# Prima che - subjunctive with a factual statement



## della_malo

This is an article from Corriere Della Sera.  I added the first sentence for more context.  I know the use of the subjunctive is covered ad nauseum here but...I still run into usage of it where I can't figure out why it was used.

The article is about a racy Facebook page that was closed due to inappropriate content.
My question is:  Why did they use the subjunctive with "chiudessero" if they are stating that the owners of Facebook already closed the page- a factual statement?? 

_E secondo quanto racconta il quotidiano britannico Sun, l'iniziativa ha avuto un grande successo: ben 100 uomini avevano iniziato a chattare con lei sul sito e con 50 di loro aveva avuto rapporti sessuali. Il tutto in tre mesi, prima che i gestori di Facebook chiudessero la sua pagina. _
_From __Corriere.it_


----------



## TimLA

This drives me nuts too!
There are a series of conjunctions that require the subjuntive.
This page gives them all (2/3 of the way down the page)
- and "prima che" is one of them.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!


----------



## DAH

> _prima che_


 Takes the subjunctive.


----------



## cscarfo

What's wrong with that? Would you use "chiudano" (present subj) NOOOO!!
"chiudono" Horror!!!! "abbiano chiuso"? No, the meaning would be different!
"avessero chiuso" still wrong.
You see, there is anly one choice...
Ciao


----------



## della_malo

Thanks for the link!

I feel like an idiot when I can't understand certain subjunctive uses...

Let's take a hypothetical factual statement.  Even thought this statement is factual, if it is preceeded by one of the conjunctions in the link you sent, it requires the subjunctive.

I mean....really?  What if the hypothetical statement included "the world is round", but was preceeded by one of those subjunctive-requiring conjunctions??
The speaker would be expressing doubt that the world is round, no?

GRRRR!!!  
WHY? WHY? WHY?!
haha!


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Bear in mind that the subjunctive is used *not only* for hypothetical statements.
I don't perceive even the least hypothetical nuance when I read that sentence, but the description of a fact happened in the past.


----------



## The_Vanishing_Italian

Yes, the vagaries of the Italian subjunctive may drive people mad... ;-)
As a rule of thumb, one can imagine to place oneself in the main clause and look at the events described in the subordinate clause from that vantage point. If such events are (still) uncertain or undefined, the subjunctive is the mode you need...
If I say that such and such happened before NN came back, NN's coming back was still uncertain when such and such took place. But if I say that such and such happened after NN came back, his coming back is a tough fact 

Thus: "La guerra scoppiò prima che Giorgio ritornasse" ("prima che Giorgio ritornò" would be a mistake here).
But: "La guerra scoppiò dopo che Giorgio era tornato" ("dopo che Giorgio ritornasse", or "fosse ritornato" are mistaken).


----------



## TimLA

Aha! But you are thinking in English!

If I were Italian. (I'm not, so subjunctive is required)

Italian
1. Secondary clause subjunctive, main clause fear, etc.
Not applicable in English
I fear that I am going crazy.
 
I fear that I were going crazy.


2. Conjunctions
benché, sebbene, malgrado, nonostante, quantunque (all meaning: although, in spite of, even though, even if)
purché, a patto che, a condizione che (all meaning: provided that)
nel caso che (in case)
affinché, cosicché, in modo che (all meaning: so that, in order that)
senza che (without)
prima che (before)

 
Prima che è troppo presto.
 Prima che sia troppo presto.

Before it is too early.
Before it were too early.
 (subjunctive is wrong in English)

Ah, languages, aren't they beautiful!


----------



## DAH

Rule taken from TimLA's site:  Ecco:

if the verb in the main clause is in the: 
any past tense (passato prossimo, imperfetto, trapassato)

_. . . ben 100 uomini avevano iniziato a chattare con lei sul sito e con 50 di loro aveva avuto rapporti sessuali._

_Il tutto in tre mesi,  _[No verb, but the gist relates to the preceding sentence wherein it is told that these events occurred in the past.]

_prima che _

_i gestori di Facebook chiudessero la sua pagina. 
_ 
congiuntivo imperfetto 
(if the action is simultaneous or future with respect to the action of the main clause)


----------



## Angel.Aura

della_malo said:


> I know the use of the subjunctive is covered _ad nauseum_ here but...


