# Saliera / hubiera salido (verb)



## plsdeluno

Por favor ¿podríais explicarme la diferencia entre las 2 frases de aquí abajo?

1.Ricardo salió de casa antes de que hubiera llegado la policía.  before the police had arrived?

2.Ricardo salió de casa antes de llegara la policía.  before the police arrived?

Muchas gracias


----------



## aommoa

La segunda frase no es correcta en todo caso 

Ricardo salió de casa antes de que llegara la policía


----------



## plsdeluno

Muchisimas gracias encontré la frase cuando estaba buscando algo por internet y pensé que no era correcta,  la he copiado y está aquí 

*[PDF]* 


análisis - Educaguia www.educaguia.com/.../ORACIONES.pdf - Translate this pageShare
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
_Ricardo salió de su casa antes_ de que llegara la policía. A pesar de que no ha llovido, el trigo ha crecido igualmente. - Aunque mañana lo diga la prensa, no es *...*


----------



## L'Inconnu

plsdeluno said:


> Por favor ¿podríais explicarme la diferencia entre las 2 frases de aquí abajo?
> 
> 1.Ricardo salió de casa antes de que hubiera llegado la policía.  before the police had arrived?
> 
> 2.Ricardo salió de casa antes de llegara la policía.  before the police arrived?
> 
> Muchas gracias



I think it's simply a question of which event occurred first. Since the police arrived after Ricardo left, I presume you are using the 'llegara'.


----------



## plsdeluno

Hello L' Inconnu,  yes I wanted to know if both examples were correct. It is much easier in English,  Richard left the house before the police arrived. A fact, no subjunctive needed.


----------



## EvRod20

plsdeluno said:


> Por favor ¿podríais explicarme la diferencia entre las 2 frases de aquí abajo?
> 
> 1.Ricardo salió de casa antes de que hubiera llegado la policía.  before the police had arrived?
> 
> 2.Ricardo salió de casa antes de llegara la policía.  before the police arrived?
> 
> Muchas gracias



The first sentence is not used a lot in spanish, so the second one should be the right one, but it's not totally right because it must say "antes que llegara la policía"


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

plsdeluno said:


> It is much easier in English,  Richard left the house before the police arrived. A fact, no subjunctive needed.



Ricardo here. Good thing I left when I did! The police who came looking for me, by the way, were the grammar police. 

I assume you are referring to the Spanish text when you refer to the subjunctive. It may be a fact, but _antes de que_ will *always* take the subjunctive. It's not entirely logical that this should be so when speaking of past events that have already occurred, but I, for one, am grateful for the simplicity of the rule. If I have assumed incorrectly, then maybe this post will help someone else.


----------



## plsdeluno

Sorry, I am still confused, are both frases correct?


----------



## EvRod20

plsdeluno said:


> Sorry, I am still confused, are both frases correct?



Yes, they are. But as a native speaker, I recommend you to use the second sentences with the previous correction, it's more common at least in Latin America.


----------



## plsdeluno

So it should be ''.Ricardo salió de casa antes que llegara la policía''  without ''de''?


----------



## EvRod20

My bad, sorry. Ricardo salió de "la/su" casa antes de que llegara la policía. Use "la" if it is any house, "su" if it is his house. Hope it helps.


----------



## Julvenzor

EvRod20 said:


> Yes, they are. But as a native speaker, I recommend you to use the second sentences with the previous correction, it's more common at least in Latin America.




No, etimológicamente lo correcto es "antes de" (antes *de* algo). Esa "de" se mantiene desde antiguo. Punto aparte son los casos muy habituales de queísmo, tales como "_darse cuenta que_" cuando lo correcto es "darse cuenta de que".



plsdeluno said:


> So it should be ''.Ricardo salió de casa antes que llegara la policía''  without ''de''?




No, como explico arriba, lo correcto es incluir la "de".


----------



## plsdeluno

Muchisimas gracias, y ¿la segunda manera es más común en España como en Latinoamérica?


----------



## EvRod20

Julvenzor said:


> No, etimológicamente lo correcto es "antes de" (antes *de* algo). Esa "de" se mantiene desde antiguo. Punto aparte son los casos muy habituales de queísmo, tales como "_darse cuenta que_" cuando lo correcto es "darse cuenta de que".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, como explico arriba, lo correcto es incluir la "de".



Arriba hice la correción, antes de tu mensaje. Fue error de tipeo.


----------



## plsdeluno

Muchas gracias de nuevo.


----------



## Peterdg

Julvenzor said:


> No, etimológicamente lo correcto es "antes de" (antes *de* algo). Esa "de" se mantiene desde antiguo. Punto aparte son los casos muy habituales de queísmo, tales como "_darse cuenta que_" cuando lo correcto es "darse cuenta de que".
> No, como explico arriba, lo correcto es incluir la "de".


