# después que detuviera - subjunctive



## sudest

La decisión de Garzón sobre Álvarez y Agirre, se produce un día después de que el Cuerpo Nacional de Policía _*detuviera*_ en Segura (Guipúzcoa) a 23 personas

This sentence is very clear.why is it used subjunctive?


----------



## Outsider

That's an improper journalistic use of the imperfect subjunctive, recently explained here. It's the same as saying "un día después de que el Cuerpo Nacional de Policía *detuvo* en Segura (Guipúzcoa) a 23 personas".


----------



## Maika

Outsider said:


> That's an improper journalistic use of the imperfect subjunctive, recently explained here. It's the same as saying "un día después de que el Cuerpo Nacional de Policía *detuvo* en Segura (Guipúzcoa) a 23 personas".



Yes, they are making this mistake in radio, TV and press


----------



## mhp

It is completely acceptable to use past subjunctive after “después de que”. It is also correct to use the indicative mood. Although it can be argued that the indicative mood is more appropriate, as far as I know, one is no more correct than the other in this particular case.


----------



## panjabigator

Would it have made a difference if the verb "producirse" had been conjugated in the preterite?


----------



## mhp

I'd say no. There are some who insist on some artificial (and incorrect) tense agreement in Spanish. For me either one makes sense in this case. Some people are under the impression that you can't say things like "I'm not sure that he did it yesterday (No estoy seguro de que lo hiciera ayer)" in Spanish (instead they say the equivalent of "I'm not sure he has done it yesterday cross:No estoy seguro de que lo haya hecho ayer)"). While paradoxically they accept “I’m sure he did it yesterday (Estoy seguro de que lo hizo ayer)”


----------



## miklo3600

I have read in a text that if the dependent clause requires subjunctive, and the action occured in the past, past subjunctive is correct.

No creen que yo hiciera las galletas. They do not believe that I made the cookies. (They do not believe it in the present, but I made the cookies in the past.)
Los nativos, hacedme el favor de corregirme si me equivoco. !Saludos a todos!


----------



## virgilio

sudest,
         Just a thought but it has been suggested - fairly persuasively - that the "-ra" forms of the imperfect subjunctive may have sprung from the old Latin pluperfect indicative forms. If that theory is true (I don't know if it is), might not the writer have been the unconscious recipient - some ultra-modern cynics would say  'victim'  - of "vibrations" or "thought-waves" coming to him across the centuries from his linguistic ancestors?
   If so, there would obviously be no need for any explanation, for a pluperfect indicative would fit in there quite nicely.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Outsider

mhp said:


> It is completely acceptable to use past subjunctive after “después de que”. It is also correct to use the indicative mood. Although it can be argued that the indicative mood is more appropriate, as far as I know, one is no more correct than the other in this particular case.



The tense in that sentence is not the past subjunctive (the preterite). It's the imperfect.

I really don't see how the subjunctive would be acceptable to say that "the Cuerpo Nacional de Policía arrested 23 people in Segura". This is clearly factual, you must use the indicative.


----------



## Outsider

virgilio said:


> [...] there would obviously be no need for any explanation, for a pluperfect indicative would fit in there quite nicely.


No, it would be quite dreadfully out of place. You can see this even in English:

_La decisión de Garzón sobre Álvarez y Agirre, se produce un día después de que el Cuerpo Nacional de Policía detuviera en Segura (Guipúzcoa) a 23 personas.
_
Garzón's decision concerning Álvarez and Agirre takes place one day after the Cuerpo Nacional de Policía had arrested 23 people in Segura (Guipúzcoa). 

_La decisión de Garzón sobre Álvarez y Agirre, se produce un día después de que el Cuerpo Nacional de Policía detuvo en Segura (Guipúzcoa) a 23 personas.
_
Garzón's decision concerning Álvarez and Agirre takes place one day after the Cuerpo Nacional de Policía arrested 23 people in Segura (Guipúzcoa). ​Notice also how the author of the Spanish text has wrongly used the comma.


----------



## roanheads

mhp said:


> It is completely acceptable to use past subjunctive after “después de que”. It is also correct to use the indicative mood. Although it can be argued that the indicative mood is more appropriate, as far as I know, one is no more correct than the other in this particular case.


 
As you say the use of the subjunctive in such an example is variable, but the subjunctive is obligatory after "después de que ", when it refers to an event in the future,--- " el barco, lo usaré después de que lo reparen,

Saludos.