Ciao della_malo, 
It is ad nauseam. (I know, the result is still the same... )


----------



## giovannino

Paulfromitaly said:


> Bear in mind that the subjunctive is used *not only* for hypothetical statements.


 
Good point, Paul. I seem to remember that our sorely missed _moderatore latitante_, Munchnerfax, has often made the same point: the subjunctive is simply required after certain verbs and conjunctions. Unfortunately learners keep getting told that "the subjunctive expresses uncertainty" and are therefore rightly surprised (like della_malo) when they are confronted with the countless cases where there is no uncertainty whatsoever.


----------



## fer1975

della_malo said:


> This is an article from Corriere Della Sera. I added the first sentence for more context. I know the use of the subjunctive is covered ad nauseum here but...I still run into usage of it where I can't figure out why it was used.
> 
> The article is about a racy Facebook page that was closed due to inappropriate content.
> My question is: Why did they use the subjunctive with "chiudessero" if they are stating that the owners of Facebook already closed the page- a factual statement??
> 
> _E secondo quanto racconta il quotidiano britannico Sun, l'iniziativa ha avuto un grande successo: ben 100 uomini avevano iniziato a chattare con lei sul sito e con 50 di loro aveva avuto rapporti sessuali. Il tutto in tre mesi, prima che i gestori di Facebook chiudessero la sua pagina. _
> _From __Corriere.it_


It applies the same subjunctive rule as in Spanish. Antes de que + subj.
prima di + subj.



> Niente Spagnolo.


----------



## della_malo

Angel.Aura said:


> Ciao della_malo,
> It is ad nauseam. (I know, the result is still the same... )


 
AH hah I knew I screwed that up!  Thanks for the correction


----------



## Necsus

Here in SI there is a thread about 'prima che'...


----------



## brian

giovannino said:


> Good point, Paul. I seem to remember that our sorely missed _moderatore latitante_, Munchnerfax, has often made the same point: the subjunctive is simply required after certain verbs and conjunctions. Unfortunately learners keep getting told that "the subjunctive expresses uncertainty" and are therefore rightly surprised (like della_malo) when they are confronted with the countless cases where there is no uncertainty whatsoever.



Esatto.  Ecco un altro esempio che fa impazzire a chi non è madrelingua italiano: _essere contento che + _congiuntivo.

_Sono contento che *sia* venuto anche tu stasera. _


----------



## london calling

giovannino said:


> Good point, Paul. I seem to remember that our sorely missed _moderatore latitante_, Munchnerfax, has often made the same point: the subjunctive is simply required after certain verbs and conjunctions. Unfortunately learners keep getting told that "the subjunctive expresses uncertainty" and are therefore rightly surprised (like della_malo) when they are confronted with the countless cases where there is no uncertainty whatsoever.


 
Yes, quite!
Those of us who learnt Italian as a second (or third!) language were given long lists of words and expressions which we were told required the subjunctive FULL STOP, and we were therefore to  FORGET anything they ever told us about its expressing uncertainty.....


----------



## Einstein

TimLA said:


> I fear that I am going crazy.
> 
> I fear that I were going crazy.
> 
> 
> Before it is too early.
> Before it were too early.
> (subjunctive is wrong in English)


 
In these cases _were_ is the past subjunctive so would be wrong in any case. The present subjunctive is _be_ and would be appropriate in old English:
Though this _be_ madness there is method in it (Macbeth).
Also: _I fear that I *be*_ _going crazy_ would be correct in old English.


----------



## The_Vanishing_Italian

Einstein, I think you mean "English in the Elizabethian times" or Early Modern English. As far as I know, "Old English" is often used to mean the Angle-Saxon language that was spoken in England (more or less) up to the Norman invasion (Beowulf etc.). But this is a  minor point. I think you are right in pointing out that the English used the subjunctive in a way that is not so far from the Italian language. There is a common origin: the Indo-European subjunctive and optative moods, which collapsed into a single mood in several Indo-European languages (but not in ancient Greek). These were mainly used to express hypothetical and counterfactual statements, wishes, attitudes towards something.

As to the Italian subjunctive -- one can surely try to learn a list of all the rules and contexts for the appropriate use of the subjunctive. But you have sooner or later to go beyond that and acquire a skill to perceive the shades and nuances of meaning that are expressed by the use of a certain grammatical mood. -- Learning lists by heart can be a good way to start.

Think of the difference between "penso che lei non sia qui" and "penso che lei non è qui". The former answers a question like "Where is she?"; the latter, "What are you thinking of?"; and it would be nonsensical to replace a reply with the other.
"Penso che lei non sia qui" resembles "Sono contento che tu sia venuto". The focus is on your thinking and on your being happy -- your (propositional) attitude comes first and the fact is presented through it. Provided that you keep the emphasis on your "attitude", you can even reformulate these sentences such in a way as to replace the subjunctive with the indicative mood: "A quanto vedo, lei non è qui". "Sono contento perché sei venuto".
But if you say "Penso che lei non è qui" the actuality of the fact that she is not here is emphasized.

We shold not misunderstand grammarians when they say that the subjunctive is the mood of hypothesis, counterfactuals and wish. Several moods, including the subj., are called "irrealis". But this does *not* mean that what is expressed in those grammatical moods is *not* real or not factual. It means that reality or factuality is not what we mainly aim at by using such moods.

However, a real "grammarian" would help...!


----------



## della_malo

giovannino said:


> The subjunctive is simply required after certain verbs and conjunctions. Unfortunately learners keep getting told that "the subjunctive expresses uncertainty" and are therefore rightly surprised (like della_malo) when they are confronted with the countless cases where there is no uncertainty whatsoever.


 
Perfect. Thank you!  You should write a book on the subjunctive!  It's true, I have read in various different books that the subjunctive *always *expresses uncertainty; and I thought, ok good, this is an unshakeable rule I can go by.  
The word 'always' here gives alot of misguided comfort!!

I wish there was a book solely for subjunctive practice.  I have 4 different verb books but all of them only donate a small portion to the topic.  So far I have found this online.


----------



## cscarfo

brian8733 said:


> Esatto.  Ecco un altro esempio che fa impazzire a chi non è madrelingua italiano: _essere contento che + _congiuntivo.
> 
> _Sono contento che *sia* venuto anche tu stasera. _




But: "Sono contento che *sei* venuto anche tu stasera" is not wrong either.
And: "Sono contento che *sono* venuto qui stasera" is the only possible form, no subjunctive.
Ciao


----------



## Paulfromitaly

cscarfo said:


> And: "Sono contento che *sono* venuto qui stasera" is the only possible form, no subjunctive.
> Ciao



Noo... 
Sono contento *di essere* venuto qui stasera.


----------



## ViolentFemme

cscarfo said:


> But: "Sono contento che *sei* venuto anche tu stasera" is not wrong either.


I agree. I think the _presente indicativo_ is more used by natives in this context.
But if the subject (tu) was expressed before the verb, I'd judge the _presente indicativo_ awkward and incorrect, and I'd use only the _congiuntivo presente:_
"Sono contento che (anche) tu sia venuto"



> And: "Sono contento che *sono* venuto qui stasera" is the only possible form, no subjunctive.
> Ciao


Actually, I think this is incorrect!  I think the only way to express that (I'm happy *I*'ve come") is through the _infinito passato_:
"Sono contento *di essere venuto* qui stasera"


----------



## cscarfo

ViolentFemme said:


> I agree. I think the _presente indicativo_ is more used by natives in this context.
> But if the subject (tu) was expressed before the verb, I'd judge the _presente indicativo_ awkward and incorrect, and I'd use only the _congiuntivo presente:_
> "Sono contento che (anche) tu sia venuto"
> 
> 
> Actually, I think this is incorrect!  I think the only way to express that (I'm happy *I*'ve come") is through the _infinito passato_:
> "Sono contento *di essere venuto* qui stasera"



E' chiaro che "di essere venuto" è più corretto, ma l'argomento della discussione è l'uso del congiuntivo. E' forzato, ma il punto è che parlando di sé stesso, si usa l'indicativo con "essere contento che...". Per altre persone l'indicativo è più deciso e "energico", il congiuntivo più cortese e sfumato. In qualche misura, a mio modo di intendere, sottintende che non so se sei/siete venuti intenzinalmente.

Rileggendo il testo, noto di aver scritto "E' chiaro che..." + indicativo, non congiuntivo. Io asserisco che E' PIU' CORRETTO. Se avessi usato il congiuntivo (non mi piacerebbe) la mia asserzione sarebbe meno decisa. Se studiamo qualche discorso di politici, scommetto che troveremo esempi di "E' chiaro che.." + congiuntivo...
E' quanto vorrei far capire a gli stranieri che trovano difficoltà nel comprendere l'uso del congiuntivo nelle frasi indirette.
Ciao


----------



## ViolentFemme

cscarfo said:


> E' chiaro che "di essere venuto" è più corretto, ma l'argomento della discussione è l'uso del congiuntivo. E' forzato, ma il punto è che parlando di sé stesso, si usa l'indicativo con "essere contento che...".


Sinceramente, se dovessi sentire una frase come "Sono contento che sono venuto" penserei che chi l'ha pronunciata non è italiano. Mi suona davvero male! Al di là del discorso congiuntivo vs. indicativo, mi sembra proprio grammaticalmente scorretto. Non so se qualche grammatica lo cita come esempio.



> Rileggendo il testo, noto di aver scritto "E' chiaro che..." + indicativo, non congiuntivo. Io asserisco che E' PIU' CORRETTO.


Anch'io sono d'accordo sulla correttezza di "è chiaro che..." + indicativo. Non credo che userei mai il congiuntivo in questo caso.

PS: a dire il vero anche "sé stesso" mi sembra errato (anche se si può incontrare nei quotidiani!): ho sempre saputo che "sé" da solo va con l'accento, ma insieme a "stesso" (se stesso) no; questo perché l'accento in italiano serve per disambiguare due omofoni: "sé" senza accento potrebbe essere confuso con il se ipotetico (se fossi...), ma con "stesso" l'ambiguità svanisce, e l'accento è inutile.


----------



## DAH

ViolentFemme said:
			
		

> I think the only way to express that (I'm happy *I*'ve come") is through the _infinito passato_:


The English tense you used is the present perfect which confuses the translation (I think). 





> "Sono contento *di essere venuto* qui stasera"


 I happy to have come here tonight. 



> cscarfo And: "Sono contento che *sono* venuto qui stasera"


 It should be translated as _I'm happy that I came her tonight_.

If anyone else has further insight, let's see it.


----------



## Panpan

Hi all

I would be really grateful if you would look at this and offer your comments.

I have found two examples of the subjunctive used to describe events that took place; it is not a matter of conjecture or opinion that the events took place. I don't understand why the subjunctive is being used, instead of the historic past, or another past tense.

Both sentences are from Acquerello Italiano audio magazine for English speaking learners of Italian, Anno XIV No.3 (the most recent edition at time of writing, copyright 2008 Champs-Elysees Inc).

The first is from a sentance about Saint Padre Pio of San Giovanni Rotondo in Foggia, Puglia,talking about the increase in the number of hotels in the area since the exhumation;

E pensare che nel 2000, prima che Padre Pio diventasse santo, gli hotel nella zona erano solo ventuno, con poco piu di mille posti letto.

'And to think that, in 2000, before Padre Pio was sainted, there were only twenty one hotels in the area, with just over one thousand bed spaces'.

The second is an interview with the Prince of Belmonte, talking about the development of Palazzo Belmonte into a hotel;

E un'impressa molto ciclopica per aver incominciato a fare, forse, il primo l'industriale del turismo del Sud, perche prima che arrivassi non esisteva nessuna forma di turismo.

'It's a huge undertaking to have begun to create, perhaps, the first tourist industry in the South, because before I arrived there wasn't any kind of tourism in existence'.

The sanctification of Padre Pio is a fixed historical event, and so is the arrival of Prince Belmonte back in Cilento from New York. Clearly you use the subjunctive in these circumstances, but why?

I would be really grateful for an explanation

Panpan


----------



## Paulfromitaly

You may want to read this 

subjunctive with a factual statement


----------



## baldpate

As I understand it, "prima che" (like "a patto che", "sebbene" etc) is one of those expressions which absolutely requires the subjunctive, whatever tense is used.  It has little to do with hypothetical situations (although I suppose it could be argued that if ones point of view is 'projected into the past' is becomes hypothetical).

Maybe the experts will explain it differently !


----------



## Panpan

Thanks baldpate, I think I get it.
Thanks Paul, I really needed to read that.


----------

