# I would have thought that they would have called (Pluperfect Subjunctive/conditional)



## Howardwj1010

Hi

I'd like to know if these phrases are correct:

I would have thought that they would have called me by now
hubiera pensado que me hubieran llamado ya
habria pensado que me habrian llamado ya
hubiera pensado que me habrian llamado ya
habria pensado que me hubieran llamado ya

I understand that colloquially the pluperfect subjunctive is interchangeable with the conditional.
Is there a more natural way of translating this sentence in Spanish?
Many thanks in advance!


----------



## Maximus07

habria pensado que me hubieran llamado ya me suena la mejor opcion pero he oido todas


----------



## Agró

_ 			 			Hubiera pensado que me habrían llamado ya_.
Quizá lo más usual:
Pensaba que ya me habrían llamado.


----------



## Peterdg

As noted by the previous posters, some of them are more likely to be heard than others but to my opinion, all of them are gramatically acceptable.


----------



## marktime

I have a definition that states that the subjunctive is used in adjectival clauses i.e. a clause introduced by a relative pronoun, whenever indefiniteness or uncertainty is expressed or implied in either the principal clause or in the dependant clause. On that understanding, the verb in the dependant clause ought to be _hubieran llamado_. However, a quick check amongst my Spanish mates all agree with Agró. 

Nonetheless, the time of action in this construction is interesting and may give us a clue to the verb sequencing. What is the time of action of the dependant clause compared to that of the principal clause? If the subject had been called then the dependant clause would not exist so the dependent condition has to exist for the principal clause to be true. i.e the time of action of the dependant clause is prior to the principal. 

Therefore the correct sequencing would be conditional, _habria pensado_, for the verb of the principal clause because that introduces the speculation, " I would have thought", which triggers the subjunctive composition in  the dependant clause, and this being prior and dependant as discussed, uses the pluperfect (compound tense), and confirms that _hubieran llamado _is more grammatically correct.

_Habría pensado que me hubieran llamado ya_.

I'm also struggling with subjunctives!


----------



## Peterdg

marktime said:


> I have a definition that states that the subjunctive is used in adjectival clauses i.e. a clause introduced by a relative pronoun, whenever indefiniteness or uncertainty is expressed or implied in either the principal clause or in the dependant clause. On that understanding, the verb in the dependant clause ought to be _hubieran llamado_. However, a quick check amongst my Spanish mates all agree with Agró.
> 
> Nonetheless, the time of action in this construction is interesting and may give us a clue to the verb sequencing. What is the time of action of the dependant clause compared to that of the principal clause? If the subject had been called then the dependant clause would not exist so the dependent condition has to exist for the principal clause to be true. i.e the time of action of the dependant clause is prior to the principal.
> 
> Therefore the correct sequencing would be conditional, _habria pensado_, for the verb of the principal clause because that introduces the speculation, " I would have thought", which triggers the subjunctive and thus the dependant clause, being prior, is necessarily in the subjunctive, and in this case, correctly, the pluperfect (compound tense), and confirms that _hubieran llamado _is more grammatically correct.
> 
> _Habría pensado que me hubieran llamado ya_.
> 
> I'm also struggling with subjunctives!


Impressive explanation

The truth is (this sounds very pedant) that neither of the frases uses a subjunctive in se. The trick here is that "hubiera", although morfologically a subjunctive imperfect, is used here as the equivalent of a conditional in all of the cases.

This happens regularly with a certain class of often used verbs: haber, querer, poder ... (there are a couple more).


----------



## marktime

Now you can see why I´m struggling! Thanks Peterdg.


----------



## Scalpel72

Howardwj1010 said:


> Hi
> 
> I'd like to know if these phrases are correct:
> 
> I would have thought that they would have called me by now
> hubiera pensado que me hubieran llamado ya
> habria pensado que me habrian llamado ya
> hubiera pensado que me habrian llamado ya
> habria pensado que me hubieran llamado ya
> 
> I understand that colloquially the pluperfect subjunctive is interchangeable with the conditional.
> Is there a more natural way of translating this sentence in Spanish?
> Many thanks in advance!



The imperfect and pluperfect subjunctive have connotations of past, present, and future, and the perfect postpreterite is also a future from the past. In the future also one action is first and the other after. Usually the indicative tenses are more accurate than the subjunctive ones
Hubiera pensado que me habrían llamado ya for past or future.

