# no encuentre /encontrara



## Doc J

Hello everyone,
According to several sources on the subjuntive, sentences with present tense in the main clause will require present subjunctive in the subordinate clause. But I have just noticed that sometimes people use present in the main clause and imperfect subjunctive in the subordinate clause. Here are the two examples that I found and that natives have defended as correct. 

In the two examples, the main clauses are in the present while the subordinate clauses are in the imperfect subjunctive. My question: is it possible to use present in the main clause and imperfect subjunctive in the second clause? 

1_. Es increíble que Sonja no oyera la señal de la policí ayer durante el accidente._
Is this usage of _oyera _correct or should it be _oiga_?

2. _Es increíble que la policía no encontrara la pistola en el cuarto de Pablo._
Is this usage of _oyera _correct or should it be _encuentre_

_3. Es increíble que la policía no encontró la pistola en el cuarto de Pablo._
Second clause is in the preterit.  Correct?


----------



## flljob

Es increíble que Sonja no oyera... me parece bien.
Es increíble que la policía no encontrará... también.
Es increíble que la policía no encontró... me parece incorrecta.

La segunda está en imperfecto de subjuntivo

Si Sonja está buscando la pistola en esté momento, dices:
Es increíble que Sonja no encuentre la pistola.


----------



## Doc J

Thanks, Filjob, but my question is can we use the imperfect subjunctive in the second clause when the main clause is in the present. According to the rules that I could find, a verb in the present tense in the main clause requires a verb in the present subjunctive in the subordinate clause. Is this correct?


----------



## flljob

Yes, you can use the imperfect subjunctive when the main clause is in the present. Con el imperfecto en la subordinada indicas que la acción de la subordinada pertenece al pasado. En este momento te parece increíble que Sonja no oyera (ayer) la señal de la policía.

Saludos


----------



## VivaReggaeton88

Doc J said:


> Hello everyone,
> According to several sources on the subjuntive, sentences with present tense in the main clause will require present subjunctive in the subordinate clause. But I have just noticed that sometimes people use present in the main clause and imperfect subjunctive in the subordinate clause. Here are the two examples that I found and that natives have defended as correct.
> 
> In the two examples, the main clauses are in the present while the subordinate clauses are in the imperfect subjunctive. My question: is it possible to use present in the main clause and imperfect subjunctive in the second clause?
> 
> 1_. Es increíble que Sonja no oyera la señal de la policí ayer durante el accidente._
> Is this usage of _oyera _correct or should it be _oiga_? - it is past tense so it can't be oiga.
> *haya oído
> 
> * 2. _Es increíble que la policía no encontrara la pistola en el cuarto de Pablo._
> Is this usage of _oyera _correct or should it be _encuentre_
> *haya encontrado o encuentre*
> 
> _3. Es increíble que la policía no encontró la pistola en el cuarto de Pablo._
> Second clause is in the preterit.  Correct?
> *haya encontrado *



Es la concordancia de tiempos verbales.


----------



## flljob

La diferencia entre _encontrara _y _haya encontrado_ es solo el aspecto perfectivo. Dependerá del hablante cuál use. También puedes usar _hubiera encontrado_.

Saludos.


----------



## Doc J

Thanks, but we are not discussing the present perfect subjunctive (haya encontrado) but the usage of the present and imperfect subjunctives. Did you understand my question OK?


----------



## VivaReggaeton88

Doc J said:


> Thanks, but we are not discussing the present perfect subjunctive (haya encontrado) but the usage of the present and imperfect subjunctives. Did you understand my question OK?



Yes, I did. You cannot use the imperfect subjunctive when you have a present main clause, even though it is relatively widely used.

Example:

Es increíble que no lo agarraran. 
*Es increíble que no lo hayan agarrado.*
Espero que te fuera bien. 
*Espero que te haya ido bien.*


----------



## NewdestinyX

Doc J said:


> Thanks, Filjob, but my question is can we use the imperfect subjunctive in the second clause when the main clause is in the present. According to the rules that I could find, a verb in the present tense in the main clause requires a verb in the present subjunctive in the subordinate clause. Is this correct?


There isn't an easy answer to this one as the grammar books often want to give us, Doc. The traditional rules of the Spanish language DO require both clauses to agree in time. And as VivaReggaeton88 pointed out - there are many who still ascribe to these rules. So many careful speakers of Spanish will choose to preserve them. But Fljob's answers to you are correct too and show the perspective that -- as the language has grown there are some 'rule breakers' that have now become 'new rules' for the future in a sense..

And especially in sentences like yours where an 'opinion' syntax is set up in clause 1 with TO BE + adjective in English and SER + adjective in Spanish - that mixing of present in the main clause and imperfect subjunctive appearing in the 2nd clause seems more acceptable than doing the same mixture with other dual clause structures (see below). And remember that 'past' in a structure that has a main clause that requires subjunctive in clause 2, like 'ES + ADJECTIVE + QUE', is expressed with the subjunctive in clause 2 and not the indicative in Spanish. So simple preterite wouldn't work in any of your examples.

