# Después de que + subjunctive



## ariel91

Hola!

I'm really confused with a bit of Spanish grammar.

I'm trying to say "*I went to the party after he convinced me to go with him".
*
But I don't know if it would translate as "*fui a la fiesta"...*
"*después de que me había convencido para que fuera con él"* or
*"después de que me convenciera para que fuera con él" *or
*"después de que me convenció para que fuera con él".*

I really don't know if any of these are right, so any help would be appreciated.

Muchas gracias.


----------



## blasita

Here we'd say:_ después de que me *convenciera*._

Saludos.


----------



## geostan

I wouldn't use the subjunctive here. You're dealing with a fact that occurred in the past. I think you should say:

_después (de) que me *convenció*_


----------



## blasita

geostan said:


> I wouldn't use the subjunctive here. You're dealing with a fact that occurred in the past. I think you should say:
> 
> _después (de) que me *convenció*_



_*Convenciera *(para que me fuera con él)_ is perfectly right and what I'd _personally_ use.

But I think that there may be some regional differences: después de que+subj.ind.


----------



## ivb8921

Coincido con Blasita


----------



## Peterdg

Yes, it's a regional difference. In Spain, you will (almost) always find an imperfect subjunctive in this case, which is not necessarily the case in Latin America.


----------



## James2000

Could a native comment on the acceptability of the first example in the original post?


----------



## KirkandRafer

James2000 said:


> I imagine that the first is also acceptable, as it would be in English.


I think so too, but I am afraid that in that case there are also regional differences. As a Spaniard I would never say "después de que me había convencido para que fuera con él", but "después de que me hubiera convencido para que fuese con él"... the subjunctive once again


----------



## James2000

KirkandRafer said:


> I think so too, but I am afraid that in that case there are also regional differences. As a Spaniard I would never say "después de que me había convencido para que fuera con él", but "después de que me hubiera convencido para que fuese con él"... the subjunctive once again



Thanks.  That's interesting.  I would never have expected 'hubiera convencido' there.


----------



## KirkandRafer

James2000 said:


> Thanks.  That's interesting.  I would never have expected 'hubiera convencido' there.


If you think about it thoroughly it's just a matter of being consistent. If we use the subjunctive after "de que" when using a simple tense, why would we use the indicative when using a compound tense in the same situation?


----------



## James2000

KirkandRafer said:


> If you think about it thoroughly it's just a matter of being consistent. If we use the subjunctive after "de que" when using a simple tense, why would we use the indicative when using a compound tense?



I was under the impression that only the 'ra' form of the imperfect subjunctive was used after 'después que', and not the 'se' form.  This seems to imply that the use of the subjunctive here is because the 'ra' subjunctive was used with a pluperfect meaning in past times.  If so, then the use of 'hubiera convencido' would have been equivalent (in this case) to 'había habido convencido', which doesn't really make sense.  Am I making any sense? 

That said, I can see how 'hubiera convencido' might have become perfectly acceptable in the intervening years, but I would have imagined that 'hubiese convencido' would have become equivalently acceptable.


----------



## ariel91

Thank you all for the responses. I think I've established that I'd be better off using either:

"después de que me *hubiera convencido* para que fuera con él" or
"después de que me *convenciera* para que fuera con él"

So which would we better? To clarify in this context, person A has convinced person B to go to the party, and so person B THEN decides to go to the party.

Gracias


----------



## geostan

This agreement of native speakers re: the use of the subjunctive in the original example floors me. With the exception of *antes (de) que*, I had always been led to believe that the subjunctive was used when the subordinate verb expressed an action that had yet to occur, and that the indicative was used in the opposite case.

Espere aquí hasta que yo vuelva.  ...until I return.
Esperé aquí hasta que me amigo volvió. ...until my friend returned.

Has this rule changed over the years?


----------



## ivb8921

James2000 said:


> I was under the impression that only the 'ra' form of the imperfect subjunctive was used after 'después que', and not the 'se' form.  This seems to imply that the use of the subjunctive here is because the 'ra' subjunctive was used with a pluperfect meaning in past times.  If so, then the use of 'hubiera convencido' would have been equivalent (in this case) to 'había habido convencido', which doesn't really make sense.  Am I making any sense?
> 
> That said, I can see how 'hubiera convencido' might have become perfectly acceptable in the intervening years, but I would have imagined that 'hubiese convencido' would have become equivalently acceptable.



