# I do not care if you just spoke (acabar de + subjunctive)



## swath

Hola,
How in Spanish is said the English phrase "I do not care if you just spoke about that issue" ?  The following considerations are desired to be in the translation/meaning that you will hopefully be able to provide.  Also included below is a description of what I am trying to learn from the translation.

1. The "just" part of the phrase is to have its meaning be "recently", as opposed to the meaning of "just" be "only" or "solo" (because both of those meanings can be an approximate definitions of "just").

2. The speaker in that phrase (the "I" person) does not know if the "you" person in the phrase spoke about "that issue" or did not speak about "that issue".  I am making this point because I am desiring that the speaker be uncertain about whether or not the second part of the phrase/sentence (the "if you just spoke" part) occurred.  Such is desired because I am hoping that the form of the verb in the second part of the phrase/sentence can be in its subjunctive form.  And the use of the subjunctive in such a situation is a big part of what I am trying to learn from the answer to this question.

3. I am hoping that your answer can have some form of "acabar de" in it for the second part of the sentence/phrase (the "if you just spoke about that issue" part), because my understanding is that the use of a phrase like "acabo de comer" is used to express the idea that something was only recently completed.  My understanding is that...as an example... "acabo de comer" means, in English, "I just ate", which can be used by someone wanting to express that he recently finished eating dinner.  And a reason for my overall question is that I am trying to understand whether or not the use of "acabar de ______" with the meaning of "to have recently done something" ever has the conjugation of "acabar" be in any conjugation form other than the present tense. 

4. As a combination of the above described aspects, I am also trying to learn if the conjugation of "acabar de ___" would have the conjugation of "acabar" be in a subjunctive form, because the first part of the phrase/sentence ("I do not care if...") is desired to be describing a situation where the speaker has some doubt about whether or not the second part of the phrase ("if you just spoke about that issue") has happened.

5. The "that issue" part of the phrase (i.e. the final two words) could just as easily be various other words.  I only used "that issue" in the second part of the phrase/sentence because such were simple words that came into my head quickly as I was trying to come up with a sentence/phrase that would be able to include the above described considerations about which I am thinking.  So the sentence/phrase requested for translation could also have been "I do not care if you just spoke about the event", or various other ones.  Again, the aspects I am trying to learn are the above described aspects about "acabar de ___", and its potential use in a subjunctive conjugation.

Thanks!


----------



## Agró

_Me da igual *que*/No me importa *que hayas acabado* de hablar de ese tema._ (These two options trigger subjunctive)
_Me da igual *si*/No me importa *si has acabado *de hablar de ese tema._ (This one triggers indicative)


----------



## swath

¡Muchas gracias, Agró! Pero... ¿Es también capaz de ser escrito "_No me importa que acabes de hablar de ese tema_" ?
En inglés...   I ask that question because I prefer not to have to use the present perfect subjunctive tense, and want to know if I can instead use the present subjunctive.  In other words, can the direct translation from Spanish be "It is not important to me that you just spoke of that theme", instead of what it seems to me "_No me importa que hayas acabado de hablar de ese tema_" translates to...which, with its use of the subjunctive present perfect...I think is "It is not important to me that you have just spoken of that theme"  ?  In other words, I am trying to understand if the same overall idea can be expressed not only with the use of the Spanish subjunctive present perfect (as you have already presented), but also with the use of the Spanish subjunctive present (as I have suggested in this reply).

Thanks!


----------



## Agró

The original sentence reads "spoke", which is, as you know, a Simple Past, and you want that to translate as a Present "hables" or "acabes de hablar"? I fail to see how that could be done. Not in my kind of Spanish.


