Difference between Past Perfect Subjunctive and Past subjunctive
I understand both Past perfect subjunctive (hubiera pintado) y Past subjunctive (pintara), but they both seem to fulfill the exact same purpose. How can I differenciate when to use each one? Thank you!
3 Answers
One situation where they seem to not be interchangeable is with contrary-to-fact or theoretical If clauses. In this article they explain that the past subjunctive refers to present or future time while the past perfect subjunctive refers to past time.
You might look at this article on the 3rd conditional. (using pluscuamperfecto del subjuntivo)
referring to something that would have happened if some condition had been met.
Or stated more simply in this article.
SI + PAST SUBJUNCTIVE, CONDITIONAL (contrary-to-fact)
This form expresses that if certain present conditions changed, a wish would come true.
Si me ganara la lotería, no tendría que trabajar jamás.
SI + PAST SUBJUNCTIVE OF HABER, CONDITIONAL OF HABER
- PAST PARTICIPLE + PAST PARTICIPLE (theoretical)
This form describes a wish in the past. The conditions for it to happen were not met and obviously cannot be changed, but the wish still remains.
Si Brad Pitt no hubiera conocido a Angelina Jolie, no se habría divorciado de Jennifer Aniston.
There are some specific differences.
Let's consider conditional contrary to fact clauses:
Si yo estuviera allí, tomaría la responsabilidad - If I were there, I would take responsibility.
Si yo hubiera estado allí, habría tomado la responsabilidad - If I had been there, I would have taken responsibility.
So the reference in time, as well as the meaning, between the past perfect (pluperfect) subjunctiveand the imperfect subjunctive is quite different.
Next we can consider, for instance, the use of the subjunctive following a verb of emotion or desire.
Quería que pintaras la pared. - I wanted you to paint the wall.
Quería que hubieras pintado la pared. I wanted you to have painted the wall.
The latter are examples of sequence of tenses. In the first case, the main verb is in the imperfect and the dependent verb refers to action that takes place at the same time or after the time of the main verb. In the second example, the main verb is in the imperfect and the dependent verb referst to an action that took place or would have taken place before the time of the main verb.
The structure of these tenses is mandatory to express these ideas properly.
Great question. Honestly, I feel like it is a question of formality. As in the Past perfect subj is more formal. But both mean essentially the same thing. If something were to have happened in the past, a different outcome would have resulted.
I look forward to reading all of the answers on this though.
Hasta las respuestas...
