y yo te lo hubiera/habría agradecido mucho ( this paratactic conditional is type 3 because is past, is linked with (y) particle, and logically because its equivalent is a type 3 standard conditional ( If you had told me ( protasis), I would +have appreciated a lot)  I do not see 'should here' as protasis, I do see* *openly If you had told me. In English the equivalent without 'if' is* *Had you told me. Why? because Oxford says so in his well-known book of grammar  numeral 256, number 3.*

*Ivy29*


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

NewdestinyX said:


> ¿Ni siquiera con su aspecto de un 'modismo'? ¡Deberías habérmelo dicho! = ¡Me lo hubieras dicho! ?


Ni siquiera.


NewdestinyX said:


> But you would probably accept:
> ¡Hubieras ido a la fiesta! Fue fenom*e*nal.
> Agreed?


I wouldn't use it. Nadie que yo conozca la usaría.


NewdestinyX said:


> ¿Pero 'con el "si"', sí se usa?


Sí, pero no la puedes dejar a medias, claro:
Si hubieras ido a la fiesta. Fue fenomenal.
Si hubieras ido a la fiesta te lo hubieras pasado fenomenal.

Otras formas de expresarse donde yo vivo podrían ser:
Tendrías que haber venido a la fiesta. Te lo hubieras pasado genial/Estuvo muy bien, etc...
Deberías haber venido a la fiesta... [esta es más crítica].



Ivy29 said:


> *Hubieras venido y lo hubieras (habrías) pasado genial.*
> *Condicional paratáctica con la partícula copulativa (y).*
> *The meaning of these clause are past unreal, type 3. The coming to a party and the enjoying didn't occur.*


*
*No lo pongo en duda. Es solo que esta forma de expresarse, en mi entorno, es considerada vulgar.


Ivy29 said:


> *Te habrían acusado, de haberlo dicho es *equivalente* a :*
> *te habrían acusado si lo hubieras dicho.*
> *Escribir es llorar= si se escribe, se llora*
> *Querer es poder = si se quiere, se puede.*


*
*Absolutamente de acuerdo.


Ivy29 said:


> *Prótasis con gerundio :*
> 
> Viajando en avión , se gana tiempo= si se viaja en avión, se gana tiempo.
> Pagando con dólares, uno no tenía ningún problema= *si uno pagaba con dólares, no tenía ningún problema.*


Absolutamente de acuerdo.



Ynez said:


> I agree the idea behind:
> 
> Hubieras venido y lo hubieras pasado genial.
> 
> which we already said is the same as:
> 
> Deberías haber venido. Te lo habrías pasado genial.
> 
> is also the same idea as:
> 
> Si hubieras venido te lo hubieras (habrías) pasado genial.
> 
> In my mind, the idea is the same one for all, yes


Me llama la atención Ynez, al ser tú de Madrid como lo soy yo, que  "Hubieras venido y lo hubieras  pasado  genial" te suene bien. De escucharla en la calle la interpretaría como "[pues] haber venido, te lo hubieras pasado genial".


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> NewdestinyX said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you would probably accept:
> ¡Hubieras ido a la fiesta! Fue fenom*e*nal.
> Agreed?
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't use it. Nadie que yo conozca la usaría.
Click to expand...


That is so strange. Because I have many natives that back this usage on both sides of the ocean. I originally heard it from a Mexican professor friend of mine -- but then I asked my Spanish friends too and they agreed and Ynez is from Spain and she accepts it. The Grammar books speak of it too. Very strange that you wouldn't accept it and say that you no of noone that would. ;-)


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

NewdestinyX said:


> That is so strange. Because I have many natives that back this usage on both sides of the ocean. I originally heard it from a Mexican professor friend of mine -- but then I asked my Spanish friends too and they agreed and Ynez is from Spain and she accepts it. The Grammar books speak of it too. Very strange that you wouldn't accept it and say that you no of noone that would. ;-)


Yes. Yesterday I told about it to my family and friends. Everyone agreed: They would never say _¡Hubieras ido a la fiesta! Estuvo fenomenal_, but _¡Deberías haber venido a la fiesta! Estuvo fenomenal_, or _¡Si hubieras venido a la fiesta te lo hubieras pasado fenomenal! _Intriguing...


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> *The above statement is a bold one. Then you should buy my books ( Nebrija-Bello) so you can read with your own eyes this extraordinary chapter *of about* conditionals. Strangely enough when I *cited cite* Google it does not *worth a bit show anything/help at all*. It is certain that GOOGLE  does not have the level of grammar *about with regard tothe* conditional because the English conditionals are in 4 types, we have more, even contrafactual present tense which is the opposite *to of* English.*
> *Also we can elide the apodosis, protasis, and drop (if) with 9 groups of connectors. *
> *Me hubieras dicho y yo te lo hubiera/habría agradecido mucho ( this paratactic conditional is type 3 because it is past, and is linked with (y) particle, and l**ogically* *so,** because its equivalent is a type 3 standard conditional ( If you had told me ( protasis), I would +have appreciated a lot)  I do not see 'should here' as protasis, I do see* *openly* *clearly** If you had told me. In English the equivalent without 'if' is* *Had you told me. Why? because Oxford says so in his well-known book of grammar  numeral 256, number 3.*
> 
> *Ivy29*



I doubt that I need to buy more books to know what is normal Spanish and used everyday. You have not proven to me that "¡Me (lo) hubieras dicho!", as an exclamation, is a conditional. You have asserted that those 3 words can be used in a Spanish paratactic conditional. That is great and maybe I can learn something. But that was not my question to you originally. Additionally and most important -- You also have not been able to show an example from NebBello that uses Type 3 conditional wording in the paratactic structure. The example above is your example, I believe, and it does not follow the structure of the examples in NebBello Tomo 3 section (a). The degree to which NebBello gets very specific would require that their examples also be very specific. Do they show a 'type 3' wording with 'hubieras' in their examples of paratactic conditionals? And if it is so common and everyday usage -- why would the writings in Google from all over the Spanish speaking world not show even 1 example of this usage? I'm sorry -- but I cannot accept as common a usage I can not verify in common writings in a world reknown search engine. 

You know me -- and I am willing to learn and grow and change. But I have to see evidence of 'common' usage. Not -- far-fetched usage that only exists in volumes like NebBello for academia.

I have no more to add to the discussion about "Hubieras...." when it starts a sentence. There are many other things about conditionals we could discuss but I am satisfied from my Grammars and native input here that when 'Hubiera + PP" starts a sentence in Spanish it is an exclamation outwardly that someone 'should have' done something and they would have enjoyed it -- or an expression of exasperation that a person didn't experience something and they could have.

Grant


----------



## Ivy29

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Otras formas de expresarse donde yo vivo podrían ser:
> Tendrías que haber venido a la fiesta. Te lo hubieras pasado genial/Estuvo muy bien, etc...
> Deberías haber venido a la fiesta... [esta es más crítica].
> 
> 
> [/b]No lo pongo en duda. Es solo que esta forma de expresarse, en mi entorno, es considerada vulgar.
> 
> [/color][/b]Absolutamente de acuerdo.
> Absolutamente de acuerdo.
> 
> 
> Me llama la atención Ynez, al ser tú de Madrid como lo soy yo, que "Hubieras venido y lo hubieras pasado genial" te suene bien. De escucharla en la calle la interpretaría como "[pues] haber venido, te lo hubieras pasado genial".


 
*No entiendo Pedro qué es vulgar para tí, en la oración de más arriba :  Hubieras ido a la fiesta y lo hubieras pasado genial.*

Ivy29


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Ivy29 said:


> *No entiendo Pedro qué es vulgar para tí, en la oración de más arriba :  Hubieras ido a la fiesta y lo hubieras pasado genial.*


Hola Ivy:

Las frases del tipo:

Me lo hubieras dicho y te habría acompañado (por: Si me lo hubieras dicho te habría acompañado) en mi entorno son percibidas como vulgares.

Un saludo.

Pedro.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> I doubt that I need to buy more books to know what is normal Spanish and used everyday. You have not proven to me that "¡Me (lo) hubieras dicho!", as an exclamation, is a conditional. You have asserted that those 3 words can be used in a Spanish paratactic conditional. That is great and maybe I can learn something. But that was not my question to you originally. Additionally and most important -- You also have not been able to show an example from NebBello that uses Type 3 conditional wording in the paratactic structure. The example above is your example, I believe, and it does not follow the structure of the examples in NebBello Tomo 3 section (a). The degree to which NebBello gets very specific would require that their examples also be very specific. Do they show a 'type 3' wording with 'hubieras' in their examples of paratactic conditionals? And if it is so common and everyday usage -- why would the writings in Google from all over the Spanish speaking world not show even 1 example of this usage? I'm sorry -- but I cannot accept as common a usage I can not verify in common writings in a world reknown search engine.
> 
> You know me -- and I am willing to learn and grow and change. But I have to see evidence of 'common' usage. Not -- far-fetched usage that only exists in volumes like NebBello for academia.
> 
> I have no more to add to the discussion about "Hubieras...." when it starts a sentence. There are many other things about conditionals we could discuss but I am satisfied from my Grammars and native input here that when 'Hubiera + PP" starts a sentence in Spanish it is an exclamation outwardly that someone 'should have' done something and they would have enjoyed it -- or an expression of exasperation that a person didn't experience something and they could have.
> Grant


Thank you for your corrections about my English writing

I have written examples with hubiera+ pp starting the clause.
Hubiera venido o no, habria ido a entrenar igualmente.
Hubiera llovido *o *no, hubiera ido a entrenar de todas maneras. 
Hubiera ido a la fiesta *y *lo habría pasado muy a gusto.
Hubiera ido a la fiesta *y *lo hubiera pasado super bien.
I am surprised that you cannot see the equivalents (if) conditional of the above :
si hubiera venido o no, habría/hubiera ido a entrenar igualmente
Si hubiera ido a la fiesta, lo habría/hubiera pasado genial/ super bien/ maravillosamente.
*I am shocked that you cannot see that these equivalents rewording are TYPE 3 conditional , aren't they ???*
Let me remind you once more that paratactic conditional structures are :
1- (y) connector
Aprueba el curso en Junio *y *te regalaré una moto.
Toca ami hermana *y* te parto la cara.
2.- (o) connector :
No tomes más el sol *o *acabarás con un melanoma.
Hubiera llovido *o *no, habría ido a entrenar/ a la fiesta/ a cine.
3.- Y con un primer miembro interrogativo total :
¿quieres pelear) Pues la tendrás
si quieres pelea, la tendrás.
¿quieres beber algo? Voy a buscártelo .
Si quieres beber algo, voy a buscártelo
Grant are those sentences above strange, rare or farfetched ? I cannot believe so.
Besides all these sentences are standard, daily usage; I cannot understand your surmising if you haven't heard these very different types of conditionals they do not exist because you do not know them or your friends don't know either these different types of conditional beyond the standard ones ( 4 types) Also it does not fit in my mind that NEBRIJA-BELLO volumes 3 has written almost 100 pages with multiple examples and you still don't want to see and trying to qualify them as rare, strange, unusual or farfeched the most common examples in the Spanish language mentioned above. Or you see them, Grant , as strange or farfetched ones ??? I am not going to write down pages and pages to clear your lack of understanding in my vernacular language. I gave the examples, clear as the most, and the sources so it is up to you to accept them or not. If you do not see the equivalent rephrasing of the paratactic conditional, then you do not wish to see them and that's your personal choice.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

El problema, Ivy -- es esto:

Mira los escritos de NebBello:

Let me remind you once more that paratactic conditional structures are :
1- (y) connector
Aprueba el curso en Junio *y *te regalaré una moto.
Toca ami hermana *y* te parto la cara.
2.- (o) connector :
No tomes más el sol *o *acabarás con un melanoma.
Hubiera llovido *o *no, habría ido a entrenar/ a la fiesta/ a cine.
3.- Y con un primer miembro interrogativo total :
¿quieres pelear) Pues la tendrás
si quieres pelea, la tendrás.

