# Why didn't I know it before? = Porqué no lo supe/sabía antes?



## paul72

Hello,

I am trying to translate: "Why didn't I know it before?" (as a refexive thought)

Thing is that I thought the translation should be:

Porqué no lo sabía antes?

But a native speaker of Spanish (Argentina) told me that the correct way to say it is:

Porqué no lo supe antes? 

I have read quite some books about the subject imperfect/perfect, though this sentence suprises me. It seems that there is no specified beginning nor ending of the action of "knowing" in this case, so I suposed that the imperfect should be used in this sentence. 

Can someone tell me which translation is the best? Sabía or Supe

muchas gracias Paul


----------



## Dateunavueltaenelaire

The native speaker is right, as usual  The sentence "¿Por qué no lo sabía antes?" is incorrect (and remember the ¿ sign at the beggining and "por qué" as two separate words when used in a question), because "the action of knowing" is already "finished" when you speak (I don't know if that makes sense, but that's how I would explain it). It's like you're trying to say "why didn't I know it when I needed it, but I know it now"...
Saludos!


----------



## Robañero

Dateunavueltaenelaire said:


> The native speaker is right, as usual  The sentence "¿Por qué no lo sabía antes?" is incorrect (and remember the ¿ sign at the *beginning* and "por qué" as two separate words when used in a question), because "the action of knowing" is already "finished" when you speak (I don't know if that makes sense, but that's how I would explain it). It's like you're trying to say "why didn't I know it when I needed it, but I know it now"...
> Saludos!



Not to argue with a native speaker, but......

We are taught differently in school, and I just finished a 300 level Spanish class in which it was quite clearly explained that the preterit of "saber", (supe) connotes learning something for the first time, as opposed to the imperfect (sabía) which as Dateunavuelta states, implies the action of knowing (or not knowing)is continuing.  Therefore to say "¿Por qué no lo supe antes?" is translated *not* as "why didn't I know yesterday?" but as "why didn't I *find out* yesterday?" A subtle but very important difference.  Contrary to your assertion, there is nothing in the English phrase "Why didn't I know yesterday?" that indicates the action of not knowing is over; maybe he didn't know last night or this morning either, but found out at noon today when his dad told him.  I have no doubt that you are correct concerning usage of past tenses in Spanish, but I think your mistake is in the subtlety of the differences in the English phrasing.  The asker is not wondering why he didn't *learn *it before, he's wondering why he didn't already know it before.  This is a small but important distinction.

Another point of confusion: if it were most any other verb, imperfect tense would be "I was not knowing", but that's not how we say it in English.


I didn't know yesterday, but I found out today when my dad told me. 
*No lo sabía ayer, pero supe hoy mismo cuando me dijo mi papi.*


I found out yesterday, that's why I knew it today in school
*Lo supe ayer, por eso lo sabía hoy en la escuala*

Why didn't I know that before?  (why wasn't I knowing that?)
*¿Por qué no lo sabía antes?*

Why didn't I find that out before?
*¿Por qué no lo supe antes?*


----------



## paul72

Thanks Dateunavueltaenelaire    and Robañero, the remarks below made the point clear that it is reflexion on a delimited period in the past... 


Dateunavueltaenelaire    


because "the action of knowing" is already "finished" when you speak (I  don't know if that makes sense, but that's how I would explain it)

Robañero
The asker is not wondering why he didn't *learn *it before, he's wondering why he didn't already know it before.

The thing that made me confused is the fact that in the various courses one hears all the time "no sabía" as reply to a remark... 

Anyway, thanks again. Saludos, Paul


----------



## gengo

For what it's worth (coming from a gringo), I agree with Robañero, and disagree with Dateuna, who says that "The sentence '¿Por qué no lo sabía antes?' is incorrect."

If it is indeed incorrect, I would like someone to explain why, in contradiction to what Robañero says.


----------



## Csalrais

"¿Por qué no lo sabía antes?" es una frase que yo, personalmente, no  diría nunca en español en este contexto. "¿Por qué no lo supe antes?" es posible y no  tengo nada en contra de usarla pero preferiría algo como "¿Por qué no me  di cuenta antes?" si el contexto lo permite.

Creo que la explicación tiene que ver con los  usos del verbo *saber* que se les explica a los extranjeros, un tema  sobre el que Peterdg  ha insistido en algunos de sus mensajes. Gengo, si puedes échale un vistazo a estos hilos, a lo mejor ahí encuentras la explicación.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2238481
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2220658


----------



## gengo

Thanks, Csalrais.  I knew that when used with siempre, saber is more often used in the pretérito, but in this particular context, I couldn't see a reason for not using the imperfecto.  I bow to your nativeness.  