----------



## swath

Yes, thank you for pointing that out to me.  Honestly, I have not been clear on the issues relating to translating back and forth with the use of "_acabar de ____", because in English we say "I do not care if you just spoke", which has, of course, "spoke" being in a past tense.  But I had thought that in Spanish the conjugation of "_acabar de ____" needs to have "_acabar_" be conjugated in some form of present tense (i.e. either present subjunctive, or present indicative).  You have obviously just shown me that Subjunctive Present Perfect can also be used.  So I suppose the further question is maybe not so much of whether or not "_No me importa que acabes de hablar de ese tema_" is a translation of "I do not care if you just spoke", but maybe if a Spanish speaker could say "_No me importa que acabes de hablar de ese tema_" to express the same overall idea (i.e. the idea of it not being important to the speaker if the other person just spoke of the theme) without it being wrong or seeming awkward.  Further, to illustrate the seeming issue of the difference between Present and Past for the consideration, I present the other example given above.  That example is ... "_acabo de comer_" translating to, in English, "I just ate".  In that example, "_acabo_" is in Present Indicative, but "ate" is in Past Indicative.  So in my further question of whether or not "_No me importa que acabes de hablar de ese tema_" can potentially be used by a native Spanish speaker, I am trying to see if it is possible to have a translation that is roughly analogous to the way that "_acabo de come_r" in Spanish is translated to "I just ate" in English.  Please forgive me if I am presenting some aspects that may not be completely correct.  But I am doing so because of my unfamiliarity with the different ways to use the "_acabar de ____" expression.  And that is of course the point of me asking these questions!  I have not been able to find a good online description of the way such expression is properly used.  But I plan to keep looking.
Thanks!


----------



## Agró

_Acabo de comer _is certainly misleading because we use it for completed actions in the past. However, when that sentence is dependant of something like "No me importa que...", we use Pretérito Perfecto de subjuntivo (or Present Perfect, as you call it): "No me importa que hayas acabado...".
"No me importa que acabes de hablar..." would be something different: _I don't care whether you stop talking or not._


----------



## swath

Awesome explanation, Argó.  Thank you!  That helps explain why I was getting a similar answer from the online translators.
Thanks again!


----------



## ilya

Anyhow, there is a difference, I'd say: 

_No me importa *que hayas acabado* de hablar de ese tema._ - I might not be too sure, but I guess you spoke about it, in fact. Somebody told me you did.
_No me importa *si acabas *de hablar de ese tema._ - I have no idea if you did speak about it or not, I consider both options. 

I would not use _No me importa *si has acabado *de hablar de ese tema_ which for me means: I don't care if you are finished speaking about that issue.  When using "acabar" for something recently happening, we use present tense:

Acabo de comer = I just ate
He acabado de comer = I finished eating.


----------



## swath

Thank you for that further explanation, ilya.  I must say that I think you and I think along the same lines, because it seems also to me that there are definitely...as you point out...subtle differences between the phrases that it seems to me one would want to know to express the different ideas of the different circumstances.  I plan to absorb your explanations into how my thoughts are structured from now forward.  The original reason for my question was to use the answer for a situation that is most similar to the situation where _si acabas de hablar _is used above.  I had thought that subjunctive would be appropriate to use because the speaker in the phrase does not know whether the other person spoke or not.  It seems that what I forgot about, though, is one of the "rules" of using the Spanish Subjunctive, which is that the Spanish Subjunctive Present is never used after "_si_".


----------



## srb62

I find the context a little bit difficult to grasp.  The phrase 'I don't care if......' almost always sounds a little direct/rude to me.  On top of this, I feel it would usually be used in a situation where the speaker actually believed/knew that the other person had already spoken on that issue.  
Would some of this not apply in Spanish as well?


----------



## ilya

Well, of course it's rude. I imagined the following scenario:
There is a meeting in the company. Several employees debate subjects. Suddently the boss comes in and starts speaking about some supposedly new idea. One of the others tries to tell him: Acabamos de hablar de este tema. He cuts her rudely: No me importa si acabas de hablar de este tema o no. Ahora hablo yo. Very bossy, indeed.


----------



## srb62

ilya said:


> Well, of course it's rude. I imagined the following scenario:
> There is a meeting in the company. Several employees debate subjects. Suddently the boss comes in and starts speaking about some supposedly new idea. One of the others tries to tell him: Acabamos de hablar de este tema. He cuts her rudely: No me importa si acabas de hablar de este tema o no. Ahora hablo yo. Very bossy, indeed.


Exactly, I just can't imagine somebody saying this in that type of situation, that's all.  The original post stressed the uncertainty on the part of the speaker regarding whether the other person had spoke as being important.  In this context, you'd surely say something like 'Apologies if you've already spoken on this issue, but....' ?


