# Castilian Spanish:  El imperfecto de subjuntivo en -ra



## merquiades

Hoy en día las formas del imperfecto de subjuntivo en -ra (hablar, bebiera, viviera) son las más empleadas y las terminaciones en    -se caen en desuso:  [Fue necesario que vinieras, Si leyeras, cuando leyera...], pero históricamente las terminaciones en -ra ni siquiera correspondían al subjuntivo.  De hecho, hasta el siglo XV tenían un valor de pluscuamperfecto de indicativo, es decir lo que hoy en día se construye con el imperfecto del verbo haber más el participio pasado (había hablado, había vivido, había vivido). [Ejemplo:  Saqué el libro que guardara (había guardado) en mi bolso] ¿Hay alguien que sepa explicarme el cómo y el porqué de este cambio de modo? 

The Spanish imperfect subjunctive endings in -ra corresponding to those in -se, are now perfectly subjunctive and are the most often used (that I might go, if I were to go..), though historically they were actually the pluperfect indicative tense (I had done).  This change slowly occurred after the 1500´s and is now complete.  Does anyone have any idea how and why this happened?  Any theories?


----------



## CapnPrep

See Penny (2002, p. 204–5) and references therein. The key constructions were contrary-to-fact past tense conditionals of the type _Si ellos le viessen, non escap*ara*_ (Mio Cid), which later came to use a _-ra_ form in both clauses (_si pudiesse, fizi*éra*lo_ → _si pudi*era*, fizi*éra*lo_).


----------



## merquiades

CapnPrep said:


> See Penny (2002, p. 204–5) and references therein. The key constructions were contrary-to-fact past tense conditionals of the type _Si ellos le viessen, non escap*ara*_ (Mio Cid), which later came to use a _-ra_ form in both clauses (_si pudiesse, fizi*éra*lo_ → _si pudi*era*, fizi*éra*lo_).



Thanks for the link CapnPrep.  Too bad one of the pages was blocked for me.
I guess I'm starting to see how it happened.  It happened through the conditional actually.  I know in many instances both conditional and imperfect subjunctive -ra forms are equivalent and used in the same sense.  Quisiera (I might like), Querría (I would like), also Quería (I was wanting).... Me hubiera gustado ir (I might have liked to go), Me habría gustado ir (I would have liked to go), Me había gustado ir (I had wanted to go).  -ra became equal to -ría.
So:
1)  hablara (I had spoken), hablase (I might have spoken), hablaría (I would speak)
2)  After conditional clauses with si (if) the -ra formed was introduced like it was in the previous examples since would have/ might have/ had had are close in meaning
Si tuviese dinero, compraría... then
Si tuviese dinero, comprara... then
Si tuviera dinero, comprara
De tener dinera, compraba (colloquial)
Some change in mentality makes past forms, conditionals, subjunctive become equivalents.
3) After that switch of -se to -ra after si, it formed a precedent and all other -se could then start to alternate with -ra
Lo hice para que lo supieses/ supieras,  Sería importante que lo hicieses / hiciera  (might have/ would have/ had had)
4) This becomes so common -ra loses its original pluperfect indicative value to había + past participle
5) -Ra continues to gain in use and is replacing -se (original imperfect subjunctive) to become the new preferred imperfect subjunctive
Plausible.... I can see how this could happen over many centuries


----------



## Istriano

En España  las terminaciones en    -se no caen en desuso, se usan normalmente, sólo con menor frecuencia. En Galicia se usan casi siempre formas en -se (formas en _-ra_ se usan en vez de _había visto/comprado/ido..._)
En la América Latina, en la lengua hablada, formas en -se se usan sólo en Puerto Rico, pero en la lengua formal/escrita se usan con mucha frecuencia también en otros sitios.
A un español, las terminaciones en -se no le suenan formales sino normales.

_Hubiese _es la forma más usada en la América Latina porque en Puerto Rico y en Chile son frecuentes en la lengua escrita (e a veces en la lengua hablada) cosas como:
_Me hubiese gustado ir...
_
This is almost 20 years old but it's okay:_

http://bib.cervantesvirtual.com/servlet/SirveObras/12059435340142617432435/p0000007.htm#I_10_
_


----------



## merquiades

Istriano said:


> En España (fuera de Andalucía) las terminaciones en    -se no caen en desuso.


De acuerdo, entre periodistas, profesores y escritores no, alternan bastante, pero en la calle sí, al menos por Madrid y probablemente en otros tantos lugares céntricos.

Adendo:
Gracias por el análisis interesante que has encontrado. La verdad es que me va a ser valioso.
Las formas en -se no son más formales solo poco frecuentes

Las estadísticas del estudio me parecen acertadas
                 RA              SE
MADRID 188 (84%) 36 (16%) 

RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF USAGE IN MADRID OF ESTUVIERA /FUERA /HUBIERA VS. ESTUVIESE /FUESE /HUBIESE 
-RA -SE 
ESTUVIE- 8 (100%)  0 (0%) 
FUE-  23 (79%) 6 (21%)  
HUBIE- 38 (88%) 5 (12%)

Generally speaking, the present study reveals that the -ra form is by far more commonly used than the -se form in contemporary spoken educated Spanish, both in Spain and in Spanish America. Whether or not the -se form will finally be supplanted entirely by the -ra form remains to be seen, but, consideration   —241→   of the process through which an almost exclusive use in earlier centuries of the -se subjunctive form has led to the present-day nearly absolute predominance of the -ra form, indicates strongly that the final outcome of this process might well be elimination of the -se form


----------



## Istriano

I'd say most Spanish people use them interchangeably, just like _todavía _and _aún_. _Aún _is less common than _todavía _(and I've seen some people from Andalucía and Mexico on this very forum say they never use _aún_), but does that mean _aún _will be eliminated in the future? Only time can tell. Will French _nous _disappear just because most people prefer _on_?