----------



## Outsider

mhp said:


> Some people are under the impression that you can't say things like "I'm not sure that he did it yesterday (No estoy seguro de que lo hiciera ayer)" in Spanish (instead they say the equivalent of "I'm not sure he has done it yesterday cross:No estoy seguro de que lo haya hecho ayer)"). While paradoxically they accept “I’m sure he did it yesterday (Estoy seguro de que lo hizo ayer)”


What's paradoxical about that?

Some speakers do say "No estoy seguro de que lo haya hecho ayer", which is perfectly logical. Present in the main clause, preterite in the dependent clause. Present-imperfect is more unusual; that's not how you say it in other Romance languages.


----------



## anthodocheio

Why are you trying to explain this by translating it into English? I don't find _detuviera_ equivalent to _had arrested_...

After _antes de que _is always subjuntive. Why not after _después de que_?


----------



## Outsider

anthodocheio said:


> Why are you trying to explain this by translating it into English? I don't find _detuviara_ equivalent to _had arrested_...


It can be, in archaisms. Virgilio has attempted to argue that the use of _detuviera_ here is right, it's just an archaism. But he's wrong, it's an affectation rather than an archaism, and even with its ancient value _detuviera_ would be wrong here.



anthodocheio said:


> Why not after _después de que_?


See this thread.


----------



## mhp

Outsider said:


> The tense in that sentence is not the past subjunctive (the preterite). It's the imperfect.
> I really don't see how the subjunctive would be acceptable to say that "the Cuerpo Nacional de Policía arrested 23 people in Segura". This is clearly factual, you must use the indicative.



Subjunctive is not a tense, but a mood. If the tense is past and the mood subjunctive, it is often referred to as "past subjunctive". Other terms such as imperfect subjunctive are also used. As far as using the subjunctive mood with the past tense after "después de que", it is not so much a question of logic as it is the common acceptable usage. Most grammar books acknowledge this use of the past subjunctive.



roanheads said:


> As you say the use of the subjunctive in such an example is variable, but the subjunctive is obligatory after "después de que ", when it refers to an event in the future,--- " el barco, lo usaré después de que lo reparen,
> 
> Saludos.



Yes. "antes de que" always requires the subjunctive in both past and present. Logically, "después de que" should be used with indicative mood in the past, but, for whatever reason, the subjunctive mood is also considered correct in these cases.



Outsider said:


> What's paradoxical about that?
> 
> Some speakers do say "No estoy seguro de que lo haya hecho ayer", which is perfectly logical. Present in the main clause, preterite in the dependent clause. Present-imperfect is more unusual; that's not how you say it in other Romance languages.




What is paradoxical is that "ha hecho" and its subjunctive form "haya hecho" are perfect tenses which normally don't refer to completed actions in the past. That is the function of the indefinite preterit and its corresponding subjunctive mood: imperfect subjunctive.


----------



## anthodocheio

Outsider said:


> It can be, in archaisms. Virgilio has attempted to argue that the use of _detuviera_ here is right, it's just an archaism. But he's wrong, it's an affectation rather than an archaism, and even with its ancient value _detuviera_ would be wrong here.
> 
> See this thread.


 
I understand that I still have lots of things to study... 
But, I don't get what Virgilio is saying and, 
could you please give me a correct sentence where imperfecto de subjuntivo can be translated into past perfect?

PD: And I saw your link. What they said there is very clear to me..


----------



## Outsider

mhp said:


> Subjunctive is not a tense, but a mood.


I never said otherwise. 



mhp said:


> As far as using the subjunctive mood with the past tense after "después de que", it is not so much a question of logic as it is the common acceptable usage. Most grammar books acknowledge this use of the past subjunctive.


Sorry, but the subjunctive is wrong here. See the thread I linked to above.



mhp said:


> What is paradoxical is that "ha hecho" and its subjunctive form "haya hecho" are perfect tenses which normally don't refer to completed actions in the past.


Oh, yes they do! Just like the present perfect in English.



mhp said:


> That is the function of the indefinite preterit and its corresponding subjunctive mood: imperfect subjunctive.


The _indefinido_'s corresponding tense in the subjunctive, etymologically, is the _pretérito_, not the _imperfecto_. Preterite corresponds to preterite, and imperfect corresponds to imperfect. The equivalence that some Spanish speakers today make between the _indefinido_ and the _imperfecto de subjunctivo_ is what is the oddity.