----------



## ilya

British people are so famous for their politeness. In Spain, the sentence could perfectly be heard in a meeting. Here, (some) rude bosses do exist. 
Of course, if you look for a polite version, it would be: Disculpa, no sé si acabas de hablar de esto o no, pero me gustaría aportar una cosa... (you just replace "no me importa" by "no sé (...) pero" , which makes clear that you don't know it but you don't care about it either, because after that polite introduction, you'll speak anyhow.


----------



## srb62

ilya said:


> British people are so famous for their politeness. In Spain, the sentence could perfectly be heard in a meeting. Here, (some) rude bosses do exist.
> Of course, if you look for a polite version, it would be: Disculpa, no sé si acabas de hablar de esto o no, pero me gustaría aportar una cosa... (you just replace "no me importa" by "no sé (...) pero" , which makes clear that you don't know it but you don't care about it either, because after that polite introduction, you'll speak anyhow.


Ha, my point is simply that the phrase 'I don't care if.......' is not a neutral phrase - it would never carry simply the idea of the speaker not knowing if the other person had or had not spoken, but would be one of a negative emotion - frustration, annoyance, anger, or whatever.  I didn't think the original post wanted the phrase to carry the negative emotion, only the 'not knowing'.


----------



## swath

I think...to your point, srb62, my guess (though I am not a native Spanish speaker) is that the Spanish phrase of "No me importa..." is used as the more typical translation of "I don't care if..." (well, at least for certain situations) than "No me cuido...".  In what I am currently thinking of as a typical application of English, when "I don't care if" is used, indeed it can be viewed as being rude.  But it can also be used in the "it is of no import if...." sense, meaning that it the issue is not relevant.  In other words, if it is "of no import", I take such to mean that the issue is not relevant to whatever else is being discussed.  If viewed in that context, the situation is not so much that the person speaking does not "care", but more that the issue is not relevant to whatever else is being discussed.  The reason that the whole discussion came up is... I think... a good example.  I was contemplating the whole issue of what has been in the news recently here in the United States, and of course in Europe as well...the issue of migrants/immigrants crossing borders.  So if, say, a Mexican crosses into the United States, a person in the United States who is happily welcoming that Mexican person may say to that Mexican person, but is still aware that other people in the United States may not be so welcoming of that Mexican person, may say to that person "I don't care if you just crossed the border, I am happy that you are here now and that we can work together on this project.".  In that instance, the U.S. person would be using what I see as typical "American"-English dialect/structure/verbage.  That U.S. person is not saying that he does not care about the *person* who just crossed from Mexico, but is instead saying that he does not care about the *issue* of such Mexican having crossed the border, because such *issue* is not relevant to him.  Tying that back to the "No me importa" phrase, I would say that for this example the U.S. person could just have easily have said "It is not important to me if you just crossed the border, I am happy that you are here now and that we can work together on this project.".  From my American-English perspective, the two sentences convey exactly the same meaning, and neither of them appear to me to be rude.  So I think the issue you brought up, srb62, comes down to the seeming fact that American-English often uses the phrase "I don't care if..." even in situations when there is no intended rudeness, and no intended patronization (i.e. no intended "talking down to the other person", with the definition of patronization from dictionary.com being "to behave in an offensively condescending manner toward").  All in all, I'd say that I prefer the "No me importa..." phrase that it seems Spanish speakers would be more apt to use, because it avoids the issue of whether "No me cuido..." is directed at the person being spoken with, versus the situation being discussed.  It also helps that the sort of subject of "No me importa" is the 3rd person (i.e. the subject of "importa" is "it", meaning, in the above examples with the border crossing, the situation).  The only way such "No me importa" seems to me that it could be considered "rude" is if, with the use of the "importar" verb, the speaker would have instead said "No me importas", which I think would me "You are not important to me".  In other words, it seems to me that "No me importa" allows the speaker to completely avoid the issue of whether or not the person with whom the speaker is conversing is important.  Instead, the speaker is only discussing the 3rd person situation (i.e. the "it".).  Sorry I could not make that all sound less confusing!


Yes, to your last point, srb62, indeed the original intent of the original phrase I placed in this posting had no intended rudeness.  I really was merely only thinking of what a person here in the United States would say to someone who just crossed the border if he (the person in the United States) really was welcoming the person who just crossed, and would really only be trying to express that he (the person in the U.S.) did not care about the SITUATION that brought that person into the U.S.  Truly, here in the United States at least, saying "I don't care if..." does not NECESSARILY have a negative connotation.  Unfortunately, just like in Spanish with many words and phrases, more context is needed to know for certain the true intentions of the speaker.


