# después de que yo me hubiera ido



## miklo3600

Hola:
 
Please make any corrections to my sentence in Spanish. Does “Después de que” require the verb to be in the past subjuntive?
 
Ella debió haber venido después de que yo me hubiera ido.
She must have come after I had left.
 
Mil gracias


----------



## emm1366

Hola Miklo.

No soy muy bueno en gramática pero creo que la segunda frase siendo condicional debería ser:
...después de que me fuera
...si me hubiera ido

I hope it helps.


----------



## mhp

Either subjunctive (hubiera) or indicative (había) can be used. In  Spain, the use of subjunctive is very common, but I believe in Latin  America indicative is also used. Grammatically, both are considered to  be correct.

If by "come" you mean "arrive", I'd use llegar.


----------



## miklo3600

Qué os parece lo siguiente...

Ella debío haber llegado a la oficina despúes de que me fuera.
She must have arrived at the office after I left (I had left).

Me fuera—I had left
Me hubiera ido-I had left

I am still a little confused on this one, too. 

gracias


----------



## obz

"que me fuera" - I left
"que me hubiera ido" - I had left

Dependerá del tiempo verbal que se quiera dar.

This use of subjunctive after "después de que" has always confused me as well, as it seems there is no rhyme or reason. I would love to hear a more precise explination of why and when one is chosen or not.

In a book I read not so long ago a woman tells a man "Lo descubrí anoche, después de que te marchases"
Both Speakers were there and know exactly when he left,... so the subjunctive use has me puzzled. Other scenarios in the same book go with the indicative, and even one example of the ultra rare "pretérito anterior" (después de que hubieron llegado).

Any have a more concise explanation?


----------



## mhp

obz said:


> "que me fuera" - I left
> "que me hubiera ido" - I had left
> 
> Dependerá del tiempo verbal que se quiera dar.
> 
> This use of subjunctive after "después de que" has always confused me as well, as it seems there is no rhyme or reason. I would love to hear a more precise explination of why and when one is chosen or not.
> 
> In a book I read not so long ago a woman tells a man "Lo descubrí anoche, después de que te marchases"
> Both Speakers were there and know exactly when he left,... so the subjunctive use has me puzzled. Other scenarios in the same book go with the indicative, and even one example of the ultra rare "pretérito anterior" (después de que hubieron llegado).
> 
> Any have a more concise explanation?



You are right. A lot of grammarians give the same argument: The use of subjunctive is unjustified. But people keep on using it, perhaps due to its similarity to "antes de que". In modern standard Spanish, the use of subjunctive is considered correct not because of logic of it, but because of common usage.


----------



## obz

So are we to conclude that it is simply a matter of literary or narrative style that dictates its use and there is nothing to be gained or lost in using one or another?


----------



## mhp

That's the way I have understood it. You may find some native speakers  that give long convoluted explanations of how there is a difference, but  that could very well be regional differences or personal opinions. In  Spain, use of subjunctive is so common that most people would criticize  the use of indicative.


----------



## miklo3600

¡Vaya! Bien explicado. Gracias por contestar a este hilo. Me han ayudado mucho.


----------



## Agró

There's a much simpler solution:

Ella debió llegar a la oficina después de irme.


----------



## mhp

I like that solution. That solution also works in other cases: _lo hizo después de hacerlo yo_. (an infinitive with a subject! The subject must be mentioned after the infinitive.)


----------



## swift

Agró said:


> There's a much simpler solution:
> 
> Ella debió llegar a la oficina después de irme.


I concur. But I wouldn't use the indicative *subjunctive* in this particular case. Moreover, using it seems grammatically incorrect to me.  Does "must" indicate a strong belief?

_Ella debió haber llegado después de que yo me hubiera ido_ indicates a necessity in the past, not a strong belief.

_Ella debió *de* haber llegado después de que yo me fui_ indicates a strong belief.


----------



## Agró

swift said:


> I concur. But I wouldn't use the indicative in this particular case. Moreover, using it seems grammatically incorrect to me.  Does "must" indicate a strong belief?
> 
> _Ella debió haber llegado después de que yo me fuera_ indicates a necessity in the past, not a strong belief.
> 
> _Ella debió *de* haber llegado después de que yo me fui_ indicates a strong belief.



Strictly speaking "Ella debió llegar a la oficina después de irme" should be "Ella debió de llegar a la oficina después de irme." The thing is most speakers, including myself, forget that "de".


----------



## mhp

swift said:


> I concur. But I wouldn't use the indicative in this particular case. Moreover, using it seems grammatically incorrect to me.  Does "must" indicate a strong belief?
> 
> _Ella debió haber llegado después de que yo me hubiera ido_ indicates a necessity in the past, not a strong belief.
> 
> _Ella debió *de* haber llegado después de que yo me fui_ indicates a strong belief.