----------



## Outsider

anthodocheio said:


> [...] could you please give me a correct sentence where imperfecto de subjuntivo can be translated into past perfect?


You will find examples in my first link.


----------



## mhp

Outsider said:


> Sorry, but the subjunctive is wrong here. See the thread I linked to above.


 I see nothing in that thread to suggest that the use of past subjunctive is incorrect in such cases. As I’ve mentioned this use of past subjunctive is an anomaly, but an accepted one by common usage. For example see: http://culturitalia.uibk.ac.at/hisp.../ARCHIVO-Foro/después de que y subjuntivo.htm



> The _indefinido_'s corresponding tense in the subjunctive, etymologically, is the _pretérito_, not the _imperfecto_. Preterite corresponds to preterite, and imperfect corresponds to imperfect. The equivalence that some Spanish speakers today make between the _indefinido_ and the _imperfecto de subjunctivo_ is what is the oddity.


I’m sorry. We are clearly using different terminology as your sentence is incomprehensible to me. What are _(pretérito) __indefinido_ _de subjuntivo_ and _imperfecto de subjuntivo_ according to your definitions? As far as I know, these are exactly the same thing!


----------



## San

Outsider said:


> That's an improper journalistic use of the imperfect subjunctive, recently explained here. It's the same as saying "un día después de que el Cuerpo Nacional de Policía *detuvo* en Segura (Guipúzcoa) a 23 personas".



I think I know the journalist use you are refering to, but Outs, this is something different, you can't use the past indicative here. You could in this another case:

_Es una de las 23 personas que la policía detuviera hace un mes en Segura.

_Now it is indeed literary and journalistic  Spanish.


----------



## Outsider

San said:


> You could in this another case:
> 
> _Es una de las 23 personas que la policía detuviera hace un mes en Segura.
> 
> _Now it is indeed literary and journalistic  Spanish.


But that's different from the sentence here. "Yesterday" is not the same as "last month".


----------



## Outsider

mhp said:


> I see nothing in that thread to suggest that the use of past subjunctive is incorrect in such cases. As I’ve mentioned this use of past subjunctive is an anomaly, but an accepted one by common usage.


According to the native speakers who posted to the thread, the indicative may be used after _después de que_. This was my point.

As for the use of the _imperfecto de subjuntivo_ (_detuviera_) in the original sentence, I am persuaded that it's a journalistic affectation, as neither the subjunctive not the imperfect make any sense here. However, if native speakers say otherwise, I will change my mind.



mhp said:


> What are _(pretérito) __indefinido_ _de subjuntivo_ and _imperfecto de subjuntivo_ according to your definitions? As far as I know, these are exactly the same thing!


Who said anything about an _indefinido de subjuntivo_? I sure did not!


----------



## San

Outsider said:


> But that's different from the sentence here. "Yesterday" is not the same as "last month".



Well, it's the same for me. The difference is "después de que", it's sound awful for me in indicative.


----------



## mhp

Outsider said:


> The _indefinido_'s corresponding tense in the subjunctive, etymologically, is the _pretérito_, not the _imperfecto_.



Perhaps if you give an example of what you mean, it would clarify.
I understand your sentence as " The _[pretérito] indefinido_'s corresponding tense in the subjunctive [mood], etymologically, is the _pretérito [de subjuntivo]_, not the _imperfecto_ [_de subjuntivo_]. "--which to me doesn't make sense because _pretérito de subjuntivo_ and _imperfecto_ _de subjuntivo _are the same thing.


----------



## sudest

All of you.Many  thanks....


----------



## Outsider

mhp said:


> Perhaps if you give an example of what you mean, it would clarify.
> I understand your sentence as " The _[pretérito] indefinido_'s corresponding tense in the subjunctive [mood], etymologically, is the _pretérito [de subjuntivo]_, not the _imperfecto_ [_de subjuntivo_]. "--which to me doesn't make sense because _pretérito de subjuntivo_ and _imperfecto_ _de subjuntivo _are the same thing.


Perhaps it is an issue of terminology. I had forgotten that Spanish terminology can be different. 

But my main point was simply that making _estuvo_ the equivalent of _haya estado_ is not paradoxical at all. Both are perfect tenses, and some speakers do make this equivalence (please see this earlier discussion). What is a bit out of the ordinary, cross-linguistically (but I'm not saying it's wrong) is equating an imperfect with an _indefinido_, which is a perfect tense.