I agree that the sentence would sound more natural another way.  Could we also say "Por qué no lo habré sabido antes?"


----------



## Lurrezko

Csalrais, concuerdo contigo en que esta diferenciación del verbo saber es algo que no hacemos los nativos, para quienes *saber* significa siempre lo mismo, independientemente del tiempo verbal que se use. Pero yo sí usaría la frase con imperfecto en algún contexto:
_
- ¿A qué hora tenemos cita con el médico?
- A las tres.
- ¿Y por qué no lo sabías antes, cuando te he preguntado?
- Es que no me acordaba.

_¿No te suena natural?
Un saludo


----------



## Csalrais

Lurrezko said:


> Csalrais, concuerdo contigo en que esta diferenciación del verbo saber es algo que no hacemos los nativos, para quienes *saber* significa siempre lo mismo, independientemente del tiempo verbal que se use. Pero yo sí usaría la frase con imperfecto en algún contexto:
> _
> - ¿A qué hora tenemos cita con el médico?
> - A las tres.
> - ¿Y por qué no lo sabías antes, cuando te he preguntado?
> - Es que no me acordaba.
> 
> _¿No te suena natural?
> Un saludo


Tienes razón, quizá no le había dado bastantes vueltas al asunto, pero te aviso que me resulta un contexto un tanto rebuscado . En todo caso el OP comenta que quiere utilizarlo como una reflexión. Para ese uso, ¿tú escogerías "sabías"?.

Acabo de cambiar mi mensaje anterior, podría usar "sabía" en un contexto determinado pero en la frase original sigo prefiriendo "supe".


----------



## Lurrezko

No, yo usaría el indefinido, como vosotros: _¿Por qué no lo supe antes?_ Pero no sabría ofrecer una explicación del porqué a un no nativo, la verdad.

Un saludo


----------



## _SantiWR_

paul72 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I am trying to translate: "Why didn't I know it before?" (as a refexive thought)
> 
> Thing is that I thought the translation should be:
> 
> Porqué no lo sabía antes?
> 
> But a native speaker of Spanish (Argentina) told me that the correct way to say it is:
> 
> Porqué no lo supe antes?
> 
> I have read quite some books about the subject imperfect/perfect, though this sentence suprises me. It seems that there is no specified beginning nor ending of the action of "knowing" in this case, so I suposed that the imperfect should be used in this sentence.
> 
> Can someone tell me which translation is the best? Sabía or Supe
> 
> muchas gracias Paul



I would say:

Why didn't I know it before/earlier? --> ¿Por qué no lo sabía antes? (antes = un momento específico del pasado, por ejemplo esta mañana)
Why didn't I find out earlier? --> ¿Por qué no lo supe antes? (antes = más pronto)

Hope that helps.


----------



## gengo

_SantiWR_ said:


> I would say:
> 
> Why didn't I know it before/earlier? --> ¿Por qué no lo sabía antes? (antes = un momento específico del pasado, por ejemplo esta mañana)
> Why didn't I find out earlier? --> ¿Por qué no lo supe antes? (antes = más pronto)
> 
> Hope that helps.



Well, no, it doesn't help, because it contradicts what other native Spanish speakers have said in this thread so far.  It is what I thought was correct, but that is apparently not the case.


----------



## _SantiWR_

gengo said:


> Well, no, it doesn't help, because it contradicts what other native Spanish speakers have said in this thread so far.  It is what I thought was correct, but that is apparently not the case.



But they aren't native speakers of English, are they? And neither am I.


----------



## paul72

Well, I would thank you all for helping. I think that I stick with the fact that native Spanish speakers favor the "supe" in this sentence. These adjuncts like "antes" are quite confusing. I will think it over again tomorrow. I am still in doubt about the"learning/found out.." part of "supe" in this case as described above in some messages. Anyway, thanks again. Saludos, Paul


----------



## edw

Lurrezko said:


> _
> - ¿A qué hora tenemos cita con el médico?
> - A las tres.
> - ¿Y por qué no lo sabías antes, cuando te he preguntado?
> - Es que no me acordaba.
> 
> _¿No te suena natural?
> Un saludo



I think that the sentences_ ¿Y por qué no lo *sabías* antes, cuando te lo pregunté?_* and _¿Por qué no lo *supe* antes_? don't share the same grammatical context and, therefore, the imperfective is used in one case, but no in the other. In the first sentence the action of the verb is in relation with another action (*pregunté*) which is truly finished. The action of "saber" is somehow considered a durative action in the past that simply is viewed from a *specific point of this past* (_*cuando* te lo pregunté_), regardless of whether it has stopped in the past or not. 

 Here I can omit the adverb "antes" and the sentence will continue meaning the same: _ ¿Y por qué no lo *sabías* cuando te lo pregunté?_ That's why "antes" here only has an enphatic function. Nothing else. That's not the case in the second sentence. 

I don't know if I'm making myself understood to the non-native speakers, but this is the best I can explain myself so far. 

In the second sentence, _¿Por qué no lo *supe* antes_?, the adverb "antes" (without further context) indicates a point in the past in relation to another action, but that point is necessary _before_ of the beginning of the action it has relation to. Better: the first action (_saber_) has necessary stopped when the another action begins. That circumstance makes that point specific and forces the speaker to take into account the end of the action. And that's why the "pretérito indefinido" is used. Let's try some example:

¿_Por qué no lo *supe* antes de *venir*_? (The action of "saber" has to be done before going to that place, otherwise is pointless)

_¿Por qué no lo supe antes de irme? Te hubiera esperado. _(If he/she had known before going out what she knows now, she would have done the things differently. The action of "saber" has to be done *entirely* before any other action, otherwise he/she will not be able to change his/her plans)


Just my 2 cents. Hope this helps. 
-------

*Edité la oración original para adecuarla a los usos hispanoamericanos, más equivalentes a los usos que se hacen del pasado en inglés.


----------



## stuartshaw.cfc

Perhaps I'm missing something important, but when I hear the phrase, "why didn't I know it before" (unless given a specific context, such as that of Lurrezko) the image that springs to mind is me saying it immediately after learning something. In other words I've just realised/learnt something and I'm asking myself *why I didn't do so earlier*. Just to be clear, I've just gone from a state of not-knowing into a state of knowing and I'm asking myself why I didn't make that transition earlier: hence supe not sabía. Am I wrong? It's worth noting that in UK English the phrase is unusual, though not actually wrong. It would sound more natural with realise. I'm not making the mistake of thinking supe always means realised or learned, I just think it does here.


----------



## paul72

Thanks edw,

The sentence ¿_Por qué no lo *supe* antes de *venir*_? is a very good example. I understand the grammatical background now. 
Paul


----------



## _SantiWR_

stuartshaw.cfc said:


> Perhaps I'm missing something important, but when I hear the phrase, "why didn't I know it before" (unless given a specific context, such as that of Lurrezko) the image that springs to mind is me saying it immediately after learning something. In other words I've just realised/learnt something and I'm asking myself *why I didn't do so earlier*. Just to be clear, I've just gone from a state of not-knowing into a state of knowing and I'm asking myself why I didn't make that transition earlier: hence supe not sabía. Am I wrong? It's worth noting that in UK English the phrase is unusual, though not actually wrong. It would sound more natural with realise. I'm not making the mistake of thinking supe always means realised or learned, I just think it does here.



Well, if we start with a non completely natural English sentence, what can we expect? After all, paul72 is not a native English speaker either  Anyway, just to be clear, both Spanish sentences are correct, natural and have clear-cut, different meanings. In one case you're asking for the reasons of your not knowing, whereas in the other you want to know why your not knowing ceased so late. In can't agree with those native speakers who find the imperfect unnatural in this scenario, not to mention with those who said it was incorrect.


----------



## juandiego

Hi all.
I do agree with those who suggest that _supe_ is for a punctual fact and _sabía_ for, say, a more complicated matter.
¿Por qué no lo *sabía* antes? _Lo_ would stand perfectly here for the English language, a way to solve a mathematical problem, what was happening to someone, etc.
¿Por qué no lo *supe* antes? _Lo_ would stand here for the time of an appointment, what happened to someone, etc.


----------



## Csalrais

La explicación de juandiego me gusta y creo que es la razón de que no acabe de convencerme la frase con _sabía_. Con ese tiempo estaría preguntándome las razones o hechos que provocaban mi desconocimiento de la situación mientras que con _supe_ se acerca más a un ejercicio de introspección, un contexto que me parece más factible que el otro. Sospecho que sigue sin sonarme bien porque para cualquiera de los dos casos usaría "darme cuenta", algo que ya dije antes y que stuartshaw menciona también para el inglés (realise).

Si de algo vale, ambas frases son muy infrecuentes en google. "¿Por qué no lo *sabía* antes?" da apenas una decena de resultados y "¿Por qué no lo *supe* antes?" no llega al centenar y cuando le pregunté a mi hermano al respecto sus respuestas fueron parecidas a las mías: a la primera, "me suena... rara" y a la segunda, "un poco mejor... pero también rara". Pero en algo coincido con Santi, las frases no son incorrectas _per se_.


----------



## juandiego

Hola Csalrais.
Creo que ambas suenan tan extrañas porque son en primera persona. Si se cambian a cualquier otra persona, se convierten en muchísimo más aceptables.
¿Por qué no lo sabías antes?
¿Por qué no lo supiste antes?


----------



## Csalrais

Ya me demostró esa posibilidad Lurrezko con su ejemplo anterior y estoy de acuerdo. En todo caso ya he dicho todo lo que tenía que decir sobre este tema basándome en mis impresiones así que lo dejo aquí para que otros opinen con algo más de base (y menos rodeos ).

Saludos y felices fiestas.


----------



## gengo

If the phrases both sound odd, then let's decide what sounds natural.  Here is an example in English in which the original might be said.

-Boss, you're late for the meeting.
-Meeting?  What meeting?
-You have a 10:00 meeting with the new investors.
-Why didn't I know about this before?

-Jefe, va a llegar tarde a la reunión.
-¿Reunión?  ¿Qué reunión?
-Tiene una reunión a las 10 con los nuevos inversionistas.
-???

Native speakers?


----------



## Lurrezko

Yo, personalmente, podría decir *¿por qué no lo he sabido/supe antes?*, pero creo que en tu ejemplo no expresaría esa idea "culpabilizándome", sino echando la culpa a otros (cosas del español):

_- ¿Por qué no se me informó/ha informado antes?
_
A ver qué dicen los demás.
Saludos


----------



## _SantiWR_

gengo said:


> If the phrases both sound odd, then let's decide what sounds natural.  Here is an example in English in which the original might be said.
> 
> -Boss, you're late for the meeting.
> -Meeting?  What meeting?
> -You have a 10:00 meeting with the new investors.
> -Why didn't I know about this before?
> 
> -Jefe, va a llegar tarde a la reunión.
> -¿Reunión?  ¿Qué reunión?
> -Tiene una reunión a las 10 con los nuevos inversionistas.
> -???
> 
> Native speakers?



_¿Por qué no lo he sabido antes?_ (or supe for those who prefer the simple past)


----------



## edw

juandiego said:


> Hi all.
> I do agree with those who suggest that _supe_ is for a punctual fact and _sabía_ for, say, a more complicated matter.
> ¿Por qué no lo *sabía* antes? _Lo_ would stand perfectly here for the English language, a way to solve a mathematical problem, what was happening to someone, etc.
> ¿Por qué no lo *supe* antes? _Lo_ would stand here for the time of an appointment, what happened to someone, etc.



El problema que yo tengo con esta explicación es que las oraciones no están dadas dentro de un contexto. Para mí es imposible encontrar las diferencias entre el imperfecto y el indefinido sin un marco temporal. Porque están expresiones no suceden, no se expresan aisladamente, sino en un contexto que las determina y que explica por qué se utiliza un uso verbal en una y otro uso verbal en otra. Analizarlas por sí solas no  me parece que aclare nada.

Agregar que la expresión con imperfecto me parece imposible, a menos que se dé un contexto oracional mayor. Sin un contexto oracional mayor sería posible el indefinido, pues este tiempo es absoluto. Se refiere siempre a sí mismo. El imperfecto me parece un ejemplo forzado, pues no sucede así en el habla natural.


----------



## edw

_SantiWR_ said:


> _¿Por qué no lo he sabido antes?_ (or supe for those who prefer the simple past)



I agree. I would never say _¿Por qué no lo *sabía* antes?_


----------



## gengo

This thread is very interesting, because it seems to reflect not so much a language difference, as a cultural difference.  We English speakers think of the state of knowing something, while Spanish speakers think of the act of learning something.

Es por tales cosas que me encanta el estudiar de los idiomas extranjeros.


----------



## gringuitoloco

Personally, I think the past perfect should be used, should it not?
 ¿Por qué no lo había sabido antes?

Because there is an action (saber) before something in the past (antes). If that's the case, many Spanish speakers don't use the perfect tense, and so replace it with the preterite. Could this be where the confusion comes from?