Ahora -- dime -- Is there even *one* example in numeral 1 con 'hubiera'???? No -- of course not. Why not? Because it is not used. And yet you try to offer an example with 'y' and hubiera. No existe. NebBello is very, very explicit -- they would leave nothing to the imagination.

With the 'o' connector -- I learned something and I'm grateful. As you know I am a voracious student of Spanish. In the formation: Hubiera ____ o no -- we do indeed have the protasis of a conditional just like the de conditional which translates to "had I .......". Good. Agreed. 

But the syntax we were studying and which I asked you about was a simple exclamation without a second clause.

¡Me (lo) hubieras dicho! --- That is 'not' a conditional of any kind. And the first example you tried to give me was: Me hubieras dicho, *y *habría....... -- and that is not an example of a paratactic with 'y' connector. At least NebBello does not show it nor suggest it -- and the other natives here reject it.

So let me be clear. I accept that 'Hubiera llovido o no, + apódosis' = Si hubiera llovido, (entonces) + apódosis = De haber llovido, + apódosis.

But I do not accept: 
"Hubiera + PP, y habría..." (agramatical)

and I do not accept that:
¡Me (lo) hubieras dicho! es una condicional paratáctica.

Eso es todo. 

Tengamos cuidado que entendemos las cosas en las que coincidimos.

Grant


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> El problema, Ivy -- es esto:
> 
> Mira los escritos de NebBello:
> 
> Let me remind you once more that paratactic conditional structures are :
> 1- (y) connector
> Aprueba el curso en Junio *y *te regalaré una moto.
> Toca ami hermana *y* te parto la cara.
> 2.- (o) connector :
> No tomes más el sol *o *acabarás con un melanoma.
> Hubiera llovido *o *no, habría ido a entrenar/ a la fiesta/ a cine.
> 3.- Y con un primer miembro interrogativo total :
> ¿quieres pelear) Pues la tendrás
> si quieres pelea, la tendrás


.

*Oh, come on Grant, are you naive to believe if a structure is not exactly like the examples it is not correct, come on Grant.*



			
				Newdestiny said:
			
		

> Ahora -- dime -- Is there even *one* example in numeral 1 con 'hubiera'???? No -- of course not. Why not? Because it is not used. And yet you try to offer an example with 'y' and hubiera. No existe. NebBello is very, very explicit -- they would leave nothing to the imagination


 
Oh my Goodness!!, remember that PARATAXIS ( paratactic adjective) means coordination, according to Nebrija-Bello are 'pseudocoordinating particles'. (y) is a coordinating particle better connector, (o) is a coordinating partcle, better a connector. 
I wonder what makes you believe you cannot use the imperfect subjunctive or the pluperfect subjunctive if you wish in a paratactic conditional to utter something you do not want to occur. If you recall a clause in a conditional sentence usually they have a subject, a verb and complement, at least a subject and a verb, remember that the conditionals have a PROTASIS and an APODOSIS, or antecedent and consequent or you believe naively that we cannot use tenses, moods, and aspects in the many other conditionals we have in Spanish, including these ones and anothers



			
				Newdestinyx said:
			
		

> With the 'o' connector -- I learned something and I'm grateful. As you know I am a voracious student of Spanish. In the formation: Hubiera ____ o no -- we do indeed have the protasis of a conditional just like the de conditional which translates to "had I .......". Good. Agreed


*Now you agree with the connector (o), and do not with a connector (y), how come !!!*



			
				 NewdestinyX said:
			
		

> But the syntax we were studying and which I asked you about was a simple exclamation without a second clause(=*apodosis*)


*Are you misled by an admiration mark??, we have paratactic conditional with complete interrogation mark (¿?) read above again.*



			
				 NewdestinyX said:
			
		

> ¡Me (lo) hubieras dicho! --- That is 'not' a conditional of any kind. And the first example you tried to give me was: Me hubieras dicho, *y *habría....... -- and that is not an example of a paratactic with 'y' connector. At least NebBello does not show it nor suggest it -- and the other natives here reject it.


.

Again, who said it is not a conditional? you or your friends?? based on what??, or maybe them do not know what is a *silent apodosis.*



			
				 Newdestiny said:
			
		

> So let me be clear. I accept that 'Hubiera llovido o no, + apódosis' = Si hubiera llovido, (entonces) + apódosis = De haber llovido, + apódosis.
> But I do not accept:
> "Hubiera + PP, y habría..." (agramatical)


*May I ask you why is it agrammatical?? or you have forgotten in English the possibilities in the apodosis or protasis combinations between type 2 and type 3???*



			
				 Newdestiny said:
			
		

> and I do not accept that:
> ¡Me (lo) hubieras dicho! es una condicional paratáctica


 
It is a conditional with a silent apodosis, it belongs to the type 3. Me lo hubiera dicho is a pluperfect subjunctive. Look carefully:

Me lo hubieras dicho y te lo habría/hubiera agradecido ( the action didn't occur!!) but you would like it to happen but didn't. It is a paratactic conditional look the connector and of course the sense of the structure, the equivalent is *if you had told me it, I would have thanked you a lot. BUT because there is no 'if' in the Spanish counterpart conditional we can use the English counterpart without 'if' had you told me'.*
*¡Me lo hubiera dicho! (don't get confused by the admiration marks) it is a simple conditional without apodosis, the protasis is ¡me lo hubieras dicho! usually the admiration marks mean that you are surprised for whatever was not said.*
*¡Me lo hubieras dicho! is exactly the same ¡si me lo hubieras dicho!*
*The particle 'if' in the first one is implied, in the second is there but not necessary.*

*¿quieres salir? entonces saldremos, the 'if' is not in the interrogative clause= SI quieres salir, saldremos.*

*Do your best to get the 3 volumes of Nebrija-Bello, and you will learn a little more about the Spanish Language.*

*Ivy29*


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> .
> 
> *Oh, come on Grant, are you naive to believe if a structure is not exactly like the examples it is not correct, come on Grant.*



As I said you are trying to too broadly apply a syntax. It is far-fetched in my opinion and beyond the scope of what NebBello is trying to teach. They are using 'common' examples for each connector.

In the same way it would be nonsense to say: " Aprueba, *o* no, el curso en Junio, te regalaré...." --- Hubiera + PP *y*.. habría -- is equally far-fetched. Grammar volumes such as 'NebBello" are 'exhaustive' -- they show the types of syntaxes than can be used in their examples. You cannot substitute any syntax in place of what's there. With the '*y*' connector Type 0 and Type 1 conditionals are the structures permitted. 'Not' Type 3. Type 3's with the structure -- hubiera + PP o no... can take the '*o*' connecter -- but not 'y'. It is very plain from NebBello.

*But I won't debate any further with you.* You are free to apply and teach these principles as broadly as you wish. But it is very plain to me what it what. So clear. I am not confused in the slightest about paratactics as taught from NebBello and I know that my original sentence is not a paratactic conditional with a silent apodosis. At least the entry from NB that you posted does not support it. My original sentence is a simple idiomatic use of '¡Hubiera +PP..!' in place of 'tendrías que haber + PP'/deberías que haber + PP.

Thanks for your input. I personally am ready to move on now. Maybe others have questions about other conditional structures.

Un saludo,
Grant


----------



## Ivy29

Ivy29 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ivy29*
> 
> 
> Hubiera ido a la fiesta y de seguro la habría pasado muy bien.
> *Should I have gone to that party, I would have enjoyed it for sure. *(not the right translation)
> I should have gone to the party and I surely would have enjoyed it.
> 
> 
> 
> I* am sorry to disagree. I would recommend you reading in NEBRIJA-BELLO *
> *Tomo 3, numeral 57.6 the following :*
> 
> *Condicionales paratácticas*
> 'La condicionalidad' se puede expresar a través de estructuras pseudo-coordinadas de tres tipos :
> 
> a.- Con la partícula copulativa (y)
> 
> Hubiera ido a la fiesta Y de seguro la habría pasado muy bien.
> Aprueba todo el curso en junio Y te compraré una moto.
> 
> b.- Con la partícula disyuntiva (o)
> Acaba la comida *o *no verás tele.
> No tomes más el sol *o *acabarás con un melanoma.
> 
> c.- Con un primer miembro interrogativo total
> 
> ¿quieres beber algo? voy a buscártelo.
> ¿ Quieres pelea? pues la tendrás
> 
> *Todas equivalen a condicionales con 'si'*
> 
> Si apruebas todo el curso en junio, te compraré un auto.
> Si no acaba la comida, no verás la tele.
> Si tomas más el sol, acabarás con un melanoma.
> si quieres beber algo, voy a buscártelo.
> si quieres pelea la tendrás
> 
> *Hubiera ido a la fiesta y de seguro la habría pasado muy bien=*
> *Si hubiera ido a la fiesta, la habría pasado muy bien.*
> *Should I have gone to the party, surely I would have enjoyed it.*
> *I should have gone to the party, surely I would have enjoyed it .*
> 
> *My sentences are  'paratáctica' conditionals*
> 
> *Ivy29*


----------



## Ivy29

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Hola Ivy:
> 
> Las frases del tipo:
> 
> Me lo hubieras dicho y te habría acompañado (por: Si me lo hubieras dicho te habría acompañado) en mi entorno son percibidas como vulgares.
> 
> Un saludo.
> 
> Pedro.