En todos estos casos se puede emplear tanto la forma "ra" como la "se".


----------



## Peterdg

No, the rule has not changed 

The rule you mention looks at it from a Latin American point of view.

In Spain, for some reason, they started to use the subjunctive also after "después de que". Borrego, Asencio and Prieto suspect it is due to the similarity with "antes de que". However, in my opinion, the reason James gives looks more plausible to me. (the subjunctive in -ra is actually an indicative pluperfect; for some reason, this use, over time, seems to be petrified in pensinsular Spanish after "después de que").


----------



## KirkandRafer

James2000 said:


> I was under the impression that only the 'ra' form of the imperfect subjunctive was used after 'después que', and not the 'se' form.  This seems to imply that the use of the subjunctive here is because the 'ra' subjunctive was used with a pluperfect meaning in past times.  If so, then the use of 'hubiera convencido' would have been equivalent (in this case) to 'había habido convencido', which doesn't really make sense.  Am I making any sense?
> 
> That said, I can see how 'hubiera convencido' might have become perfectly acceptable in the intervening years, but I would have imagined that 'hubiese convencido' would have become equivalently acceptable.


I think there's no difference at all between the -era forms and the -ese  forms. I guess that, depending on the region and each person's circle,  you'll hear more one or the other, but as far as I'm concerned the temporal hue they convey  is exactly the same. 

As for the use of the past perfect subjunctive in this case, it's completely equivalent to the past perfect indicative. No more, no less. 



ariel91 said:


> Thank you all for the responses. I think I've established that I'd be better off using either:
> 
> "después de que me *hubiera convencido* para que fuera con él" or
> "después de que me *convenciera* para que fuera con él"
> 
> So which would we better? To clarify in this context, person A has  convinced person B to go to the party, and so person B THEN decides to  go to the party.
> 
> Gracias


Both, but I'd say you're more likely to find the simple tense when speaking and the compound tense when reading. Strictly speaking, using the compound tense is more accurate since it expresses better the idea of something that ocurred before another action in the past, but in practice few people will notice the slight nuance of meaning which the use of the past perfect conveys.


----------



## James2000

ivb8921 said:


> En todos estos casos se puede emplear tanto la forma "ra" como la "se".



Gracias por la aclaración.


----------



## James2000

KirkandRafer said:


> I think there's no difference at all between the -era forms and the -ese  forms. I guess that, depending on the region and each person's circle,  you'll hear more one or the other, but as far as I'm concerned the temporal hue they convey  is exactly the same.
> 
> As for the use of the past perfect subjunctive in this case, it's completely equivalent to the past perfect indicative. No more, no less.



Thanks.  Apparently I was mistaken regarding the 'ra' form only being used here.  (I think my mistake was based on a few Google Ngram searches: http://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...tart=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=10&smoothing=3)


----------



## AquisM

La discusión me ha hecho preguntarme: en las regiones que se usa el indicativo con _después de que_, se lo usa con frases similares como _antes de que _etc. Creo que en España se usa el subjuntivo. (Pues, eso es lo que me han enseñado.) Por ejemplo:

_Lloró después de que vino él.

_Se diría:
_Lloraba antes de que vino/viniera él.
_
La situación es que es un hecho que lloraba una chica antes de la aparición de su novio.


----------



## blasita

James: I agree that both forms of the imperfect subjunctive can be (and actually are) used; I think that the 'ra' form is more used and I guess that the 'se' form may be less informal.

Aquis: as far as, I know _antes de que_ is _always_ followed by the subjunctive (there are not regional differences on this matter; this is the only accepted and used grammar). _Después de que_ + subjunctive = Spain; _después de que_ + indicative/subjunctive = LA.  Let's see if other foreros join us and can confirm this.


----------



## AquisM

Claro, gracias Blasita.