Then again, I could be completely wrong....


----------



## paul72

gringuitoloco. i think you are completely wrong. there is no need for a pluscuamperfecto.


----------



## Robañero

gengo said:


> This thread is very interesting, because it seems to reflect not so much a language difference, as a cultural difference.  We English speakers think of the state of knowing something, while Spanish speakers think of the act of learning something.
> 
> Es por tales cosas que me encanta el estudiar de los idiomas extranjeros.



Interesting but tiresome too....

I agree completely with your sentiment and came to the same conclusion as soon as it became obvious that there would be no real accord on this thread....

To all those now confusing the issue further with suggestions of present perfect and plusquamperfect....these are deviating even further from the original.  In English no one would ever say "Why haven't I known that, or why hadn't I known that...." in that circumstance.   That is how the past is narrated in German, I know, but I have never heard a Spanish speaker narrate the past that way.....in fact I never heard the word "supe" until I took a college course in Spanish.  The Mexicans I work with use the word "sabía" nearly exclusively when narrating the past.  While I certainly respect the opinions of all the native speakers here, I don't know their qualifications.  I still prefer the explanation of my professor, a Mexican national, of whose credentials I am certain, and who has the backing of textbooks.


----------



## juandiego

Hi gringuitoloco and paul72.

I think gringuitoloco has a point there. Actually when gengo posed his scenario I felt my most natural answer would have been: _"¿Por qué nadie me lo había dicho antes?"_ (notice the pluscuamperfecto though with other verb than _saber_). I agree that _antes_ is a time marker that may demand the past perfect, perhaps it's even its strictest tense. However, it's also true that the value of _antes_ as time marker is sometimes, as in this case, interpretable: it can be either strictly interpreted as a past point in time therefore asking for the past perfect, or something similar to thus far (hasta ahora) in which case the present perfect (pretérito perfecto) would be the preferred tense since it's used to convey the repercussion of a past action in the present.


----------



## chileno

Estoy de acuerdo con Lurrezko.

También se podría decir "Pero eso no lo sabía ayer"

¿Correcto?


----------



## edw

chileno said:


> Estoy de acuerdo con Lurrezko.
> 
> También se podría decir "Pero eso no lo sabía ayer"
> 
> ¿Correcto?



Pero ese es un contexto totalmente diferente.


----------



## edw

juandiego said:


> Hi gringuitoloco and paul72.
> 
> I think gringuitoloco has a point there. Actually when gengo posed his scenario I felt my most natural answer would have been: _"¿Por qué nadie me lo había dicho antes?"_ (notice the pluscuamperfecto though with other verb than _saber_). I agree that _antes_ is a time marker that may demand the past perfect, perhaps it's even its strictest tense. However, it's also true that the value of _antes_ as time marker is sometimes, as in this case, interpretable: it can be either strictly interpreted as a past point in time therefore asking for the past perfect, or something similar to thus far (hasta ahora) in which case the present perfect (pretérito perfecto) would be the preferred tense since it's used to convey the repercussion of a past action in the present.



Me pasa lo mismo que con el ejemlo de Chileno. No te puedo extrapolarlo a la oración en concreto de este hilo.


----------



## juandiego

edw said:


> El problema que yo tengo con esta explicación es que las oraciones no están dadas dentro de un contexto. Para mí es imposible encontrar las diferencias entre el imperfecto y el indefinido sin un marco temporal. Porque están expresiones no suceden, no se expresan aisladamente, sino en un contexto que las determina y que explica por qué se utiliza un uso verbal en una y otro uso verbal en otra. Analizarlas por sí solas no  me parece que aclare nada.
> 
> Agregar que la expresión con imperfecto me parece imposible, a menos que se dé un contexto oracional mayor. Sin un contexto oracional mayor sería posible el indefinido, pues este tiempo es absoluto. Se refiere siempre a sí mismo. El imperfecto me parece un ejemplo forzado, pues no sucede así en el habla natural.
> 
> Me pasa lo mismo que con el ejemlo de Chileno. No te puedo extrapolarlo a la oración en concreto de este hilo.


Hola edw.

Sin un contexto siempre es difícil pronunciarse pero precisamente lo que yo buscaba con esa explicación es que depende de lo que se esté hablando, o sea, del contexto, y creo que el _lo_ puede resumir bien el contexto de que se trata. Ejemplos;

— lo = el idioma inglés: _¿Por qué (yo) no sabía inglés antes?_
— lo = que tu amigo murió hace ya una semana: _¿Por qué no supe antes que Pepe ha muerto?_

 Al margen de que ante los contextos que puedan justificar el uso de esas frases los nativos hispanohablantes tenderíamos probablemente a otras opciones más idiomáticas, no consigo ver ningún fallo gramatical ni de significado a ninguna de las dos opciones. Para mi lo más confuso de esas frases es que están en 1ª persona y suenen raras porque nadie se autopregunta sobre su propio saber ya que sabe la respuesta; a no ser a modo exclamativo pero para ello probablemente recurriríamos a alguna expresión que refleje mejor el estado de ánimo que nos provoca la situación. Pero si se cambia la persona del sujeto en esas frases, no creo que se les siga encontrando problemas.


----------



## _SantiWR_

Robañero said:


> Interesting but tiresome too....
> 
> I agree completely with your sentiment and came to the same conclusion as soon as it became obvious that there would be no real accord on this thread....
> 
> To all those now confusing the issue further with suggestions of present perfect and plusquamperfect....these are deviating even further from the original.  In English no one would ever say "Why haven't I known that, or why hadn't I known that...." in that circumstance.   That is how the past is narrated in German, I know, but I have never heard a Spanish speaker narrate the past that way.....in fact I never heard the word "supe" until I took a college course in Spanish.  The Mexicans I work with use the word "sabía" nearly exclusively when narrating the past.  While I certainly respect the opinions of all the native speakers here, I don't know their qualifications.  I still prefer the explanation of my professor, a Mexican national, of whose credentials I am certain, and who has the backing of textbooks.



So you've never heard supe, but what can we make of that? As far as I am concerned that only goes to show the little exposure to Spanish you have had. And about your professor, it would be great if he was participating in the thread, but he's not, is he?


----------



## Galianne

¿No les suena menos raro cambiando _antes_ de lugar? "¿Por qué antes no lo sabía?"


----------



## _SantiWR_

Galianne said:


> ¿No les suena menos raro cambiando _antes_ de lugar? "¿Por qué antes no lo sabía?"



A mí me suena igual de poco raro. Lo que pasa es que ahora 'antes' ya no puede significar 'más pronto' y por tanto la frase es menos ambigua. Ahora antes quiere decir hace un rato, esta mañana, el año pasado, en un momento indeterminado del pasado, etc.


----------



## Robañero

_SantiWR_ said:


> So you've never heard supe, but what can we make of that? As far as I am concerned that only goes to show the little exposure to Spanish you have had. And about your professor, it would be great if he was participating in the thread, but he's not, is he?



Indeed we can make nothing of the fact that I'd never heard the word "supe" other than that the particular demographic from which I have self-taught my Spanish through daily exposure over the last 22 years virtually never use it in the context debated herein.  My exposure to Spanish has been great, but limited to the vernacular from a limited area of the New World, and from speakers with an average education of probably fifth grade in provincial Mexico.  This is why I seek out the correct advice on fora like this one, and from the one college level course I have taken.  The professor of whom I speak is a she, not a he, and I am not in contact with her.  It would be nice if one of the contributors on this thread could identify themselves as a similar authority on language as my professor, but as far as I know, everyone here is just someone with an ethnocentric opinion, but I am at least sure of the professor's credentials.   (I certainly may have missed something so forgive me if that's true)  

I'm not trying to be a know-it-all here, I'm just trying to learn.  As Genga states, I feel this to be essentially a cultural difference, for there clearly is little accord above, and my field observations continue to contradict the stated opinion of most of the Spaniards and South Americans who contribute here.  I will post separate comment to elaborate.


----------



## Robañero

I just finished confirming with two Mexican nationals the translation of the following exchange, written here as if it were all in English:

(a Latino approaches an Anglo for a job, he knows the Anglo, but is unaware that he is bilingual)

"Hi, Mr. Jones, I'm looking for a job"

"Hi Juan, Speak to me in Spanish if you prefer..."

"You speak Spanish?...I didn't know.

"You didn't know I spoke Spanish?

"I didn't know....until I just found out!"


Now how the conversation really happens:

(a Latino approaches an Anglo for a job, he knows the Anglo, but is unaware that he is bilingual)

"Hi, Mr. Jones, I look for job..."

"Hola Juan, Digame en Español si prefieras..."

"¡Tu hablas Español!...no sabía...."

"¿No sabías que hablo Español?

"¡No sabía.....hasta que supe ahorrita!"