 
*Sigo sin entender por qué son vulgares*, si son condiconales paratácticas.

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> As I said you are trying to too broadly apply a syntax. It is far-fetched in my opinion and beyond the scope of what NebBello is trying to teach. They are using 'common' examples for each connector.
> 
> In the same way it would be nonsense to say: " Aprueba, *o* no, el curso en Junio, te regalaré...." --- Hubiera + PP *y*.. habría -- is equally far-fetched. Grammar volumes such as 'NebBello" are 'exhaustive' -- they show the types of syntaxes than can be used in their examples. You cannot substitute any syntax in place of what's there. With the '*y*' connector Type 0 and Type 1 conditionals are the structures permitted. 'Not' Type 3. Type 3's with the structure -- hubiera + PP o no... can take the '*o*' connecter -- but not 'y'. It is very plain from NebBello.Un saludo,
> Grant


 
Aprueba el curso en Junio y te regalaré un carro
*Apruebe el curso o no, en junio, te regalaré un carro. ( this is very common with very gifted parents with their kids. (permissive ones) and is very common and used on daily basis. perfect Spanish = *
*Si apruebas o no, en junio te regalaré un carro. (perfect Spanish).*
*Si aprobaras el curso en junio, te regalaría un carro ( perfect Spanish)*
*Si hubieras aprobado el curso en junio, te hubiera/habría regalado un carro. ( perfect Spanish).*
*Me hubieras regalado un carro en Junio y estaría feliz*
*Me hubieras regalado un carro en junio, y habría estado feliz*


*Now I am more convinced than ever you should buy those 3 volumes to leave the nick and enjoy the gratifying reading of Nebrija-Bello.*

*Grammar is not a matter that pleases you or not, it is a question of knowledge.*
I am surprised that a connector (y) is different from a connector (o) being both part of the rules to considered them paratactic conditionals.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Aprueba el curso en Junio y te regalaré un carro
> *Apruebe el curso o no, en junio, te regalaré un carro.  (this is not a conditional syntax - there is no conditional -- simple declaration)*
> *Si apruebas o no, en junio te regalaré un carro. (perfect Spanish). (**(common type 1 conditional)*
> *Si aprobaras el curso en junio, te regalaría un carro ( perfect Spanish)**(common type 2 conditional)*
> *Si hubieras aprobado el curso en junio, te hubiera/habría regalado un carro. ( perfect Spanish).**(common type 3 conditional)*
> *Me hubieras regalado un carro en Junio y estaría feliz **(agramatical - time concordance problems)*
> *Me hubieras regalado un carro en junio, y habría estado feliz (still not convinced this is common or a conditional) *



All the ones you've marked as 'perfect Spanish' are very common Type 1, 2 and 3 conditionals. Agreed -- perfect Spanish. Their syntaxes are all easily identified and standard - even though you added a connector 'o' in the first one -- it's a common Type 1 conditional -- not a paratactic.

But the last two sentences with 'me hubieras... y...' just don't make any sense to me in Spanish or English. And I'm not alone. But you know I will keep studying. 

Even with the broadest of search parameters in Google you get this result:
_________________________________________________________

Web Results *1* - *2* of *2* for * "me hubieras * y estaría"*.  (*0.33* seconds)  Tip: Try removing quotes from your search to get more results.*MercadoLibre México*

 - [ Translate this page ]Replica:, amigo hay que respetar las politicas de venta, si no la querias *me* *hubieras dicho. y no estaria* esperando. Comprador:, FREAKDEVIL777 (38) · 10 a *...*
www.mercadolibre.com.mx/jm/profile?id=78464226 - 90k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
*Liniers: Cosas que te pasan si estás vivo: Ruido-*

 - [ Translate this page ]Seguramente *me hubieras dicho que no y yo estaria* triste... Prefiero seguir feliz con tus chistes.  10:27 PM; Fortunato said... Liniers... sí, los pingüinos, *...*
macanudoliniers.blogspot.com/2006/06/ruido.html - 119k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> All the ones you've marked as 'perfect Spanish' are very common Type 1, 2 and 3 conditionals. Agreed -- perfect Spanish. Their syntaxes are all easily identified and standard - even though you added a connector 'o' in the first one -- it's a common Type 1 conditional -- not a paratactic.
> 
> But the last two sentences with 'me hubieras... y...' just don't make any sense to me in Spanish or English. And I'm not alone. But you know I will keep studying


.

Grant the first one is also a paratactic conditional, Nebrija-Bello page 3697, letter (b) which I quote to help you understand this type of conditionals 



Nebrija-Bello said:


> Una determinada correlación temporal, adecuada a la expresión de causa-consecuencia, relación sobre la que se basan estos esquemas, y que en el tipo de ejemplos que estamos analizando (condicionales paratácticas) exige tiempos de *presente* o de *imperativo* en el primer miembro y de presente o futuro en el segundo. En la página 3699 : *'Le hubieras dado un libro y se le caería de las manos'*


*.*

*Happily you have ALARCOS, numeral 450, read it and you can see there that the apodosis could be postpreterite ( simple conditional), and antepospreterite, and pluperfect subjunctive.*

*


			
				 NewdestinyX said:
			
		


Me hubieras regalado un carro en Junio y estaría feliz (agramatical - time concordance problems) Read Alarcos, numeral 450.

Click to expand...

*


			
				 NewdestinyX said:
			
		

> *Me hubieras regalado un carro en junio, y habría estado feliz (still not convinced this is common or a conditional) **Paratactic conditional read above example le hubiera regalado un libro...*


*.*

*Ivy29*


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> ..y que en el tipo de ejemplos que estamos analizando (condicionales paratácticas) exige tiempos de *presente* o de *imperativo* en el primer miembro y de presente o futuro en el segundo.*9*



Aren't the words of NB clear there?? Presente y Imperativo (en el premier miembro..)..

Since when is 'hubiera' presente o imperativo??????

NB makes my point perfectly.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> But the last two sentences with 'me hubieras... y...' just don't make any sense to me in Spanish or English. And I'm not alone. But you know I will keep studying.


 
*Me hubieras dado un carro en junio y estaría feliz ( perfect Spanish) it means that in the eventuality you had given me a car I would be happy, but it didn`t happen Type 3 conditional). I would like to know which  native does not agree with the above sentence*

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Aren't the words of NB clear there?? Presente y Imperativo (en el premier miembro..)..
> 
> Since when is 'hubiera' presente o imperativo??????
> 
> NB makes my point perfectly.


 
You didn't read the page 3699 and the example. Of course in the examples given but in the explanation of the timing 3699 gives you the other example about *le hubiera regalado un libro y se le caería de la mano.*
*Don't play games Grant with me. Don't cut my quotings, that is no fair with the students. You do not have the books of Nebrija-Bello.*
*Did you read ALARCOS ??? numeral 450.*


*Ivy29*


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Hola Ivy:
> 
> Las frases del tipo:
> 
> Me lo hubieras dicho y te habría acompañado (por: Si me lo hubieras dicho te habría acompañado) en mi entorno son percibidas como vulgares.
> 
> Un saludo.
> 
> Pedro.





Ivy29 said:


> *Sigo sin entender por qué son vulgares*, si son condiconales paratácticas.
> 
> Ivy29


Tras pensarlo detenidamente, creo que en mi entorno son percibidas como vulgares porque no se han leído el NEBRIJA-BELLO*. *Así que no te preocupes Ivy.

Un abrazote.

Pedro.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> You didn't read the page 3699 and the example.


 You didn't cite with context the contents of 3699. Only one sentence "out of context" and with no explanation. 



> Of course in the examples given but in the explanation of the timing 3699 gives you the other example about *le hubiera regalado un libro y se le caería de la mano.*
> *Don't play games Grant with me. Don't cut my quotings, that is no fair with the students.*


 There was nothing to 'cut'. Your quote was only a sentence. I have played no game, Ivy. You offered only a 'disconnected sentence' from context or explanation. Tell us what NB says on page 3699 where the quote appears. In what list is it offered? In what syntax? With what explanation?



> Did you read ALARCOS ??? numeral 450.


 I have yet to read Alarcos -- but you know I will!

We need more of 3699 to make sure the interpretation and application is also concerning paratactic conditionals of the type with the 'y' connector.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Hola Ivy:
> 
> Las frases del tipo:
> 
> Me lo hubieras dicho y te habría acompañado (por: Si me lo hubieras dicho te habría acompañado) en mi entorno son percibidas como vulgares.
> 
> Un saludo.
> 
> Pedro.



Pedro,
¿En qué sentido usas 'vulgar' en esa oración? ¿1 ó 2?

*vulgar* _adjetivo_ 
*1* _(corriente, común)_ common 
*2* _(falto de elegancia)_ vulgar


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

NewdestinyX said:


> Pedro,
> ¿En qué sentido usas 'vulgar' en esa oración? ¿1 ó 2?
> 
> *vulgar* _adjetivo_
> *1* _(corriente, común)_ common
> *2* _(falto de elegancia)_ vulgar


Hola NewdestinyX:

La uso con este:
*vulgar**1**.*
 (Del lat. _vulgāris_).
*3.     * adj. Que es impropio de personas cultas o educadas.

Porque la otra (tu nº1) es sólo por contraposición a _especial_ o _técnico, _que en este contexto no tiene sentido, o bien: Que no tiene especialidad particular en su línea, es decir: del montón, adocenado, que tampoco lo tiene.
*vulgar**1**.*
 (Del lat. _vulgāris_).
*2.     * adj. Común o general, *por contraposición a especial o *_*técnico*.
_* 5.     * adj. Que no tiene especialidad particular en su línea.

Un saludo.

Pedro.


----------



## Ivy29

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Tras pensarlo detenidamente, creo que en mi entorno son percibidas como vulgares porque no se han leído el NEBRIJA-BELLO*. *Así que no te preocupes Ivy.
> Un abrazote.
> Pedro.


 
*Pedro, si por vulgar tu entiendes de uso común y corriente, es válido. Esta oración no sólo es gramatical sino semántica y sintácticamente correcta.*
*El hecho de no ser leída por lectores o estudiantes que no posean a Nebrija-Bello, no concluye que sean incorrectas. La existencia de condicionales paratácticas es un tema de una de las condicionales que en este texto, editado por la RAE, ocupa casi 100 páginas.*



			
				 Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:
			
		

> La uso con este:
> *vulgar1.
> *(Del lat. _vulgāris_).
> *3. *adj. Que es impropio de personas cultas o educadas.