----------



## Outsider

San said:


> Well, it's the same for me. The difference is "después de que", it's sound awful for me in indicative.


So you disagree with the two native speakers who said they'd use the indicative in the other thread... Now I'm confused.


----------



## San

Outsider said:


> So you disagree with the two native speakers who said they'd use the indicative in the other thread... Now I'm confused.



I suppose yes, "después de que nació la chica" doesn't sound better to me.


----------



## virgilio

Ανθοδοχείο,
                Λυπάμαι πολύ που δέν είχα εκφρασθεί καί τόσο καλά. Πρέπει όμως νά συνεχίζομαι στά αγγλικά γιά νά μήν παραβήσω τούς κανώνας αυτής τής αγοράς

I was not, as has been suggested, "attempting to argue that the use of _detuviera_ here is right".  I am enough of a democrat to take it for granted that the sentence is right and to try to explain the form of the verb "detuviera". I merely alluded to the well-established theory that what is called the "imperfect subjunctive" may have arisen from the Latin pluperfect indicative tense.
As I pointed out earlier, if that theory be sound, might we not in this example be looking at an example of it. I have no idea whether the theory is or is not sound.
The only objection that I know of to the Spanish imperfect subjunctive being directly derived from the Latin imperfect subjunctive is that the modern tense endings have a characteristic "a" vowel, whereas the Latin imperfect subjunctive has a characteristic "e" in the corresponding endings. The Latin pluperfect does on the other hand have a characteristic "a" in those endings. However, I leave it to wiser heads than mine to decide morphologic developments like that because funny things often happen in languages - even between two languages as morphologically close as Spanish and Latin. 
It just struck me as a rather romantic notion that a modern writer might *unconsciously* have found his mind still being conditioned by his remote linguistic ancestors.
That's all. As I said, just a thought.
Γειά σας

Virgilio


----------



## San

I've found this interesting thread about the subject: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=232912


----------



## aleCcowaN

sudest said:


> La decisión de Garzón sobre Álvarez y Agirre, se produce un día después de que el Cuerpo Nacional de Policía _*detuviera*_ en Segura (Guipúzcoa) a 23 personas
> 
> This sentence is very clear.why is it used subjunctive?


I would ever expect a sentence like this. Journals use this style constantly and grammarians constantly criticize them. Why then do the journals insist in using this "subjunctive"? In clarity's sake, because they earn money selling news and they need their public to understand what they publish. If you read this info in a fast manner, you read "decisión de Garzón... un día después.... detuvo.... a 23 personas" you may think that the arrests were a consequence of the judge's decision, and not a earlier event as in fact it is.

On the contrary, the plusquamperfect makes sure you got the facts in the right time sequence, as subjunctive conjugation *detuviera* (but not subjuctive mood) refers to indicative plusquamperfect, meaning the fact is totally over when the new fact happens. If you read "un día después .... detuviera" you'd think what?what?...[reading again]..."un día después *de que* detuviera" ... Ahhh! Now I got it.

So, the media will continue to use this in spite of the grammarian's opinions, and so they will continue to sell newspapers o TV adds. The grammarians find their money in other purses.


----------



## San

aleCcowaN said:


> I would ever expect a sentence like this. Journals use this style constantly and grammarians constantly criticize them. Why then do the journals insist in using this "subjunctive"? In clarity's sake, because they earn money selling news and they need their public to understand what they publish. If you read this info in a fast manner, you read "decisión de Garzón... un día después.... detuvo.... a 23 personas" you may think that the arrests were a consequence of the judge's decision, and not a earlier event as in fact it is.
> 
> On the contrary, the plusquamperfect makes sure you got the facts in the right time sequence, as subjunctive conjugation *detuviera* (but not subjuctive mood) refers to indicative plusquamperfect, meaning the fact is totally over when the new fact happens. If you read "un día después .... detuviera" you'd think what?what?...[reading again]..."un día después *de que* detuviera" ... Ahhh! Now I got it.
> 
> So, the media will continue to use this in spite of the grammarian's opinions, and so they will continue to sell newspapers o TV adds. The grammarians find their money in other purses.



So, do you think those journalists use the subjunctive just because they are working, and they move to the indicative as soon as they leave work and go to the bar? That's hard to believe for me. At least in my country you can hear the subjunctive being used everywhere, in newspapers and in the supermarket queue. Then, why has this to be a journalist question?


