# no habría tomado la clase si hubiera sabido que iba / iría a ser



## elcorredor

Would you use iba or iría? Or are they both correct?

No habría tomado la clase de historia si huberia sabido que iba a ser tan difícil. 

No habría tomado la clase de historia si hubiera sabido que iría a ser tan difícil.

Gracias de antemano.


----------



## matsorri

¡Definitivamente iba!


----------



## Dudu678

Yep, *iba.*


----------



## Fernando de Carvalho

"Iría", because it did not happen!
But colloquially, people use to say "iba", but the correct is "iría".


----------



## Cenzontle

This is about knowing in the past, with the contents of that knowledge being in the future, relative to the (past) moment of the knowing.
And the contents of the knowledge are about *being *difficult ("ser difícil").
So we want to express "ser difícil" in a form whose time is "future in the past".
I can think of two ways to do this: 
(1) future-in-the-past = conditional.  The conditional of "ser" is "sería":  "...si hubiera sabido que *sería *tan difícil."
(2) periphrastic future = "ir a", and "ir" in the past is "iba":  "...si hubiera sabido que *iba a ser* tan difícil."
"*Iría a *ser" seems to combine (1) and (2):  "ir a" in the conditional is "iría"—so it seems to express the future twice.  
This seems like "overkill" (see dictionary at the top of this page).


----------



## Sendro Páez

Fernando de Carvalho said:


> "Iría", because it did not happen!
> But colloquially, people use to say "iba", but the correct is "iría".


I'm afraid I have to disagree.

- No habría tomado la clase de historia si hubiera sabido que iba a ser tan difícil. [Right.]

- No habría tomado la clase de historia si hubiera sabido que iría a ser tan difícil. [Wrong!]

- No habría tomado la clase de historia si hubiera sabido que sería tan difícil. [Right as well.]

Cenzontle's explanation hits the tricky point, the _perífrasis verbal *ir a + infinitivo*_. Due to my experience as a teacher, I know well how difficult this structure is - especially among Italian and Portuguese students.

Main question aside, it might be interesting to mention that "tomar una clase" is not the same thing as "tomar clases," which means "to follow a course." Probably, what our speaker was trying to express was something like:

- No habría cogido la clase de historia si hubiera sabido qué difícil iba a ser.

- No habría escogido la clase de historia si hubiera sabido qué difícil iba a ser. [Southamerica friendly version of the latter.]


----------



## neal41

Sendro Páez said:


> Main question aside, it might be interesting to mention that "tomar una clase" is not the same thing as "tomar clases," which means "to follow a course." Probably, what our speaker was trying to express was something like:
> 
> - No habría cogido la clase de historia si hubiera sabido qué difícil iba a ser.
> 
> - No habría escogido la clase de historia si hubiera sabido qué difícil iba a ser. [Southamerica friendly version of the latter.]


'tomar una clase' is also widely used.  I believe that in Mexico 'tomar' is the verb most commonly used relative to a class.  See
http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/llevar-tomar-una-clase-o-curso.396919/
and
http://www.vivanuncios.com.mx/a-cur...ar-una-clase-gratis/1001067379220910158140109


----------



## Fernando de Carvalho

It's so easy:

IBA (it has happened!)
IRÍA (it could have happened, but did not happen!)

So, "IRÍA" is the correct, and "IBA" (IN THIS CASE) is wrong!

But, of course, people is used to use "iba", and if you use it, it will be, colloquially, right. But, formally, it is wrong!

But, it's course, to English speaker, it is harder to understand...


----------



## chileno

neal41 said:


> 'tomar una clase' is also widely used.  I believe that in Mexico 'tomar' is the verb most commonly used relative to a class.  See
> http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/llevar-tomar-una-clase-o-curso.396919/
> and
> http://www.vivanuncios.com.mx/a-cur...ar-una-clase-gratis/1001067379220910158140109



Correct. In Chile we use "tomar clase(s)" too.

Escoger = choose

coger/tomar = take a class or some classes.


----------



## aloofsocialite

Fernando de Carvalho said:


> But, it's course, to english speaker, it is harder to understand...