 
Esta afirmación es peregrina y sin fundamento, según el texto de Nebrija-Bello. Creo educada la publicación con el aval de la RAE, y además no creo que Nebrija-Bello le dedique al lenguaje vulgar según tu definición casi 100 páginas. No lo ceo y no la comparto

*Yo me preocupo por la verdad, por la seriedad de mis libros y fuentes,*
Feliz día 
Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

Ivy29 said:


> Me llama la atención Ynez, al ser tú de Madrid como lo soy yo, que "Hubieras venido y lo hubieras pasado genial" te suene bien. De escucharla en la calle la interpretaría como "[pues] haber venido, te lo hubieras pasado genial".


 
Lo siento Pedro P. Morcillo, *haber venido. te lo hubieras pasado genial*, es *incorrecta*, tal vez querías decir : *DE haber venido, te lo hubieras pasado bien. La preposición 'DE' con infinitivo para significar una condicional.*

*Ivy29*


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Would you also as enthusiastically accept something like this?:
> 
> *Me (lo) hubieras dicho, entonces yo (lo) habría/huberia sabido.*
> 
> Is the 'si' missing from that conditional normal and said every day in your experience?
> Grant


 
You are changing the structure as usual of the above sentence. The above sentece :
Me lo hubieras dicho *y *yo lo habría /hubiera sabido, is the exact sentence with the conector (y). It is misleading and incorrect the one you quote to Pedro P. Morcillo.

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Aren't the words of NB clear there?? Presente y Imperativo (en el premier miembro..)..
> 
> Since when is 'hubiera' presente o imperativo??????
> 
> NB makes my point perfectly.


 
It is amazing that you do not realize that an Imperative structure , besides being a defective personal verb , it has only present tense : tú, él, vosotros. Let me remind you that in the negative form uses the present subjunctive inflections. You have Alarcos, read numeral 210-212. If the examples of Nebrija-Bello use imperative forms they should follow the rules of the imperative form. Of course, if it is a *menace, reward uses the imperati*ve or present tense, otherwise they use the same standard patterns of any conditional as the ones everyone knows. Imperfect subjunctive = me hubiera dicho, me lo hubiera dicho and the conector (y) or (o). There are some exceptions.
So how can you say it makes your case. It is unbelievable!

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> It is amazing that you do not realize that an Imperative structure , besides being a defective personal verb , it has only present tense : tú, él, vosotros. Let me remind you that in the negative form uses the present subjunctive inflections. You have Alarcos, read numeral 210-212. If the examples of Nebrija-Bello use imperative forms they should follow the rules of the imperative form. Of course, if it is a *menace, reward uses the imperati*ve or present tense, otherwise they use the same standard patterns of any conditional as the ones everyone knows. Imperfect subjunctive = me hubiera dicho, me lo hubiera dicho and the conector (y) or (o). There are some exceptions.
> So how can you say it makes your case. It is unbelievable!
> 
> Ivy29



This is becoming a rambling -- and I haven't any interest in continuing. All of the native speakers I ask about this tell me what Pedro has said -- that this 'paratactical conditional' with 'hubiera......, y........' is not common and 'vulgar'. Additionally they tell me that, if it's used, it means 'should have' in the first part of the sentence and is not conditional at all.

You won't post for us the context of the sentence from page 3699 so I have to conclude that there's something there that would negate your assertions or you would have written it for us.

There is no way to convince you otherwise so I can't and won't. Thanks for all the time you've spent writing your sources. I summarily have to dismiss your interpretation of the writings and the examples you pose as normal with 'hubiera....,y ...' but I appreciate the interchange and the time you take to explain yourself, Ivy.

Buen día,
Grant


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Ivy29 said:


> Lo siento Pedro P. Morcillo, *haber venido. te lo hubieras pasado genial*, es *incorrecta*, tal vez querías decir : *DE haber venido, te lo hubieras pasado bien. La preposición 'DE' con infinitivo para significar una condicional.*


No lo sientas, la escribí precisamente porque me parecía vulgar. En cualquier caso, lo que me parezca a mí y a los de mi entorno no tiene por qué ser la Verdad Absoluta. Te agradezco tu aprecio por mi opinión, pero en eso queda: Una opinión. No tengo el menor interés en investigar en este asunto. Me parece bastante peregrino.

Un saludo.
Pedro.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> This is becoming a rambling -- and I haven't any interest in continuing. All of the native speakers I ask about this tell me what Pedro has said -- that this 'paratactical conditional' with 'hubiera......, y........' is not common and 'vulgar'. Additionally they tell me that, if it's used, it means 'should have' in the first part of the sentence and is not conditional at all.
> 
> You won't post for us the context of the sentence from page 3699 so I have to conclude that there's something there that would negate your assertions or you would have written it for us.
> 
> There is no way to convince you otherwise so I can't and won't. Thanks for all the time you've spent writing your sources. I summarily have to dismiss your interpretation of the writings and the examples you pose as normal with 'hubiera....,y ...' but I appreciate the interchange and the time you take to explain yourself, Ivy.
> 
> Buen día,
> Grant


 
I gave my source but I won't write for you a long paragraph to believe them NOT me. At least I hope I am able to read Spanish.

Cheers
Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> No lo sientas, la escribí precisamente porque me parecía vulgar. En cualquier caso, lo que me parezca a mí y a los de mi entorno no tiene por qué ser la Verdad Absoluta. Te agradezco tu aprecio por mi opinión, pero en eso queda: Una opinión. No tengo el menor interés en investigar en este asunto. Me parece bastante peregrino.
> 
> Un saludo.
> Pedro.


 
Además los tres volumenes de Nebrija-Bello es editada por la RAE, y la verdad absoluta será la de ellos, paisanos tuyos por lo demás. Tu vives en Madrid, sería fácil consultar en la biblioteca, la página 3699, párrafo final.

Feliz día

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> I gave my source but I won't write for you a long paragraph to believe them NOT me. At least I hope I am able to read Spanish.
> 
> Cheers
> Ivy29


  The problem in issue like this is your 'interpretation' and not of your ability to read Spanish. Of course you are fluent in Spanish. But when there are issues to 'establish' with sources. The sources must be revealed for 'all' to 'interpret' -- and not just one man. That was my point.

On a public forum like this you'll need to establish your points with grammar sources that others can easily access. If the answers are only in volumes that cost lots of money -- then the insights are only achievable by people with lots of money -- and they could become unreachable for some. If the issues can't be established with the DRAE and DPD online sources -- then they're probably for the 'academic' mind only. Que opino yo. 

Grant


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> The problem in issue like this is your 'interpretation' and not of your ability to read Spanish. Of course you are fluent in Spanish. But when there are issues to 'establish' with sources. The sources must be revealed for 'all' to 'interpret' -- and not just one man. That was my point.
> 
> Grant


 
I do not have the time to copy for you almost 100 pages, but your friends from Madrid they can read in the RAE library the page 3699, bottom paragraph. A long one.

Feliz día
Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> I do not have the time to copy for you almost 100 pages, but your friends from Madrid they can read in the RAE library the page 3699, bottom paragraph. A long one.
> 
> Feliz día
> Ivy29



No one has asked you to copy 100 pages. Just the paragraph at the bottom of 3699 -- if it proves your point -- the burden of proof is upon 'you' -- not us. If you can't offer the proof in writing for all to see then it's difficult to accept.



Ivy29 said:


> Of course, if it is a *menace, reward uses the imperati*ve or present tense, otherwise they use the same standard patterns of any conditional as the ones everyone knows. Imperfect subjunctive = me hubiera dicho, me lo hubiera dicho and the conector (y) or (o). There are some exceptions.



Saying there are exceptions isn't enough. It's your opinion. If we establishing truth and practice we need a source to 'establish' the exceptions as acceptable. Again the burden of proof is upon you since you say your fellow natives are wrong and that my sources are wrong. If the syntax 'hubiera + PP....., y habría....' is a paratactic conditional syntax -- prove it. I have no source or native input saying it is normal. And several sources saying it is 'un vulgarismo'.

Regards,
Grant


----------



## Ynez

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Me llama la atención Ynez, al ser tú de Madrid como lo soy yo, que  "Hubieras venido y lo hubieras  pasado  genial" te suene bien. De escucharla en la calle la interpretaría como "[pues] haber venido, te lo hubieras pasado genial".



¿Qué te hizo pensar que soy madrileña Pedro? Por escrito pong las -s, pero hablando no...yo soy extremeña 

Voy a ver cómo ha seguido el tema, si hay más gente que diga "hubieras" en el sentido de "deberías" o no


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Ynez said:


> ¿Qué te hizo pensar que soy madrileña Pedro? Por escrito pong las -s, pero hablando no...yo soy extremeña
> 
> Voy a ver cómo ha seguido el tema, si hay más gente que diga "hubieras" en el sentido de "deberías" o no


¡Vaya! Pues si es verdad, perdona. Eres extremeña como mi abuelita. Pero, aún así, no me cuadra que te suene bien:

Hubieras venido, y lo habrías pasado bien = Si hubieras venido...

A mí me suena bien así:

-¿Qué habría pasado si hubiera llegado a la hora?
-[que] Hubieras/Habrías venido, y lo habrías pasado bien.

¿Qué opinas?

Un saludete.

Pedro.


----------



## Ynez

Pedro, yo creo que para todo ese uso neutro del idioma están los libros...allí nos expresamos normalmente pensándolo todo mucho y tal y cual...

Creo que aquí en el foro estamos ahora comentando expresiones, usos normales hablados, coloquiales, y que además son correctos.

Ya sabes que a veces tenemos un lío impresionante con lo que es correcto y lo que no lo es.

Yo creo que cuando se hace una frase del tipo:

Hubieras hecho esto.....(estamos pensando esa parte) y luego añadimos...
Y no te habría pasado lo otro...

Vamos, que esa me parece una frase de lo más normal.

Que nos diga Newdesnity si él preferiría que solo digamos cuál es el uso considerado más "refinado", o si prefiere que le contemos qué es lo que se habla coloquialmente


----------



## mgwls

A mi la expresión "Hubieras venido, y lo habrías pasado bien" me suena bien, aunque yo diría "Hubieras venido, la habrías pasado bien".
También expresiones como "¡Me hubieras dicho!" las uso constantemente. Con esto no quiero decir que sean correctas, sino que por lo menos por estas tierras son muy comunes y para nada vulgares.