I wouldn't say 16% or 20% equals ''not used''.
16-20% is the percentage of English people who pronounce ag*ain* with [ein].

I've seen many Spaniards using ''-se'' forms with me, in an informal conversation.
_Amara _and _amase _are like _dreamed _and _dreamt _in American English. Madonna sings ''Last Night I dreamt of San Pedro'' in ''La isla bonita''. 
Every now and then you can see Americans using _dreamt, burnt_ (instead of_ dreamed, burned_) and writing _cancelled, snorkelling_, _theatre _(instead of _canceled, snorkeling, theater)_.


----------



## merquiades

Istriano said:


> I'd say most Spanish people use them interchangeably, just like _todavía _and _aún_. _Aún _is less common than _todavía _(and I've seen some people from Andalucía and Mexico on this very forum say they never use _aún_), but does that mean _aún _will be eliminated in the future? Only time can tell. Will French _nous _disappear just because most people prefer _on_?



No, I don't think -se will fall out because people do learn them and stylistically it's better to interchange them for effect. I know in the northwest people do use them quite a bit. Not so true in Madrid though. I'm confident it's less than 20%. 
"Aún" I feel is a different story. People use it a lot in conversation.  French "on" might be a good parallel.  It's pretty much overtaken "nous" in common speech at least in verb forms. People spontaneously say, "nous on est d'accord avec vous."  "On est partis dans le sud avec nos amis".  But people would never write that in a book. That's a different thread to open up.By the way, I'd never say "dreamed" with "i:". Agɜn, Agein, Agɪn are just regional variants


----------



## miguel89

Where I live, the -se form is not uncommon at all, and it's not restricted to higher socio-economic levels or registers. Admittedly, it is less frequently used than the -ra form, but it is not true that it has fallen out of use in America.


----------



## merquiades

miguel89 said:


> Where I live, the -se form is not uncommon at all, and it's not restricted to higher socio-economic levels or registers. Admittedly, it is less frequently used than the -ra form, but it is not true that it has fallen out of use in America.



In Río de la Plata, do you all still use the form -ra in the sense of pluscuamperfecto de indicativo?

ej:  Como viniera a pasar lo mismo al tercer día, prohibió que la niña saliera a poner los pies en la calle.


----------



## miguel89

Only in a literary or journalistic context. For example, "encontró las cartas que escribiera [había escrito] el año anterior".


----------



## Meyer Wolfsheim

If the -ra forms are seemingly more common and the -se forms less common, or rather the more marked form for expressing the past subjunctive, then while the two forms should be interchangeable, from what I learned in Pragmatic theory (Laurence/Grice) true synonyms should not actually exist (A can replace B in all contexts and vice versa).  Thus when there are two (or more) competing forms for expressing roughly the same meaning, one takes on the less marked form and the other the more marked contexts for use (for example English "do not!" versus "don't!"), thereby differentiating the two enough that they are no longer truly synonymou. The question to ask, as Spanish speakers, when another speaker chooses an -se conjugation does it imply anything (like social status, education, etc.) or something absent in one but found in the other?  If none of that is the case, then the two should still be competing!


----------



## ribran

Istriano said:


> _Amara _and _amase _are like _dreamed _and _dreamt _in American English. Madonna sings ''Last Night I dreamt of San Pedro'' in ''La isla bonita''.
> Every now and then you can see Americans using _dreamt, burnt_ (instead of_ dreamed, burned_) and writing _cancelled, snorkelling_, _theatre _(instead of _canceled, snorkeling, theater)_.



I have an interesting story about _cancelled_. A few years ago, I was incredulous upon learning that the standard American spelling was _canceled_.  Fearing that I might be the only one using this "incorrect" spelling, I  polled roughly 15 people on their preferred form, and about two-thirds  said, without hesitation, that the word should always be written with  two _l_'s. 

_Theatre _is another interesting case. Most of the time, American movie theaters that advertise themselves as _theatres _are trying to attract a more "upscale" clientele.  They are usually located in upper-middle-class suburban areas or  gentrified urban ones. They tend to be locally owned and to show  independent films rather than mainstream Hollywood-produced ones. I suppose the theater owners think the British spelling is more "glamorous."


----------



## merquiades

Meyer, when you use -se you generally choose it consciously for some reason or another, except apparently in Puerto Rico, Asturias etc. I believe it's stylistic and people notice it, except in the cases we mentioned where you can only use -ra forms: pluperfect indicative, conditional, if clauses.

Ribran, totally in agreement with everything you say, double ll and all. So much of what people widely believe is typically American suprises me.


----------



## Istriano

Language manuals say one should use both -ra and -se forms, to avoid repetition of similar forms. 
I think -ra and -se in Peninsular Spanish are like _I've just/already seen it ~ I just/already saw it_ in American English.
There are many Americans who never say_ I've just/already seen it_, only_ I just/already saw it_
Some may use both forms interchangeably, some may say one form is more formal/literary than the other one.


----------



## PABLO DE SOTO

Si sirve de algo, yo desde el sur de España, uso las formas _-ra _y -_se 

_de modo totalmente intercambiable. Én ningún momento elijo conscientemente una u otra forma, ni por razones de estilo ni de formalidad ni de nada.
Tanto es así que no me doy cuenta de cuándo uso una forma u otra


----------