Hello, Fernando de Carvalho and welcome to the forums,

You'll notice that three of the people that disagree with you are native Spanish speakers. One of them is a teacher. 

_Iba_ is correct in my estimation because it is known, after the fact, that the class was difficult: how? Because the person speaking took the class.

_No habría tomado la clase si hubiera sabido que iba a ser tan difícil._
I would not have taken the class if I had known it was going to be so difficult.

Take care!


----------



## Sendro Páez

neal41 said:


> 'tomar una clase' is also widely used. I believe that in Mexico 'tomar' is the verb most commonly used relative to a class. See
> http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/llevar-tomar-una-clase-o-curso.396919/
> and
> http://www.vivanuncios.com.mx/a-cur...ar-una-clase-gratis/1001067379220910158140109





chileno said:


> Correct. In Chile we use "tomar clase(s)" too.
> Escoger = choose
> coger/tomar = take a class or some classes.


Yes, of course, we use "tomar una clase" in Spain, as well. In fact, that advertisement uses the expression in the same way I would have done it. It was just that I wouldn't have employed "tomar" in the thread's original sentence. As I clearly failed with my explanation here, where it's a bit off-topic, I've paid visit to the thread you mentioned, neal41. Please, have a look at it.

Going back to the main subject, I'm still wondering whether Fernando de Carvalho's claim has a chance or not. His insistence can't be gratuitous. It has made me rethink it all... Where's my Grammar book? I need to study!


----------



## Silvia Dee

Fernando de Carvalho said:


> "Iría", because it did not happen!
> But colloquially, people use to say "iba", but the correct is "iría".



iria = would go 

iba= would be 
iba it´s not colloquially, it´s the correct one


----------



## Fernando de Carvalho

aloofsocialite said:


> Hello, Fernando de Carvalho and welcome to the forums,
> 
> You'll notice that three of the people that disagree with you are native Spanish speakers. One of them is a teacher.
> 
> _Iba_ is correct in my estimation because it is known, after the fact, that the class was difficult: how? Because the person speaking took the class.
> 
> _No habría tomado la clase si hubiera sabido que iba a ser tan difícil._
> I would not have taken the class if I had known it was going to be so difficult.
> 
> Take care!



OK, but I am also a native Iberic language speaker. In Brazil, people is also used to say "ia" ("iba) instead of "iria ("iría"). It's very confused, I agree, but, if it has not happend, it is "iría".

OR

"Iba" = it has happened in the past, more than once.
"Iría" = if possible, it could had happened (but it did not happen).

When you use "si" (if), it could happen, but did not happen.


----------



## Fernando de Carvalho

Sendro Páez said:


> Yes, of course, we use "tomar una clase" in Spain, as well. In fact, that advertisement uses the expression in the same way I would have done it. It was just that I wouldn't have employed "tomar" in the thread's original sentence. As I clearly failed with my explanation here, where it's a bit off-topic, I've paid visit to the thread you mentioned, neal41. Please, have a look at it.
> 
> Going back to the main subject, I'm still wondering whether Fernando de Carvalho's claim has a chance or not. His insistence can't be gratuitous. It has made me rethink it all... Where's my Grammar book? I need to study!



Hola Sendro,
Did you, a native iberic language speaker,  have seen people using "yo le daba" instead of "yo le daría"? It is what happen, because people confuse "iba" and "iría".


----------



## LanguageUser1234

I agree (strongly) with aloofsocialite's explanation. I disagree with Fernando.


----------



## Silvia Dee

Fernando de Carvalho said:


> Ok, but I am also a native iberic language speaker. In Brazil, people is also used to say "ia" ("iba) instead of "iria ("iría"). It's very confused, I agree, but, if it has not happend, it is "iría".
> 
> OR
> 
> "Iba" = it has happened in the past, more than once.
> "Iría" = if possible, it could had happened (but it did not happen).
> 
> When you use "si" (if), it could happen, but did not happen.



Brasilian is Brasil lenguage (like Portuguese) it's not Spanish not Castellano. Iberic as to Iberic peninsula: España.