----------



## srb62

swath said:


> Yes, to your last point, srb62, indeed the original intent of the original phrase I placed in this posting had no intended rudeness.  I really was merely only thinking of what a person here in the United States would say to someone who just crossed the border if he (the person in the United States) really was welcoming the person who just crossed, and would really only be trying to express that he (the person in the U.S.) did not care about the SITUATION that brought that person into the U.S.  Truly, here in the United States at least, saying "I don't care if..." does not NECESSARILY have a negative connotation.  Unfortunately, just like in Spanish with many words and phrases, more context is needed to know for certain the true intentions of the speaker.


Yes, context is all - and I should have said that it carries some kind of emotional content (i.e. it could be positive and not just negative).  And I suppose that's what would also be carried in the meaning if you used the que + subjunctive (how you feel about it) as opposed to si+indicative (you don't know)?


----------



## ilya

If you use the "que + subjunctive" - no me importa que hayas hablado - then you are clearly expressing that the other person has in fact spoken about the subject or at least you suppose so.
- No me importa que hayas contado mi secreto a Paco, sigues siendo mi amigo (I am sure you did tell that secret). Observe that here, "No me importa" is not at all rude but the opposite. The rudeness depends on what you consider unimportant. (That has nothing to do with "no me importas" = I don't care about you. In situations as the "bossy meeting" above "no me importa si has hablado" is indeed rude).
No me importa que se te haya quemado la tortilla, me gusta igual (but of course, yes, it's a little burned).
The "que" means that the action has indeed happened, or so the speaker believes.


----------



## srb62

ilya said:


> If you use the "que + subjunctive" - no me importa que hayas hablado - then you are clearly expressing that the other person has in fact spoken about the subject or at least you suppose so.
> - No me importa que hayas contado mi secreto a Paco, sigues siendo mi amigo (I am sure you did tell that secret). Observe that here, "No me importa" is not at all rude but the opposite. The rudeness depends on what you consider unimportant. (That has nothing to do with "no me importas" = I don't care about you. In situations as the "bossy meeting" above "no me importa si has hablado" is indeed rude).
> No me importa que se te haya quemado la tortilla, me gusta igual (but of course, yes, it's a little burned).
> The "que" means that the action has indeed happened, or so the speaker believes.


                                     Yes, exactly - the subjunctive is a reaction to the fact/situation (how you feel/would feel about it) while using si+indicative  highlights the not knowing if it is true/has happened/will happens. For me, because of this, the English sentence 'I don't care if. . . ' will usually have the Spanish subjunctive meaning.


----------



## swath

Thank you, ilya.  Your "...or so the speaker believes" point is very relevant to me, because that was an important issue in me deciding that for the border crossing example that I gave above, it is preferable for the speaker to use "No me importa si acabas de cruzar la frontera", instead of "...que acabas de cruzar la frontera" because the intention of the thought is that speaker has no idea of whether or not the other person crossed the border, but is instead glad only that the other person is presently present.  And...bringing that all back around to what you had typed a few days ago, and back to the question of whether or not to use subjunctive...indeed the subjunctive should not be used....but only because (or so such seems to me) the "rule" is to not use subjunctive following "si".  So there is still doubt or uncertainty being expressed...which would "normally" indicate to use subjunctive.  But, in this situation subjunctive is not used in the second clause of the sentence, because the "rule" against using subjunctive following "si" must be upheld (or so things seem to me!).


Just so I am clear on what you both have most recently been commenting on, and to further help my so-far-not-perfect understanding of the subjunctive...Are there any situations in which the subjunctive would NOT be used after "que"?  In other words, would there be a different translation/meaning of a sentence similar to the one that was given above, but that instead uses an indicative verb instead of a subjunctive verb, as in... "No me importa que has contado mi secreto a Paco, sigues siendo mi amigo"?   (if such is even a legitimate grammatical structure)


----------



## srb62

swath said:


> Just so I am clear on what you both have most recently been commenting on, and to further help my so-far-not-perfect understanding of the subjunctive...Are there any situations in which the subjunctive would NOT be used after "que"?  In other words, would there be a different translation/meaning of a sentence similar to the one that was given above, but that instead uses an indicative verb instead of a subjunctive verb, as in... "No me importa que has contado mi secreto a Paco, sigues siendo mi amigo"?   (if such is even a legitimate grammatical structure)


I can only answer as a non native speaker who struggles with the Spanish subjunctive. I would use the subjunctive here because a) it seems like an emotional reaction and b) you could replace 'que' with 'the fact that'. However, it may be that both indicative and subjunctive are possible for native speakers ,  with a slight change in meaning/focus?