----------



## ivb8921

James2000 said:


> Thanks.  Apparently I was mistaken regarding the 'ra' form only being used here.  (I think my mistake was based on a few Google Ngram searches: http://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...tart=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=10&smoothing=3)



Pues la verdad es que me ha sorprendido mucho el resultado de tu búsqueda en cuanto al practicamente nulo empleo de la forma "ese" ya que aunque si que puede ser menos frecuente que la forma "ara" te aseguro que aquí en España se emplea mucho en el habla normal. Quizás es menos frecuente en libros pero ¿tanto para que no te dé ni un sólo caso en tú búsqueda?, realmente me sorprende.


----------



## James2000

ivb8921 said:


> Pues la verdad es que me ha sorprendido mucho el resultado de tu búsqueda en cuanto al practicamente nulo empleo de la forma "ese" ya que aunque si que puede ser menos frecuente que la forma "ara" te aseguro que aquí en España se emplea mucho en el habla normal. Quizás es menos frecuente en libros pero ¿tanto para que no te dé ni un sólo caso en tú búsqueda?, realmente me sorprende.



Busqué en el sitio web de El País, y hay más ejemplos con "ese" allí.   Además, sin 'de' ('después que') hay various ejemplos con 'ese' en Ngram (http://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...tart=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=10&smoothing=3)


----------



## St. Nick

I'm surprised to see _"hubiera convencido"_ mentioned in this situation because the indicative pluperfect _'convenciera,'_ an -ra holdover from Latin, precedes and in some styles substitutes for the normal _había_-form past perfect and has no grammatical association with the subjunctive.  In other words, 'convenciera' is the equivalent of "había convencido," and _"hubiera convencido"_ doesn't make sense in Ariel91's sentence.


----------



## alanla

*Just my opinion: *
 "*I went to the party after he convinced me to go with him".
*
I agree with *blasita *about the form:_después de que me *convenciera*. _[simple past in English-->convenciera]

I, personally,have not seen this *para que... *structure. I have never seen it used that way in any grammar book I have seen. Neither do Spaniards, judging from their commments.
*After *as a past time can be either the subjunctive or the simple past, from my understanding..
In this case, it seems to have the meaning of [after he _finally(after an indefinite time__)_]convinced me and indicates an indefinite time, or doubt about the actual time.
*vs.*  I went to the party after he came [simple past]
Even then, it also seems to very subjective and depends on the simple mood [feeling] of the person using it, when the distinction might not be quite as clear as the first sentence[subjunctive]. 

With _*despues de que*_,  it seems there is this fine distinction that can be made, which we don’tseem to make in English.
*Antes de que*[before], as someone else said, always takes the subjunctive. And that is the way I remember it.
*
Natives* can better say if that is their finding.


----------



## SevenDays

I've been thinking about this thread for a while...

First of all, I too would say *después de que me convenciera*; I wouldn't think twice about it. It just comes naturally; it pleases the ear, which I suppose is as good a reason as any other to use it. 

A more academic argument is to say that this "indicative" use of the subjunctive *-ra *(meaning, "_después de que me había convencido_") has its roots in the Latin pluscuamperfecto indicativo, but I admit I'm not thinking latin syntax whenever I use *convenciera*. I use it because I've heard it, and have seen it time and time again in literature, and because it sounds good. Having established this use of the subjunctive "convenciera," it follows that *hubiera convencido *can also be used. The difference is of *aspect*: _convenciera _is *imperfect*; _hubiera convencido_ is* perfect*. As convoluted as it sounds, the use of the imperfect "convenciera" opens the opens the door, or the back door, to the use of the perfect "hubiera convencido." But I'd never use "convenciese" or "hubiese convencido." The ear rejects it, perhaps because "-se" comes from the latin pluscuamperfecto de subjuntivo. 

Yet, it does seem odd to use "_convenciera"_ to refer to an action that has already happened. If a "something" has happened, then that "something" is factual, and therefore of the indicative mood: *fui a la fiesta después de que me convenció de ir con ella*. "Convenció" happened first, then "fui." We properly use *-ra* when the subjunctive refers to a future in the past, for example: *decidió ir al cine después de que él terminara de convencerla*. The subjunctive  "terminara" is the future from the perspective of the past "decidió ir."

I found this in Manuel Seco's _Diccionario de Dudas y Dificultades_, p. 161:

después
3. _despues de que + subjuntivo,_ refiriéndose a hecho reales, es construcción calcada del inglés. _Cuatro personas resultaron heridas después de que estallara un artefacto explosivo_. En español se dice _después de + indicativo_, o _cuando + indicativo_: _después de estallar o cuando estalló_.

