Hi can you help me figure out the different between present perfect subjunctive (e.g. haya reconocido) and imperfect subjunctive (e.g. reconociera)? Not those verbs exactly but when to use them? Thank you!
They're very similar, depending on how you use them.
Note: I promise this will come into play later but I just want to make something very clear. In Spanish, there are tenses and there are moods. It may be easier to understand them in Spanish - a tense is tiempo [meaning "time"] while a mood is modo [meaning "mode"]
There are 3 moods, indicative, subjunctive, and imperative [imperative are commands; not useful for this particular discussion]
The moods encompass the different tenses... so think of it like columns; indicative includes present tense, preterite, imperfect, future, conditional etc. And subjunctive includes present subjunctive and imperfect subjunctive.
The layman's explanation is that the mood says how the language works according to the "conditions" of the sentence/thought, and the tense says at what time it happens.
A very simple layman's explanation: the mood is the "conditions" of language. The tenses say whether it was past, present, or future in some capacity.
And there's usually a version of the indicative that corresponds to the subjunctive... present tense indicative happens at the same "time" as present tense subjunctive, for example
And perfect tenses [the ones that use haber] are a bit of a rogue time traveler; they can exist in any tense and can be either indicative or subjunctive, thus he reconocido happens at the same "time" as haya reconocido... just the conditions are different
No hemos reconocido... = We haven't recognized...
Es increídible que no hayamos reconocido... = It's unbelieveable that we haven't recognized...
So while they seem to express the same thought or idea, and though they happen at the same time [tense] the conditions of the second sentence necessitate subjunctive mood.
Keep that in mind going forward and it will make a lot more sense.
-
Present perfect just in general is used for placing something a little bit in the past, but since it's present it's still affecting the present:
Escribí. = I wrote. He escrito. = I have written.
Comí. = I ate. He comido. = I have eaten.
Pagué. = I paid. He pagado. = I have paid.
In the contexts of grammar, the simple past [preterite] in the first examples is just the actions "I wrote" or "I ate" etc. The action is done and completed and over.
Note: There are many people who will use the present perfect in place of the preterite tense because they do equate to largely the same thing in function. Though technically different, it's a colloquial thing.
But in a more grammatical roundabout way, present perfect brings that past action into the present, meaning it still has some bearing on the present in some way. Saying "I have written" is a way of just talking about past actions, but possibly bringing them into the present still.
I realize that doesn't make much sense but consider something like: "I've written a lot of essays, but I don't know how to write a poem"; or "I've read a lot of books but I've never read that author".
In those contexts, your past actions now have some bearing on the present situation. That's the basis of the perfect tenses.
With the haya here, that's the subjunctive form of haber.
In grammatical terms, it's the same idea as the present perfect... just with subjunctive phrasing:
No te has roto el brazo. = You didn't break your arm. Dudo que te hayas roto el brazo. = I doubt you broke your arm.
Lo has terminado. = You finished it. / You've finished it. Dime en cuanto lo hayas terminado. = Tell me as soon as you're done. / Tell me once you've finished it.
No se han equivocado. = They weren't wrong. No creo que se hayan equivocado. = I don't believe/think they were wrong.
Me han llamado idiota. = They've called me an idiot. Aunque me llamen idiota... = Even if they call me an idiot... [present subjunctive] Aunque me hayan llamado... = Even though they have called me an idiot...
In Spanish there are certain subjunctive phrases that activate, and they exist across multiple tenses.
Certain phrases necessitate subjunctive, so it can be the same information sort of, but they'll determine whether it's indicative or subjunctive.
-
Imperfect subjunctive is the equivalent of past tense subjunctive.