----------



## anthodocheio

virgilio said:


> Ανθοδοχείο,
> Λυπάμαι πολύ που δέν είχα εκφρασθεί καί τόσο καλά. Πρέπει όμως νά συνεχίζομαι στά αγγλικά γιά νά μήν παραβήσω τούς κανώνας αυτής τής αγοράς
> 
> I was not, as has been suggested, "attempting to argue that the use of _detuviera_ here is right". I am enough of a democrat to take it for granted that the sentence is right and to try to explain the form of the verb "detuviera". I merely alluded to the well-established theory that what is called the "imperfect subjunctive" may have arisen from the Latin pluperfect indicative tense.
> As I pointed out earlier, if that theory be sound, might we not in this example be looking at an example of it. I have no idea whether the theory is or is not sound.
> The only objection that I know of to the Spanish imperfect subjunctive being directly derived from the Latin imperfect subjunctive is that the modern tense endings have a characteristic "a" vowel, whereas the Latin imperfect subjunctive has a characteristic "e" in the corresponding endings. The Latin pluperfect does on the other hand have a characteristic "a" in those endings. However, I leave it to wiser heads than mine to decide morphologic developments like that because funny things often happen in languages - even between two languages as morphologically close as Spanish and Latin.
> It just struck me as a rather romantic notion that a modern writer might *unconsciously* have found his mind still being conditioned by his remote linguistic ancestors.
> That's all. As I said, just a thought.
> Γειά σας
> 
> Virgilio


 
Ευχαριστώ Virgilio που τα εξήγησες ιδιαίτερα για μένα. I understand now what you're saying. 
This thread has been so complicated, never before Spanish seem to me complicated. I wish we could have a simple answer for this issue... 
I see I lack of knowledge on the subject but I wish I'll find all the information necessary.

(Excuse my mistakes in English..)


----------



## aleCcowaN

San said:


> So, do you think those journalists use the subjunctive just because they are working, and they move to the indicative as soon as they leave work and go to the bar? That's hard to believe for me. At least in my country you can hear the subjunctive being used everywhere, in newspapers and in the supermarket queue. Then, why has this to be a journalist question?


I suppose you meant the subjunctive being used in this fashion, as "modo indicativo". Well, I can't recall, but in 45 days total in all my life I were in Spain, deeper language differences other than this caught my attention. In Argentina is very common when you reverse a time sequence and you keep some distance from the facts you describe, or when it is used as a plusquamperfect (examples could be the newspaper speaking about something it is old news, or referring to government ukases). In fact is very common in written language in America when you speak of past time "in two acts".

Examples:

El primero le gritó y el otro le disparó. (we don't know if a third person was shot)
El segundo le disparó luego que el primero le gritara (we still don't know if a third person was shot, but probably not as the shot seems to be _a consequence_ of the shouting)
Luego de que el primero le gritara entonces el segundo le disparó (it sounds old fashion as the time sequence is right)
El primero le gritara y el segundó le disparó (not able to understand this)

The last is the kind of sentence often used to exemplify a bad and archaic use of plusquamperfect, and I quite agree. Following this, it is also used to say that every use of plusquamperfect as "modo indicativo" is wrong (save the "apódosis" in conditional sentences), and I totally disagree.

I am aware there are certain places in Spain where people say thing like these (describing and arch from NW to E):

El primero le gritara y el segundo le disparara.
Si tendría dinero lo compraría.
Cuando recuperará la propiedad nos invitará a visitarla.

The second one is extremely common in Argentina, the other two extremely rare. The fact that Spain had or has these developments because of the influence of local languages or styles and try to avoid this with grammar rules doesn't imply in the opposite bank of the Atlantic we have no consistent rules about some uses like plusquamperfect. The use of the plusquampefect in the post that opens this thread is completely normal in Argentina and the expected way to say it. Maybe I extrapolated this to Spain without proper foundation, but here the journalists would really switch to indicative in supermarkets and bars, as in daily life things are simpler, chain of facts are described in the right time order and we don't have the need of highlighting the newer part of a piece of news, and put it before its previous known causal facts or background, as it seems to be with journalism.


----------



## sendai

San said:


> Well, it's the same for me. The difference is "después de que", it's sound awful for me in indicative.


All the other Spaniards I've met agree with you.  It appears that "después de que" is always followed by the subjunctive in Spain.

