Why the subjunctive?
Why is ocurrir used in the subjunctive in this case? I understand "aunque " is a signal to use the subjunctive, but in this case it seems weird to me. The US's credit rating was already downgraded (there is no speculation anymore and this isn't an expression of impersonal opinion.) Someone, help! 
Las Bolsas firmaron otra sesión de pánico en la que el miedo y la volatilidad originaron el coctel explosivo perfecto para los desplomes. Aunque la mecha la encenderían de nuevo los rumores sobre una posible rebaja del rating de Francia, como ya ocurriera el viernes pasado con EE UU. Con ese antecedente, los bancos se hundieron y el Ibex perdió los 8.000 puntos al bajar el 5,49%.
6 Answers
Good question! The answer is: subjunctive should not be there. The -ra forms, like "ocurriera", were not subjunctive (but indicative) in Medieval Spanish, so "ocurriera" was actually used to mean "había ocurrido" (pluperfect indicative); by the 16th century this usage got lost, and "ocurriera" became a subjunctive form along with "ocurriese" (the traditional subjunctive form). In the 19th century, this extinct Medieval use was revived in literature (and later by the journalists) as a 'cool' ancient-sound style, even though grammars advise against its use, because it complicates a system that it is already complex enough with an element that it is not congruent with modern usage.
If you don't mind me asking, how did you come across such information?
I've studied grammar in depth, including historical grammar and the evolution of Latin, so I know how these forms have evolved in time. This can be found in any serious academic grammar (not in the typical who are learning the basics of the language).
I, myself, am writing a grammar for learners of Spanish (which will take forever), and I dedicate a whole section just to explain this, but this section is for advanced students only.
For example, they misuse the conditional tense very, very frequently. Example: "... and I would caution the senator from New York that this issue has ..." - so why "would" he be saying something that he just now in fact has said?? Almost every sentence has the word "would" in it, and never for its correct meaning.
To me, such usage is simply a cut and dry case of "doublespeak."
Were I a bit more presumptuous, I would caution the Senator from New York that this issue has... (but of course, I am not so presumptuous)
If I were one for confrontation, I would caution the Senator from New York that this issue has... (but of course, I am not one for confrontation)
The entire charade reminds me of the technique used in the scene from Julius Caesar where Antony manipulates the crowd into changing their opinions of Caesar's murderers from that of adoration to outright contempt—you know, the bit about, "If it were my place, I would speak of the virtues of the noble Caesar and honor him in death; however, doing so would only besmirch the good names of Brutus and Cassius, an act I am not willing to make on account of the fact that, as we all know, "Brutus and Cassius are honorable men."
O masters, if I were disposed to stir
Your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage,
I should do Brutus wrong, and Cassius wrong,
Who, you all know, are honourable men:
I will not do them wrong; I rather choose
To wrong the dead, to wrong myself and you,
Than I will wrong such honourable men.
This example reminds me of how any profession develops its own jargon, including use and misuse of grammar. For anyone who has listened or read transcripts of oratory in the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives, you'll understand what I mean.
For example, they misuse the conditional tense very, very frequently. Example: "... and I would caution the senator from New York that this issue has ..." - so why "would" he be saying something that he just now in fact has said?? Almost every sentence has the word "would" in it, and never for its correct meaning.
This example reminds me of how any profession develops its own jargon, including use and misuse of grammar. For anyone who has listened or read transcripts of oratory in the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives, you'll understand what I mean.
For example, they misuse the conditional tense very, very frequently. Example: "... and I would caution the senator from New York that this issue has ..." - so why "would" he be saying something that he just now in fact has said?? Almost every sentence has the word "would" in it, and never for its correct meaning.
Hehe. Your first mistake is thinking that elected officials are intelligent users of the language
Case in point - Dan Quayle misspells potato.
Also, why in the world would you be watching debates on the House floor when you could be watching Prime Minister's Questions! Not only are they more intelligent users of the language (not all, but most) it is soooo much more entertaining than debates on the House floor. It's a double whammy, as the British would say (that is what the British would say, right?) Hehe.
Good question! The answer is: subjunctive should not be there. The -ra forms, like "ocurriera", were not subjunctive (but indicative) in Medieval Spanish, so "ocurriera" was actually used to mean "había ocurrido" (pluperfect indicative); by the 16th century this usage got lost, and "ocurriera" became a subjunctive form along with "ocurriese" (the traditional subjunctive form). In the 19th century, this extinct Medieval use was revived in literature (and later by the journalists) as a 'cool' ancient-sound style, even though grammars advise against its use.
Now that is an excellent answer. I wish I could vote twice. It has been bugging me so much reading these financial websites and seeing the subjunctive used instead of the pluperfect indicative, like you mentioned. I couldn't understand why, so I reviewed the subjunctive all over again (I guess something good did come out of it) and was still baffled. If you don't mind me asking, how did you come across such information?