This phenomenon of using the imperfect subjunctive in clause 2 after present in clause 1 is less acceptable to a lot of speakers and the appropriate 'past' expression after present is the present perfect. In this case I disagree with Fljob that the differentiation is only 'perfective' versus 'simple past' - since Es increíble que Sonya no haya oído la señal. and Es increíble que Sonja no oyera la señal - -mean 'exactly' the same thing in the Spanish mind. 

Now in other syntaxes with 2 clauses even more people on both sides of the ocean will prefer the time concordance like in:

Estoy feliz de que te haya gustado la película. (I'm happy you liked the movie.)
Though you will indeed hear: Estoy feliz de que te gustara la película., careful speakers of Spanish will reject the 'gustara' version more readily than the example with Sonja. The best thing to do is to learn to listen to speakers everywhere and see what their trends are. 

Teachers of grammar in Spanish speaking countries still teach the traditional rules you are learning in your class and that VivaReggaeton88 pointed out in his responses. But like we do in English -- people will break 'the rules' all the time. And the rule of time concordance is very much disappearing from the Spanish language in this last generation. It will likely be gone all together one day. And that's the perspective Fljob was presenting in his response.

When you're learning Spanish it's really hard to figure out which native speaker to believe when they give you opposite answers.  -- I know that it made it hard when I was first learning. But I hope I've made it clearer in my answer why you are hearing 2 seemingly opposite answers from two native speakers.

So the simpler answer to your question -- is you can use 'haya + -ado,-ido' OR -ara, -iera in all of your examples with that second verb. If you want to 'sound traditional' you will prefer the 'haya + -ado, -ido' when the verb in the 1st clause is in the present and a 'past concept' is in clause 2.

Hope that doesn't confuse you to much! 

Chao,
Grant


----------



## Doc J

Thanks Grant and Filjob. You guys have told me what I knew to be true from my experience. We use the term "corrupted forms" to refer to changes in non standard grammatical structures that come to be accepted over time. But I was very interested in your point about the rule of time concordance. So are you suggesting that the subjunctive will disappear in Spanish--is what the evidence of mixing the forms suggests?


----------



## slazenger14

NewdestinyX said:


> There isn't an easy answer as the grammar books often want to give us, Doc. The traditional rules of the Spanish language DO require both clauses to agree in time, Doc. And as VivaReggaton pointed out - there are many who still ascribe to these rules so many careful speakers of Spanish will choose to preserve them. But Fljob's point is correct too in that -- as the language has grown there are some 'rule breakers' that have now become 'new rules' for the future in a sense.. *Exactly*.




Doc J, 
I've been told by several native professors that while the verb tenses have to correlate, the uses will vary from country to country. Different habits, different tendencies, so if you ever travel abroad, I am sure you'll figure out their particular tendencies. As you can already see, some natives have mixed the tenses in the subordinate clause and this obviously would be correct to do in their country/city/area.


----------



## Doc J

And thanks, of course, to you Viva for your corrections.  Doc J


----------



## Doc J

That's what I have learned from my experience, Slazenger. The complicated subjunctive system is just too much for the average person--and people complain that it impedes communication rather than enhancing it. No doubt, if a person hears the non-standard form over and over, pretty soon it begins to sound normal or acceptable; and that is how languages change--it's a natural process that the speakers of a certain language initiate. IT is not unlike natural selection: the forms that people actually use become stronger and survive. Survival of the grammaticalistes. Ha!  Anyway, thanks to everyone for the great discussion. Doc J


----------



## flljob

VivaReggaeton88 said:


> Yes, I did. You cannot use the imperfect subjunctive when you have a present main clause, even though it is relatively widely used.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Es increíble que no lo agarraran.
> *Es increíble que no lo hayan agarrado.*
> Espero que te fuera bien.
> *Espero que te haya ido bien.*


No veo por qué no. Hoy en la mañana oí que alguien dijo:

_Es increíble que no te vacunaras_. Se refería a que ya no se está aplicando la vacuna.

Si todavía se estuviera aplicando la vacuna se diría:
Es increíble que todavía no te hayas vacunado.

¿Qué opinan?

Debo confesar que si en la primera se hubiera usado el antepresente de subjuntivo, no me hubiera sonado mal.

Saludos


----------



## Doc J

Thanks, Filjob, for the information and examples. See you in the next thread.  Doc J


----------



## ElFrikiChino

No estoy de acuerdo con flljob, pero no soy nativo.

Si todavía se estuviera aplicando la vacuna, yo diría: es increíble que no te vacunes.
Si, en cambio, la vacuna se hubiera acabado, diría: es increíble que no te hayas vacunado.

Durante mi estancia en España, creo que nunca he oído el imperfecto de subjuntivo en frases como las primeras, las que dieron lugar a la discusión.
Para mí sería: 
1. no haya oído
2. no haya encontrado
3. incorrecta, tienes que usar el subjuntivo, como en la 2.