I have yet to meet a living. breathing, native Spanish speaker who will contradict any of that.  This includes, as I stated, mostly all Mexican nationals from various states, with an elementary education.  Oh, and one college professor with a Masters degree in Spanish.


----------



## edw

Robañero said:


> I just finished confirming with two Mexican nationals the translation of the following exchange, written here as if it were all in English:
> 
> (a Latino approaches an Anglo for a job, he knows the Anglo, but is unaware that he is bilingual)
> 
> "Hi, Mr. Jones, I'm looking for a job"
> 
> "Hi Juan, Speak to me in Spanish if you prefer..."
> 
> "You speak Spanish?...I didn't know.
> 
> "You didn't know I spoke Spanish?
> 
> "I didn't know....until I just found out!"
> 
> 
> Now how the conversation really happens:
> 
> (a Latino approaches an Anglo for a job, he knows the Anglo, but is unaware that he is bilingual)
> 
> "Hi, Mr. Jones, I look for job..."
> 
> "Hola Juan, Digame en Español si prefieras..."
> 
> "¡Tu hablas Español!...no sabía...."
> 
> "¿No sabías que hablo Español?
> 
> "¡No sabía.....hasta que supe ahorrita!"
> 
> 
> I have yet to meet a living. breathing, native Spanish speaker who will contradict any of that.  This includes, as I stated, mostly all Mexican nationals from various states, with an elementary education.  Oh, and one college professor with a Masters degree in Spanish.



So, what do you want to point out with this? From my point of view, this conversation is whether badly transcribed  or at least one of the person who takes part in it doesn't speak Spanish mostly or frequently. Sentences like: "Dígame en Español si *prefieras*" are simply wrong.


----------



## gengo

Hi, Robañero,
This forum, like the rest of the world, is made up of all kinds of people, but I can assure you that many of the native Spanish speakers here have an exquisite grasp of Spanish grammar, much better than an average native speaker would.  I suppose that isn't surprising, because that is why they take the time to participate in a forum such as this.  The longer you hang around here, the more you'll get to know whom to trust and whom to disregard.  There are people here whom I trust implicitly when it comes to Spanish grammar, and some of those have contributed to this thread.

As you say, the sample group you are in contact with may not be representative of educated Spanish speakers in general, or Mexicans in particular.  I know that I often hear native speakers here make grammatical mistakes, just as many Americans do in English.  We non-natives should strive to learn the language in its proper form, and leave the colloquial errors to the natives.  I am very glad to have read this thread, because I've learned a little from it, and it may improve my Spanish (which certainly needs it).


----------



## germanbz

I almost allways would say in that case.

*Si lo hubiera sabido antes...*
You say that, when you are disappointed because a situation, but in fact you know you never could know that before. 

*¿Por qué no lo habré sabido antes?.* 
You are lamenting for not having some information before. It is more objective than the previous one. Really there was a particular reason or information that could change the situation.


*¿Por qué no lo habré podido saber antes?* 
It is completely equivalent to the previoun but a bit more enphatic..


----------



## juandiego

Robañero said:


> I just finished confirming with two Mexican nationals the translation of the following exchange, written here as if it were all in English:
> 
> Now how the conversation really happens:
> 
> (a Latino approaches an Anglo for a job, he knows the Anglo, but is unaware that he is bilingual)
> 
> "Hi, Mr. Jones, I look for job..."
> 
> "Hola Juan, Digame en Español si prefieras..."
> 
> "¡Tu hablas Español!...no sabía...."
> 
> "¿No sabías que hablo Español?
> 
> "¡No sabía.....hasta que supe ahorrita!"
> 
> 
> I have yet to meet a living. breathing, native Spanish speaker who will contradict any of that.  This includes, as I stated, mostly all Mexican nationals from various states, with an elementary education.  Oh, and one college professor with a Masters degree in Spanish.


Hi robañero.
I agree with the usage of _sabía_ and _supe_ in the last sentence. However, I don't know whether in Mexico they usually don't but my Spanish misses the direct object pronouns, as follows: _"¡No *lo* sabía.....hasta que *lo* supe ahorita!"_ This sense of the verb _saber_ is always transitive (needs always an OD) in Spanish.
Cheers.


----------



## gengo

juandiego said:


> I agree with the usage of _sabía_ and _supe_ in the last sentence. However, I don't know whether in Mexico they usually don't but my Spanish misses the direct object pronouns, as follows: _"¡No *lo* sabía.....hasta que *lo* supe ahorita!"_ This sense of the verb _saber_ is always transitive (needs always an OD) in Spanish.



