0

I am a Spanish speaker. Recently I found the following sentence in linguee.com:

I had never been married and I was sure that I would never find anyone who would love and accept me, especially...

I also found the following one:

This amendment cannot be accepted as it would exclude from the Directive anyone who had taken a distance-learning course...

Now, in Spanish we would say the second sentence just as it is written here with "had taken" in subjuntive. Can someone explain why the first sentence uses the conditional "would love" instead of the past subjuntive "anyone who loved me" just like in the other sentence? Or why the second sentence is not written "anyone who would have written"?

What is the difference between them? They are both hypothetical, aren't they?

Improve this question
12
  • You will also hear native speakers saying as it would exclude anyone who took a distance-learning course.
    – TimR
    Commented May 16, 2018 at 17:34
  • That's perfectly valid in spanish too. What is not valid is the conditional.
    – user298966
    Commented May 16, 2018 at 19:53
  • I was sure that I would (past tense of will) never find anyone. That is future-in-past. It is not a hypothetical.
    – TimR
    Commented May 16, 2018 at 20:02
  • What about "it would exclude", is that a future-in-past too or not? Is that the difference?
    – user298966
    Commented May 16, 2018 at 21:05
  • In the sentence using it would exclude it is a conditional, not a future-in-past. The sentence can be understood as if accepted, the amendment would exclude ... would is used modally there
    – TimR
    Commented May 16, 2018 at 22:13

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
0

Short answer

The difference is the time frame during which an action occurs with respect to a hypothetical point in time.

Details

For purposes of explanation, let's define a reference point in time, then the time frame during which the expressions in question take place.

For the first case:

I had never been married and I was sure that I would never find anyone who would love and accept me, especially...

Reference point in time: the time of "having found someone", hypothetically

Time frame of phrase in question: "who would..." then refers to anytime in the future after that hypothetical reference point.

For the second case:

This amendment cannot be accepted as it would exclude from the Directive anyone who had taken a distance-learning course...

Reference point in time: the time "the amendment had excluded", hypothetically

Time frame of phrase in question: "who had taken..." then refers to anytime in the past before that hypothetical reference point.

Improve this answer
3
  • What about this sentence that I heard the other day on tv: " I know you wouldn't have a staffer who wouldn't have resigned" Meaning If you were Trump you wouldn't keep someone in your staff who in that case wouldn't have (or had not) resigned. Why "wouldn't have" instead of "had not?" I'd say the reference point is "If you were Trump (now)" and the time frame of the phrase in question is earlier than now "the staffer had not resigned" so she should have said "who had not resigned" Where am I wrong?
    – user298966
    Commented May 19, 2018 at 15:32
  • Or maybe I am wrong about the meaning of the sentence. What do you think?
    – user298966
    Commented May 19, 2018 at 18:30
  • I was sure that I would never find anyone who would love = in the present< I am sure that I will never find anyone who loves me.
    – Lambie
    Commented Sep 7, 2020 at 23:13
0

I looked up the word would in the wiktionary and it gave me the solution. There it says that would can be, besides the conditional, the subjunctive of will. This means it is the subjunctive future and it can be translated directly into spanish and fits still better than the subjunctive past. I had not realized this because in spanish that tense is used only in the bible.

Improve this answer
3
  • 2
    You have misunderstood the use of would "as subjunctive" in English. That use is for sentences like: Would that I were rich. Would that he were telling the truth. Today, that is very literary and would only be spoken by highly literate people.Spanish in English, takes a capital s.And actually, in Spanish, those would be Ojalá que fuera rico. For example.
    – Lambie
    Commented Sep 7, 2020 at 23:12
  • @Lambie I was taught that “Ojalá que” translates as “If only” or “I wish”. I’ve only ever seen “Would that” in dusty classics from way back in English Lit.
    – StephenS
    Commented Sep 8, 2020 at 0:26
  • 2
    @StephenS Don't confuse directionality. If you are going from English to Spanish, Would that x were etc. is Ojalá. Of course, if you are going from Spanish to English, it is in fact what's in dusty classics, today expressed as I wish or If only. Yeah? :) But re this answer: would is the subjunctive of will means what I explained and the poster did not know that.
    – Lambie
    Commented Sep 8, 2020 at 15:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .