# agradecer + que + subjunctive



## timlee43

Hola, foreros:
I have looked through the threads dealing with _*agradecer*_, but haven't found an example with _*que*_ followed by the _subjunctive_ or _indicative_.
Here are some examples that I am unsure about:
1. We are grateful that they invited us to have dinner.
    Agradecemos que nos han invitado / hayan invitado a cenar. 

2. We are always grateful when they invite us to have dinner.
    Agradecemos siempre que nos invitan / inviten a cenar. 

3. We are grateful that they invited us to have dinner.
    Estamos agradecidos de que nos han / hayan invitado a cenar.

Example 2 "feels" to me as if it should be in the _subjunctive_, the other examples don't.
Am I on the right track?

Estaría muy agradecido por cualquier ayuda.


----------



## blasita

Hello.

_Agradecer_ is usually followed by the subjunctive. And I'd personally use it in your three sentences.

I haven't got the NGLE with me now, but just as an example (_CREA_):


> Sr. Villacampa -dijo-, agradezca usted que *estoy* amarrado como una bestia salvaje; que si no, mosén Antón no se dejaría insultar villanamente. (_Juan Martín el Empecinado_. Perez Galdós, Benito)



I think that in this case the speaker considers it to be new information, so he chose to use the indicative instead. But, as I mentioned earlier, subjunctive is normally used and this is the only case I can think of.

Hope this helps. More opinions will come. Saludos.


----------



## timlee43

Gracias, Blasita, por su respuesta.
Every resource that I have looked at states that *agradecer* should be followed by the subjunctive, as you pointed out. What I'm wondering is if someone has invited you for dinner, isn't it a fact that you have been invited which would only change if you were uninvited? Therefore, why wouldn't one say *Les agradezco que me han invitado* ? (because the invitation has been made). I'm just trying to understand where there is any uncertainty or ambiguity that would require the subjunctive.
Gracias otra vez.


----------



## Peterdg

Hi Blasita,

The example you give is one of the stranger mechanisms of the subjunctive. It's described in the NGLEec 25.8.m,n.(efecto bloqueador del subjuntivo en la principal)

When the verb in the principal clause itself is already in the subjunctive (agradezca), then the indicative becomes the more natural choice in the subordinate.

There is another thread that contains another example of this phenomenon (look at Pinairun's post).

EDIT: added link to other thread.

It's like sending a mail without the attachment.


----------



## blasita

Great! Thank you again, Peter.

Timlee, is it clearer now, please?


----------



## Peterdg

timlee43 said:


> Gracias, Blasita, por su respuesta.
> Every resource that I have looked at states that *agradecer* should be followed by the subjunctive, as you pointed out. What I'm wondering is if someone has invited you for dinner, isn't it a fact that you have been invited which would only change if you were uninvited? Therefore, why wouldn't one say *Les agradezco que me han invitado* ? (because the invitation has been made). I'm just trying to understand where there is any uncertainty or ambiguity that would require the subjunctive.
> Gracias otra vez.


It is a general misconception that the subjunctive is used for _hypothetical/uncertain/unreal etc_. situations. Although that is the origin of the subjunctive, in the meanwhile the language has evolved. Most current grammarians (the serious ones, I mean; not the ones writing textbooks to teach Spanish; they always oversimplify how the subjunctive works) now agree that the _hypothetical, unreal, uncertain etc_. criterion is simply not a valid one to enable the user to decide between the indicative/subjunctive. In some situations, it works, in others, it doesn't. If you use this, you are bound to make mistakes.

As an example: "Me alegra mucho que Ud esté aquí con nosotros esta noche". There is nothing _unreal/uncertain/hypothetical _about the situation and still the subjunctive is used. 

Now, to come back to your question: "_Les agradezco mucho que me *hayan* invitado"_ is the way to say it in Spain, whether it's a fact or not that you have been invited.

That was about Spain. In certain parts of South America (I'm certain about Nicaragua, but possibly also in other regions), you may also find an indicative here, but you will never be wrong with the subjunctive.


----------



## alanla

For me, as a _gringo_, besides using the subjunctive in unreal _vs_.real situations, I have been taught it mostly falls into 3 basic categories: *doubt*, *emotion*,and *indirect commands*.

This seems to fit the broad category of *emotion*; at least that is the way I personally see it. That’s how I make sense of it. And I find it similar to sentences like: “_Me alegro de que_ +subjunctive” or “_Me temo que_ +subjunctive.” To me it also has the same tone as “_Me qusta que_ + subjunctive.” And that’s the idea behind the subjunctive _mood_.
Others may differ about this approach, but it has worked for me, anyway. The Spanish subjunctive drives us _gringos_ crazy in the beginning, and sometimes it is so subtle and even lends itself to 2 interpretations, depending on the feeling of the speaker, as the natives have said. It has a certain “feel” to it, which takes a lot work for us to master since the English subjunctive is so limited. Apparently, at times it is more art than science.

Just my humble opinion. Hope some of this helps.


----------



## timlee43

Thanks to Peterdg and everyone else,
You've shed some light on a difficult subject for a beginner, such as I, and your help is much appreciated.


----------



## Gamen

I was reading this thread attentively and it seemed very interesting to me. I'm very  keen on grammar and, especially, the subjunctive use. For this reason,  I'd like to give my viewpoint.
In general terms the subjuctive falls into the mentioned categories: *doubt or uncertainty, emotion or feeligns, fear, wishes, commands*. But in certain cases, this does not apply as in the said case of "Agradecer" where the real and certain fact is patent.

We say in Spanish: *Les agradezco que hayan venido*. We *never *say: *"Les agradezco que han venido".*
As for: *Agradecemos siempre que nos invitan*.  Here, we can use the indicative to express a fact that is real and  certain and that  has effectively occurred some time in the past. But,  we also can say: *Agradecemos que nos inviten*. In this case, we are talking about possible or contingent facts. We are grateful for something that *might* *happen* or not. We are thanking for those possible events that *may occur* in the future but we don't know when, so the degree of uncertainty is evident. 
Regarding the other example, *"Estamos agradecidos de que nos hayan invitado a cenar"*,  I can say that here we always use the past subjunctive. I don't  remember using the indicative in this case, even though it is a real and  certain fact. In Argentina, at least, we would *never* say: *Estamos agradecidos de que nos invitaron/ nos han invitado a cenar*. 

A little curious is also the case of "pensar" or "creer".
In  affirmative sentences we use the indicative, but in negative sentences  where the degree of uncertainty is higher we must use the subjunctive. Let's see some examples:
Creo que Juan *va a venir* a la fiesta (here we always use the indicative)
No creo que Juan *venga* a la fiesta. (never the indicative here)

There  are cases where you can use the subjunctive or the indicative according  to the degree of uncertainty, but in other cases, we must use just the  subjuntive since it is compulsory. I think non native Spanish speakers should learn every case  in particular because some constructions seem not to follow the basic  rules aforementioned.

For instance the sentences with verbs or turns expressing fear, hope and wish always demand the use of the Subjunctive forms.
*Tengo miedo de que* nadie *venga* a mi cumpleaños
*Espero* que me *comprendan*
*Deseo/quiero* que las cosas *mejoren* para el bien de todos
*Me alegro* de que *hayas mejorado* de salud y te hayas recuperado tan pronto
But
*Me parece que*/ *creo que* casi nadie *va a venir*  a mi fiesta de cumpleaños porque pocos me confirmaron la  participación.  (Here there is at least a certain degree of uncertainty. I am not completely sure that nobody is going to come but the indicative  is used anyway) 

I hope this will be useful for non native Spanish speakers.
You can ask whatever you want if any doubt. I'm really keen on this matter.