However, that is not true on the other side of the pond. At least in Argentina, the sentence that started this thread would be journalese.  Most people would say "detuvo" in that sentence, and I suspect it's the same in much of Latin America.

That said, the subjunctive is used on both continents in a sentence like this:
 Me iban a llamar después de que terminaras de limpiar.


----------



## anthodocheio

sendai said:


> That said, the subjunctive is used on both continents in a sentence like this:
> Me iban a llamar después de que terminaras de limpiar.


 
¡Gracias!
Por fin ahora tenemos una oración que sea seguramente correcta y con imperfecto de subjuntivo.

Todos aceptan que ésta es correcta, ¿no?


----------



## Outsider

Outsider said:


> That's an improper journalistic use of the imperfect subjunctive, recently explained here. It's the same as saying "un día después de que el Cuerpo Nacional de Policía *detuvo* en Segura (Guipúzcoa) a 23 personas".





San said:


> I've found this interesting thread about the subject: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=232912


After reading through San's link, I must take back my words. I'm now convinced that using the imperfect subjunctive is indeed current in Spanish. This is one case where, as Virgilio had suggested, the _imperfecto de subjuntivo_ in _-ra_ takes on its old value of a _pluperfecto de indicativo_. I got confused with something else I had read here in the forum. My apologies to all for the mixup. 

On the other hand, the _indefinido de indicativo_ is also correct, though unusual nowadays.


----------



## mhp

Outsider said:


> This is one case where, as Virgilio had suggested, the _imperfecto de subjuntivo_ in _-ra_ takes on its old value of a _pluperfecto de indicativo_.


 That is not the generally acknowledged reason for the use of subjunctive here that I’ve seen before. There are other cases where what you say is applicable. To repeat myself, there is no logical reason, or a historic one, as far as I know, for the use of subjunctive here. It is accepted only because in modern usage majority of people use it that way. 

  Also note that the imperfect subjunctive either ending in –ra or –se are equally acceptable/objectionable in this case.


----------



## Outsider

mhp said:


> That is not the generally acknowledged reason for the use of subjunctive here that I’ve seen before. There are other cases where what you say is applicable. To repeat myself, there is no logical reason, or a historic one, as far as I know, for the use of subjunctive here. It is accepted only because in modern usage majority of people use it that way.


You may be right about that. Certainly, I would not expect a differente tense for the two verbs in the following sentence:



			
				aleCcowaN said:
			
		

> El segundo le disparó luego que el primero le gritara.


in Portuguese. I guess this was part of what tripped me over. And no, using the same tense for both does not lead to any confusion.

So, I realise that this may not be a pluperfect in the "classical" sense. However, if we were to describe it based on its semantics in these sentences, "pluperfect indicative" would seem much more appropriate than "imperfect subjunctive", as here the verb is used neither as a subjunctive (the event is factual) nor as an imperfect (the event is completed).

Another tense it reminds me of is the _pretérito anterior_, _hubo gritado_ (which French has also). I wonder if there's any connection between the two.



mhp said:


> Also note that the imperfect subjunctive either ending in –ra or –se are equally acceptable/objectionable in this case.


Thank you for that information. Let me also apologize again to you for my stubbornness, since you were the person I most disagreed with in this thread, without reason.


----------



## verismo21

I found in B&B's reference grammar of modern Spanish regarding using the _–ra _form instead of the _pluscuamperfecto de indicativo_ that "...the media everywhere frequently uses the -_ra_ or (rarely) the _-se_ verb forms *even* for fulfilled events in the past..., which obviously introduces fulfilled events" (233).

*AND ALSO THAT: *

This use of the _-ra_ (imperfecto de subjuntivo) instead of the _pluscuampefecto de indicativo_ is due to the fact that it *does* descend from the Latin indicative pluperfect: Latin _fueram _“I had been” – nowadays _fuera_, and that the *"old indicative pluperfect use of the -*_*ra*_* forms survives in literature and journalism as a supposedly elegant alternative for the ordinary pluperfect with *_*había.*_*"*

It goes on to say that when used this way, the _-ra _does *not* have any subjunctive meaning at all and that this 'elegant' style of using the -_ra _form instead of the _pluscuampefecto de indicativo_ only occurs in subordinate, chiefly relative clauses.

Examples: 

“....después de que Nigeria *hiciese* pública su decisión de firmar el acta (_El País_, Sp.)”...after Nigeria *had made* public its decision to sign the communiqué/minutes.