----------



## alebeau

VivaReggaeton88 said:


> Yes, I did. You cannot use the imperfect subjunctive when you have a present main clause, even though it is relatively widely used.  Yes you can, although many speakers prefer not to do it because it can be ambiguous. For example, '*No creo que María lo hiciera*' can mean (a) I don't think María did it, (b) I don't think María I don't María was doing it, or (c) I don't think María would do it.  To avoid this confussion, many speakers prefer '*No creo que María lo haya hecho*,' which cannot mean reasons b and c.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Es increíble que no lo agarraran.
> *Es increíble que no lo hayan agarrado.*
> Espero que te fuera bien.
> *Espero que te haya ido bien.*





Doc J said:


> Hello everyone,
> According to several sources on the subjuntive, sentences with present tense in the main clause will require present subjunctive in the subordinate clause. But I have just noticed that sometimes people use present in the main clause and imperfect subjunctive in the subordinate clause. Here are the two examples that I found and that natives have defended as correct.
> 
> In the two examples, the main clauses are in the present while the subordinate clauses are in the imperfect subjunctive. My question: is it possible to use present in the main clause and imperfect subjunctive in the second clause?
> 
> 1_. Es increíble que Sonja no oyera la señal de la policí ayer durante el accidente._
> Is this usage of _oyera _correct or should it be _oiga_?  You used the word *ayer*, so you are obviously talking about the past.
> Answer: Oyera or Haya Oído
> 
> 2. _Es increíble que la policía no encontrara la pistola en el cuarto de Pablo._
> Is this usage of _oyera _correct or should it be _encuentre_? Well, we dont have any specific time frame here.  The sentence could be: 1) It's incredible that the police don't find the pistol in John's room (because he always is shooting it.) 2) It's incredible that the police haven't found the pistol in John's room. 3) It's incredible that the police didn't find the pistol in John's room.
> Answer: Encuentre or Encontrara or Haya Encontrado / Oiga or Oyera or Haya Oído
> 
> _3. Es increíble que la policía no encontró la pistola en el cuarto de Pablo._
> Second clause is in the preterit.  Correct? No, because of the word increíble and because you want it in the preterite, we have to use either 'encontrara' or 'haya encontrado.'
> Answer: No; Correct Answer: Encontrara or Haya Encontrado




Hope this helps,

--AL


----------



## marriedtoMexican

I added the bold and italics to the quote from NewdestinyX to highlight the part to which I'm referring.

[/QUOTE]
_*And especially in sentences like yours where an 'opinion' syntax is set up in clause 1 with TO BE + adjective in English and SER + adjective in Spanish - that mixing of present in the main clause and imperfect subjunctive appearing in the 2nd clause seems more acceptable than doing the same mixture with other dual clause structures (see below).*_ And remember that 'past' in a structure that has a main clause that requires subjunctive in clause 2, like 'ES + ADJECTIVE + QUE', is expressed with the subjunctive in clause 2 and not the indicative in Spanish. So simple preterite wouldn't work in any of your examples.

This phenomenon of using the imperfect subjunctive in clause 2 after present in clause 1 is less acceptable to a lot of speakers and the appropriate 'past' expression after present is the present perfect. In this case I disagree with Fljob that the differentiation is only 'perfective' versus 'simple past' - since Es increíble que Sonya no haya oído la señal. and Es increíble que Sonja no oyera la señal - -mean 'exactly' the same thing in the Spanish mind. 

*Now in other syntaxes with 2 clauses even more people on both sides of the ocean will prefer the time concordance like in:*

*Estoy feliz de que te haya gustado la película. (I'm happy you liked the movie.)*
*Though you will indeed hear: Estoy feliz de que te gustara la película., careful speakers of Spanish will reject the 'gustara' version more readily than the example with Sonja. The best thing to do is to learn to listen to speakers everywhere and see what their trends are.* 
[/QUOTE]

Hi NewdestinyX.
I found your explanation very helpful; I'm so glad you answered DocJ's question.  I find the subjunctive very puzzling at times, but my instinct was that the imperfect subjunctive was a possibility in this case because DocJ used an impersonal expression such as "Es increíble", so it felt good to get confirmation of that.

Now, I had a similar question just tonight about the subjunctive, but with the preterite in clause 1 and present subjunctive in clause 2.  Should I open a new thread or continue with this one?  

A Mexican author writing about the situation with the Zapatistas in Chiapas (when it was still happening, or soon afterwards), wrote things like the following:
1.  También pidió que se otorgue la 'autonomía' y la 'autodeterminación' a los indígenas...
2.  Por otra parte, el Parlamento Europeo... también le exigió al presidente Zedillo que mantenga su compromiso de acabar con la violencia.

Is this allowed according to the traditional "rules" of the subjunctive?  I mean, I'm sure the author's Spanish is accurate, but is that how someone would express those thoughts in spoken Spanish?  Would most native speakers think it's perfectly fine 100% of the time to combine the preterite in clause 1 with present subjunctive in clause 2?  Or could it be okay because of the political agenda of the author and that he's using the language that way to persuade people of his opinion or for a certain literary style?  Or did I misunderstand the rules of the subjunctive?

Thanks so much everyone....


----------



## HolaATodos

*marriedtoMexican* dice:

A Mexican author writing about the situation with the Zapatistas in Chiapas (when it was still happening, or soon afterwards), wrote things like the following:
1. También pidió que se otorgue la 'autonomía' y la 'autodeterminación' a los indígenas...
2. Por otra parte, el Parlamento Europeo... también le exigió al presidente Zedillo que mantenga su compromiso de acabar con la violencia.

Is this allowed according to the traditional "rules" of the subjunctive? I mean, I'm sure the author's Spanish is accurate, but is that how someone would express those thoughts in spoken Spanish? Would most native speakers think it's perfectly fine 100% of the time to combine the preterite in clause 1 with present subjunctive in clause 2? Or could it be okay because of the political agenda of the author and that he's using the language that way to persuade people of his opinion or for a certain literary style? Or did I misunderstand the rules of the subjunctive?

Comprendes perfectamente las reglas del subjuntivo. El problema es el *mal uso* que de él se hace *en la prensa*. 
Efectivamente:
1. También *pidió* que se *otorgue* *otorgara* la 'autonomía' y la 'autodeterminación' a los indígenas...
2. Por otra parte, el Parlamento Europeo... también *(*le*)* exigió al presidente Zedillo que *mantenga **mantuviera* su compromiso de acabar con la violencia.

El resultado de todo esto es que acabará sonándonos bien a fuerza de tanto oirlo. Y no es el único caso de mal uso de la lengua por parte de la prensa; en España, los periodistas y  los políticos en general y los "snobs", tienen auténtico pánico a utilizar mal el condicional, así que no lo usan ni cuando *deberían* de hacerlo.


----------



## caniho

Doc J said:


> Hello everyone,
> According to several sources on the subjuntive, sentences with present tense in the main clause will require present subjunctive in the subordinate clause. But I have just noticed that sometimes people use present in the main clause and imperfect subjunctive in the subordinate clause. Here are the two examples that I found and that natives have defended as correct.
> 
> In the two examples, the main clauses are in the present while the subordinate clauses are in the imperfect subjunctive. My question: is it possible to use present in the main clause and imperfect subjunctive in the second clause?
> 
> 1_. Es increíble que Sonja no oyera la señal de la policí ayer durante el accidente._
> Is this usage of _oyera _correct or should it be _oiga_?
> 
> 2. _Es increíble que la policía no encontrara la pistola en el cuarto de Pablo._
> Is this usage of _oyera _correct or should could it be _encuentre_
> 
> _3. Es increíble que la policía no encontró la pistola en el cuarto de Pablo._
> Second clause is in the preterit.  Correct?



In Spain people use the imperfect every time the second clause goes with a time frame like ayer or last year, and also when it refers to a period that was over long ago, even if there isn't any explicit time frame. Otherwise the subjunctive present perfect (haya oído) is used.


----------



## caniho

ElFrikiChino said:


> No estoy de acuerdo con flljob, pero no soy nativo.
> 
> Si todavía se estuviera aplicando la vacuna, yo diría: es increíble que no te vacunes.
> Si, en cambio, la vacuna se hubiera acabado, diría: es increíble que no te hayas vacunado.
> 
> Durante mi estancia en España, creo que nunca he oído el imperfecto de subjuntivo en frases como las primeras, las que dieron lugar a la discusión.
> Para mí sería:
> 1. no haya oído
> 2. no haya encontrado
> 3. incorrecta, tienes que usar el subjuntivo, como en la 2.



Probably you didn't pay enough attention.


----------



## Doc J

Thanks Caniho, but do you mean the imperfect tense or the imperfect subjunctive?

In Spain people use the imperfect every time the second clause goes with a time frame like ayer or last year


----------



## caniho

flljob said:


> No veo por qué no. Hoy en la mañana oí que alguien dijo:
> 
> _Es increíble que no te vacunaras_. Se refería a que ya no se está aplicando la vacuna.
> 
> Si todavía se estuviera aplicando la vacuna se diría:
> Es increíble que todavía no te hayas vacunado.
> 
> ¿Qué opinan?
> 
> Debo confesar que si en la primera se hubiera usado el antepresente de subjuntivo, no me hubiera sonado mal.
> 
> Saludos




Opino lo mismo. La única diferencia es que por aquí el antepresente se seguiría usando aún cuando el periodo de vacunación estuviera cerrado, siempre y cuando este cierre fuera algo reciente. Sólamente cuando hiciera 'mucho' que ya nadie se pudiera vacunar, la gente empezaría a cambiar al imperfecto.


----------



## caniho

Doc J said:


> Thanks Caniho, but do you mean the imperfect tense or the imperfect subjunctive?
> 
> In Spain people use the imperfect every time the second clause goes with a time frame like ayer or last year



I meant the imperfect subjunctive (oyera)


----------



## caniho

NewdestinyX said:


> This phenomenon of using the imperfect subjunctive in clause 2 after present in clause 1 is less acceptable to a lot of speakers and the appropriate 'past' expression after present is the present perfect. In this case I disagree with Fljob that the differentiation is only 'perfective' versus 'simple past' - since Es increíble que Sonya no haya oído la señal. and Es increíble que Sonja no oyera la señal - -mean 'exactly' the same thing in the Spanish mind.