----------



## timlee43

Thank you, Gamen, for taking the time to answer so thoroughly. I didn't realize I had received your response, so I'm a little late with my reply. Regarding *agradecer*, your explanation was very helpful and, if I understand correctly, I know now that I should always use the subjunctive after *agradecer*. I suppose that I could avoid problems simply by saying *Les agredezco su invitacion a cenar*. 
On the same subject, the subjunctive, I came across another example that has me puzzled, *Temo que se equivoca de número*. The verb *temer* seems to imply emotion (fear, albeit to a small degree in this case) and , therefore, should be followed by the subjunctive. If my assumption is correct, why is *equivocarse* in the indicative? Or is this one of those constructions that you mentioned that should simply be committed to memory?
Thanks again for your time and much appreciated help.


----------



## Gamen

Hi Timlee43.
You have understood all correctly. "Agradecer" always  requires the subjunctive after the relative pronoun "que". But if you  want to avoid the "commitment" to have to decide if the subjunctive is Ok,  you can use 
*"Les agredezco su invitacion a cenar"* as up to some degree equivalent to *"Estamos agradecidos de que nos hayan invitado a cenar"*.
Regarding the sentence *"temo que se equivoca de número"*,  you employ the indicative because the speaker there wants to point out  that it is about a real action that it is happening at the moment of the  speech: the action that someone is confusing the number. Speaker 1 is  afraid that Speaker 2 is confusing the number. 
But, you can also use the subjunctive and say: *"temo que se equivoque de número"*.  Here you are indicating that the Speaker 1 is not certain/sure if the  Speaker 2 is going to confuse the number but Speaker 1 is afraid that Speaker 2 might  confuse it. Speaker 1 supposes that speaker 2 might take the number for  another one, but it is just a possibility because he (Speaker 1) is not  quite sure. This degree of uncertainty is marked by the subjunctive.

To summarize:
Temo  que (usted) se equivoca de número: I'm afraid you are confusing the  number/ you are taking a number for another one. I'm sure you are wrong.
Temo  que (usted) se equivoque de número: I'm afraid that you might confuse  the number, but I'm not completely certain that it really may occur.  Maybe you can confuse the number.

As we can see, with "temer" or "tener miedo", you can use both the indicative and the subjunctive, whereas with "Agradecer que". it is always manadatory to use the "subjunctive".

I hope I was clear.
Ask me otherwise.


----------



## alanla

I am glad the question came up again. Your grammar question shows that difficult gray area of the subjunctive and made me think, too. I seet his in a certain way. Maybe this might help to make the point. I am assuming that your answer [*se equivoca*] was one answer that was considered to be correct in class or the book you are studying:

*1)*   Temo que se equivoca de número. [use of indicative because = *statement of a fact*]
*Meaning:* I am [definitely,in fact] afraid he is wrong about the number.
*2)*   Temo que se equivoque de número. [use of subjunctive to indicate *emotion *toward a person/situation receiving the action]
*Meaning:* I am afraid [*emotion*]he is wrong about the number.

It seems that when using the *present subjunctive*, you have to always consider what you want to convey, keeping in mind that, on the few occasions, when you want to make that “statement of a fact,” the indicative is used.

****It also seems that the *past subjunctive* is more clear cut, with the subjunctive being used.

In the initial example with *agradecer*, [ 2. We are always grateful when theyinvite us to have dinner.
Agradecemos siempre que nos invitan / inviten a cenar.] I also thought that that might be valid to possibly use the indicative, too, as a statement of fact and that either answer might be correct, _depending on_ _what aperson really meant_. That was the one that was a little problematic for me at first glance. Some of the natives seemed to some question about a choice in that case. Couldn’t this be the same as what was just explained in the last post?? Why is  *agradecer *actually any different than the example with *temer*?

