Using subjunctive with anticipated actions in the past
Hi guys,
Can anyone advise me which of these is correct? I'd like to say "We were trying to do everything before they left" (speaking about my family). I'd translate this as "Estábamos tratando de hacer todo antes de que se fueran". The last verb (fueran) is in the subjunctive because of the clause antes de que which usually requires the subjunctive afterward, at least in the present. But I was thinking, antes de que requires the subjunctive because the action it refers to hasn't been completed yet. In an example like this, where the second clause (they left) has already happened, wouldn't that mean that the subjunctive shouldn't be required? In other words, would it be more correct to say ""Estábamos tratando de hacer todo antes de que se fueron"?
Of course this is just one letter but the concept would apply to alot more situations...
4 Answers
Estábamos tratando de hacer todo antes de que se fueran
Your use of Subjunctive is perfect.
it´s not correct to say that the action has already happened, because from the speaker´s point of view the departure has not occured yet.
If you think it´s happening now, you can´t say Estoy haciendo todo antes de que te vas. Rather, ¨Estoy haciendo todo antes de que te vayas* because the action of the second adverbial clause has not happened.
The subjunctive is used for adverbial clauses when the action or state in the clauses is anticipated —i.e., viewed as not yet happening— or hypothetical; the indicative is used when the action or state in the clause is viewed as a customary one or one which has been completed.
Hi Luke,
I understand your reasoning, but it appears you may have missed the mark a bit in regards to tense and aspect.
The verb in your first clause is in the imperfect past. In this case, the imperfect past describes two important verbal qualities. The first quality has to do with tense. Loosely defined, tense refers to a point in time as it relates to the time that the speaker is speaking. In this way, the past tense refers to an action that occurred at some point in the past (in relation to the time of speaking)—sets up a temporal reference point for the narrative.
The imperfect here is used to set up a scene. In other words, it describes an event/action that did not begin or end at the given reference point but instead was ongoing or in the process of unfolding.
So what you have, is an action that was unfolding in the past. Now this relates directly to the following clause in that it describes an action (them leaving) that had not yet occurred in relation to the events that were described as unfolding in the first clause. Because of this, the past subjunctive is required.
It might be a bit easier to comprehend if you were to picture a time line and position the act of "trying to do everything" as an ongoing event in relation to some defined reference point in the past:
past present
?———————————|——————————————|——————?
(ongoing action)
——————————————?
With this as your temporal reference point, it should be clear that it would be incorrect to say that "they left (preterit)" because the act of the them leaving had not been actualized yet and so could not be taken as a declaration but as a hypothetical event.
This is a very good question, with valuable answers. Just for clarification, Lzanoni, do you agree that the sentence is correct with fueran?
Yes, he agrees.
Besides the use of the imperfect subjunctive, I learned something else from this question. I was wondering why ir ( to go) was used instead of salir (to leave), but then I realized the verb used in the sentence is actually irse (to go away), which is much better.
Salir could have been used (salieran or saliesen). The nuance is that with Irse, we have a feeling of not returning soon or possibly not at all. With Salir, the feeling of returning is slightly stronger.
This is a very good question, with valuable answers. Just for clarification, Lzanoni, do you agree that the sentence is correct with se fueran?
Besides the use of the imperfect subjunctive, I learned something else from this question. I was wondering why ir ( to go) was used instead of salir (to leave), but then I realized the verb used in the sentence is actually irse (to go away), which is much better.
I am not to the point yet of generating speech this complex, but it is fun to analyze the structure and learn from it!
Thanks!