I'd never heard before that _después de que + subjuntivo_ is "calco del inglés," but, point taken, Mr. Seco.

I'm not a big fan of the Nueva Gramatica de la Lengua Española, so I can't quote the RAE on this.  

Cheers


----------



## Istriano

For some strange reason, many peninsular temporal expressions require a fossilized tense when used for past actions>

1) _después de que + imperfecto de subjuntiv_o  (En Alcalá de Guadaira se gestionaron 6.156 citas previas _*después de que se pusiera en marcha, hace aproximadamente un mes*_).
2) _desde que + pretérito perfecto compuesto_ (En Alcalá de Guadaira ya se han gestionado 6.156 citas previas *desde que se ha puesto en marcha, hace aproximadamente un mes*).

In Argentina, one would use
1)_ ...después (de) que se puso en marcha, hace aproximadamente un mes. _(or _luego de que se puso en marcha, hace aproximadamente un mes_).
2) ..._desde que se puso en marcha, hace aproximadamente un mes.


_There is no logic in _después de que + imperfecto de subjuntivo_, just like there is no logic in sentences like:
''En Salamanca se han superado 50 mm en 2 o 3 ocasiones *desde que he nacido hace 23 años*''
but it's how things are.  Deal with it.

To my ear, the sentence above, about the rain in Salamanca, sounds a bit like ''Si tendría dinero, viajaría más'' 
(_Ever since I have been born, 23 years ago.._. it doesn't sound nice )


----------



## St. Nick

But, that's just it—'convenciera,' for purposes of the sentence in question, is not the imperfect subjunctive, but the past perfect indicative.  It sounds natural in Galician, but forced in Castilian.  And, to employ 'hubiera convencido' in this context, despite any arguments for euphony, is not communication.  While it may convey information about the author, it distracts from the topic.


----------



## Istriano

It is not the synthetic pluperfect, because it alternates with the _-se _form. In the Spanish press (El País, La Vanguardia...) you can find both_ después de que lo hicieran_ and _después de que lo hiciesen..._


----------



## SevenDays

It should be pointed out that _*-ra* tiene el *sentido *del  pretérito pluscuamperfecto del indicativo, pero *no es *el pretérito pluscuamperfecto del indicativo_, which is why some (many? most?) object when the subjunctive invades the indicative's territory _*to show anteriority *_(as I admit I often do in speech or informal use).  Having quoted Mr. Seco, above, it might be interesting to see what Mr. Emilio Alarcos Llorach says in his _Gramatica de la Lengua Española_, p. 159 (what's in bold is my emphasis):

_Se utiliza *cantara* como *arcaísmo* o *dialectalismo* en lugar de la forma compuesta *habías cantado *(§ 229), con valor modal de indicativo e indicando anterioridad respecto a un punto del pretérito:

__Solo sabía [del mundo] por lo que dicen las novelas y por lo poco que le *enseñara* una observación constante _
_El 41 corría ya, y aún no había cumplido aquella especie de penitencia que se *impusiera *_


As to *-ra *vs. *-se,* Llorach says, p. 158:
_Aunque por su origen latino diverso designaban valores diferentes, la lengua moderna ha terminado por identificarlas, de manera que hoy se trata de dos significantes que abarcan un mismo significado, siendo el primero de uso más frecuente en la expresión oral y el segundo más propio de la escrita, sobre todo como recurso de variación estilística_

Cheers


----------



## St. Nick

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the pluperfect freely alternates with _-se_  form of the imperfect subjunctive.  Although from time to time it's  encountered, the usage stems from a misunderstanding of the basis for  the _-ra_ pluperfect form.  I wouldn't recommend its application  in information of any real importance.  For instance, no one would want  the writer to have any involvement with plans used in building an  aircraft or with instruction on how to perform brain  surgery.  Sooner or later, careless use of language is bound to lead to catastrophe.

Another Emilio, the Royal Academy's Emilio Lorenzo, weighs in on this particular phenomenon as well: _"Evidentemente, la sentimos como afectada, pero hay muchas gentes que lo son."__ El español de hoy, 3a edición._


----------