Maybe *gamen *or another native speaker could help to clarify this. I certainly defer to the native on any definitive statements about the subjunctive grammar.
*Note:* I particularly liked *gamen*’s use of “might happen" in *Post # 9 *to help explain the subjunctive.
Please feel to correct anything I said that you might think is not accurate.


----------



## Gamen

Hi alanla:
In Spanish, we only can say: *"agradecemos (o estamos siempre agradecidos) que nos inviten a cenar"*. It's not possible to use the indicative here. We can't say: "*agradecemos (o estamos siempre agradecidos) que nos invitan a cenar"*  (this last is wrong, totally inadmissible in Spanish). Even though, as  you well point out, it is a statement of fact, "agradecer que" demands  the use of the subjunctive. 
However, with the construction "temer  que", the language admits the use both the indicative and the  subjunctive according to the degree of certainty you assign to the  action executed by someone else.
We also must use the subjunctive in this example: *"Me gusta/me pone contento que nos inviten hoy a cenar"*.  Maybe we can take the action of thanking as a feeling or a subjunctive  fact and, this way, we could justify the use of this tense here.
Anyway,  I think it is necessary to study every case in particular and learn the  structures that demand the use of the subjunctive by heart when it is  no possible to determine for certain if we must apply the subjunctive or  the indicative.

I was not of much help this time. Maybe other natives may give you another insight of this.


----------



## timlee43

Gamen, you were clear and amazing.
I hope you're around the next time I need help.
Many thanks!


----------



## Peterdg

Gamen said:


> Hi alanla:
> In Spanish, we only can say: *"agradecemos (o estamos siempre agradecidos) que nos inviten a cenar"*. It's not possible to use the indicative here. We can't say: "*agradecemos (o estamos siempre agradecidos) que nos invitan a cenar"* (this last is wrong, totally inadmissible in Spanish).


It depends, it depends. I agree with you in that I myself would also always use the subjunctive in that case. However, recent grammars actually document the use of the indicative too in this type of construction. This was already discussed here. (among others, but this one I remembered and could find it back)


----------



## blasita

From a friend's email (two days ago): _Agradezco un montón que, siempre que viene por aquí, me invita a un café y así podemos hablar de ..._, and it did not sound so bad to me. But I would have probably used the subjunctive myself.


----------



## alanla

It think the real issue here is the use of *siempre que *and might have _less to do with the useof_ *agradecer*, which has been debated, because it looks like a few grammar points from the book are coming together in one exercise and are possibly confusing what the initial grammar point was intended to be. Maybe this is what the whole question revolves around, given that this is an exercise from a grammar book. And I think it makes the idea here much clearer as to whether and how the indicative can be used.
**Let me just say that I, like the native speakers, just simply preferred the subjunctive since the other just “ain’t gonna” sound right! But, in the interest pure grammar, I also see the rare, subtle use of the indicative. Apparently, this is not something that is going to come up too often. Nevertheless…….


In the original sentence *[*Agradecemos siempre que nos invitan /inviten a cenar.*]*,I am using *siempre que* meaning the English  *when* in this case—not *provided that*, its second meaning.

Agradecemos siempre que *nos invitan* [indicative]: 
Used when “*statementof a fact*”[reporting on a situation tha trefers to the *past or to ongoing events* that are habitual or frequently repeated]
Agradecemos siempre que *nos inviten* [subjunctive]: used if *introduces  an anticipated future occurrence**.*

The references below refer to *siempre que* [indicative _vs _subjunctive] and in the last reference other time-words similar to *siempre que* are listed and follow the same principle.
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1058106Explanation  on WR forum of *siempre que:*  indicative _vs_ subjunctive
http://users.ipfw.edu/jehle/courses/subjadv.htm *siempre que* with indicative [used as *statement **of fact* (e.g., refers to past or habitual event _vs._ anticipated future occurrence)] *plus other similar* *time expressions* where a choice can be made between indicative and subjunctive—depending on meaning to be conveyed.
I also want to thank all those natives for their unique insight in answering my questions, and I hope I didn’t intrude.