----------



## Silvia Dee

Iba a ser= seria no habría tomado la clase de historia si hubiera sabido que seria tan difícil 
Iba a es una expresión hecha que sustituye el futuro de un verbo, no se puede traducir literalmente al ingles.
Si con "tomar" te refieres a escoger una asignatura entre varias, no seria esa la palabra a usar en castellano. "No hubiera cogido" " no hubiera elegido" "no me hubiera apuntado"
Si te refieres a asistir a la clase en oposicion a hacer pellas, lo mas correcto sería decir " no hubiera ido" "no hubiera entrado" " no me hubiera quedado"


Fernando de Carvalho said:


> Ok, but I am also a native iberic language speaker. In Brazil, people is also used to say "ia" ("iba) instead of "iria ("iría"). It's very confused, I agree, but, if it has not happend, it is "iría".
> 
> OR
> 
> "Iba" = it has happened in the past, more than once.
> "Iría" = if possible, it could had happened (but it did not happen).
> 
> When you use "si" (if), it could happen, but did not happen.


----------



## Fernando de Carvalho

Look:

Iba = pluscuamperfecto past perfect (we say _pretérito pluscuamperfecto_ in Castellan/Spanish).
Iría = simple conditional (we say _condicional simple_ in Castellan/Spanish).

Is it clear now?


----------



## Gabriel

Fernando de Carvalho said:


> Look:
> 
> Iba = pluscuamperfecto past perfect (we say _pretérito pluscuamperfecto_ in castellan/spanish)
> Iría = simple conditional (we say _condicional simple_ in castellan/spanish)
> 
> is it clear now?


Keep saying it won't make it right.

I think that your confusion is because you are taking into account that the main verb is not "ir/go" (iba/iría) but "ser/be" (the class is difficult/ la clase es difícil). The verb "go" acts as an auxiliary verb to form the verb periphrase that indicates future (a future relative from the past, in this case) 

No sabía que la clase de historia iba a ser tan difícil / I didn't know that the history class was going to be so difficult. 
No sabía que la clase de historia iría a ser tan difícil / I didn't know that the history clase would go to be so difficult. 

Now, you can use the conditional simple, as you said, but directly with the main verb "ser/be", without auxiliary "ïr/go":

No sabía que la clase de historia sería tan difícil / I didn't know that the History class would be so difficult.


----------



## claylomax

Fernando de Carvalho said:


> Hola Sendro,
> Did you, a native iberic language speaker,  have seen people using "yo le daba" instead of "yo le daría"? It is what happen, because people confuse "iba" and "iría".



Hi Fernando, regarding the main question of this thread, you're wrong; it's "iba" as others have pointed. However see the following example:

Si me tocara la lotería me compraría una moto.
Si me tocara la lotería me compraba una moto.

In this case both are correct but the second (compraba) it's much more common. I think this is why you're getting confused. Cheers.


----------



## Gabriel

claylomax said:


> Si me tocara la loteria me compraria una moto
> Si me tocara la loteria me compraba una moto.
> 
> In this case both are correct but the second (compraba) it's much more common.


Definitively not in Argentina.

We would say the first one.
We might say "si me gana*b*a la lotería me compraba la moto".

If I say "si me gana*r*a la lotería" I am saying that I didn't win it yet, but I still might (even if not very probable).
On the other hand, the "me compraba la moto" sounds that you didn't do it because you didn't win the lottery, which contrasts with the future meaning of "si me ganara"...


----------



## Fernando de Carvalho

Gabriel said:


> Keep saying it won't make it right.
> 
> I think that your confusion is because you are taking into account that the main verb is not "ir/go" (iba/iría) but "ser/be" (the class is difficult/ la clase es difícil). The verb "go" acts as an auxiliary verb to form the verb periphrase that indicates future (a future relative from the past, in this case)
> 
> No sabía que la clase de historia iba a ser tan difícil / I didn't know that the history class was going to be so difficult.
> No sabía que la clase de historia iría a ser tan difícil / I didn't know that the history clase would go to be so difficult.
> 
> Now, you can use the conditional simple, as you said, but directly with the main verb "ser/be", without auxiliary "ïr/go":
> 
> No sabía que la clase de historia sería tan difícil / I didn't know that the History class would be so difficult.