Las dos son válidas, con o sin el "de".

Del DPD:


> *3. antes que* o *antes de que.* Con significado temporal, ambas construcciones son válidas.


Un poco más lejos dicen que la forma original era sin "de" y que se consideraba la forma con "de" como dequeísmo pero que ahora se aceptan las dos formas.


----------



## L'Inconnu

RicardoElAbogado said:


> It may be a fact, but _antes de que_ will *always* take the subjunctive.



Perhaps we are uncertain as to the exact moment in time when such and such a thing will inevitably happen.

"En cuanto viva, merece todo nuestro respeto" 

One day he/she will no longer be with us, true, but life expectancy is not something you can set your clock with.


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

L'Inconnu said:


> Perhaps we are uncertain as to the exact moment in time when such and such a thing will inevitably happen.



I agree. And with the future, requiring the subjunctive after _antes (de) que_ it makes sense. _I will call you before the sun sets_. (_Voy a llamarlo antes de que el sol se ponga_.) We are certain that the sun will set (and we can even set our clocks by it), but "sets" takes the subjunctive here because it has not yet happened, and in theory it (the sun setting) may never happen. All perfectly logical. 

It's the requirement to use the subjunctive in statements about the past that seems illogical to me. _He called her before the sun set_. (_Él la llamó antes de que el sol se pusiera_.) At time the speaker is speaking, there was no uncertainty that the sun had set. The setting of the sun was a fact, an event that had occurred. But the subjunctive is still used there.

The only thing that I can figure is that over time people simply extended the application of the subjunctive to past events preceded by _antes (de) que _ in the same way that formerly irregular verbs became regular. The same thing is happening now with _después de que_ I think. According to what I have read, _después de que _does not require the subjunctive when referring to events that have already occurred. But it appears that _hispanohablantes _almost always use the subjunctive after _después de que_, even when the reference point is an event that has already occurred.

If I am confused about this (of I have written the Spanish translations incorrectly), I would welcome enlightenment.


----------



## Peterdg

Your confusion stems from the fact that you consider the subjunctive to be related to "uncertainty"; this concept is a simplification and an attempt to explain the subjunctive from a purely semantical point of view. Well, it doesn't exist. "Uncertainty" playes a role in some cases, but not in others. The same is true for "hypothetical", "unreal" and more of the same nature. It sometimes works but often, it doesn't.

Let me quote the NGLE


> *25.1j* También resultan, por lo general, demasiado imprecisas, oposiciones semánticas como certeza/incertidumbre, realidad/virtualidad o irrealidad, actualidad/no actualidad, y otras similares formadas con nociones de 'potencialidad', 'posibilidad' y sus contrarias, que se han propuesto como rasgos generalizadores que opondrían el indicativo al subjuntivo. Aunque en todas estas oposiciones se reconoce cierto fundamento, se suele señalar en estudios actuales sobre los modos que resultan demasiado flexibles, por lo que no son útiles para explicar los contrastes modales en todos los casos.


If you want to understand the subjunctive and how it is used, there is no other way than to learn, case y case, all the rules. It's complex, I know, but there are some good works available (the NGLE to start with).

In this case, with "antes de que", the subjunctive is always used because "antes de que" *always* introduces a temporal adverbial clause that refers to something that is located in the future compared to the verb of the principal clause, whether that verb is in the present or the past. It is a mere mechanical use that has nothing to do with "uncertainty".

The verb of the principal clause always happens *before* the verb after "antes de que".


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

Thank you for your response. I agree that using "uncertainty" or "not yet realized" to explain the subjunctive can lead one astray. But isn't it true that _después de que _does not require the subjunctive when referring to events that have already occurred? If so, it seems illogical to me that _antes de que_ does but _después de que _does not. 

But I take your point: logic can interfere with learning the *rules* of grammar.


----------



## Peterdg

RicardoElAbogado said:


> Thank you for your response. I agree that using "uncertainty" or "not yet realized" to explain the subjunctive can lead one astray. But isn't it true that _después de que _does not require the subjunctive when referring to events that have already occurred? If so, it seems illogical to me that _antes de que_ does but _después de que _does not.


A _antes de que_ B. In the timeline: A --- B: B always comes after A
A _después de que_ B; In the timeline B --- A: B always comes before A. (A comes after B)

So, the mechanics of "después de que" are different: while "A _antes de que _B" always places B later in time than A, this does not occur with "después de que". While with "antes de que", the event that follows this expression always refers to some future, be it relative to the verb in the principal clause, this is not true for "después de que": "después de que" can only refer to a future event when the main sentence is in the present or the future (i.e. it can only refer to an absolute future). If the whole thing happens in the past, then "después de que" refers to an element that is even further in the past than the verb of the main clause. That's why with "después de que" the indicative is usually used when it refers to the past.