----------



## Gamen

You're completely right alanla. Great you realized without help! I also had noticed that in the example there was an adverbial construction "displacing" the subjunctive function. This construction is, as you pointed out well alanla, *"siempre que"*, which in the referred text should be translated as *"when"* or _"every time"_ instead of "provided/providing that", that it functions raher as a conditional sentence.

So, in the sentence "Agradecemos *siempre que* nos invitan", the use of the indicative is ok, since *"siempre que"* with the meaning *"every time"* accepts the indicative insomuch as it alludes or make reference to a habitual or repeated event that undoubtedly and "really" has taken place sometime in the past. While, whether in the construction "Agradecemos siempre que nos inviten", "siempre que" has a conditional value (providing/provided that), the subjunctive will be used because "the invitation" is subject to a certain eventuality and to the fact that the hosts will decide to invite the guests.
_
The phrase posted by Blasita *"agradezco un montón que, siempre que viene por aquí, me invita a un café y así podemos hablar*_" is ok as "siempre que" has the value of "cuando" or "cada vez que", so in this context we are talking of a real and frequent fact that has really and effectively occurred. We also can  use the subjunctive here if we want to convey the idea that the event of "venir por aquí" is circumstantial and it only some time may occur.

Otherwise, we could construct the sentence "*Agradecemos que** siempre nos inviten a cenar*" *(or "Estamos siempre agradecidos (de) que nos inviten a cenar")*, where "agradecemos que" demands the use of the subjunctive. (To me it's not possible to use the indicative here. It does not sound correct at all. Besides, I've never heard it in this case.)
Attention: Here I do not notice any condition nor uncertainity or probabilty. We are thanking for the fact that they always invite us to dinner". And  if the event happens always, it is about a frequent or repeated action. Here I could not justify with the known rules why we use the subjunctive. As a native, I use the subjunctive in this sentence, but I cannot apply the theoretical learned rules.


----------



## Peterdg

He buscado un poco en el CREA (Corpus referencial del español actual) de la RAE y he encontrado esto:



> - Le rezamos a la Virgen -dijo en un hilo de voz-. Le agradecemos que nos *dió* este trabajo.
> 
> Obando Bolaños, Alexánder
> El más violento paraíso





> Yo creo que a Macarena hay que agradecerle que nos* está *abriendo las puertas del mundo y ahora, detrás de Macarena, ...





> Al Narigón siempre le voy a agradecer que se la *jugó* por mí cuando nadie daba dos pesos, nadie.





> ... y agradeció que Venezuela al obstaculizar esas acciones *evitará* su asesinato.
> 
> El Mundo, España.


No digo que sea frecuente, pero existe.

En cuanto a "me molesta que fumas"; mira aquí. Es una reacción a uno de mis primeros posts en el foro en el que defendí el uso forzoso del subjuntivo después de "molestar". (Y el comentario lo originó un paisano tuyo). Desde entonces, matizo, matizo...


----------



## Gamen

Yo creo que la regla es que después de "Agradecer que" se usa el subjuntivo. Me parece que así deberían tomar la regla los que no son nativos.
Las oraciones citadas por peterdg fueron dichas por alguien, pero muchos comenten errores al hablar, inclusive siendo nativos.
En el español standard se escuchará siempre el subjuntivo despues de la expresión "agradecer que".
No desacredito las frases arriba citadas. Después de todo cada uno puede hablar como quiera!
Yo prefiero enseñar el subjuntivo como lo aprendí yo y de acuedo con la reglas standard.


----------



## blasita

Gamen said:


> Yo creo que la regla es que después de "Agradecer que" se usa el subjuntivo. Me parece que así deberían tomar la regla los que no son nativos.
> Las oraciones citadas por peterdg fueron dichas por alguien, pero muchos comenten errores al hablar, inclusive siendo nativos.
> En el español standard se escuchará siempre el subjuntivo despues de la expresión "agradecer que".