The expression "Hubieras venido, y lo habrías pasado bien" sounds just right to me, although I'd say "Hubieras venido, la habrías pasado bien".
I also constantly use expressions like "¡Me hubieras dicho!".
With this I don't want to say that the expressions mentioned above are correct but rather that they're very common in this lands and in no way vulgar.


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Ynez said:


> Pedro, yo creo que para todo ese uso neutro del idioma están los libros...allí nos expresamos normalmente pensándolo todo mucho y tal y cual...
> 
> Creo que aquí en el foro estamos ahora comentando expresiones, usos normales hablados, coloquiales, y que además son correctos.
> 
> Ya sabes que a veces tenemos un lío impresionante con lo que es correcto y lo que no lo es.
> 
> Yo creo que cuando se hace una frase del tipo:
> 
> Hubieras hecho esto.....(estamos pensando esa parte) y luego añadimos...
> Y no te habría pasado lo otro...
> 
> Vamos, que esa me parece una frase de lo más normal.
> 
> Que nos diga Newdesnity si él preferiría que solo digamos cuál es el uso considerado más "refinado", o si prefiere que le contemos qué es lo que se habla coloquialmente


Vale, vale, es que en Madrid desde luego que ni siquiera es de uso coloquial, sino más bien vulgar. Pero puede que dependa del lugar. Muchas gracias por tu respuesta. Cuídate.

Pedro.


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

mgwls said:


> A mi la expresión "Hubieras venido, y lo habrías pasado bien" me suena bien, aunque yo diría "Hubieras venido, la habrías pasado bien".
> También expresiones como "¡Me hubieras dicho!" las uso constantemente. Con esto no quiero decir que sean correctas, sino que por lo menos por estas tierras son muy comunes y para nada vulgares.
> 
> The expression "Hubieras venido, y lo habrías pasado bien" sounds just right to me, although I'd say "Hubieras venido, la habrías pasado bien".
> I also constantly use expressions like "¡Me hubieras dicho!".
> With this I don't want to say that the expressions mentioned above are correct but rather that they're very common in this lands and in no way vulgar.


Gracias mgwls. Hay diferencias regionales entonces. Quedo enterado pues, de que hay lugares en los que se omite el "si" en estas condicionales. Hubieras venido, por: Si hubieras venido.

Gracias.

Pedro.


----------



## NewdestinyX

mgwls said:


> A mi la expresión "Hubieras venido, y lo habrías pasado bien" me suena bien, aunque yo diría "Hubieras venido, la habrías pasado bien".
> También expresiones como "¡Me hubieras dicho!" las uso constantemente. Con esto no quiero decir que sean correctas, sino que por lo menos por estas tierras son muy comunes y para nada vulgares.
> 
> The expression "Hubieras venido, y lo habrías pasado bien" sounds just right to me, although I'd say "Hubieras venido, la habrías pasado bien".
> I also constantly use expressions like "¡Me hubieras dicho!".
> With this I don't want to say that the expressions mentioned above are correct but rather that they're very common in this lands and in no way vulgar.



This is really great input. TO make very, very clear my thoughts and 'dudas' -- I wanted to see if the forma ¡Hubieras + pp! was a common idiomatic structure amongst all SPanish speakers. With idiomatic stuctures the issue is not whether it's correct or not -- or refined. There is often not grammatical underpinning for idiomatic expressions at least not any prescriptive grammar. So that stands alone. And then i asked the big question of Ivy29 -- if this is used 'what grammatical structure' is it puuling upon -- to which he introduced to the forum the idea of paratactic conditionals. And at that point we left behind my original example (¡Hubieras ido a la fiesta!) and Ivy introduced the example with "Me hubieras dicho, y....." and has asserted that it's a conditional. I have disagreed with that. 

Now The Nebrija Bello volumes say that the paratactic conditionals have an 'imperative' or 'present' in the first clause when the connector is 'y'. Ivy has said that: Me hubieras dicho, y de suguro habría...... = Si me hubieras dicho, (entonces) habría...." I have doubted that that's the case. 

But one thing is opening up to me. And this may be the crux of the issue. When the idiomatic use of hubiera + pp = debería haber + pp which all but Madrid and north are acknowledging this use.. then the sentence with 'y' begins to make sense and it then seems to follow the definition of an 'imperative' like NB says in (a).

Deberías haberme dicho --> is an imperative-like statement -- but again this is not exact grammatically and so I think it is far-fetched to say that it is a conditional of any type. 
Me hubieras dicho, y habría pasado..... = Deberías haberme dicho y habría pasado....
My point still stands that this is not a conditional of any kind. At least not by any definition I've read yet.

Where I have conceded to Ivy29 is that the structure with 'hubiera.....y....' is gramamtical. It's just not a conditional and I doubt it's common (as a conditional -- maybe idiomatically = deberías).. que opino yo.

Thanks,
Grant


----------



## Ivy29

Ynez said:


> Pedro, yo creo que para todo ese uso neutro del idioma están los libros...allí nos expresamos normalmente pensándolo todo mucho y tal y cual...
> 
> Creo que aquí en el foro estamos ahora comentando expresiones, usos normales hablados, coloquiales, y que además son correctos.
> Ya sabes que a veces tenemos un lío impresionante con lo que es correcto y lo que no lo es.
> Yo creo que cuando se hace una frase del tipo:
> Hubieras hecho esto.....(estamos pensando esa parte) y luego añadimos...
> Y no te habría pasado lo otro...
> Vamos, que esa me parece una frase de lo más normal.
> Que nos diga Newdesnity si él preferiría que solo digamos cuál es el uso considerado más "refinado", o si prefiere que le contemos qué es lo que se habla coloquialmente


 
Ynez y para que no quede ninguna DUDA, y lo hago por los estudiantes y citaré las palabras referidas a las condicionales paratácticas, cuando la amenaza, o premio no son expresadas y se ponen otros contextos. Cuando se usan amenaza , premio, etc las cuales están en forma de mandato o amenaza requieren el *imperativo* y como tal sólo se usa en presente. Voy a citar lo relacionado al conector (y) para que las dudas se aclaren para siempre; y para no hacer extenso el párrafo con los otros conectores y las formas interrgativas.
Cito la página 3699, el párrafo final o tercer párrafo:



			
				 Nebrija Bello said:
			
		

> En otros casos estas estructuras pueden aparecer sin ninguno de los valores comunicativos de (amenaza, premio...) formando parte de un discurso referido, como en : Pepe es un lerdo: _*le das un libro y se le cae de las manos*. Cuando desaparece la especialización comunicativa ya no existe tampoco la restricción temporal que antes se señaló y dichas construcciones pueden darse en pasado : *a Pepe le dabas un libro y se le caía de las* *man**os*; como en contextos potenciales a través de la inserción de una forma verbal condicional en ambas cláusulas ( *A pepe le darías un libro y se le caería de las manos*) ; como, finalmente, en esquemas contrafactivos ( *le hubieras dado un libro y se le habría caído de las manos).*_



*Esto es tan claro como el día, y si quiero ser poético más que el sol. No hay dudas, ni signos de vulgaridad, oraciones hechas por connotados gramáticos y editado los 3 tomos de Nebrija-Bello por RAE. Mañana me referiré a los conectores con (o) específicamente.*
*La verdad es maravillosa cuando satisface la curiosidad sana y no se distorsiona o se quiere distorsionar la verdad.*

*Feliz noche*

*Ivy29*


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Originally Posted by * Nebrija Bello, página 3699;*
> 
> En otros casos estas estructuras pueden aparecer sin ninguno de los valores comunicativos de (amenaza, premio...) formando parte de un discurso referido, como en : Pepe es un lerdo: _*le das un libro y se le cae de las manos*. Cuando desaparece la especialización comunicativa ya no existe tampoco la restricción temporal que antes se señaló y dichas construcciones pueden darse en pasado : *a Pepe le dabas un libro y se le caía de las* *man**os*; como en contextos potenciales a través de la inserción de una forma verbal condicional en ambas cláusulas ( *A pepe le darías un libro y se le caería de las manos*) ; como, finalmente, en esquemas contrafactivos ( *le hubieras dado un libro y se le habría caído de las manos).*_



Thank you very much, Ivy29 for taking the time to post the citation from 3699 pertinent to our discussion. As far as I can see, the 'hubiera + pp, y habría + pp has to be included in the group of paratactic conditionals if page 3699 is a continuation of the beginning of 3697. Please define for us since it's not in any of the citations -- what 'valores comunicativos de amenaza y premio'. There's a piece of the puzzle still missing. This is not clear yet. But we have more of the story.

It's also very important to point out that this usage would then be the paratactic conditional and not the idiomatic structure of ¡Hubieras ido a la fiesta! which is not a paratactic conditional. Paratactic conditionals need two clauses. And that's a point I should have focussed on much earlier. Paratactics also never translate to 'should have' in English like the idiomatic, 1 clause, structure does. 

By the way, foreros, Alarcos numeral 450 shows only example of 'si' before these structures and no 'y'. 

Thanks,
Grant


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Hola Ivy:

No me gustan los hilos que se convierten en un asunto personal. Diga lo que uno diga parece que va a ser parcial. Créeme que esa no es mi intención. Dicho esto, te diré que el texto que citas me ha permitido entender qué es lo que no cuadraba. Es esto:



> Nebrija Bello, página 3699;
> 
> En otros casos estas estructuras pueden aparecer sin ninguno de los valores comunicativos de (amenaza, premio...) *formando parte de un discurso referido*, como en : Pepe es un lerdo: le das un libro y se le cae de las manos. Cuando desaparece la especialización comunicativa ya no existe tampoco la restricción temporal que antes se señaló y dichas construcciones pueden darse en pasado : a Pepe le dabas un libro y se le caía de las manos; como en contextos potenciales a través de la inserción de una forma verbal condicional en ambas cláusulas ( A pepe le darías un libro y se le caería de las manos) ; como, finalmente, en esquemas contrafactivos ( le hubieras dado un libro y se le habría caído de las manos).


En la frase de Nebrija Bello se habla de una tercera persona: Suena muy bonita, sin duda literaria al oído:

_Le hubieras dado un libro y se le habría caído de las manos. (Si le hubieras dado un libro se le habría caído de las manos)._

En esta, sin embargo, no hablas de otra persona sino que hablas con ella:

_Hubieras venido a la fiesta y lo/la habrías pasado bien. (=Si hubieras venido a la fiesta lo/la habrías pasado bien)._

Y me suena fatal. En cambio:

_Juan es poco participativo: Hubiera venido a la fiesta y lo/la habría pasado bien. (=Si Juan hubiera venido a la fiesta, lo/la hubiera pasado bien)._

Gracias a Ivy y a NewDestinyX, he de reconocer que no creía que sacáramos nada en limpio de esto: Me equivocaba.