-or the example of our fellow forero

“La decisión de Garzón sobre Álvarez y Agirre, se produce un día después de que el Cuerpo Nacional de Policía *detuviera* en Segura (Guipúzcoa) a 23 personas”

Detuviera – elegant way of saying, “....había detenido...”

Saludos,

Mario


----------



## mhp

verismo21 said:


> It goes on to say that when used this way, the _-ra _does *not* have any subjunctive meaning at all and that this 'elegant' style of using the -_ra _form instead of the _pluscuampefecto de indicativo_ only occurs in subordinate, chiefly relative clauses.
> 
> Examples:
> 
> “....después de que Nigeria *hiciese* pública su decisión de firmar el acta (_El País_, Sp.)”...after Nigeria *had made* public its decision to sign the communiqué/minutes.


  The imperfect subjunctive in the –ra form is used/abused instead of indicative in some texts—in both simple and compound tenses. In these cases the –se form is considered incorrect. However, the use after “después de que” is a different story. Taking your own example from El País, the form used is the –se form (it could have also been the –ra form).


----------



## aleCcowaN

Outsider said:


> Another tense it reminds me of is the _pretérito anterior_, _hubo gritado_ (which French has also). I wonder if there's any connection between the two.


This is what I've been explaining in these fora for most than a year now.

The _pretérito anterior_ or _antepretérito_ describes something that happened shortly before another fact. The sentence "El segundo le disparó luego de que el primero le hubo gritado" sounds pompous, even archaic, in many regions of the Americas, and many people won't even understand it at all. Why? because we don't use composed tenses much, mainly pretérito perfecto ("ha dicho"), unless they carry a special meaning, sometimes in a different way they use them in Spain. 

We have _pretérito perfecto del subjuntivo_ with the value of _pluscuamperfecto indicativo_ or _condicional_ (-ra endings mainly) to do the job of relating two facts in the past or present (real or unreal, chained or unchained). Thus (two sentences discussed in earlier threads)

Murió después de que una raya lo picara.
Nos recibió en su casa, que fuera el primer prostíbulo de la zona.

chain two facts, the first ones, related, the second ones unrelated. There's nothing here about "después de 'después de' va subjuntivo", simply there is a chain of two facts, one causing the other, described in reverse time sequence, and "después de" is what shows that time sequence. The second sentence clearly shows that both facts are unrelated, as the comma and "fuera" put a "..." between the facts. By default the two facts are unrelated unless we chain them with the proper connector. Even we can play with unreality, doubt, courtesy, as you can revive the subjunctive mood in it at ease. Even we can play with conditional situations. All of these are the colors of this tense and each of them will bright under the proper light, and subjectively will be considered each color beautiful or ugly. All this is why sentences like

Me iban a llamar después de que terminaras de limpiar.

are OK, and the complexity of the subject is why nobody answered anthodocheio. Reverse time sequences (phrase order or highlighted subject) and conditional clauses call _pretérito perfecto del subjuntivo_  (in addition to unreal situations that call subjunctive):

Me iban a llamar después de que terminaras de limpiar (unreal and/or conditioned)
Me llamaron después de que terminaste de limpiar (real)
No me llamaron después de que terminaste de limpiar (real)
Me iban a llamar terminaras o no de limpiar (not conditioned/related)
Me iban a llamar aún si no terminaras de limpiar (better "terminabas" because "terminar" wasn't a needed input)
Me iban a llamar aunque no terminaras de limpiar (condition is not real)

-¡No me llamaron!
-Te llamaron después de que terminaste de limpiar
-¿Y por qué no me avisaste?
-No me entiendes, te llamaron después de que terminaras de limpiar ¿a quién iba a avisarle si ya te habías ido?

terminaras means here "terminaste, te cambiaste y te fuiste", meaning "terminaste ... ... ... ... ... otra cosa ocurrió". Anyway, more proper of written language than a janitor dude, but this is one of the ways it works.


----------



## Ynez

I have read most of the answers and could see things cleared up in the end.

*Detuviera* is the normal word for me in that sentence, and if I hear/read *hubiera detenido* in that same sentence, I would find it normal as well. 

So it must be what many of you said (I didn't know it consciously): that we always use Subjunctive after "después de que"


----------



## sudest

Me iban a llamar después de que terminaras de limpiar
_They were going to call me after She would have finished the cleaning__._
_That's my English version. Is it correct?_


----------