I am not sure if your question is about the preposition DE. If it is, this may help:

«*b) deber de *+ infinitivo*.* Denota probabilidad o  suposición: _«No se oye nada de ruido en la casa. Los viejos deben de haber salido»_ (Mañas _Kronen  _[Esp. 1994]). No obstante, con este sentido, la lengua culta admite  también el uso sin preposición: _«Marianita, su hija, debe tener unos  veinte años»_ (VLlosa _Fiesta_ [Perú 2000]).» (DPD)

The use of DE after deber, when there is no supposition involved, is a very common mistake in Spain.


----------



## swift

Thanks, Mhp. The use of preposition "de" is very clear to me; I just wanted to make sure that my understanding of the English sentence was correct. 

And I should have written "subjunctive" instead of "indicative" in my first statement.  I apologize.


----------



## mhp

swift said:


> Thanks, Mhp. The use of preposition "de" is very clear to me; I just wanted to make sure that my understanding of the English sentence was correct.
> 
> And I should have written "subjunctive" instead of "indicative" in my first statement.  I apologize.



Okay that makes more sense. I knew that in Latin America the use of indicative (the strictly correct choice) is not as odd sounding as it is in Spain. 

The use of "must" in English indicates a supposition. At least, that's the way I understand it.


----------



## swift

mhp said:


> The use of "must" in English indicates a supposition.


Therefore, we should use "deber de" in Spanish too.


----------



## obz

swift said:


> Therefore, we should use "deber de" in Spanish too.



¡Ojala fuese así de fácil todo el tiempo!


----------



## mhp

swift said:


> Therefore, we should use "deber de" in Spanish too.


According to the fragment that I posted from the DPD, you can use either deber+infinitive or deber+de+infinitive in this case; assuming MUST in English denotes a supposition.


----------



## swift

The use of the infinitive after "deber (de)" is not in question. Miklo is concerned about what tense to use after "después de que", and now we know that we can use either the infinitive (like Agró suggested) or the indicative.


----------



## mhp

swift said:


> The use of the infinitive after "deber (de)" is not in question. Miklo is concerned about what tense to use after "después de que", and now we know that we can use either the infinitive (like Agró suggested) or the indicative.



Or subjunctive. 

The other question that was raised was concerning the use of DE after deber. The answer to the tangential question is: the use of DE is optional in this case.


----------



## la_machy

_Must _a supposition?
I was taught that "must" (debe/debes) indicates a strong duty or belief whereas "should" indicates a supposition (_debe *de*_).
Then, the sentence, for me, means "Ella debió (as an obligation) llegar después de que me fuí".

Have I been wrong all this time? 


Saludos


----------



## swift

The problem is that "must" cannot be used to say that something was necessary in the past, La Machy. Instead, we use "had to".


----------



## obz

You're thinking of the right thing Manchy, but must serves 2 purposes.

_You must go to the store _= obligation, duty.
_He must be at the store_ = supposition, hypothesis, you believe so, but you don't KNOW it.


----------



## la_machy

Thanks, José and OBZ...I think is time to_ re-read_ about modals (for me, of course...).


----------



## roberx

Machy, estoy de acuerdo en que _"must" (debe) indicates a strong duty or belief, _pero "should" es más bien "debería". Para suposición (debe de) se usa "must" también. Por ejemplo:

Debes salir ahora mismo = You must leave right now (obligación)
Debe de ser muy bonita = She must be very pretty (suposición)
Deberíamos hacerlo hoy = We should do it today


----------



## Peterdg

swift said:


> The use of the infinitive after "deber (de)" is not in question. Miklo is concerned about what tense to use after "después de que", and now we know that we can use either the infinitive (like Agró suggested) or the indicative.


I can tell you what "El subjuntivo, valores y usos; J.Borrego e.a" have to say about it 
There are two questions:
1. The use of the infinitive. After "después de que", you can use the infinitive if the subjects of the principal clause and the dependant clause coincide. The use of the infinitive is NOT mandatory. (R59 in that grammar)

2. The use of the subjunctive: After "después de que", the subjunctive is used if the context includes explicit or implicit references to the future relative to the moment that is taken as the reference point. (R57).

That is a "very open" definition as you can argue any point as being your reference point.

On the other hand, the book also says: (my translation) 



> Perhaps in analogy to its counterpart "antes de que", "después de que" also allows the use of the subjunctive to make references to the past.


----------



## Agró

Peterdg said:


> I can tell you what "El subjuntivo, valores y usos; J.Borrego e.a" have to say about it
> There are two questions:
> 1. The use of the infinitive. After "después de que", you can use the infinitive* *(????)* if the subjects of the principal clause and the dependant clause coincide. The use of the infinitive is NOT mandatory. (R59 in that grammar)
> 
> 2. The use of the subjunctive: After "después de que", the subjunctive is used if the context includes explicit or implicit references to the future relative to the moment that is taken as the reference point. (R57).
> 
> That is a "very open" definition as you can argue any point as being your reference point.
> 
> On the other hand, the book also says: (my translation)



*This must be wrong (para la machy: no es obligatorio que esté mal, sino que *debe de* estar mal).