Yes, you can write/say directly "sería" or "it would be". I imagine it'd be strange to use "it would go to be" in english, but, at less, in brazilian (PT-BR), we can say "iria ser" (without "a") or "seria", that it wouldn't be strange. I really don't know if in castellan, they can use "iría a ser" or "sería" as the same meaning.


claylomax said:


> Hi Fernando, regarding the main question of this thread, you're wrong; it's "iba" as others have pointed. However see the following example:
> 
> Si me tocara la loteria me compraria una moto
> Si me tocara la loteria me compraba una moto.
> 
> In this case both are correct but the second (compraba) it's much more common. I think this is why you're getting confused.
> Cheers.



It's common, in common sense, but NOT correct! It's COMMON (but not correct), in iberic languages, people confuse "pluscuamperfecto past perfect" with "simple conditional".


----------



## Amapolas

No sabía que la clase de historia iba a ser tan difícil.  This is perfect. 

No sabía que la clase de historia iría a ser tan difícil.  This is debatable. It conveys a more tentative effect, or slightly more surprise at the actual difficulty of the history lesson. The speaker had thought it much too unlikely. I wouldn't use it, but you might get away with it in everyday speech. Perhaps, it would be more usual, in order to convey the same effect, to say/write "que _*fuera *_a ser tan difícil". 

No sabía que la clase de historia sería tan difícil / I didn't know that the History class would be so difficult. 

Si me tocara la loteria me compraria una moto.  This is perfect, correct and orthodox.

Si me *tocara *la loteria me compraba una moto.  The combination of tenses doesn't work. However, in everyday speech, you can go with the following: 
Si me _*tocaba *_la loteria me *compraba *una moto.  As I say, it's not your conventionally grammatically orthodox sentence, but it works in everyday speech. At least in my region.


----------



## Sendro Páez

Bueno, amigos Amapolas y Gabriel, existe un uso del pretérito imperfecto de indicativo (_imperfecto-futuro en las oraciones condicionales_) que queda perfectamente retratado en el ejemplo que puso claylomax: _Si me tocara la lotería, me compraba una moto_, que significa exactamente lo mismo que _Si me tocara la lotería, me compraría una moto_ (escritas ambas versiones así, con sus tildes).

Es un uso coloquial, común en España (aunque no sé si tanto como lo ortodoxo), que también puede extenderse a las oraciones concesivas: _Aunque me tocara la lotería, no me compraba una moto tan cara_. Algunos gramáticos atribuyen a este imperfecto-futuro un plus de seguridad, certeza o aserción respecto a la fórmula con condicional.

He intentado encontrar una reseña sobre este imperfecto en el puñetero DPD, pero no sé qué pasa que nunca puedo sacar nada en claro de ese buscador. A ver si otro tiene más suerte (léase más maña) que yo...

Y, por supuesto, este uso no tiene nada que ver con este hilo.


----------



## Sendro Páez

To Fernando de Carvalho:

Please follow this link; you'll find a Spanish regular verb in the Spanish-English dictionary on WordReference.com; click on the link tagged "Conjugator"; learn what is and what is not the _'pretérito pluscuamperfecto'_ of a verb; come back here; admit your mistakes.

And, above all, please forgive my rudeness: _iberic language_ is not a grammatical term; I think I can't speak Portuguese, and I'm now pretty sure you can't speak Spanish at all; it looks like you haven't taken any time to read carefully what a lot of people has written just in order to help you out; I'd be glad if you changed your attitude.


----------



## Amapolas

Sendro Páez said:


> Bueno, amigos Amapolas y Gabriel, existe un uso del pretérito imperfecto de indicativo (_imperfecto-futuro en las oraciones condicionales_) que queda perfectamente retratado en el ejemplo que puso claylomax: _Si me tocara la lotería, me compraba una moto_, que significa exactamente lo mismo que _Si me tocara la lotería, me compraría una moto_ (escritas ambas versiones así, con sus tildes).
> 
> Es un uso coloquial, común en España (aunque no sé si tanto como lo ortodoxo), que también puede extenderse a las oraciones concesivas: _Aunque me tocara la lotería, no me compraba una moto tan cara_. Algunos gramáticos atribuyen a este imperfecto-futuro un plus de seguridad, certeza o aserción respecto a la fórmula con condicional.
> 
> He intentado encontrar una reseña sobre este imperfecto en el puñetero DPD, pero no sé qué pasa que nunca puedo sacar nada en claro de ese buscador. A ver si otro tiene más suerte (léase más maña) que yo...
> 
> Y, por supuesto, este uso no tiene nada que ver con este hilo.