I have to disagree with your disagreement.



> Now in other syntaxes with 2 clauses even more people on both sides of the ocean will prefer the time concordance like in:
> 
> Estoy feliz de que te haya gustado la película. (I'm happy you liked the movie.)
> Though you will indeed hear: Estoy feliz de que te gustara la película., careful speakers of Spanish will reject the 'gustara' version more readily than the example with Sonja.


_Me alegro de que te gustara la película._
_Me alegro de que te haya gustado la película._

In this side of the pond people would use one or the other regardless of how carefully they speak. It only depends upon the time scheme they have in their minds.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Doc J said:


> Thanks Grant and Filjob. You guys have told me what I knew to be true from my experience. We use the term "corrupted forms" to refer to changes in non standard grammatical structures that come to be accepted over time. But I was very interested in your point about the rule of time concordance. So are you suggesting that the subjunctive will disappear in Spanish--is what the evidence of mixing the forms suggests?


No, no! The subjunctive is FAR from disappearing in Spanish. But the issue you were getting at had nothing to do with 'indicative versus subjunctive' since in the sentences you offered, syntactically they would always call for the Subjunctive in Spanish every time. No choice there.

The issue is whether every Spanish speaking native would require of themselves to use the present perfect with 'haya' after present in the main clause or would they use the imperfect subjunctive which essentially 'breaks' the rule of time concordance. This has been debated on this forum in literally 100 or more threads over the last 2 years. You can do a search and find all angles of every debate on this topic. Your are hearing from Viva and Fljob the same arguments we've been through many times. Not trying to toot my own horn but I've studied this topic from the 'linguistics' angle over many years and the explanation I gave you represents all the positions on the topic and why certain speakers will choose one or the other.

When I use the term 'careful speaker' I understand that that may offend some since can you imagine a non native English speaker telling you you 'should' say --" If I were.." isntead of 'If I was...". They would be 'technically right' in telling you that but it could seem a little like -- 'how dare they'..  -- You know what I mean?

As early as 8 years ago when I wrote to the RAE about this topic they sent me several consult responses that 'Me alegro de que te gustara...' was 'incorrect Spanish'. Then about 2 years ago - in the midst of this same debate -- they wrote back to me that the speaker has 'choice' of which to use. But they 'also said' that there was no difference in 'time frame' between 'te haya gustado' and 'te gustara'. So I still need to reject Fljob's argument that they refer to perfective time or simple past time as in other situations. So you'd still use 'te haya gustado' when you meant 'ayer'. Now -- Latin American speakers -- knowing the tendency to prefer the perfect tense in Spain over simple past -- and the tendency to say things like "Ayer he visto....." will then tend to want to make sure that anything with 'haya' in the 2nd clause has a clear 'perfective' understanding and could never be used with 'ayer'. But as I said -- in traditional Spanish that's just not the case..

So this is perfectly normal and correct traditional Spanish:
1:¿Le gustó la película a Armando? (ayer)
2:Creo que sí.
1:Me alegro de que le haya gustado (ayer). Porque no pensaba que....

In the "traditional" native Spanish-speaking mind the time reference in the 3rd sentence of that dialogue is still 'ayer'; when the movie was actually seen. 

Now -- today -- in Modern Spanish, aware of the fact (especially in Latin America) that 'ayer + present perfect' has a certain 'illogical' feel/sound to it -- will choose to ignore the time concordance rules and force the 'gustara' that seems to match 'ayer' better. Spaniards, too, aware of the 'incorrect' use in their own country of 'ayer he visto..' by some -- will also prefer 'gustara' to make the differentiation. So the 'rule' that VivaReggaeton correctly stated in his response to you is still held to very strongly by a lot of people who were taught in their schools the traditional rules. To this day -- I personally 'only' say -- If I were... And I use the English subjunctive where it's still alive and well. ("Obama insisted that they be..... {not 'they are'})

I hope that makes sense. So as far as the highest grammar law in the land is concerned, the RAE,  -- 'gustara' is completely fine (now, after 2002) and a matter of choice after a 'present tense' main clause. But again -- in the school systems in Latin America and Spain -- only 'present tense clause 1 + te haya gustado' is taught as correct when referring to a simple past like 'ayer'.


----------



## Doc J

Great explanation, Newdestiny. Thanks for going to all the trouble to clear up so much muddy water. Take care, and I will see you in the next thread.


----------



## slazenger14

Like I said before, different tendencies and different habits which all depend on where you live. For us (English speakers), it's hard for us to develop the ear to decide if the imperfect subjunctive would fit in the subordinate clause when the principal clause is in the present tense. I personally, don't dare to do so and won't until I am living/studying/visiting in a Spanish speaking country and become accustomed to their tendencies. Unless my previous professors (native Spanish speakers) are mistaken, mixing verb tenses in this case is _technically_ wrong, but it is obviously used and accepted.