----------



## swath

You brought up a great point, srb62...which is that another subjunctive "rule" seems to be that if there is an emotional reaction, then subjunctive needs to be used.  So, if such is completely true, then even though "you have told my secret to Paco" is believed by the speaker to have definitely have happened, then subjunctive would still be used because what is being expressed in the second part of the sentence is an emotional thought.  However, even in spite of all that, I still also hope to hear from a native speaker regarding whether or not "No me importa que has contado mi secreto a Paco, sigues siendo mi amigo" can be correct in any context.  And, if so, how such is translated (i.e. with what kind of implications).


----------



## alekpushkin

Agró said:


> _Me da igual *que*/No me importa *que hayas acabado* de hablar de ese tema._ (These two options trigger subjunctive)
> _Me da igual *si*/No me importa *si has acabado *de hablar de ese tema._ (This one triggers indicative)


Would the following be acceptable:

No me importa que acabara de hablar de ese tema. (Using the imperfecto)

It seems that the subjunctive in the position of the question would always be unacceptable because "verb + de" is always followed by the infinitive.


----------



## swath

The short answer seems to me, alekpushkin, that your example is not using a proper form of acabar for most situations.  But I think that because of a different reason than it seems that you are thinking.  I think it does not work because when "I just did something" is expressed in Spanish with the use of "acabar de", the conjugation of acabar is usually in some form of the present tense.  But, it further seems to me, acabar can be either subjunctive present or indicative present.  In other words, it seems to me that your example of "No me importa que acabara de hablar de ese tema" would...with my way of thinking...instead need to be "No me importa que acabe de hablar de ese tema" if the English version of what is trying to be stated is "It is not important to me that you just spoke of that subject".  I think that because I think I read somewhere that the "acabar de" construction is never used in any tense other than the present tense, because (or so I think the logic goes) the "I just" action is in the present, i.e. the action of the "just" verb is typically in the present tense.  And if the intent is to say that at some time in the past that the "just" action was done, then the present perfect (or past perfect, in some cases, I suppose) would be needed, i.e. "No me importa que hayas acabado...", which is of course what Agró  had previously typed.  I'm definitely interested to hear the thoughts of a native speaker.


----------



## Gamen

Hello everybody there.
Over here, we don't say "acabar de" but "ya" to mean "recently".

"I do not care if you *just* spoke about that issue".
Possible translation:
No me importa/no me interesa si *ya* hablaste de ese tema.
"Ya" conveys well the idea of something that has just finished or completed.

I think that the correspondence should be from a linguistic category to another of the same kind.
"Just" is not a verbal phrase but an adverbial linguistic unit, so we need to seek another equivalent grammatical category that, in this case, could be "ya", another adverbial phrase. "Acabo de decirte" [recién te he dicho], from my point of view, has "I've just told you" as equivalent form.
To me, "No me importa si acabaste de hablar" [verb "acabar" in the past tense] is similar in meaning to "no me importa si terminaste/concluiste de hablar", while "acabo de hablar/decir" [in present. Spanish also: "Recién he hablado/dicho"] means "I've just spoken" but not exactly "I finished speaking".
In reference to "no me importa que acabara de hablar" o "no me importa que acabe de hablar de ese tema", they sound like unnatural phrases to my ear because "acabar de [hacer]" in its meaning of "recién hice/he hecho" is likely to be just worded in indicative to me. "Acaba/acabó de llegar y ya está comiendo".
Now then, when "acabar" means "terminar", one could use any tense. "No me importa que no *haya acabado*. Ahora es mi turno para hablar". ["I don't care/mind he has not finished yet. Now is my turn to speak".]
"Espero que ella acabe de hablar para que yo pueda empezar con mi discurso de una buena vez". [I hope she will finish speaking so that I can start with my speech once and for all]

Definitely, the verb "acabar" in Spanish can present, at least, two different meanings: That of "imminence" expressed in present or past indicative: "Acabo/acabé de llegar" [I've just arrived"] and that one of "completeness": "Espero que la fiesta acabe [termine, concluya, finalice, llegue a su fin] antes de la medianoche" [I hope the party will finish, will conclude, will finalize, is over, comes to an end] before midnight.

