Después de que subjuntivo: possible text book error

Question

Hello all, I've been working through 'The Spanish subjunctive up close' by Eric Vogt and have come across what seems like an error, as I have no other explanation for why the subjunctive would be correct in the sentence below.

I've read this topic, which would suggest it is an error: http://www.spanishdict.com/answers/108867/por-qu-se-usa-el-subjuntivo-con-despus-de-que-si-hablamos-del-pasado

The problem sentence is on page 70, 15. which reads:

El dependiente de la tienda salió después de que su jefe contara (according to the answer on page 105) el dinero.

Is it just an error?

Thanks.

Answer 1

El dependiente de la tienda salió después de que su jefe contara (according to the answer on page 105) el dinero.

Is it just an error?

As taught, I agree with you. If the verb that follows refers to a action completed at the time of perspective of the sentence, it should not be imperfect subjunctive. The boss counted the money before the clerk left.

That being said, this is a grammar error not uncommon in Spanish, and many argue about whether it is truly incorrect or not. This is a long thread, I will bring over two answers but it is worth looking through it all.

http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/después-de-que-subjunctive.1226481/

In this answer, your case is very similar to the third, which this native speaker lists as incorrect to use the imperfect subjunctive, but gives a reasoning behind the commonly made error.

En realidad, lo más correcto en este caso es usar el indicativo, no el subjuntivo. El uso del subjuntivo para subordinadas temporales se restringe al futuro. Por lo tanto, antes de que siempre introduce el subjuntivo, porque sólo puede referirse al futuro. Pero después de que, al igual que las restantes conjunciones temporales (cuando, en cuanto, tan pronto como, no bien, una vez que, así que, etc.), sólo puede introducir el subjuntivo cuando se refiere al futuro.

Iré después de que acabe de ordenar. Correcto porque la acción de acabar es futura respecto al presente en que se está hablando.

Dijo que iría después de que acabara de ordenar. Correcta porque la acción de acabar es futura respecto al momento en que se dijo.

Fue después de que "acabara" de ordenar. Incorrecta porque la acción de acabar es anterior al "fue".

No llegó sino después de que Wellauer "encontrara" el cadáver de su mujer y "llamara" a la policía." Incorrecta porque las acciones de encontrar y llamar son anteriores al "llegó".

Pese a todo, es un uso habitual en textos escritos, tanto por culpa del uso literario del imperfecto del subjuntivo en lugar del pretérito o el pluscuamperfecto del indicativo (poco recomendable, en realidad, porque tergiversa la verdadera función del subjuntivo), como por paralelismo entre antes de que y después de que. Yo me inclino por creer que la causa es sobre todo este paralelismo, porque con otras conjunciones temporales no se cae en este inadecuado uso del subjuntivo. Por ejemplo, creo que nadie escribiría:

Llegó en cuanto / no bien / cuando / / una vez que / así que Wellauer "encontrara" el cadáver de su mujer y "llamara" a la policía.

Y, gramaticalmente, es exactamente el mismo caso.

In this answer the native speaker states that it is correct, because it is not truly the imperfect subjunctive that is being used.

Hi,

It is correct indeed. This is not a subjunctive imperfect conjugation but an option for Spanish's indicative pluperfect tense —pluscuamperfecto or antepretérito— referring to actions that are previous to another past action ("llegó"). Although we ususally think it's just a narrative or journalistic style, but we sometimes use it too in very formal speech.

La amiga se restrasó y no llegó sino después de que Wellauer encontrara (=había encontrado) el cadáver de su mujer y llamara (=[había] llamado) a la policía. The friend was late and only arrived after Wellauer had found his wife's body and had called the police.

The reason —as explained in several other threads— is historical. It comes from latin pluperfect. We must be awared that the other form of imperfect subjunctive tense "encontrase, llegase" cannot be used as pluperfect.

Regards.

That all being said in a book for learners that is not explaining all this, I would view it as an error.

I like that the subjunctive in this case can be substituted for the pluscuamperfecto. I instinctively have always felt that but didn't know the grammar behind it. Hmmmmmmm. :) - Daniela2041, Dec 18, 2016

Answer 2

This is one case where even the scholars are not totally in agreement. The rules say "no subjunctive" as Lazarus states, however, he adds that in most Spanish Speaking countries you will hear native speakers use it--it somehow sounds more natural.

Although I was born in Spain I came to the US when I was a child, and consequently learned California/Mexican Spanish while growing up. I studied formally in college and earned several degrees, but still talk like a California-Mexican.

I would go along with Lazarus (using the indicative) because THAT sounds more natural to me and I do believe it follows the rule.

There are Mexican scholars on this site that use the RAE grammar extensively, and I would like to hear their input into this matter.

By the way Lazarus is a great Spanish scholar whose opinions are highly valued on this site.

Oh, I didn't see your answer before I posted, it took me too long to prep my answer. :) - bosquederoble, Dec 18, 2016