Un saludo.

Pedro.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Thank you very much, Ivy29 for taking the time to post the citation from 3699 pertinent to our discussion. As far as I can see, the 'hubiera + pp, y habría + pp has to be included in the group of paratactic conditionals if page 3699 is a continuation of the beginning of 3697. Please define for us since it's not in any of the citations -- what 'valores comunicativos de amenaza y premio'. There's a piece of the puzzle still missing. This is not clear yet. But we have more of the story.
> 
> It's also very important to point out that this usage would then be the paratactic conditional and not the idiomatic structure of ¡Hubieras ido a la fiesta! which is not a paratactic conditional. Paratactic conditionals need two clauses. And that's a point I should have focussed on much earlier. Paratactics also never translate to 'should have' in English like the idiomatic, 1 clause, structure does.
> 
> By the way, foreros, Alarcos numeral 450 shows only example of 'si' before these structures and no 'y'.
> 
> Thanks,
> Grant


 
It was not the issue. The problem was that you, Grant, stated that the type 3 conditional : si hubiera ido a la fiesta habría bailado con Shakira.Is a lack of timing concordance and you said it was wrong, and it is not. If you wish I post your statement because that confuses the students.

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Hola Ivy:
> 
> No me gustan los hilos que se convierten en un asunto personal. Diga lo que uno diga parece que va a ser parcial. Créeme que esa no es mi intención. Dicho esto, te diré que el texto que citas me ha permitido entender qué es lo que no cuadraba. Es esto:
> 
> 
> En la frase de Nebrija Bello se habla de una tercera persona: Suena muy bonita, sin duda literaria al oído:
> 
> _Le hubieras dado un libro y se le habría caído de las manos. (Si le hubieras dado un libro se le habría caído de las manos)._
> 
> En esta, sin embargo, no hablas de otra persona sino que hablas con ella:
> 
> _Hubieras venido a la fiesta y lo/la habrías pasado bien. (=Si hubieras venido a la fiesta lo/la habrías pasado bien)._
> 
> Y me suena fatal. En cambio:
> 
> _Juan es poco participativo: Hubiera venido a la fiesta y lo/la habría pasado bien. (=Si Juan hubiera venido a la fiesta, lo/la hubiera pasado bien)._
> 
> Gracias a Ivy y a NewDestinyX, he de reconocer que no creía que sacáramos nada en limpio de esto: Me equivocaba.
> 
> Un saludo.
> 
> Pedro.


 
*Te quiero aclarar que el uso del imperativo con amenazas o premios* o el presente de indicativo corresponde en las imperativas un uso 'obligatorio' en presente pues el imperativo no tiene sino 'presente'. Cuando esta comunicación no es de amenaza o premio ( semánticamente) y sólo es una referencia de comunicación la restricción es omitida y además usa el potencial en las dos cláusulas que me extrañó muchísimo.Además no debe alterarse su orden sintáctico :

Acaba la sopa o no verás la tele.( causa-efecto) no se puede revertir 
*No verás la tele o acaba la sopa.
La perspicacia y la predisposición de los ánimos siempre producen estas dudas.

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Thank you very much, Ivy29 for taking the time to post the citation from 3699 pertinent to our discussion. As far as I can see, the 'hubiera + pp, y habría + pp has to be included in the group of paratactic conditionals if page 3699 is a continuation of the beginning of 3697. Please define for us since it's not in any of the citations -- what 'valores comunicativos de amenaza y premio'. There's a piece of the puzzle still missing. This is not clear yet. But we have more of the story
> Grant


 
*Standard books have pages with two faces, and they are numbered according to each face, be sure that page 3697 is followed by page 3699 in my books.*

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Hola Ivy:
> 
> En la frase de Nebrija Bello se habla de una tercera persona: Suena muy bonita, sin duda literaria al oído:
> 
> _Le hubieras dado un libro y se le habría caído de las manos. (Si le hubieras dado un libro se le habría caído de las manos)._
> 
> En esta, sin embargo, no hablas de otra persona sino que hablas con ella:
> 
> _Hubieras venido a la fiesta y lo/la habrías pasado bien. (=Si hubieras venido a la fiesta lo/la habrías pasado bien)._
> 
> Y me suena fatal. En cambio:
> 
> _Juan es poco participativo: Hubiera venido a la fiesta y lo/la habría pasado bien. (=Si Juan hubiera venido a la fiesta, lo/la hubiera pasado bien)._Pedro.


 
Lo que pasa Pedro es que los imperativos son defectivos en los pronombres de primera y tercera persona, y al dejar este rasgo de amenaza o pemio se pueden usar las otras personas :

Me hubieras dicho eso y yo lo habría entendido muy bien.
Te hubiera dicho eso y tu lo habrías escuchado y entendido.
Le hubieras dicho eso y él lo hubiera entendido muy bien.
Nos hubieran dicho eso y nosotros lo hubiéramos entendido muy bien.
Les hubieran dicho eso y ellos lo hubieran entendido muy bien.
Os hubieran/hubiérais dicho eso y uds/vosotros lo hubieran/hubiérais entendido muy bien.
all of them perfect Spanish.
Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> It was not the issue. The problem was that you, Grant, stated that the type 3 conditional : si hubiera ido a la fiesta
> habría bailado con Shakira.Is a lack of timing concordance and you said it was wrong, and it is not. If you wish I post your statement because
> that confuses the students.
> 
> Ivy29



This is not true. And if you will carefully reread the former post -- I said there is a timing concordance problem with 'hubiera + pp..., *estaría*....
To me that was the ungrammatical one.



> *Standard books have pages with two faces, and they are numbered according to each face, be sure that page 3697 is followed
> by page 3699 in my books.*
> 
> Ivy29


Or course -- but there's 'plenty' written on page 3698, amigo. ;-) And what's on 3698 could shed a lot more light on this topic. 
If I could afford the NebBello -- it would be a worthy addition to my collection. And as I told you, Ivy -- I have learned something in this
thread -- and that's always good. There's just an aspect of this topic that you are unwilling to acknowledge (that Pedro just perfectly pointed
out about the difference between the 3rd person and the 2 nd person with this construction) -- the lack of acknowledgment makes for confusion
with students. I try to help dispel that confusion and when I can't other natives who love grammar the way we do can establish a 'majority
opinion' that students can 'go to the bank on'. My main concern with some input you've given here -- is that you tend to 'over-apply' the
principles in these great grammar books to encompass more than the grammarian is trying to encompass - that tends to create confusion
and lend credance to certain syntaxes that, even for educated people, 'suenan fatal'.

Of this there is *no* doubt -- there is no example/proof, in NebBello or other sources, that shows that 2nd person in the first clause with 
hubiera' is a paratactic conditional that can work with the connector 'y'. And that really was my original question to you. I asked you what
grammatical role the 'hubieras' in ¡Hubieras ido a la fiesta! was playing. Your answer was 'paratactical conditional'. As defined by NebBello
and Alarcos that is *not* the case. First. Paratactics need 2 clauses which my sentence doesn't have. And then, from what's written, contra-
factual syntaxes need to appear in 3rd person to be considered part of the 'paratactic conditionals'

Make no mistake -- I am grateful for the interchange, my good colleague. You stretch my thinking and 'all' of our thinking. That can only
be helpful. 

Buen día,
Grant


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> This is not true. And if you will carefully reread the former post -- I said there is a timing concordance problem with 'hubiera + pp..., *estaría*....
> To me that was the ungrammatical one.


 
*If you read numeral 450 of Alarcos there is not timing incongruity in the above statement. The problem with my example is that I put you an  example with Shakira that disturb you a lot ( remember hips don't lie).Or you still believe there is a timing concordance problem?? (Alarcos 450 should be read)*



			
				 newdestiny said:
			
		

> Or course -- but there's 'plenty' written on page 3698, amigo. ;-) And what's on 3698 could shed a lot more light on this topic.


Here again you are disturbed/or tormented because the analysis of the connector (y) is place by Nebrija-Bello on page 3699. It is not my fault, maybe you could ask them why they didn't pleased your 'constant doubts' about something you even have heard before in any of your standard books.



			
				Newdestiny said:
			
		

> If I could afford the NebBello -- it would be a worthy addition to my collection. And as I told you, Ivy -- I have learned something in this
> thread -- and that's always good. There's just an aspect of this topic that you are unwilling to acknowledge (that Pedro just perfectly pointed
> out about the difference between the 3rd person and the 2 nd person with this construction) -- the lack of acknowledgment makes for confusion
> with students. I try to help dispel that confusion and when I can't other natives who love grammar the way we do can establish a 'majority
> opinion' that students can 'go to the bank on'. My main concern with some input you've given here -- is that you tend to 'over-apply' the
> principles in these great grammar books to encompass more than the grammarian is trying to encompass - that tends to create confusion
> and lend credance to certain syntaxes that, even for educated people, 'suenan fatal'.


Again the author was just saying that in the imperative mood there are defective subject pronouns just second persons, and eliminating the menace or rewarding in the imperative mood you can use the standard subject pronouns. Would be of your part too fine stretching something unusual and illogical that they can use the third person but not the other persons being not an imperative mood ???

Of this there is *no* doubt -- there is no example/proof, in NebBello or other sources, that shows that 2nd person in the first clause with 
hubiera' is a paratactic conditional that can work with the connector 'y'. 



			
				 Newdestiny said:
			
		

> And that really was my original question to you. I asked you what
> grammatical role the 'hubieras' in ¡Hubieras ido a la fiesta! was playing. Your answer was 'paratactical conditional'. As defined by NebBello
> and Alarcos that is *not* the case. First. Paratactics need 2 clauses which my sentence doesn't have. And then, from what's written, contra-
> factual syntaxes need to appear in 3rd person to be considered part of the 'paratactic conditionals'


 
*There is not an indication of third person only usage in my quoting.*
What is the difference below:

Le hubieras dado...
Te hubiera dado... just the subject pronoun.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> *There is not an indication of third person only usage in my quoting.*
> What is the difference below:
> 
> Le hubieras dado...
> Te hubiera dado... just the subject pronoun.



