How to say: I doubt that you would have heard it.

Question

How do you say "I doubt that you would have heard it." If the doubt is a present tense opinion about something that didn't really happen in the past?

Answer 1

Dudo que lo hubieras oído.

I'm not sure that it matters if the subordinate clause is real or not. The fact is that you are not declaring the subordinate clause but expressing your feelings (doubt) about it.

If the subordinate clause was real, but you are not informing us of (declaring) the facts in the subordinate clause the subjunctive is still used.

I'm sorry that we aren't going to the movies. (the subordinate clause is real, we are not going to the movies).

If I am not informing you that we aren't going to the moives (if you already knew), then I'm merely expressing my feeling about the situation and the subjunctive would be used.

By the way, I believe it involves what the speakers believes to be a declaration or reaction to a situation. What is real or unreal, informative or not is from his viewpoint which may or may not correspond to reality.

Answer 2

Isn't there something about matching tenses in the principal and dependent clauses?

Ie: because the example has 'dudo que' present tense in the principal clause then it should be 'hayas' rather than 'hubieras' in the dependent clause. As Jeezle felt

Of course you could get round that by changing the principal clause to a past tense dudé or dudaba que lo hubiera(s) ....

• HI KG, great question! There is nothing wrong with having a wish now about something that did happen or should have happened in the past: Present in the main clause, past in the dependent clause, all good. - Jeremias Jul 22, 2011
• ah yes that makes sense thanx jeremias, hmmm so how would you put the given sentence - I doubt that you would have heard it? - Kiwi_Girl Jul 22, 2011
• could you point me to a page of grammar that explains that? - dewclaw Jul 22, 2011

Answer 3

Dudo que lo hayas escuchado, comes to mind. Dudo que lo hubieras escuchado would be literal and include the "would have" but sounds much worse to me than just "Dudo que lo hayas escuchado" I doubt you have heard it.

• I'm using escuchar because I assume you mean a song or something, I doubt you would have listened to it. - jeezzle Jul 22, 2011
• Much better, I agree. - qfreed Jul 22, 2011

Answer 4

I would probably use creer.....doubt also sounds funny to me when translated....

I would say something like

No creo que lo hubieras escuchado.

I dont beleive you would have heard it (listened to it)

But

Dudo que lo hubieras oído.

is more literally translated

Answer 5

Jeremias makes a very good point in his comments on my previous post and the link below covers both my erroneous thoughts re some rule for tense agreement between principal and dependent clauses, ridiculous, when as Jeremias said

you often want to wish now that something did or should have happened in the past.

and a good example of how to use the present tense in the principal tense and past tenses in the dependent clause.

Anyway thought this thread might be helpful to others basically it's that last post that is the most helpful

would have dependent clause in the subjunctive

Answer 6

Any other thoughts on this one?

Answer 7

Well for what it's worth, Maria thought "Dudo que lo hayas escuchado" sounded good, and by the way my new phone rocks, I can now check Spanishdict from work and see the questions and answers just like my computer Back on the Spanish wagon.