Gamen, estoy de acuerdo con el consejo que das para los que están aprendiendo el idioma. Creo que, en el caso de _agradecer_, el subjuntivo es siempre correcto, lo que siempre se puede usar y lo que siempre suena bien. De todas formas, este tipo de discusiones a mí me parecen interesantes porque nos hacen pensar sobre otras opciones que pudieran ser correctas y aprender nuevos usos. Así, sigo pensando que ese uso del indicativo que expuse en mi primer comentario no suena mal y que sería correcto o, al menos, aceptable gramaticalmente.


----------



## alanla

¡Ahora comprenden cómo nos saca de quicio el subjuntivo siempre que vuelva a levantar la cabeza [rears its ugly head  ]!!  Gracias por aclararnos tan a fondo cómo se usa en determinadas circunstancias.


----------



## juandiego

Gamen said:


> Hi Timlee43.
> [...]
> Regarding the sentence *"temo que se equivoca de número"*,  you employ the indicative because the speaker there wants to point out  that it is about a real action that it is happening at the moment of the  speech: the action that someone is confusing the number. Speaker 1 is  afraid that Speaker 2 is confusing the number.
> But, you can also use the subjunctive and say: *"temo que se equivoque de número"*.  Here you are indicating that the Speaker 1 is not certain/sure if the  Speaker 2 is going to confuse the number but Speaker 1 is afraid that Speaker 2 might  confuse it. Speaker 1 supposes that speaker 2 might take the number for  another one, but it is just a possibility because he (Speaker 1) is not  quite sure. This degree of uncertainty is marked by the subjunctive.
> 
> To summarize:
> Temo  que (usted) se equivoca de número: I'm afraid you are confusing the  number/ you are taking a number for another one. I'm sure you are wrong.
> Temo  que (usted) se equivoque de número: I'm afraid that you might confuse  the number, but I'm not completely certain that it really may occur.  Maybe you can confuse the number.


Hola Gamen.

In my opinion, in "_(Me) Temo que se equivoca de número_" the indicative is used because there's almost no trace of emotion (the slight fear Timlee mentions in post #10) in that _Temo que_: it works basically as a _Creo que_, perhaps a bit softened in consideration towards the listener, as if conveying _it's a pity but you're wrong_.

However, in "_Temo que se equivoque de número_" (notice that the pronominal construction is not possible here) there's a real emotion in that _Temo que_, as what you are conveying is that you don't like the option of him dialling the wrong number.

In short, they are different acceptations (meanings) of the same verb; the latter triggers the subjunctive (emotion-_fear_) but the former doesn't (belief- _to be fairly sure_).

 Certainly this latter meaning is not completely free of the fear nuance the former conveys but its most important part of the meaning prevails for this mood matter.
See this example:
_Mucho *me* temo que se *equivocará* de número_;
 here, despite the fear nuance is present, the important meaning is that you're quite sure (and you don't like it) that he is going to dial the wrong number. Probably the meaning of the pronominal construction of the verb _temer(se)_ doesn't admit the subjunctive in a subsequent subordinate clause introduced by the conjunction _que_ (not relative pronoun).


----------



## juandiego

blasita said:


> From a friend's email (two days ago): _Agradezco un montón que, siempre que viene por aquí, me invita a un café y así podemos hablar de ..._, and it did not sound so bad to me. But I would have probably used the subjunctive myself.


Hola Blasita.
I probably would as well.

However, here the subordinate clause is highly modified by that _siempre _(and its relative clause), which conveys customary action and asks a lot for the present of indicative.