Compare:
*Acabo de decirte *que no me importa si te vas o te quedas.
*I've just told* you that I don't care whether you go or stay.

*Ya acabé de hablar* [ya terminé/finalicé de hablar]
*I finished speaking*.

The English phrase "It is not important to me that you just spoke of that subject" should be translated as "No me importa/no es importante que *hayas hablado* de ese tema".

Regarding the subjunctive, *"no me importa que has contado mi secreto a Paco"* is *always incorrect* because "no me importa que" demands the subjunctive mood. The correct form is "no me importa que hayas contado mi secreto a Paco".
Likewise, "no me importa que hayas terminado de hablar", also requires the subjunctive and it is again demanded by the expression "no me importa que". However, the subjunctive is not applied in "no me importa si terminaste de hablar [o no]" because is an indirect question. So, it takes the indicative as we refer to the act of "terminar" [finishing] as a certain fact that we know it has materially taken place/occurred in the real world.


----------



## swath

Thank you so much for those comments, Gamen.  I have to contemplate further many of them, so I likely will have further comments after i have done so.  In the meantime, though, I do have an immediate comment to your suggestion for using "ya".  My understanding is that "ya" translates to "already" in most situations...although I see from Google Translate that it can also translate to "already", "anymore", "by now", and "before".  My understanding in my limited experience with Spanish is that "already" is the most typical translation.  As such, in my view, "ya" (in its translation as "already") does not contain fully the same implications that "just..." does.  When I use "I just did something" in English, I am meaning that the action was very recently performed.  In contrast to that situation, though, "already" ...at least in my usage of English over many decades in America...does not have to mean that the action was recently completed.  Instead, when "already" is used by me...and I believe by many American English speakers...such only means that the action has been completed, but it gives absolutely no implication of WHEN the action was completed.  In other words, when "already did something" is used, such can mean that it was done 10 seconds ago, or it can mean that it was done 10 years ago.  And yes, of course, I realize from what you wrote that in Argentina (and...who knows...maybe other Spanish speaking countries also) "ya" may imply...or may directly mean...that the action was recently done.  As an overview on all of this, it seems that different subtle interpretations exist in different countries.  So I will keep in mind from here forward that in Argentina "ya" can be used in the same way that "acabo de ___" is used in some other countries.  Thank you for noting it for us.  Hopefully we will hear from some others in other Spanish speaking countries whether or not "ya" also has the "just completed" implication in such other countries.


----------



## Gamen

Here, we commonly say "ya llegué" with the value of "acabo de llegar" and the meaning of "the action was recently completed/performed". Nevertheless, we also can use the expression with "acabar".

I agree with you that "ya" is, in most of the situations, translated as "already".
"Already" implies that the speaker or writer expects that something has occurred even though it has not.
Have you already done it?
Ya lo has hecho?

On the other hand, as opposed to what usually occurs, sometimes "yet" can also be translated as "ya" instead of "todavía" o "aún",
Have you finished the task yet? or Have you already finished the task? or have you finished the task already? I really don't find the difference in meaning now.
Translation into Spanish: ¿Ya has terminado la tarea?

Personally, I think "ya" is one of the most complicated words to translate because it has many nuances and not always can be identified with "already" in an univocal form.
*Ya no* quiero más ese auto. I *don't* want that car *anymore/any longer*.
*Ya,* no puedo ir contigo. *Now*, I can't go with you.
*Ya mismo* voy. I'm coming *right now*.
*Ya sea que* vengas o no, igual te respeto. *Whether *you come *or* not, I respect you anyway.
*Ya* sé. I know. (In this case the adverb "ya" directly is not translated)


----------



## swath

Thank you again, Gamen.  I actually have a comment on a different point that your first response gave.  Such is with you having written the following...
_The English phrase "It is not important to me that you just spoke of that subject" should be translated as "No me importa/no es importante que *hayas hablado* de ese tema"._

