Hubiera/Habria Preferido
Maybe I'm becoming obsessive about this. I'm trying to understand the difference, if there is one, between "habría preferido" and "hubiera preferido". In my research they appear to be used to mean pretty much the same thing. Is there a difference? Thanks.
2 Answers
Anda:
Don't worry about becoming obsessed with it. Worrying about being obsessed is a sign of obsession, so just don't worry, OK? 
Technically, I think habría is more correct with the grammar rules when one is trying to use it with a conditional sense. However, hubiera is used by many Spanish speakers with a conditional sense, so much so, that I believe the RAE accepts it, at least in some situations. Hubiera is probably used with a conditional sense more in some regions than others.
You know the conditional form where the condition (si) phrase is supposed to be in the imperfect subjunctive and the result phrase is in the conditional? There are many Spanish speakers who just use the imperfect subjunctive for both.
Si la hubiera visto, habría dicho algo. (100% correct usage)
If I had seen her, I would have said something.
Some people use hubiera instead of habría as follows:
Si la hubiera visto, hubiera dicho algo. (alternative usage)
The twos sentences mean exactly the same thing and should be translated the same.
Another example is the use of quisiera instead of querría. Very, very common.
By the way, there is a very common error with English where even educated English speakers use the conditional tense on both sides of the above sentence.
If I would have seen her, I would have said something.
The first phrase should say "had seen her"
This is so common, that is sounds fine to many, probably even most, people. Same phenomena at play. If something is used long enough, by enough educated people, it becomes acceptable. Language isn't math, after all.
AnnRon asked:
Would "If I had seen her, I might have said something" be an acceptable translation for "Si la hubiera visto, hubiera dicho algo"?
Ann:
I don't think so. I'll explain why below. If anyone wants the short version, I've bolded a sentence near the end.
Reading between the lines, I think you might be wondering / asking:
Does:
Si la hubiera visto, habría dicho algo. Mean:
If I had seen her, I would have said something. ?
While:
Si la hubiera visto, hubiera dicho algo. Mean:
If I had seen her, I might have said something. ? (or at least be one good translation.)
In other words, do the two sentences, one with the conditional in the second clause and the other, with the imperfect subjunctive instead, really mean slightly different things?
Maybe that isn't exactly what you were thinking, but I thought it might be, and hopefully my reply will answer your question even if it wasn't.
In an "if then clause," in Spanish or English, one thing is supposed to follow from the other...there is no "might" or "maybe" being communicated. It isn't uncertainty that requires the use of the subjunctive in a sentence like this. It is the unreal or hypothetical aspect.
Keep in mind that with a more probable conditional statement, the indicative is used in both phrases. If it rains tomorrow, I will not go out. Si llueve mañana, no saldré. There is definitely some uncertainty here...who knows if it will actually rain? Even if it does rain, who can really guarantee that I won't go out?
However, in this "real or somewhat likely conditional" the subjunctive is not used in Spanish for either phrase. My guess is that the "si" already creates enough uncertainty: remember the rule to never use the present subjunctive after "si"? And, if it rains, I am telling you (declaring) that I will not go out. It doesn't matter that I might change my mind and go out anyway if it rains, I can declare my intentions in the indicative any time I want! (Hence we use the indicative after pensar, creer, etc. even though there can some doubt) So, here is a conditional statement, with plenty of uncertainty....and no subjunctive. My point is that unreal conditional statements don't use the subjunctive because of uncertainty...they use is because the sentence is unreal and hypothetical.
In some other types of Spanish sentences, where the subjunctive is used to express uncertainty the additional of might in English can help to translate this shade of meaning especially in cases where the English subjunctive is no longer used.
In the case of a conditional statement, I think if a Spanish speaker wanted to say "might have talked to her" they would insert "es posible que" "tal vez" or "quizá" to add that level of uncertainty, just as an English speaker could substitute "might" for "would."
In closing:
Not every Spanish sentence where there is evidence of significant uncertainty uses the subjunctive.
Some Spanish sentences that use the subjunctive have absolutely no uncertainty.
Unfortunately, when we start to learn the subjunctive in Spanish, uncertainty is often stressed so much that we find it hard to believe that the above statements could be true.
These statements are easy to prove if anyone questions their truth. But since I'm straying off topic, I'll leave that for another day.
I await comments and corrections. If I'm wrong about any of the above I would love to find out about it so I can continue to learn.