Muy interesante, Sendro. Creo que Gabriel y yo nos guiamos por el uso local, y acá no haríamos esa combinación, sino que usaríamos directamente el imperfecto en ambas partes de la oración.


----------



## LanguageUser1234

Sendro Páez said:


> To Fernando de Carvalho:
> 
> And, above all, please forgive my rudeness: _iberic language_ is not a grammatical term; I think I can't speak Portuguese, and I'm now pretty sure you can't speak Spanish at all; it looks like you haven't taken any time to read carefully what a lot of people has written just in order to help you out; I'd be glad if you changed your attitude.



Good advice.


----------



## Raving Syntactivist

This is completely off-topic, but Sendro Páez, I noticed that your signature says to please correct your English, and I would like to say your English is almost flawless (very impressive), except for one minor detail in the following quote:



Sendro Páez said:


> To Fernando de Carvalho:
> 
> And, above all, please forgive my rudeness: _iberic language_ is not a grammatical term; I think I can't speak Portuguese, and I'm now pretty sure you can't speak Spanish at all; it looks like you haven't taken any time to read carefully *what a lot of people has written* just in order to help you out; I'd be glad if you changed your attitude.



La palabra inglesa "people" frecuentemente se traduce al castellano como "gente," pero en mi opinión, no lo es puesto que "gente" es singular y "people" en inglés es el plural de "person." Así que, creo que más le sirve a usted pensar en "people" como "personas" para tener mayor facilidad con la conjugación del verbo correspondiente, en este caso, sería "what a lot of people *HAVE *written" en vez de "what a lot of people *HAS*...".   

Se me ha ocurrido que tal vez la confusión es otra....¿puede que las palabras "a lot" confundan, pues "a" en inglés es el artículo que indica el singular? En este caso, toda la cosa "a lot" se traduciría como "muchas" si tomamos en cuenta que "people" es el plural de "person", o sea, "personas" en castellano. Entonces, el verbo también tiene que ser plural. ¡Qué confuso es nuestro idioma! Me da ganas de pedir disculpas de parte del mundo angloparlante, pero no es culpa mía . 

I hope that helps, y desde luego, si encuentran ustedes cualquier error en mi castellano (o, supongo que es posible que cometa errores en inglés), por favor, corríjanmelo también. Gracias!


----------



## Gabriel

Sendro Páez said:


> Bueno, amigos Amapolas y Gabriel, existe un uso del pretérito imperfecto de indicativo (_imperfecto-futuro en las oraciones condicionales_) que queda perfectamente retratado en el ejemplo que puso claylomax: _Si me tocara la lotería, me compraba una moto_, que significa exactamente lo mismo que _Si me tocara la lotería, me compraría una moto_ (escritas ambas versiones así, con sus tildes).
> 
> Es un uso coloquial, común en España (aunque no sé si tanto como lo ortodoxo), que también puede extenderse a las oraciones concesivas: _Aunque me tocara la lotería, no me compraba una moto tan cara_. Algunos gramáticos atribuyen a este imperfecto-futuro un plus de seguridad, certeza o aserción respecto a la fórmula con condicional.


Como dije, en Argentina definitivamente no. Lo cual no quiere decir que sea incorrecto o que no se use en otros lugares.


----------



## Gabriel

Fernando de Carvalho said:


> Yes, you can write/say directly "sería" or "it would be". I imagine it'd be strange to use "it would go to be" in english, but, at less, in brazilian (PT-BR), we can say "iria ser" (without "a") or "seria", that it wouldn't be strange. I really don't know if in castellan, they can use "iría a ser" or "sería" as the same meaning.


Well, with about 837 differen native Spanish speakers from all around the Spanish speaking world and including plain users like me and experts and teachers telling you that in Spanish it is not correct, you should know by now.
You can't take what works in Portuguese to Spanish. Not always at least.