All are possible and correct

Scalpel72


----------



## Bigote Blanco

I believe Agro is very correct.   hubiera.....habria.. Marktime has also provided good solid information. Every English speaker has problems with the subjuntive, so don't sweat the small stuff.

When I hear or want to translate   ..... would've......  without having to think much, I always think and say "huberia........"  it's a fun word, easy to remember and it always rolls off your lips - quite like "would've" does in English.

It would've been better    Hubiera sido mejor.....

He would've paid me...    Me hubiera pagado.......

I would've liked........     Me hubiera gustado........

I would've written to you.....     te hubiera escrito....

I never would've come to the party if I would've known what was going to happen.  ..... Yo nunca hubiera venido a la fiesta si habria sabido lo que iba a pasar.

I never would've guessed that........  Nunca hubiera advinado eso. 

Good Luck,
Bigote Blanco


----------



## marktime

Nonetheless, the grammar format that a pluscuamperfecto follows the conditional when the action of the dependant clause is prior to the principal clause still stands and is the general rule.


----------



## Agró

marktime said:


> I have a definition that states that the subjunctive is used in *adjectival clauses i.e. a clause introduced by a relative pronoun*, whenever indefiniteness or uncertainty is expressed or implied in either the principal clause or in the dependant clause. On that understanding, the verb in the dependant clause ought to be _hubieran llamado_. However, a quick check amongst my Spanish mates all agree with Agró.


The problem here is that
_I would have thought that they would have called_ (Pluperfect Subjunctive/conditional)
is not an adjectival clause but a noun clause (direct object):
_that they would have called_ is equivalent to "this", "that", "something", "nothing", etc.


----------



## marktime

You bring up an interesting point. But isn't it still true that even for a noun clause, if uncertainty exists in the mind of the speaker, the subjunctive must still be used in the dependant clause?

To my mind, the principal clause is still conditional because the action of the subject of the dependant clause determines the outcome for the speaker. For example. IF he had been called, he might have gone to collect them at the station, or opened a bottle of champagne, etc. Therefore the speculation in the conditional prompts the subjunctive in the dependant and from the table of verb sequences, as I pointed out earlier, a prior dependant calls for the pluperfect subjunctive.

But please point out where I am going wrong as this is a great learning excercise for me, and hopefully for other readers.

And thank you for making me use my grey cells!


----------



## Howardwj1010

Many thanks for all the replies!

Another question on the same theme; in the following example why is the imperfect subjunctive used rather than the pluperfect subjunctive in the subordinate clause: 

'hubiera/habria sido muy sospechoso que yo me negase. It would have been very suspicious if I had refused.' 

Would both be acceptable?


----------



## Maximus07

Well, I would say it could be the same in english and sound good no?

Ejemplo:

It would have been very suspicious if I had refused

Or:

It would have been very suspicious if I refused.


----------



## Forero

What I would have thought:

Things being as they should be, they will have called me by now.
_Siendo las cosas como deben de ser__, me habrán llamado ya.

_Suppose we want to say ...

If there were not evidence to the contrary, I would have thought as much.
_Si no hubiera evidencia de lo contrario, habría pensado otro tanto._

... where "as much"/"otro tanto" represents the previous statement. To say this all at once, what I would have thought becomes tense shifted (_will_ -> _would_ / _habrá_ -> _habría_) because of the thought being in the past:

If there were not evidence to the contrary, I would have thought that, things being as they should be, they would have called me by now.
_Si no hubiera evidencia de lo contrario, habría pensado que, siendo todo como debe de ser, me habrían llamado ya.
_
I think the original sentence says the same thing, with the same tenses, but with the conditions "understood" rather than explicit:

I would have thought that they would have called me by now.
_Habría pensado que me habrían llamado ya.

Hubiera_ and _hubieran_ are just alternatives for _habría_ and _habrían_.

I hope this makes sense.


----------



## Bigote Blanco

Forero said:


> What I would have thought:
> 
> Things being as they should be, they will have called me by now.
> _Siendo las cosas como deben de ser__, me habrán llamado ya._
> 
> Suppose we want to say ...
> 
> If there were not evidence to the contrary, I would have thought as much.
> _Si no hubiera evidencia de lo contrario, habría pensado otro tanto._
> 
> ... where "as much"/"otro tanto" represents the previous statement. To say this all at once, what I would have thought becomes tense shifted (_will_ -> _would_ / _habrá_ -> _habría_) because of the thought being in the past:
> 
> If there were not evidence to the contrary, I would have thought that, things being as they should be, they would have called me by now.
> _Si no hubiera evidencia de lo contrario, habría pensado que, siendo todo como debe de ser, me habrían llamado ya._
> 
> I think the original sentence says the same thing, with the same tenses, but with the conditions "understood" rather than explicit:
> 
> I would have thought that they would have called me by now.
> _Habría pensado que me habrían llamado ya._
> 
> _Hubiera_ and _hubieran_ are just alternatives for _habría_ and _habrían_.
> 
> I hope this makes sense.


Hola Forero,

My suggestions 
Si no hay evidencia de lo contrario if there isn't..
Si no habia evidencia de lo contrario.If there wasn't..
Si no hubiera habido evidencia de lo contrario... I there would not have been...(I believe your English sentence should read: If there would not have been evidence to the contrary,...)

Hubiera pensado que me habrian llamado ya. 

SaludosBigote


----------



## Forero

I meant what I said, but the "understood" condition might also be "if there had not been evidence ..." / _si no hubiera habido_/_sido evidencia ..._.

My main point is that the _if_s are not stated, so there is no place here for a "real" subjunctive but only for _hubiera_ = _habría_.


----------



## marktime

Excellent exposition Forero and additional information from señor Bigote Blanco.

@Maximus07 Your two sentences are not actually identical. Think about _when _the refusal takes place to understand the difference.

..............................................................................................................................................

Things being as they should be, they will have called me by now.
_Siendo las cosas como deben de ser__, me habrán llamado ya._

The future perfect in English supposes an event or activity to be completed by a particular time in the future or to qualify progress to have been made at a given time in the future. _Now_ of course is not the future so your phrase is not valid.

Example: "With any luck, he will have found work _before the monsoons arrive_

Things being as they should be, they would have called me by now. Leading to the translation:
_Siendo las cosas como deberían de ser__, me hubieran llamado ya._

Uncertainty exists in the mind of the speaker, (otherwise he would have said: Things as they are...) so we return to the combination of conditional followed by the subjunctive, in this case, because the dependant clause is again a thought made previous (prior) to the principal clause, calls for the pluperfect subjunctive.

I think that's enough for now. Forero's following sentences create a few problems for me but I think I have reached the limit of my Spanish for today!


----------



## Scalpel72

Howardwj1010 said:


> Many thanks for all the replies!
> 
> Another question on the same theme; in the following example why is the imperfect subjunctive used rather than the pluperfect subjunctive in the subordinate clause:
> 
> 'hubiera/habria sido muy sospechoso que yo me negase. *It would have been very suspicious if I had refused.'
> *
> Would both be acceptable?



It is a mixing, common by the way, of conditional type3 with the apodosis  or protasis of conditional type2, and are correct their usage.

Protasis IF clause
Apodosis = subordinate clause.

Regards
Scalpel72


----------



## Forero

marktime said:


> Things being as they should be, they will have called me by now.
> _Siendo las cosas como deben de ser__, me habrán llamado ya._
> 
> The future perfect in English supposes an event or activity to be completed by a particular time in the future or to qualify progress to have been made at a given time in the future. _Now_ of course is not the future so your phrase is not valid.


There are other meanings of _will_ besides futurity _per se_. For example, "They will have called me by now" might mean "They have probably called me by now" or "I expect to find that they have called me by now."

Just as _habrá llamado_ can mean "has probably called", _habría_ can mean "had probably called". There can still be some uncertainty, but this is conditional not subjunctive.


----------



## Horned Owl

Agró said:


> Quizá lo más usual:
> Pensaba que ya me habrían llamado.



I think Agró's suggestion is the most suitable.

As they say, one should translate the _meaning _rather than merely the words.

In the original sentence_, I would have thought _is not a speculation or anything else but just another way of saying _I thought_. So, the sentence could be easily re-phrased as: _I thought that they would have called, _without any change in meaning. Hence, _Pensaba que ya me habrían llamado _would be an appropriate translation. 