Juan, the same applies to Mexican Spanish.

-Hola, Juan, háblame en español si prefieres.
-¡Hablas español! No lo sabía.
-¿No sabías que hablo español?
-¡No, no lo sabía hasta que lo supe ahorita!

At least that's how this wannabe Mexican would say it.


----------



## edw

juandiego said:


> Hi robañero.
> I agree with the usage of _sabía_ and _supe_ in the last sentence. However, I don't know whether in Mexico they usually don't but my Spanish misses the direct object pronouns, as follows: _"¡No *lo* sabía.....hasta que *lo* supe ahorita!"_ This sense of the verb _saber_ is always transitive (needs always an OD) in Spanish.
> Cheers.



Pero tengo que insistir en algo: aquí el valor de_ saber_ (en "sabía) está relativizado por la presencia del indefinido "supe" en la proposición _subordinada_ adverbial temporal _introducida por_ la locución prepositiva _hasta_ que. No es desde ningún punto de vista el mismo uso que tiene el verbo en la exacta frase: _¿Por qué no lo *supe* antes?_

No confundamos contextos diferentes.


----------



## Robañero

edw said:


> So, what do you want to point out with this? From my point of view, this conversation is whether badly transcribed  or at least one of the person who takes part in it doesn't speak Spanish mostly or frequently. Sentences like: "Dígame en Español si *prefieras*" are simply wrong.



I want to point out a real world example of what I  consistently hear to be the common usage of _*sabía*_

The native speakers are confirming the use of sabía/supe as it relates to this thread.  My poor grammar in the rest of my example is beside the point and immaterial here.


----------



## Robañero

juandiego said:


> Hi robañero.
> I agree with the usage of _sabía_ and _supe_ in the last sentence. However, I don't know whether in Mexico they usually don't but my Spanish misses the direct object pronouns, as follows: _"¡No *lo* sabía.....hasta que *lo* supe ahorita!"_ This sense of the verb _saber_ is always transitive (needs always an OD) in Spanish.
> Cheers.



Agreed!  That's just me rushing as I compose, not a reflection on the way they speak it...


----------



## wwv

juandiego said:


> Hi all.
> I do agree with those who suggest that _supe_ is for a punctual fact and _sabía_ for, say, a more complicated matter.
> ¿Por qué no lo *sabía* antes? _Lo_ would stand perfectly here for the English language, a way to solve a mathematical problem, what was happening to someone, etc.
> ¿Por qué no lo *supe* antes? _Lo_ would stand here for the time of an appointment, what happened to someone, etc.



Juandiego's observation highlights the importance of context. In paul72's question that started this thread, we don't know what "it" was. If that had been explained, this discussion might have followed a very different path.


----------



## edw

gengo said:


> This thread is very interesting, because it seems to reflect not so much a language difference, as a cultural difference.  We English speakers think of the state of *knowing something*, while Spanish speakers think of the act of *learning something.*
> 
> Es por tales cosas que me encanta el estudiar de los idiomas extranjeros.



Exactamente. Esto es así porque "saber" es un verbo de estado, que por su significado no implica el término de la acción. Necesita de otro elemento oracional para expresar una acción terminada en estado perfecto. Pero cuando esto pasa, cambia la interpretación que se hace de su significado. 

La RAE, en la _Nueva Gramática_, lo explica. En corchetes mis aportes: 

*23.5.1f *En estos casos existen, sin embargo, varios recursos que permiten aportar la delimitación que  requiere el *aspecto perfectivo*. Así, se ha observado    que  * saber *y _conocer_ *pueden alterar su  interpretación usados en    este    tiempo    verbal. *El    primero    significa _"__enterarse    de    algo" _[_*to find out *_equivalente al español _darse cuenta_],  "_adquirir  el    conocimiento" _[_*to learn *_equivaliendo al español _aprender]_,  como    en   _ Se* supo*, eso sí, que la Universidad entera _[…] (Bryce Echenique, _Magdalena_) y    el    segundo    ‘entrar    en    contacto    con    alguien’,  como en _Quiero conocer cómo se *conocieron* mi papi y tú_ (Fuentes,    _Cristóbal_). 


 Aquí he tratado de hacer una explicación estrictamente gramatical. Tan sólo sustituir "estar" por "saber" y "a punto de" por "antes". Ambos casos son gramáticalmente el mismo contexto. 


Saludos.


----------