The difference that NebBello gives no such 2nd person example. If it were germane, they would have cited it because their volumes are 'exhaustive' and 'unabridged'. If they don't list it, it's not applicable.


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Ivy29 said:


> What is the difference below:
> 
> Le hubieras dado...
> Te hubiera dado... just the subject pronoun.


La diferencia es que una es discurso referido y la otra no. Y realmente es así como funciona en mi cerebro. No lo comprendía hasta que leí tu cita de Nebrija Bello. Ahora bien, a lo mejor este uso es normal para mucha gente. Para mí no. Sólo cuando es referido a otro no me chirría. 

Un saludo.

Pedro.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> La diferencia es que una es discurso referido y la otra no. Y realmente es así como funciona en mi cerebro. No lo comprendía hasta que leí tu cita de Nebrija Bello. Ahora bien, a lo mejor este uso es normal para mucha gente. Para mí no. Sólo cuando es referido a otro no me chirría.
> 
> Un saludo.
> 
> Pedro.



Tienes toda la razón. Me tiene perfecto sentido ahora. El temo central sí es si hay 'discurso referido' o no. Pero también los en la 1ra, 2da persona, (parecería) en todo el mundo hispanohablante, salvo el centro y norte de España, significan: debería(s)/debería(is) haber + PP.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> The difference that NebBello gives no such 2nd person example. If it were germane, they would have cited it because their volumes are 'exhaustive' and 'unabridged'. If they don't list it, it's not applicable.


 
I am not naive to believe so. Usually a menace or reward should be between the speaker and the listener or receptor. Besides it should be real otherwise the *menace or the reward* would be a matter of day dreaming.

The sentences should make sense in the 'if' conditional and be equivalent according to Nebrija-Bello, there are not any menace or reward in these sentences :
*Me hubieras dicho eso y yo lo habría entendido muy bien.*

*si me hubieras (tú) dicho eso, yo lo habría entendido muy bien( perfect Spanish)*

*Te hubiera dicho eso y tu lo habrías escuchado y entendido*.

*Si te hubiera dicho eso, tú lo habrías escuchado y entendido* (pefect Spanish)
Le hubieras dicho eso y él lo hubiera entendido muy bien.

*si le hubieras dicho eso, él lo hubiera entendido muy bien* (perfect Spanish)

*Nos hubieran dicho eso y nosotros lo hubiéramos entendido muy bien.*

*si nos hubieran dicho eso, lo huibiéramos entendido muy bien ( perfect Spanish)*

*Les hubieran dicho eso y ellos lo hubieran entendido muy bien.*

*si les hubieran dicho eso, ellos lo hubieran entendido muy bien (perfect Spanish)*

Os hubieran/hubiérais dicho eso y uds/vosotros lo hubieran/hubiérais entendido muy bien.
*Si os hubieran dicho eso, Uds lo hubieran entendido muy bien.*

*Grant : Are those sentences wrong??? or Nebrija-Bello should publish all the possibilities in 3 volumes, I shouldn't believe so.*
*If you know for sure that's what Nebrija-Bello states how come the 'if' equivalents are perfect Spanish.*

*Ivy29*


----------



## Ivy29

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> La diferencia es que una es discurso referido y la otra no. Y realmente es así como funciona en mi cerebro. No lo comprendía hasta que leí tu cita de Nebrija Bello. Ahora bien, a lo mejor este uso es normal para mucha gente. Para mí no. Sólo cuando es referido a otro no me chirría.
> 
> Un saludo.
> 
> Pedro.


 
*Pedro cómo funcionan estas equivalencias con 'if' para ti ??*
*Te chirrían ??*

The sentences should make sense in the 'if' conditional and be equivalent according to Nebrija-Bello, there are not any menace or reward in these sentences :
*Me hubieras dicho eso y yo lo habría entendido muy bien.*

*si me hubieras (tú) dicho eso, yo lo habría entendido muy bien( perfect Spanish)*

*Te hubiera dicho eso y tu lo habrías escuchado y entendido*.

*Si te hubiera dicho eso, tú lo habrías escuchado y entendido* (perfect Spanish)
Le hubieras dicho eso y él lo hubiera entendido muy bien.

*si le hubieras dicho eso, él lo hubiera entendido muy bien* (perfect Spanish)

*Nos hubieran dicho eso y nosotros lo hubiéramos entendido muy bien.*

*si nos hubieran dicho eso, lo huibiéramos entendido muy bien ( perfect Spanish)*

*Les hubieran dicho eso y ellos lo hubieran entendido muy bien.*

*si les hubieran dicho eso, ellos lo hubieran entendido muy bien (perfect Spanish)*

Os hubieran/hubiérais dicho eso y uds/vosotros lo hubieran/hubiérais entendido muy bien.
*Si os hubieran dicho eso, Uds lo hubieran entendido muy bien.*

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> The difference that NebBello gives no such 2nd person example. If it were germane, they would have cited it because their volumes are 'exhaustive' and 'unabridged'. If they don't list it, it's not applicable.


 
I do think you have a 'confusion' about what it is a ' discurso referido' for you. May I ask you ?? Here might be the clue of your misunderstanding in Spanish.

Ivy29


----------



## trevorb

I've tried to read the whole thread but it's beaten me, I'm afraid! As has a large part of the grammar argument - I am no grammarian. 



However, from the moment I read the original quote - and I'll remind you what it was!: Yo lo hubiera hecho mejor - I've wanted to contribute these lines from the song 'Esa noche', which I know in a version by Café Tacuba:No me hubieras dejado esa noche
Porque esa misma noche encontré un amor​
I have no idea whether this is a regional/standard/non-standard/cultured/coloquial or whatever usage but I can't see any sense in it except as:You shouldn't have left me that night
Because that very night I found a lover​... and I see no way to re-cast this as a conditional.

On the other hand, many of Ivy's paratactical conditionals can be translated directly into English and are in common use. It seems to me that, although they don't involve the use of the conditional auxiliaries or follow the standard templates for 'conditional sentences', they do involve what you might call a conditional state of mind or attitude to the communication being made.

I'm not sure I should have dipped my toe into this (hot?) water! You can make of the above what you will 

Saludos,

Trevor


----------



## Ivy29

trevorb said:


> I've tried to read the whole thread but it's beaten me, I'm afraid! As has a large part of the grammar argument - I am no grammarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, from the moment I read the original quote - and I'll remind you what it was!: Yo lo hubiera hecho mejor - I've wanted to contribute these lines from the song 'Esa noche', which I know in a version by Café Tacuba:No me hubieras dejado esa noche​Porque esa misma noche encontré un amor​
> 
> I have no idea whether this is a regional/standard/non-standard/cultured/coloquial or whatever usage but I can't see any sense in it except as:You shouldn't have left me that night​Because that very night I found a lover​... and I see no way to re-cast this as a conditional.
> 
> On the other hand, many of Ivy's paratactical conditionals can be translated directly into English and are in common use. It seems to me that, although they don't involve the use of the conditional auxiliaries or follow the standard templates for 'conditional sentences', they do involve what you might call a conditional state of mind or attitude to the communication being made.
> 
> I'm not sure I should have dipped my toe into this (hot?) water! You can make of the above what you will
> 
> Saludos,
> 
> Trevor


 

Excellent I should say, Trevor.
Your sentence or the lyrics of the song implies that there is a certain obligation in their relationship. So should is germane. You should have told me= me hubieras dicho= Deberías habermelo dicho.
You shouldn't have left me= No me deberías/debieras/debías haberme dejado=hubieras dejado.

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

trevorb said:


> I've tried to read the whole thread but it's beaten me, I'm afraid! As has a large part of the grammar argument - I am no grammarian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, from the moment I read the original quote - and I'll remind you what it was!: Yo lo hubiera hecho mejor - I've wanted to contribute these lines from the song 'Esa noche', which I know in a version by Café Tacuba:No me hubieras dejado esa noche​
> Porque esa misma noche encontré un amor​
> 
> I have no idea whether this is a regional/standard/non-standard/cultured/coloquial or whatever usage but I can't see any sense in it except as:You shouldn't have left me that night​
> Because that very night I found a lover​... and I see no way to re-cast this as a conditional.
> 
> On the other hand, many of Ivy's paratactical conditionals can be translated directly into English and are in common use. It seems to me that, although they don't involve the use of the conditional auxiliaries or follow the standard templates for 'conditional sentences', they do involve what you might call a conditional state of mind or attitude to the communication being made.
> 
> I'm not sure I should have dipped my toe into this (hot?) water! You can make of the above what you will
> 
> Saludos,Trevor


 
Trevor may I ask you being British if this construction in English is proper.
Me hubieras dicho according to context could be :
1- If you are my boss = You should have told me (the boss uttering the sentence).
2- Me hubieras dicho = without any obligation, just among friends, you could have told me.
3- Me hubieras dicho. Implying that if you have told me something I would have done something,* Had you told me*. ( the apodosis is elided) because your listener knows what your reaction would be.

Thanks

Ivy29


----------



## trevorb

Ivy29 said:


> Trevor may I ask you being British if this construction in English is proper.
> Me hubieras dicho according to context could be :
> 1- If you are my boss = You should have told me (the boss uttering the sentence).
> 2- Me hubieras dicho = without any obligation, just among friends, you could have told me.
> 3- Me hubieras dicho. Implying that if you have told me something I would have done something,* Had you told me*. ( the apodosis is elided) because your listener knows what your reaction would be.


 
In my opinion, in UK English:

(1) is the standard use of 'should have'. When the boss discovers that his delivery driver was stopped by the police for speeding and hasn't told him, he says: 'You should have told me'.
(2) is the case where a friend or, at least, someone you know well, omits to tell you something you clearly would have wanted to know e.g. that all your other friends had decided to go to a party last night. In this case, you can use 'could have' or 'might have': You could/might have told me! This implies a (mild?) censure and a sense of frustration that you weren't told. You could say 'You should have told me', but this shifts the emphasis from the frustration/censure to your friend's (moral) obligation to keep you informed.
(3) your boss, with whom you're on good terms, finds out that, last night, when he kept you late, it was your wedding anniversary and says: You should have told me! (implying: I would have let you go home earlier).

I hope that's what you wanted to know!

Saludos,

Trevor.


----------



## Ivy29

trevorb said:


> In my opinion, in UK English:
> 
> (3) your boss, with whom you're on good terms, finds out that, last night, when he kept you late, it was your wedding anniversary and says: You should have told me! (implying: I would have let you go home earlier).
> 
> I hope that's what you wanted to know!
> 
> Saludos,
> 
> Trevor.