However, it is also possible that _I would have thought _conveys a sense of uncertainty about whether _they _would call or not. If so, the sentence could possibly be: _Pensaba que quizás ya me habrían llamado.  _

If I am not mistaken, expressions like _I would have thought _and _I should think _are used more often in British English than in American English.


----------



## marktime

Thank you for your patience, Forero. When you state exceptions to accepted meaning, e.g. _habrá llamado = has probably called_ is this colloquial or is there a grammatical form that is being followed?

I have _habrá llamado = I shall/will have called  _but it is fairly obvious from this thread that I need to broaden that definition.

I accept that there are other meanings of _will,_ compulsion for instance but I think you would agree that you are using it in the future perfect. In your stand alone phrase, _"They will have called me by now",_ now is the future time compared to when they completed the activity of calling but in the complete phrase I don't believe it belongs to _Things being as they should b_e.


----------



## Scalpel72

marktime said:


> Thank you for your patience, Forero. When you state exceptions to accepted meaning, e.g. _habrá llamado = has probably called_ is this colloquial or is there a grammatical form that is being followed?
> 
> I have _habrá llamado = I shall/will have called  _but it is fairly obvious from this thread that I need to broaden that definition.
> 
> I accept that there are other meanings of _will,_ compulsion for instance but I think you would agree that you are using it in the future perfect. In your stand alone phrase, _"They will have called me by now",_ now is the future time compared to when they completed the activity of calling but in the complete phrase I don't believe it belongs to _Things being as they should b_e.



Yes it is a *future perfect*, it means that the *action *happened *before other one *in the *future *or *present *(= with future connotation) but *within* the *future time line*. My expecting is that when I get home the phone call should have happened ( it is before my expecting) but  in  the *future *timing context.

Esperaría/espero que cuando llegue a mi casa ellos ya me habrán llamado.

Regards
Scalpel72


----------



## manicha

Bigote Blanco, una corrección. 
"Yo nunca hubiera venido a la fiesta si habria sabido lo que iba a pasar". En esta oración puedes tener "hubiera" o "habría" en la primera parte, y "hubiera" o "hubiese" en la segunda. Pero no puede ser "si habría sabido lo que iba a pasar". De hecho, estoy segura casi al 100% de que la construcción si (condicional) + verbo condicional es siempre incorrecta en español, aunque pueda parecer absurdo.


----------



## Peterdg

manicha said:


> Bigote Blanco, una corrección.
> "Yo nunca hubiera venido a la fiesta si habria sabido lo que iba a pasar". En esta oración puedes tener "hubiera" o "habría" en la primera parte, y "hubiera" o "hubiese" en la segunda. Pero no puede ser "si habría sabido lo que iba a pasar". De hecho, estoy segura casi al 100% de que la construcción si (condicional) + verbo condicional es siempre incorrecta en español, aunque pueda parecer absurdo.


Estoy de acuerdo con tu comentario.


----------



## Forero

marktime said:


> Thank you for your patience, Forero. When you state exceptions to accepted meaning, e.g. _habrá llamado = has probably called_ is this colloquial or is there a grammatical form that is being followed?
> 
> I have _habrá llamado = I shall/will have called  _but it is fairly obvious from this thread that I need to broaden that definition.
> 
> I accept that there are other meanings of _will,_ compulsion for instance but I think you would agree that you are using it in the future perfect. In your stand alone phrase, _"They will have called me by now",_ now is the future time compared to when they completed the activity of calling but in the complete phrase I don't believe it belongs to _Things being as they should b_e.


I think this is called "future of probability". It is a kind of "meta statement".

Consider the statement "They must have called me by now." _Must_ indicates obligation just as _will_ indicates futurity, but this use of _must_ or _will_ represents the speaker's commentary about the statement itself and do not really mean "they must" and "they will". "They must have called" here means, approximately, that I the speaker must, am obligated to, by a preponderance of evidence for example, reach the conclusion that they have called me by now. "They will have called" here means not that they can expect to have called but that I the speaker expect (to find out)  that they have already called.

The verb _deber_ and the Spanish future tense can also be used for such "meta statements".

I hope this makes sense.


----------