I have a different understanding of the subjunctive present perfect in this situation than it seems you have...  and I pose my statement in that way because I am hoping you can tell me whether or not Spanish automatically incorporates an implication of what I think is missing in the "...hayas hablado..." usage, i.e. I am hoping you can tell me if my understanding is wrong.  To me, the use of "hayas hablado" has the direct translation of "you have spoken" (though with a subjunctive mood twist).  Further to me, "you have spoken"...at least in English...does not have any implication of the speaking action only RECENTLY having been completed.  If I say "you have spoken", there is no indication...at least not in English...of WHEN you have spoken.  It could have been started 5 minutes ago, or it could have been started 5 years ago.  So that is why I am not completely understanding why it is that you state that "It is not important to me that you JUST spoke of that subject" is translated into Spanish as "No me importa que hayas hablado de ese tema".  In other words, I do not understand how the phrase "hayas hablado" incorporates the "just done" consideration, i.e. the "recently completed" consideration that the "you JUST spoke of that subject" implies.  BUT I suppose it is possible...and please tell me if this is the case...that the use of the subjunctive present perfect (i.e. "hayas hablado") carries with it the implication of the action having been "just (recently) done".  Is that the case?
To summarize the above thoughts with some English examples..there is a definite difference in English between saying "It is not important to me that you JUST spoke of that subject" and "It is not important to me that you have spoken of that subject".  In the first case, there is a definite statement that the action being considered is one that could have only recently been done, but in the second case there is no such implication, because "...that you have spoken of that subject..." leaves open the possibility that the speaking could have been done 5 minutes ago, and also the possibility that it could have been done 5 years ago.  Again, if Spanish (at least Argentinian Spanish?) has a different implication with such subjunctive present perfect, please let me know.
¡Muchas gracias!


And thank you for all of those "common ways to use 'ya' " that you JUST listed for us !  I am reading a book in Spanish, and I think that I have seen "ya" used many times in what I had at the time thought were "odd" situations (i.e. situations where a translation of "already" in such sentences did not seem to make sense).  Now, with the additional information on those other common uses of "ya", I can go back to what I was reading and try to find those "odd" situations, and see if any of them match up with some of the examples that you JUST gave.


----------



## Gamen

In Spanish we don't say "no es importante que ya *hablaste/has hablado *de ese tema"  because we always employ the subjunctive after the formula "no es importante que". So, we always have to necessarily use any subjunctive form in this case.
"No es importante que ya hayas hablado del tema" = "It's not important that you just spoke of that subject"/"It's not important that you have just already spoken of that subject".
*It seems to me that the two English forms using the indicative match up with just one subjunctive form in Spanish, that is, "haya + participle".*

I hope Peru was fun/has been fun! (Someone told me that when I arrived from my visit/vacations in Peru)
Espero que Perú haya sido divertido!  
Espero que Perú fue divertido!

The Present Perfect Subjunctive expresses an action that was concluded in the past and is previous to a present or future moment.


----------



## swath

Thank you for clarifying that, Gamen.  So it looks like indeed the "ya" is needed in order to have the "just completed" thought be included when the Present Perfect Subjunctive is used.  So your update of "no es importante que YA hayas hablado del tema" = "It is not important that you just spoke of that subject" now makes perfect sense to me.  Thanks!


