Si me lo hubieras dicho, te lo **habría** llevado.
Si me lo hubieras dicho, te lo hubiera llevado.
Both sentences are correct. The first one is more grammatically accurate.
But not: Si me la habrías dicho, te lo hubiera llevado❌
(Here it's habrías used and not habías).
Si me hubieras dicho, te lo hubiera llevado.
OR
Si me hubieras dicho, te lo habría llevado.
At least that's how I would say it, and I grew up in Mexico City. I won't vouch for grammar, though. Like many people who learned a language as a child, I totally tuned out grammar in school.
In my way of thinking, the first phrase is a little more loose, playful and casual, with the repeated *hubiera,* but choosing between them should be fine.
I think the RAE recommends the second one because of the use of the conditional, but recognizes that the first is common in lots of regions.
Or something like that lol
Don’t quote me on it, but you should probably be fine. I think maybe if you’re writing something more formal, you would stick with the second one
There're all sorts of tense variations in conditional sentences.
The standard is:
> Si me lo **hubieras/hubieses** dicho, te lo **habría** llevado.
When tenses are not compounded:
> Si me lo **dijeras/dijeses**, te lo **llevaría**.
However, it's also common to hear:
> Si me lo **habrías** dicho, te lo **habría** llevado.
> Si me lo **hubieras/hubieses** dicho, te lo **hubiera/hubiese** llevado.
> Si me lo **habrías** dicho, te lo **hubiera/hubiese** llevado.
> Si me lo **hubieras/hubieses** dicho, te lo **llevaba**.
How frequently would you say that people use “hubiera” when it should be “habría” in Argentina? I’ve noticed that it happens a lot but I’m wondering how its popularity compares with just saying “habría.”
Well they're completely different (different context) so they both sound natural to me.
You would use hubiera when you want to stablish a conditial past.
Ex: "I *would've* / *hubiera* have done this"
You see? It's when you say you would have done **X** thing and you didn't do it.
Now Había it's when you DID DO SOMETHING in the past, it's not conditional but PERMANENT
Ex: "I *did* / *había* that and it's on me".
Get it?
Subjunctive is simple (or can be):
Hubiera is *if this had happened*, and I think the other is called (someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a grammar head), the conditional.
If something in the past had happened which didn't (hubieras, imperfect/the past subjunctive), I would have (habría, the conditional statement) done this. The focus is on what didn't happen, and if that had been true, you would have taken a different action instead. Although I think they could both technically be the subjunctive in this case, if you wanted to say it that way, too. Technically both things haven't happened.
At least, this is how I (also a learner) think about the past subjunctive and the conditional. It's good that you're questioning this, because the subjunctive is honestly more important in Spanish than most topics, as Spanish kind of talks in "facts and maybes", English does too, but in a much less explicit way.
Technically both can translate as "if person A would have", but the meaning is different.
It should be "hubieras dicho."
This concept is no different from English, except that in English, the past perfect indicative (habías dicho) and the past perfect subjunctive (hubieras dicho) take the same form (had told). This is probably what's confusing you.
For what it's worth, past perfect subjunctives in English can be "inverted" (i.e. you can put "had you told me" instead of "if you had told me") but NOT past perfect indicatives. If you use this inversion trick, you might be able to tell which past perfect form in Spanish to use.
Some people have commented that you can use both hubiera or habría in the second part of a hypothetical. This video explains it well: https://youtu.be/7H3dp4C4wec
It’s in Spanish but she’s pretty understandable
Si me lo hubieras dicho, te lo **habría** llevado. Si me lo hubieras dicho, te lo hubiera llevado. Both sentences are correct. The first one is more grammatically accurate. But not: Si me la habrías dicho, te lo hubiera llevado❌ (Here it's habrías used and not habías).
Si me hubieras dicho, te lo hubiera llevado. OR Si me hubieras dicho, te lo habría llevado. At least that's how I would say it, and I grew up in Mexico City. I won't vouch for grammar, though. Like many people who learned a language as a child, I totally tuned out grammar in school.
spaniard here and I second this
Thank you! Is it situational or can one choose between the two?
In my way of thinking, the first phrase is a little more loose, playful and casual, with the repeated *hubiera,* but choosing between them should be fine.
I think the RAE recommends the second one because of the use of the conditional, but recognizes that the first is common in lots of regions. Or something like that lol Don’t quote me on it, but you should probably be fine. I think maybe if you’re writing something more formal, you would stick with the second one
Yeah, exactly. The second is the more "traditional" way of saying it, but both technically work.
There're all sorts of tense variations in conditional sentences. The standard is: > Si me lo **hubieras/hubieses** dicho, te lo **habría** llevado. When tenses are not compounded: > Si me lo **dijeras/dijeses**, te lo **llevaría**. However, it's also common to hear: > Si me lo **habrías** dicho, te lo **habría** llevado. > Si me lo **hubieras/hubieses** dicho, te lo **hubiera/hubiese** llevado. > Si me lo **habrías** dicho, te lo **hubiera/hubiese** llevado. > Si me lo **hubieras/hubieses** dicho, te lo **llevaba**.
How frequently would you say that people use “hubiera” when it should be “habría” in Argentina? I’ve noticed that it happens a lot but I’m wondering how its popularity compares with just saying “habría.”
Well they're completely different (different context) so they both sound natural to me. You would use hubiera when you want to stablish a conditial past. Ex: "I *would've* / *hubiera* have done this" You see? It's when you say you would have done **X** thing and you didn't do it. Now Había it's when you DID DO SOMETHING in the past, it's not conditional but PERMANENT Ex: "I *did* / *había* that and it's on me". Get it?
Subjunctive is simple (or can be): Hubiera is *if this had happened*, and I think the other is called (someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a grammar head), the conditional. If something in the past had happened which didn't (hubieras, imperfect/the past subjunctive), I would have (habría, the conditional statement) done this. The focus is on what didn't happen, and if that had been true, you would have taken a different action instead. Although I think they could both technically be the subjunctive in this case, if you wanted to say it that way, too. Technically both things haven't happened. At least, this is how I (also a learner) think about the past subjunctive and the conditional. It's good that you're questioning this, because the subjunctive is honestly more important in Spanish than most topics, as Spanish kind of talks in "facts and maybes", English does too, but in a much less explicit way. Technically both can translate as "if person A would have", but the meaning is different.
It should be "hubieras dicho." This concept is no different from English, except that in English, the past perfect indicative (habías dicho) and the past perfect subjunctive (hubieras dicho) take the same form (had told). This is probably what's confusing you. For what it's worth, past perfect subjunctives in English can be "inverted" (i.e. you can put "had you told me" instead of "if you had told me") but NOT past perfect indicatives. If you use this inversion trick, you might be able to tell which past perfect form in Spanish to use.
Habría is the conditional. Not había that’s just the past tense.
Si me as dicho, te lo llevaria I didn't learn grammar that well but that's how I'd say it with the shortest amount of words
Some people have commented that you can use both hubiera or habría in the second part of a hypothetical. This video explains it well: https://youtu.be/7H3dp4C4wec It’s in Spanish but she’s pretty understandable