----------



## NewdestinyX

slazenger14 said:


> Like I said before, different tendencies and different habits which all depend on where you live. For us (English speakers), it's hard for us to develop the ear to decide if the imperfect subjunctive would fit in the subordinate clause when the principal clause is in the present tense. I personally, don't dare to do so and won't until I am living/studying/visiting in a Spanish speaking country and become accustomed to their tendencies. Unless my previous professors (native Spanish speakers) are mistaken, mixing verb tenses in this case is _technically_ wrong, but it is obviously used and accepted.


That is *always* the best approach in learning your 2nd language, Slazenger. The natives here use their language every day. Their ears tell them what works best -- never a 2nd thought. But I've always set out to teach my students the most 'standard/traditional' Spanish - a Spanish that they could use in job interviews and hi level company positions. I'm not saying that the formation [Es + adjective + que + imperfect subjunctive] or [Me alegro de que te gustara...] are a  'lower register Spanish' at all. But they're not the 'traditional' Spanish taught in the grammar schools of Spanish speaking countries. And I prefer to teach and speak the grammar school Spanish which will be understood anywhere in the Spanish speaking world and then, and only, when I'm accustomed to one area -- for me that's working in Spain among professionals, do I feel the comfort to 'adopt' the 'more regional' usages and some of the more non-traditional uses.


----------



## Doc J

Both of you guys make good sense. It is a pleasure studying with people like you who have both knowledge and  insights. Take care.  Doc J


----------



## NewdestinyX

Doc J said:


> Both of you guys make good sense. It is a pleasure studying with people like you who have both knowledge and  insights. Take care.  Doc J


Thanks. I've learned here over many years to never tell a native speaker of my *2nd* language that they're speaking 'incorrectly' unless it's an 'egregious' grammatical error. But I think the 'students here' need to learn the 'rules' - just like they learned the rules of their own native language. Then they can choose to 'break them' later..


----------



## Doc J

It's a good policy.


----------



## slazenger14

NewdestinyX said:


> That is *always* the best approach in learning your 2nd language, Slazenger. The natives here use their language every day. Their ears tell them what works best -- never a 2nd thought. But I've always set out to teach my students the most 'standard/traditional' Spanish - a Spanish that they could use in job interviews and hi level company positions. I'm not saying that the formation [Es + adjective + que + imperfect subjunctive] or [Me alegro de que te gustara...] are a  'lower register Spanish' at all. But they're not the 'traditional' Spanish taught in the grammar schools of Spanish speaking countries. And I prefer to teach and speak the grammar school Spanish which will be understood anywhere in the Spanish speaking world and then, and only, when I'm accustomed to one area -- for me that's working in Spain among professionals, do I feel the comfort to 'adopt' the 'more regional' usages and some of the more non-traditional uses.



 Exactly! While I am NOT saying the natives are wrong (I would hardly every question a native speaker),  I (right now) can only tell another English speaker learning Spanish to follow the grammar rules. If he/she/they decide to visit a foreign country, they will surely learn the regional usage and tendencies that the native speakers may have.


----------



## VivaReggaeton88

slazenger14 said:


> Exactly! While I am NOT saying the natives are wrong (I would hardly every question a native speaker),  I (right now) can only tell another English speaker learning Spanish to follow the grammar rules. If he/she/they decide to visit a foreign country, they will surely learn the regional usage and tendencies that the native speakers may have.



Agreed. However I always correct my native friends (as a joke, but at the same time seriously).


----------



## caniho

NewdestinyX said:


> As early as 8 years ago when I wrote to the RAE about this topic they sent me several consult responses that 'Me alegro de que te gustara...' was 'incorrect Spanish'. Then about 2 years ago - in the midst of this same debate -- they wrote back to me that the speaker has 'choice' of which to use. But they 'also said' that there was no difference in 'time frame' between 'te haya gustado' and 'te gustara'. So I still need to reject Fljob's argument that they refer to perfective time or simple past time as in other situations. So you'd still use 'te haya gustado' when you meant 'ayer'.



So, what does it mean? Most people here use both tenses. It is a random choice or something?



> Now -- Latin American speakers -- knowing the tendency to prefer the perfect tense in Spain over simple past -- and the tendency to say things like "Ayer he visto....." will then tend to want to make sure that anything with 'haya' in the 2nd clause has a clear 'perfective' understanding and could never be used with 'ayer'. But as I said -- in traditional Spanish that's just not the case..


I find that speculation impossible to believe. I would say that most Spaniards are not even aware that some of their countrymen would say things like 'ayer lo he visto'. 



> So this is perfectly normal and correct traditional Spanish:
> 1:¿Le gustó la película a Armando? (ayer)
> 2:Creo que sí.
> 1:Me alegro de que le haya gustado (ayer). Porque no pensaba que....
> 
> In the "traditional" native Spanish-speaking mind the time reference in the 3rd sentence of that dialogue is still 'ayer'; when the movie was actually seen.