Although...now that I think about it more...the Present Perfect Subjunctive has "built within it" the thought that the action being considered is an action that "express a past event that has present consequences" (that definition comes from wikipedia's definition of Present Perfect). But what if I, as the speaker, want the verb to express a past event that does NOT have present consequences?  In other words, what if the action being considered was done once, and was completed, and does NOT have any present consequences?  In English, such an action would be considered with the use of the past tense, i.e. "it is not important to me that you just SPOKE of that subject".  So, in English, there are different implications (i.e. the meaning of such is different) of that phrase than of the phrase "it is not important to me that you HAVE JUST SPOKEN of that subject".  In other words, in the first example I just gave (i.e. "it is not important to me that you just SPOKE of that subject"), the speaking action being considered has been completed, and there is no consideration of it having any present consequences.  In contrast, though, in the second example I just gave (i.e. "it is not important to me that you HAVE JUST SPOKEN of that subject"), there is definitely an implication of the considered action having ongoing implications...which is why the Present Perfect Subjunctive is used.  In contrast to these differences as occur in English, though, it seems that you might be indicating that in Spanish the use of the Present Perfect Subjunctive does not necessarily imply that there is such type of ongoing consequences of that completed action.  I say that because you gave two possible translations of "no es importante que ya hayas hablado del tema" ... EITHER "It's not important that you just spoke of that subject" OR "It's not important that you have just already spoken of that subject".  Maybe I am being too much of a stickler here, but with those two different translations, it seems that proper consideration is not fully given for the implications "built in" to the Present Perfect Subjunctive.  In English, it seems to me that whenever the Present Perfect Subjunctive is used, there MUST be the implication that the past action being considered has present implications.  So that is why I am still stuck (i.e. not completely understanding) why Spanish would not seem to have a way to express a past action that does NOT have present consequences. In other words, I am expressing a bit of surprise that "no es importante que ya hablaste de ese tema" is not a legitimate phrase.  HOWEVER, I think I do understand why...at least according to your further explanation.  And the answer seems to be simply that it is not permissible to have a past tense verb following "que", but that there instead must be a subjunctive verb following "que"...so such seems to further mean that the only options available are any of the past tense subjunctive conjugations (Present Perfect Subjunctive, Imperfect Subjunctive, or Past Perfect Subjunctive).  And, as you point out, the only one of them that fits our considered situation is the Present Perfect Subjunctive (with "no es importante que ya hayas hablado del tema").

In short, it seems that I am tentatively asserting that Spanish does not seem to have a verb conjugation available that exactly corresponds to the English phrase "it is not important to me that you just SPOKE of that subject", with the English incorporation of the thought that the action being spoken of (i.e. the "SPOKE", which is strictly Past Tense) is a completed action that does NOT have present (i.e. of the current moment) consequences.  Instead...or so it seems to me...Spanish uses instead the Present Perfect Subjunctive, EVEN THOUGH an English speaker like me would normally assume that the Present Perfect Subjunctive DOES have present (i.e. of the current moment) consequences.  So it seems that I merely have to learn that there is not a Spanish speaking/writing way to have the clause that follows the "que" speak of an action that does NOT have present (i.e. of the current moment) consequences, and instead use in Spanish the Present Perfect Subjunctive for such a situation.  What do you think?


oops!  I see that you already stated in a very succinct manner what it took me two long paragraphs (as contained above) to write.  You stated that...
*It seems to me that the two English forms using the indicative match up with just one subjunctive form in Spanish, that is, "haya + participle".*
So it seems that I fully agree with you.
Thanks!!!


----------



## Gamen

What a good question that of yours!
I remember that when I was at Secondary School I had seen in my English reading book the sentence "I hope Peru was fun". And I said to myself: this expression makes no sense to me! So, I began to look into my books and around to know how I could say that in Spanish!
It was then that I found out the translation into Spanish couldn't be anything other than "Espero que Perú haya sido divertido".
But, I agree with you that the Present Perfect Subjunctive DOES have or SHOULD have, by definition, present consequences. So, how can the Spanish language manage to convey the idea of finished or completed past actions if it has not any Past Simple form -or equivalent- for the subjunctive?
In fact, in the case of the Present Perfect Indicative we know well that the verb carries the idea of "present consequences or implications" and, because of this, it differs from the "Simple Past" [indefinido] as the latter describes the actions just as "totally accomplished".
Thus, the Present Perfect Indicative points out that what was started in the past may continue somehow in the present or have possible effects in the present, while the Simple Past shows the actions as completed or totally performed/fulfilled.
For example, we use to making distinctions like these ones:
Hay muchas cosas para hacer. Todavía no he terminado. [We use the Present Perfect Indicative] What I started in the past has not been completed in the present yet.
Ya no hay nada más que hacer. Ya terminé todo. I finished it all. [We use the Simple Past] What I started in the past has no continuity in the present. It was all accomplished in the past, so to speak.

Well, today at least, I don't have any convincing answer to give you, which can explain why we can mark the differences between the Present Perfect and Simple Past in the indicative but not in the subjunctive.  At least, not me.


----------



## swath

Well, I suppose, as the saying goes in English..."it is what it is".  In other words, maybe there just simply is not a way to mark the differences between the Present Perfect in the subjunctive and Simple Past in the subjunctive, and we just have to live with that  (until someone else gives us a better answer!)
Thanks again for thinking this issue through with me.  ¡Buenas noches!


----------