----------



## la_machy

Agró said:


> *This must be wrong (para la machy: no es obligatorio que esté mal, sino que *debe de* estar mal).


 
Eso estuvo muy claro, Agró...


----------



## Peterdg

Agró said:


> *This must be wrong (para la machy: no es obligatorio que esté mal, sino que *debe de* estar mal).


A no ser que mi traducción o mi interpretación sea mala, esto es lo que dice en español (literalmente):



> En oraciones temporales, aunque no sea obligatorio, es posible usar nexos como DESPUÉS DE QUE, HASTA y LUEGO DE (sin QUE), y el verbo en infinitivo, cuando el sujeto (gramatical o psicológico) del verbo de que depende la temporal coincide con el de ésta.


----------



## mhp

Hi Peterdg, 

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with what you said. However, the use of infinitive in this case is a bit more general than you have suggested. 

Edit: I took it for granted that 'que' is dropped if an infinitive is used.


----------



## Agró

Peterdg said:


> A no ser que mi traducción o mi interpretación sea mala, esto es lo que dice en español (literalmente):



Ni tu traducción ni tu interpretación son malas. El problema es que DESPUÉS DE *QUE* no puede ir seguido de infinitivo (si he leído bien la cita).

Nos marchamos después de que preparar el equipaje.
Nos marchamos después de que nos prepararan el equipaje.


----------



## Peterdg

mhp said:


> Hi Peterdg,
> 
> I don't think anyone is disagreeing with what you said. However, the usage of infinitive in this case is a bit more general than you suggest.


I'm not suggesting; I'm just a messenger . J. Borrego and colleagues are making the suggestion and who am I to doubt what they say? (They have an excellent reputation)


----------



## mhp

Peterdg said:


> I'm not suggesting; I'm just a messenger . J. Borrego and colleagues are making the suggestion and who am I to doubt what they say? (They have an excellent reputation)


Again, no one has said anything to the contrary (provided, of course, that you drop 'que').


----------



## obz

Peterdg said:


> I'm not suggesting; I'm just a messenger . J. Borrego and colleagues are making the suggestion and who am I to doubt what they say? (They have an excellent reputation)



Evidentemente, hasta ellos cometen errores.


----------



## Peterdg

Agró said:


> Ni tu traducción ni tu interpretación son malas. El problema es que DESPUÉS DE *QUE* no puede ir seguido de infinitivo (si he leído bien la cita).
> 
> Nos marchamos después de que preparar el equipaje.
> Nos marchamos después de que nos prepararan el equipaje.


¡Aah! Sí. Mala formulación. Habrían tenido que distinguir entre "después de que" y después de (sin que). Pero el principio vale,¿no?


----------



## Agró

Peterdg said:


> ¡Aah! Sí. Mala formulación. Habrían tenido que distinguir entre "después de que" y después de (sin que). Pero el principio vale,¿no?


El principio vale, pero han metido la pata hasta el fondo con ese "que".


----------



## gringomejicano

"Ella debió de haber llegado después de que me fui."
"Ella debió de haber llegado después de que me había ido."

I don't agree that the "de" is optional.  I can entertain the use of the subjunctive here, somewhat, but never the omission of the "de".


----------



## mhp

gringomejicano said:


> "Ella debió de haber llegado después de que me fui."
> "Ella debió de haber llegado después de que me había ido."
> 
> I don't agree that the "de" is optional.  I can entertain the use of the subjunctive here, somewhat, but never the omission of the "de".



As swift has noted, this thread is not about the use of DE after deber. The RAE says it is optional in this case, you say it is not. Perhaps further discussion should be directed to this thread: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1191053


----------



## emm1366

gringomejicano said:


> "Ella debió de haber llegado después de que me fui*fuera*."
> "Ella debió de haber llegado después de que me había *hubiera* ido."
> 
> I don't agree that the "de" is optional. I can entertain the use of the subjunctive here, somewhat, but never the omission of the "de".


 No veo obligación en usar "de".


----------



## Vikingo

Peterdg said:


> ¡Aah! Sí. Mala formulación. Habrían tenido que distinguir entre "después de que" y después de (sin que). Pero el principio vale,¿no?



If you read R59 more closely, I think you'll find that you have misquoted them a little. They explicitly state "DESPUÉS DE, HASTA y LUEGO DE (sin QUE)". This distinction is consistent throughout the explanation of the rule, which by the way also deals with the use of the infinitive when the subjects differ.

Saludos


----------



## Candle9000

_(Ella) debió haber llegado después (de) que me fuera_   sounds pretty good.


----------



## Peterdg

Vikingo said:


> If you read R59 more closely, I think you'll find that you have misquoted them a little. They explicitly state "DESPUÉS DE, HASTA y LUEGO DE (sin QUE)". This distinction is consistent throughout the explanation of the rule, which by the way also deals with the use of the infinitive when the subjects differ.
> 
> Saludos


 I'm really getting old. I'm not even able anymore to copy a piece of text correctly


----------