Your sentence does not contain the time mark ayer, and as long as I'm concerned, it's perfectly fine. I'll give you a more meaningful example. Just imagine that someone is telling you about a day in the past, say last year, when that person was waiting for a call that finally didn't come. I would tell her 'me extraña mucho que no te llamara', because if you say 'me extraña mucho que no the haya llamado', then she could answer: 'no, si llamarme me ha llamado, hablamos todas las semanas, cuando no me llamó fue entonces'.


----------



## NewdestinyX

caniho said:


> So, what does it mean? Most people here use both tenses. It is a random choice or something?


Well in some syntaxes, yes. As I said in my very first response it's mostly in the syntaxes of the type 'me alegro de que..', 'me sorprende que..' ,etc -- where there is no time frame distinction between 'haya + PP' and 'imp subj' in the 2nd clause. In the 'SER + adjective + que' (and other opinion) constructions there is a 'communication-based need' to distinguish a _perfect tense_ from a_ simple past_. So it's not exactly 'random' choice. And there are grammatical reasons based in Latin for why there is no need for a distinction between perfect and past in the subclause after and 'emotional-based main clause'. 



			
				Caniho said:
			
		

> NewdestinyX said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now -- Latin American speakers -- knowing the tendency to prefer the perfect tense in Spain over simple past -- and the tendency to say things like "Ayer he visto....." will then tend to want to make sure that anything with 'haya' in the 2nd clause has a clear 'perfective' understanding and could never be used with 'ayer'. But as I said -- in traditional Spanish that's just not the case..
> 
> 
> 
> I find that speculation impossible to believe. I would say that most Spaniards are not even aware that some of their countrymen would say things like 'ayer lo he visto'.
Click to expand...

There is certainly some speculation there, Caniho -- agreed. But again it's based on years of study/interviews with natives, Caniho. Most non-natives, as I'm sure you know, spend a lot more time 'studying' their 2nd language than a native does in studying their native language (a menos que 'seas profesor de lenguaje'). I've done scores of interviews with natives about this topic too and it was 'they' who helped me form the speculation.



> Your sentence does not contain the time mark ayer, and as long as I'm concerned, it's perfectly fine.


But the point is this: the time marker 'ayer' is in the 'mind' of the speaker saying _"Me alegro de que' hayas....."_


> I'll give you a more meaningful example. Just imagine that someone is telling you about a day in the past, say last year, when that person was waiting for a call that finally didn't come. I would tell her 'me extraña mucho que no te llamara', because if you say 'me extraña mucho que no the haya llamado', then she could answer: 'no, si llamarme me ha llamado, hablamos todas las semanas, cuando no me llamó fue entonces'.


I agree with you - but that's a different syntax. _Me extraña que..._ tends to set up the need to differentiate between 'perfect' and 'simple past' in the subclause for 'past events'. I think that's why the RAE has modified its position in recent years and has allowed as 'correct' the present + imperfect subj combination in main/subordinate clause structures for 'all types of main clauses'. 

*Let me be clear to this thread what I'm saying and what I'm not saying:*
• It is no longer acceptable, because of the RAE's new rulings -- to call '_me alegro de que te gustara..._' "incorrect or substandard". It is '*non-traditional*' but it is completely correct and grammatical. (_So that's where I'd have to disagree with VivaReggaeton88's staunch position if he considers 'gustara' or any imp subjunctive after a present main clause as 'incorrect'_)
• Then - even in 'traditional grammar practices' -adhering to time concordances - it was mainly only 'emotional main clauses' in the present tense that required '_haya_ + PP' instead of 'imp subjunctive' in the sub clause
• Opinion syntaxes of the type '_SER +_ adjective_ + que_' and even of the types - _Me extraña que.._, _No pienso que..._, _No creo que.._. have 'always' been able to take '_haya_ + PP' for perfect time frames and 'imp subjunctive' for simple past time frames. 

--- If you read my first post -- I changed the original sentence types from 'opinion/judgement' syntaxes to 'emotional' syntaxes to show where the 'traditional rules' apply the most. Natives, when they learn a rule -- will sometimes 'overapply' it to make sure there is no error. In English we accidentally say 'for you and I' instead of 'for you and me'. Why? Because we are taught to put ourselves 2nd after the other subject and refer to ourselves as 'I'. So in prepositional phrases we try and mimic that -- and end up 'overcorrecting' it. The native Spanish speaker, having been taught the rule of time concordance -- will assume that if '_me alegro de que hayas venido_' is correct for simple past -- then '_es interesante que haya venido tan tarde_' would be the only choice there too. When '_es interesante que haya venido tan tarde_' and ''_es interesante que viniera tan tarde_' mean something *completely different *with reference to time frame.

Then the reverse tendency is also true. Though '_me alegro de que te haya gustado.._.' and '_me alegro de que te gustara_' refer to the exact same time frame, *ayer *(or some specific point in past time), there is the 'logical' deduction that  you should be able to distinguish a 'simple past' and a 'perfect' with those 'emotion-based' main clauses as well - *but *- there's no grammatical need to differentiate perfect and simple past after an emotion-based antecedent. But I do understand that logical pull toward wanting to differentiate between them.