 
Not exactly.
3- Me hubieras dicho. Implying that if you have told me something I would have done something,* Had you told me*. ( the apodosis is elided) because your listener knows what your reaction would be.
Supposed you were trying to find out a translation of a Spanish word at school yesterday , then I can utter *had you told me yesterday the word in Spanish for sure I could have helped you*. This is the context. 

Thanks
Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Not exactly.
> 3- Me hubieras dicho. Implying that if you have told me something I would have done something,* Had you told me*. ( the apodosis is elided) because your listener knows what your reaction would be.
> Supposed you were trying to find out a translation of a Spanish word at school yesterday , then I can utter *had you told me yesterday the word in Sapnish for sure I could have helped you*. This sis the context.
> 
> Thanks
> Ivy29



No. With 'Had you told me'. The apodosis can never be elided. The only remote case would be if the speaker asks the apodosis.

Person 1: Would you have gone, then?
Person 2: Had you told me -- yes!

But "had you told me", alone, is very rare and would not make sense in most contexts.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> No. With 'Had you told me'. The apodosis can never be elided. The only remote case would be if the speaker asks the apodosis.
> 
> Person 1: Would you have gone, then?
> Person 2: Had you told me -- yes!
> 
> But "had you told me", alone, is very rare and would not make sense in most contexts.


 
You didn't understand my point then. And in Spanish you can drop the apodosis if you know the reaction of the interlocutor. And in the context I gave is quite clear that I could have helped him because I am a native in Spanish language.
It is exactly the same if my son who lives about 30 minutes out of town and was trying to get hold of me to ask me if I can let him have the other car ( I have two) Had him got hold of me ( certainly I would let him to have the other car). 

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> You didn't understand my point then. And in Spanish you can drop the apodosis if you know the reaction of the interlocutor. And in the context I gave is quite clear that I could have helped him because I am a native in Spanish language.
> It is exactly the same if my son who lives about 30 minutes out of town and was trying to get hold of me to ask me if I can could let him have the other car (I have two) "Had him he got hold a hold of me ( certainly I would have let him to have the other car).
> 
> Ivy29



I am eager to hear where your point is headed here, Ivy. YOu are again trying to make English and Spanish work identically here and they don't. But I am still listening. Please make your point. Trevor already told you that your #3 in your recent post was an incorrect interpretation. I agree with him. So you will probably need to rework your premise a bit. Let's see. Still wanting to learn here.

If he missed getting your car because you didn't get a chance to tell him that it was okay to have the other car -- then you would say to him:
"You should have told me." and not: "Had you told me." (apodosis elided). That wouldn't work well in English at all. You could say the whole conditional. "Had you told me then, certainly I would have agreed, son. " But in English we wouldn't ever say 'Had you told me' with no apodosis in those settings. Sounds 'horrible'. I think you are suggesting that it works fine in Spanish and I perfect Spanish. But that gets back to the other topic which we've exhausted.

I think you are trying to make -- Had you told me. = You should have told me. And they are not the same -ever.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> I am eager to hear where your point is headed here, Ivy. YOu are again trying to make English and Spanish work identically here and they don't. But I am still listening. Please make your point. Trevor already told you that your #3 in your recent post was an incorrect interpretation. I agree with him. So you will probably need to rework your premise a bit. Let's see. Still wanting to learn here.
> 
> If he missed getting your car because you didn't get a chance to tell him that it was okay to have the other car -- then you would say to him:
> "You should have told me." and not: "Had you told me." (apodosis elided). That wouldn't work well in English at all. You could say the whole conditional. "Had you told me then, certainly I would have agreed, son. " But in English we wouldn't ever say 'Had you told me' with no apodosis in those settings. Sounds 'horrible'. I think you are suggesting that it works fine in Spanish and I perfect Spanish. But that gets back to the other topic which we've exhausted.
> 
> I think you are trying to make -- Had you told me. = You should have told me. And they are not the same -ever.


 
No, In Spanish 'me hubieras dicho' has different connotations according to the inflection of the voice : 
a) obligation, you should have told me , your boss, father, person in authority.
b) me hubieras dicho, no obligation, just a slight reproach = You could have told me.No further thought. 
*c) me hubieras dicho, if you were at school trying to translate a sentence from English into Spanish, yesterday and I am a native in Spanish at the same school, and you tell me that today we in Spanish would say : Me (lo) hubieras dicho.= me lo hubieras dicho y te habría ayudado= si me lo hubieras dicho te habría ayudado, we elide the apodosis, because I would for sure helped you with the translation, I am a native. Just the protasis is enough because the apodosis is OBVIOUS. Here for me: had you told me that.... No obligation, no reproach, just surmising: had you asked me yesterday certainly I would have helped you, as simple as that.*

*Ivy29*


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> No, In Spanish 'me hubieras dicho' has different connotations according to the inflection of the voice :
> a) obligation, you should have told me , your boss, father, person in authority.
> b) me hubieras dicho, no obligation, just a slight reproach = You could have told me.No further thought.
> *c) me hubieras dicho, if you were at school trying to translate a sentence from English into Spanish, yesterday and I am a native in Spanish at the same school, and you tell me that today we in Spanish would say : Me (lo) hubieras dicho.= me lo hubieras dicho y te habría ayudado= si me lo hubieras dicho te habría ayudado, we elide the apodosis, because I would for sure helped you with the translation, I am a native. Just the protasis is enough because the apodosis is OBVIOUS. Here for me: had you told me that.... No obligation, no reproach, just surmising: had you asked me yesterday certainly I would have helped you, as simple as that.*
> 
> *Ivy29*



To some degree I have to accept your analysis of the Spanish, as a native -- but you are alone in your belief -- on letter (c) (in 2nd person) -- and that always makes me nervous, compadre.

But as a native English speaker I can assure you that in your last context of letter (c) English speakers would never say, "Had you told me that.. (elided apodosis) --never. 

Now what we would say are any of these:
You should have told me.
I wish you'd have told me.
You could/might have told me.

"Had you (only) told me" -- requires the apodosis to make sense to the hearer.

-- and remember 'had you told me' is a very literary and formal sounding expression anyway. Not in the daily parlance.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> To some degree I have to accept your analysis of the Spanish, as a native -- but you are alone in your belief -- on letter (c) (in 2nd person) -- and that always makes me nervous, compadre.
> 
> I still waiting your answer about what is for you 'oración referida' here is the clue of your misunderstanding, isn't it strange for you that the 'if' clauses are correct and the paratactical conditional not. There is not any suggestion that the 2nd person is not correct in my quoting.
> 
> But as a native English speaker I can assure you that in your last context of letter (c) English speakers would never say, "Had you told me that.. (elided apodosis) --never.
> 
> *Then,  May I ask you which is the frame or structure of contrafactual type 3??*
> *Me hubieras dicho= If you had told me= had you told me (conditional type 3). I so far haven't seen = should have in the protasis of type 3.*
> 
> Now what we would say are any of these:
> You should have told me.
> I wish you'd have told me.
> You could/might have told me.
> 
> "Had you (only) told me" -- requires the apodosis to make sense to the hearer.
> The protasis of typ3 is:  If I had told you NOT I should have told you.
> Sorry to disagree in English as well as in Spanish you can drop the protasis or the apodosis, or use other conjunctions to replace the conjunction 'if'
> 
> -- and remember 'had you told me' is a very literary and formal sounding expression anyway. Not in the daily parlance.


.


Oración referida is something different from subject pronouns. I wait to read your answer.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> *Then,  May I ask you which is the frame or structure of contrafactual type 3??*
> *Me hubieras dicho= If you had told me= had you told me (conditional type 3). I so far haven't seen = should have in the protasis of type 3.*



Because you ignore the idiomatic usage of 'me hubieras dicho' when in 1st and 2nd person. 3rd person is oración referida and is germane to consider 'me hubiera dicho' as part of the paratactics. In the other persons it takes on the idiomatic usage to the hearer and is 'not' paratactic at all (which must be 3rd person according to NebBello's examples which are crystal clear -- they didn't not include '1st and 2nd person examples' because they are not germane in the contrfactual paratactic syntax) That's where the error in your analysis is at this point of the discussion. NB's writings on 3699 make clear that the non-consequence/reward syntaxes can move to contrafactual -- but only in 3rd person as their examples clearly prove and it is logical. They did not include a 2nd person example because it is not germane. Not how in the examples on 3697 there is clearly '2nd person' for the 'imperative' or reward/consequence aspects. But 3699's input moves beyond reward/consequence and enters 'oración referida' as Pedro quite correctly pointed out. Oración referida -- from I read in what you've written is not germane in 1st and 2nd person.




> The protasis of typ3 is:  If I had told you NOT I should have told you.


 Agreed. Who has said otherwise?? "Me hubieras dicho" is not the protasis of a Type 3. That's where you're wrong and have been from the beginning. Paratactic conditionals don't have protasis and apodosis -- but real conditionals do. You are trying to blend them together for the purpose of the point you make. But the point is not supported in the writing you have cited.



> Sorry to disagree in English as well as in Spanish you can drop the protasis or the apodosis, or use other conjunctions to replace the conjunction 'if'


This is an incorrect statement as it regards English - and you would have to have native ears to understand why. Additionally no English grammar books would support this idea either except in isolated cases which they would note as isolated. But let's not switch to English issues -- we are being given a great deal of freedom with this thread and I think we need to stay focussed. Page 3699 adds only 1 notion to the info presented on 3697 -- it adds that paratactic conditionals can move beyond the realm of reward/consequence in 'oración referida' -- which is not 2nd person. So 'me hubieras dicho' is 'not' upheld as a paratactic conditional with the sources you've presented unless you wish to 'hope it to be' or 'add to what's there'. What's actually written does not support the notion as I read it.

In _oración referida_ you are referring to what 'others' have said (3rd person) -- not of information you yourself has said (1st person) or what the 'hearer' has said (2nd person). Very clear. It is not a matter of subject pronouns -- but it is a matter of semantic perspective. 
Grant


----------



## sendai

swt said:
			
		

> dos "hubieras" es incorrecto y suena mal. Siempre desde mi punto de vista.





Anakin59 said:


> Coincido también con esto. En Argentina no se usa así. Por eso es que al principio dije que estaba mal, desconociendo que en otros lugares lo usan.


En serio?  Dónde viven ustedes en la Argentina? Yo en BsAs escucho muchísimo "hubieras" e incluso "hubieses" usadas en vez de "habrías".  De hecho, yo creo la menos común de las tres es "habrías". Qué raro que ustedes digan que no se usa!


----------