So just as an example real quick:
1. Quiero que pongas la mesa. = I want you to set the table.
2. Quería que pusieras la mesa. = I wanted you to set the table.
1. Sugieren que lo hagamos. = They suggest that we do it.
2. Sugieron que lo hiciéramos. = They suggested that we do it.
1. Es importante que tenga tiempo libre. = It's important that I have free time.
2. Era importante que tuviera tiempo libre. = It was important that I had free time.
1. Aunque me hayan llamado cobarde... = Even though they have called a coward...
2. Aunque me hubieran llamado cobarde... = Even though they had called me a coward...
Still subjunctive mood, just 1 is present, 2 is "past" so it's imperfect.
Imperfect subjunctive today also encompasses future subjunctive which can be confusing. This is normally done with contrary to fact states, hypothetical situations, and your basic if/then constructions with the conditional tense.
Si tuviera el dinero... = If I had the money... Si tuviera el dinero, estudiaría en el extranjero. = If I had the money, I would study abroad.
Si pudiera... = If I could... Lo haría si pudiera. = I would do it if I could.
Si me permitiera, señor... = If you allow me, sir... Si me permitiera, señor, podría ayudar. = If you allow me, sir, I can/could help.
Si hubiera otra opción... = If there was/were another option... Si hubiera otra opción, lo elegiríamos. = If there was/were another option, we would choose it.
Como si fuera la última vez... = As if it were the last time...
Me habló como si fuera idiota. = He talked to me like I was an idiot.
No puedo creer que nuestro jefe nos regañe como si fuéramos niños traviesos. = I can't believe our boss would scold us as if we were naughty children. [technically could be niñas traviesas if it the nosotros here were nosotras referring to all women]
You will occasionally see the future subjunctive forms, but really only in literature and contracts. It's not used commonly today; it'll look like imperfect subjunctive just with -e endings; tuviere, hubiere, hablare, llamare, quisiere etc.
For example: si fuere menester is a common thing in contracts and means "in the event of". Literally it's "if it were to be needed"
-
Important historical / regional note!
Once upon a time, the -iera/-ara forms were used as pluperfect, "had done", "had seen" etc.
You see it mostly in literature, particularly literature before a certain time period or things set in the middle ages or that have an old-timey feel (like Lord of the Rings has this)
So if you had come across llamara you might assume it's imperfect subjunctive, but it may read as "had called" which is pluperfect.
In other words for some historical contexts (and only for historical contexts, not for modern day Spanish):
me hablaran = me habían hablado = they had talked to me
les escribieran = les habían escrito = they had written to them
nos dijeras = nos habías dicho = you had told us
viera = había visto = he/she/You had seen
-
I'm not a historical linguist but I believe this is because haber in older contexts was not an auxiliary verb like this. In its original form, haber worked the way Italian did as "to have". You would see el hombre ha dos hijos "the man has two children".
haber didn't get used as an auxiliary verb until later on, and tener which now means "to have", was often used in the context of "to obtain" or "to grasp"
So in these older contexts, pluperfect [now done with haber in imperfect + past participle] was done with one verb.
Imperfect subjunctive would have been done with the -iese/-ase forms. So llamase read as "would call"; si me llamasen "if they should call me" for example
Just be careful when you're reading things like that! It's usually not too bad if you can recognize the verb because at least you get the overall meaning, but if it's not quite translating how you think it might be one of those more "antiquated" usages of a tense
...
Spain still keeps this distinction more so than Latin America. You will see -ara/-iera forms used for imperfect subjunctive [past subjunctive].
But in Spain you're more likely to see those contrary to fact statements or hypotheticals with the -ase/-iese forms:
Si lo hubiese sabido... = If I had known...
Si tuviésemos más tiempo... = If we had more time...
Como si fuésemos niños... = As if we were children...
My own Spanish leans towards Latin American usages, so I tend to use -ara/-iera forms for everything.
Spain makes more of a distinction between them, and that's why in most dictionaries or conjugation charts you'll see two different forms... like "fuera O fuese" for example
-
Importante Note: You will see the -ara/-iera forms used as pluperfect in some contexts, even in Latin America - above all in journalism, biographies, and publications
This is why you may see nació "was born" written as naciera "was born"...
But you will NEVER see it as naciese for "was born"
