whats the difference between these 2 questions?
I know the meaning of each of these sentences but what is the difference?
- si fuéramos una pareja, creo que hubieramos sido muy feliz.
2.si fuéramos una pareja, creo que habríamos sido muy feliz.
thanks!
9 Answers
If we had been a couple, I think we would have been very happy.
If we were a couple, I think we could have been very happy.
Si hubiéramos estado un par, creo que habría sido muy feliz.
Si fuéramos una pareja, creo que podría haber sido muy feliz.
The above for what it's worth - not because it answers the question 
Okay I have always found it said as they are interchangeable, but I found an answer that indicates a subtle shade like gringojrf notes:
http://www.italki.com/question/235484
Best Answer - Chosen by the Asker
Generally speaking, both options are correct and you can use any of them in any context. People will understand what you mean.
There is, however, a subtle difference between both expressions, so delicate that most native speakers will say that there is no difference. But there is.
"Me habría gustado ir" is the conditional form of the Indicative Mode, whereas "Me hubiera gustado ir" is the imperfect preterite form of the Subjunctive Mode. The different modes point out a different hue of hypothetical sense:
On the one hand, when a sentence is expressed in Indicative Mode, the speaker is pointing out that there is a certain level of "reality" in what he or she is saying. In the example "Me habría gustado ir" there is a little chance that if you had finished your work on time, you would have gone.
On the other hand, when a sentence is expressed in the Subjunctive Mode, the speaker points out the complete unrealty of what he or she is saying. In the example "Me hubiera gustado ir" the chance of finishing on time simply did not exist in the real world.
Hope this explanation helps.
There is probably some arcane grammar rule at work here. But I think it boils down to the difference between;
would have been very happy - an expression of certainty
and
could have been very happy - an expression of possibility
But I am probably completely wrong.
For what it's worth, based on what Michel Thomas says in his audio course (which I recently finished), hubieramos sido = we MIGHT have been, whereas habríamos sido = we WOULD have been. Therefore, the former connotes more doubt whereas the latter expresses more certainly. However, I seem to recall even MT says they're laragely interchangeable in everyday language.
I believe that mean exactly the same thing, and that the imperfect subjunctive -ra form of haber can be used to stand in for the conditional and be correct without change of meaning, but I cannot find any of my references on this now.
I have answered a similar question, quoting an old answer by Lazarus, but cannot find either answer now.
Only the -ra form, not the -se form can be done this way, and it can only be done with a few verbs- that imperfect subjunctive can be used when one expects conditional- but haber is one of those verbs.
There is not really a difference, except for that the first one is way less used than the second one. The subjuntivo hubieramos sido, emphasizes the fact that it could never have worked. Spanish native speakers wouldn't say that there really is a difference, but rather that the first one is just rarely used. Hope this answers your question!
I think the question has been answered well and any more comments would be nothing more than grammerians looking at it under a microscope.
In another grammatical note, it could probably be argued that "habríamos sido muy feliz" is correct in plurality because "we" means one unit "la pareja", but it really is incorrect and should be "felices" in plural representing "nosotros" which is more than one.
Remember to use correct capitalization and grammar!
Check the word "Hubieramos" on both sentences. Notice the accent on the second one? That changes the tense in which it is used.
I agree with julian