But it's a sort of 'over-correction' just like English's 'for you and I' (though nowhere near as bad as the English mistake) -- and again -- the RAE accepts '_gustara_' for '_haya gustado_' after emotional main clauses (after 2002'ish).. So we should no longer call it 'incorrect/substandard'. Why? Because grammarians have studied it for years and the RAE has concluded that it is indeed 'logical' that *Spanish should be able to distinguish 'perfect' and 'simple' past in any dual clause structure*. I agree with them - even though I prefer that 'syntactic', Latin-based, time concordance principles be observed in Romance languages. It's being lost in modern times. :-(


----------



## Ynez

The only correct statements in this thread were made by *flljob* and *caniho*. The rest are incorrect or off-topic; most are both incorrect and off-topic. I am afraid it is impossible to give a linguistic answer in this thread as it contains too many different questions and too many incorrect answers.


Probably the subjunctive cannot be learnt in this forum and learners should buy grammar books to study. But if you really want to try to learn about all these tenses in the forum, please make only one question per thread.

I will not participate more in this thread, because I am sure I would have to use a word that is considered impolite and aggressive (_false_).


----------



## VivaReggaeton88

Ynez said:


> The only correct statements in this thread were made by *flljob*,* alebeau* and *caniho*. The rest are incorrect or off-topic; most are both incorrect and off-topic. I am afraid it is impossible to give a linguistic answer in this thread as it contains too many different questions and too many incorrect answers.
> 
> 
> Probably the subjunctive cannot be learnt in this forum and learners should buy grammar books to study. But if you really want to try to learn about all these tenses in the forum, please make only one question per thread.
> 
> I will not participate more in this thread, because I am sure I would have to use a word that is considered impolite and aggressive (_false_).



I think this is a very good thread, and nothing is really off-topic. You haven't said anything at all in this thread before this expert answer, so it doesn't really matter if you participate anymore...

I agree with NewDestiny's anwer. The subjunctive can be very tricky and I think his explanation was the most detailed.


----------



## Ynez

Sorry, alebeau, I had first included your answer as correct, but then saw that some interpretation was not true and edited my previous post.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> The only correct statements in this thread were made by *flljob* and *caniho*. The rest are incorrect or off-topic; most are both incorrect and off-topic. I am afraid it is impossible to give a linguistic answer in this thread as it contains too many different questions and too many incorrect answers.
> 
> 
> Probably the subjunctive cannot be learnt in this forum and learners should buy grammar books to study. But if you really want to try to learn about all these tenses in the forum, please make only one question per thread.
> 
> I will not participate more in this thread, because I am sure I would have to use a word that is considered impolite and aggressive (_false_).


I'm sorry you feel that way, Ynez. I told the original poster that this has been debated in many threads. My input is from over a decade of study and interviews with natives and in reading many grammar sources written by native speaking grammarians. What I explained about how to use the syntax is completely correct in every way. How the RAE came to change their position on time concordance over time is more speculation -- but I acknowledged that.

If you don't agree with the grammar explanation aspect -- your issue is with fellow natives and grammarians from native speaking countries including Elimio Alarcos Llorach and Manuel Seco. Since we've 'sparred' about it in the past -- I won't do it again here. Just present your ideas to the poster and he can weigh your input against the other input.


----------



## aleCcowaN

Ynez said:


> The only correct statements in this thread were made by *flljob* and *caniho*. The rest are incorrect or off-topic; most are both incorrect and off-topic. I am afraid it is impossible to give a linguistic answer in this thread as it contains too many different questions and too many incorrect answers.
> 
> 
> Probably the subjunctive cannot be learnt in this forum and learners should buy grammar books to study. But if you really want to try to learn about all these tenses in the forum, please make only one question per thread.
> 
> I will not participate more in this thread, because I am sure I would have to use a word that is considered impolite and aggressive (_false_).


Ditto! I couldn't agree more. Este hilo es una pesadilla conceptual.

Con respecto a la pregunta del hilo, me suscribo a la respuesta contenida en el mensaje N°20, con la aclaración de que en 2) "encuentre" significa que la policía continúa buscándola en locación, y que 3) es un típico anacoluto que se produce cuando el hablante se da cuenta, a mitad de la frase, de que su interlocutor no está enterado del hecho que está comentando y por lo tanto lo expresa en indicativo como corresponde a información nueva.

Por supuesto subsisten diferencias de uso y habitualidad de los tiempos compuestos del indicativo en ambos lados del Atlántico, con cierta propagación hacia los tiempos del subjuntivo.

Pero aquí se mezclan refritos, temas que merecen su propio hilo y debates gratuitos, como el que falsamente contrapone a un hablante centrado en la omisión de la inoculación en el pasado ("...que no te vacunaras") con otro centrado en la falta de inmunización presente como consecuencia de la falta de inoculación anterior ("...que no te hayas vacunado") con completa independencia de si la campaña de vacunación ha terminado o no, y ningún _careful speaker_ deja de entenderlo, ni favorece un caso frente a otro, porque hablar continúa basándose en lo que se quiere decir, que parece que hay que recordarlo como si fuera novedad.


----------