Also notice that the subsequent context (_y así podemos hablar de..._) would be difficult to agree with a subjunctive mood in the previous clause without posing the question of whether the real meaning of the whole statement is a customary action or a possibility:
_Agradezco que [...] me invita/invite a un café y así podemos/podamos hablar de..._
I know that this is solved by the indicative in "_siempre que *viene* por aquí_" but the clash of mood somehow would persist (invite-podemos) and the _invita_ (hence _podemos_) seems to solve this conflict in a much simpler way.


----------



## Gamen

Hello Alanla!
In this sentence ¡Ahora comprenden cómo nos saca de quicio el subjuntivo siempre que vuelva a levantar la cabeza [rears its ugly head
the indicative would work because "siempre que" is equivalent to "whenever", so we say: "El subjuntivo nos saca de quicio siempre que (toda vez que) volvemos a revisar su uso".

We would use the subjunctive when the "siempre que" has the conditional meaning: "provided/ provided that". One example could be:
"Ese chico se comporta bien siempre que no lo molesten" (
In this sentence, the meaning is not "whenever" but "provided/providing that".The translation into English would be:
"That boy behaves well provided/providing that they don't upset him"

The problem arises in Spanish due to the fact that "Siempre que" presents two meanings. In English, this is resolved thanks to the fact that there are two different exprressions, each one of them with its own meaning. This is very good as it allows to avoid any kind of confusion by reason of ambiguity or polisemy.


----------



## blasita

juandiego said:


> Hola Blasita. I probably would as well.
> However, here the subordinate clause is highly modified by that _siempre _(and its relative clause), which conveys customary action and asks a lot for the present of indicative. Also notice that the subsequent context (_y así podemos hablar de..._) would be difficult to agree with a subjunctive mood in the previous clause without posing the question of whether the real meaning of the whole statement is a customary action or a possibility:
> _Agradezco que [...] me invita/invite a un café y así podemos/podamos hablar de..._
> I know that this is solved by the indicative in "_siempre que *viene* por aquí_" but the clash of mood somehow would persist (invite-podemos) and the _invita_ (hence _podemos_) seems to solve this conflict in a much simpler way.



Hello Juan. Thank you. I agree with your comments on this sentence. Sorry, I didn't explain it properly. I meant to say that I would have preferred to use the subjunctive this way (please notice the change of sentence order and punctuation): _Agradezco un montón que me invite a un café siempre que viene por aquí._ _Así podemos hablar de ... _(actually, she wrote a full stop instead of a comma before _podemos_).


----------



## Blixa

Peterdg said:


> It is a general misconception that the subjunctive is used for _hypothetical/uncertain/unreal etc_. situations. Although that is the origin of the subjunctive, in the meanwhile the language has evolved. Most current grammarians (the serious ones, I mean; not the ones writing textbooks to teach Spanish; they always oversimplify how the subjunctive works) now agree that the _hypothetical, unreal, uncertain etc_. criterion is simply not a valid one to enable the user to decide between the indicative/subjunctive. In some situations, it works, in others, it doesn't. If you use this, you are bound to make mistakes.
> 
> As an example: "Me alegra mucho que Ud esté aquí con nosotros esta noche". There is nothing _unreal/uncertain/hypothetical _about the situation and still the subjunctive is used.
> 
> Now, to come back to your question: "_Les agradezco mucho que me *hayan* invitado"_ is the way to say it in Spain, whether it's a fact or not that you have been invited.
> 
> That was about Spain. In certain parts of South America (I'm certain about Nicaragua, but possibly also in other regions), you may also find an indicative here, but you will never be wrong with the subjunctive.



Exactly!!! there is general misconception about Spanish subjunctive mood, that's why sometimes I come across problems when it comes to subjunctive mood in English. Nowadays, subjunctive mood in Spanish doesn`t mean that we're are just talking about "hypothetical, unreal, uncertain situations". On the other hand, there is also a miscoception in English Subjunctive  mood because  in Non-English speaking Countries they teach it by using texts books, written by grammarians that want to oversimplify it even in English. It's not that easy in either of those languages.


----------