Now, I say "usually" because this is generally true for most part of Latin America. It is not true for Spain. In Spain, "después de que" is always followed by a subjunctive, also when referring to the past. (The reason for this is the ethymological use of the subjunctive imperfect in -ra, which was originally an indicative pluperfect, and that has then been fosilized in the linguistic reality in Spain, but not in LA).


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

Once again, thank you for your response.


----------



## SevenDays

plsdeluno said:


> Por favor ¿podríais explicarme la diferencia entre las 2 frases de aquí abajo?
> 
> 1.Ricardo salió de casa antes de que hubiera llegado la policía.  before the police had arrived?
> 
> 2.Ricardo salió de casa antes de llegara la policía.  before the police arrived?
> 
> Muchas gracias



"llegara" y "hubiera llegado" tienen en común que son _tiempos pasados_, y es normal que donde vaya uno, también pueda ir el otro, pues son parte del tiempo verbal "pretérito". La diferencia radica en el *aspecto* (la perspectiva temporal interna que le damos al verbo con respecto a una "finalización" de la acción que representa). "Hubiera llegado" es un *aspecto perfectivo* que presenta a "llegar" como una acción finalizada en el pasado; "llegara" es *aspecto imperfectivo*, y presenta a "llegar" como algo sin fin. Como Ricardo "salió" de la casa, la elección del aspecto perfectivo (_hubiera llegado_) o imperfectivo (_llegara_) para representar la "llegada" de la policía es más cuestión de _estilo_ que de gramática. Y estos subjuntivos no marcan _irrealidad_ o_ incertidumbre_, sino un _futuro en el pasado_ (futuro con relación a "salió"), que también es un uso del subjuntivo.     
Saludos


----------



## plsdeluno

Muchas gracias a todos, para resumir ¿la traducción de español a inglés es correcta?   1.arrived. 2.had arrived.


----------



## donbeto

plsdeluno said:


> Muchas gracias a todos, para resumir ¿la traducción de español a inglés es correcta?   1.arrived. 2.had arrived.


----------



## plsdeluno

plsdeluno said:


> Muchas gracias a todos, para resumir ¿la traducción de español a inglés es correcta?   1.arrived. 2.had arrived.



Sorry I meant, 1. hubiera llegado = Had arrived. 2.Llegara = arrived.


----------



## SevenDays

plsdeluno said:


> Muchas gracias a todos, para resumir ¿la traducción de español a inglés es correcta?   1.arrived. 2.had arrived.



Both *arrived* and *had arrived* are correct (but we'll leave that aside for the moment). Spanish, as you know, has more verb conjugations than English, which means that Spanish has greater flexibility to show aspect (the duration of the verb action)_ morphologically_. But "aspect" is really a semantic judgment, and so when we say "before the police arrived" or "before the police had arrived" the _aspectual meaning_ is the same: we conceive, semantically, the process of the police "arriving" as _completed_; that's why Ricardo _is _leaving.  We call a "completed" action *perfective*, and let's not confuse "perfective" with "perfect:" the term "perfective" refers to "aspect," and "perfect" to "tense." In other words, in this context, the *tenses* simple past (*arrived*) and _past perfect_ (*had arrived*) show the "aspect" of "police arriving" as *perfective*. If you want to maintain some correlation with Spanish, then you can match simple tenses ("arrived" for "llegara") and compound tenses ("had arrived" for "hubiera llegado") without worrying about aspect. But once you figure out that "aspect" is not really the same as "tense," you'll see that both "arrived" and "had arrived" (as well as "llegara" and "hubiera llegado") fit fine in the intended meaning of_ Ricardo leaving "before something happened."_ Ultimately, the choice of "arrived," "had arrived," "llegara" or "hubiera llegado" is stylistic and not grammatical.  

Now, focusing solely on English, the point of the past perfect tense is to show *anteriority* (in the past, one thing happened before another). If we have an adverb that already puts the time sequence in order (as the adverb "before" does in our example), then the past perfect tense is not needed, and some consider it redundant. That's why some say, or prefer,_ "Ricardo left *before* the police *arrived*."_ But, strictly speaking, _before the police *had arrived*_ is, I think, entirely correct.

Cheers


----------



## plsdeluno

Thank you very much SevenDays, that was very helpful. Now that I see it written in English ''before the police arrived''   and ''before the police had arrived''  I think that in terms of speaking I would say ''before the police arrived''

Thank you very much.


----------