----------



## Raving Syntactivist

And I also agree with the majority of you about the original question. It would be EITHER "sería tan difícil" OR "iba a ser tan difícil". Couldn't be a mix and match since the future of the past is expressed *either* with the conditional of the verb (in this case ser)* or* with the compound form IR (in the imperfect, conjugated for the subject, in this case, "la clase") + a + infinitive of the verb (in this case ser). I think the confusing part is that we are taught the formula for "if" clauses as follows (one of a few of possibilities):
"si + pluscuamperfecto subjuntivo + pluscuamperfecto condicional" 
This formula is for 100 percent hypothetical events, because they have already been decided in history (in other words, it's said and done, but had it not been said and done, the speaker would have done it differently). If we break your original complex sentence down into various sentences which are less complex but still communicate the same message, I think it becomes more evident why we don't need the extra conditional in the auxiliary verb. 

As Amapolas posted, the first sentences we could extrapolate from "No habría tomado la clase si hubiera sabido que sería/iba a ser tan difícil" es "No sabía qué difícil *iba a ser* la clase" (I didn't know how tough the class *was going to be*) or "No sabía qué difícil *sería* la clase." (I didn't know how tough the class *would be*). 



Amapolas said:


> No sabía que la clase de historia iba a ser tan difícil.  This is perfect.
> 
> No sabía que la clase de historia sería tan difícil / I didn't know that the History class would be so difficult.



Next, the thing that was unknown in the past to the speaker (the difficulty of the class) came to be FACT in the eyes of the speaker, which could be communicated one of the following ways:
"La clase es difícil."
"La clase era difícil."
"La clase fue difícil." 

From there, we could use the formula that everyone knows, which would roughly translate as "_Had I known_ that fact (that the class is/was difficult), _I wouldn't have_ taken it." 
"Si *lo* hubiera sabido, no la habría tomado." or "No habría tomado la clase si *lo* hubiera sabido."
The "lo" is replacing the clause that we established in the previous sentences to be fact, i.e. the difficulty of the class, and is separate from the core sentence. 

I may be just babbling or repeating what other people have said, but sometimes, it helps to hear the same thing explained various ways, so I hope SOMEONE finds this useful!


----------



## Fernando de Carvalho

Raving Syntactivist said:


> This is completely off-topic, but Sendro Páez, I noticed that your signature says to please correct your English, and I would like to say your English is almost flawless (very impressive), except for one minor detail in the following quote:
> 
> 
> 
> La palabra inglesa "people" frecuentemente se traduce al castellano como "gente," pero en mi opinión, no lo es puesto que "gente" es singular y "people" en inglés es el plural de "person." Así que, creo que más le sirve a usted pensar en "people" como "personas" para tener mayor facilidad con la conjugación del verbo correspondiente, en este caso, sería "what a lot of people *HAVE *written" en vez de "what a lot of people *HAS*...".
> 
> Se me ha ocurrido que tal vez la confusión es otra....¿puede que las palabras "a lot" confundan, pues "a" en inglés es el artículo que indica el singular? En este caso, toda la cosa "a lot" se traduciría como "muchas" si tomamos en cuenta que "people" es el plural de "person", o sea, "personas" en castellano. Entonces, el verbo también tiene que ser plural. ¡Qué confuso es nuestro idioma! Me da ganas de pedir disculpas de parte del mundo angloparlante, pero no es culpa mía .
> 
> I hope that helps, y desde luego, si encuentran ustedes cualquier error en mi castellano (o, supongo que es posible que cometa errores en inglés), por favor, corríjanmelo también. Gracias!



¡Gracias por la explicación y por tu/su amabilidad!


----------



## Amapolas

Amapolas said:


> Si me _*tocaba *_la lotería me *compraba *una moto.  As I say, it's not your conventionally grammatically orthodox sentence, but it works in everyday speech. At least in my region.



CORRECCIÓN

Como me di cuenta _chateando_ con Gabriel y Sendro, acá me confundí. Esta combinación sí la usamos, pero para expresar una imposibilidad. Es una variante de "si me *hubiera tocado* la lotería, me *habría comprado* una moto". 
Lamento haber aportado confusión.


----------

