use of preterit and imperfect vis a vis 3 verbs

[macocael]

The rules for determining when to use the preterit (simple past) and the imperfect (continuous past) are fairly clear, though it takes time to master them:

The imperfect describes a past action without clear temporal boundaries, an unfinished or ongoing action: estaba leyendo el libro cuando mi hermano entró la sala.

The imperfect also describes customary or habitual actions: en mi juventud me levantaba de madrugada para ir a la escuela. "in my youth I used to - -"

The imperfect is also used in certain specific cases:
Vivíamos en Italia hacía dos años (where English would use the pluperfect)

The simple past is used to describe definite, circumscribed actions in the past:
me desperté y salté de la cama. Two semelfactive actions.

But I get confused when it comes to using three verbs. First of all, saber. I am probably just dense, because I suspect that the same rules apply, but I tend to hear "sabia" more often than "supe" or "supo" and when one replies to a question with the simple phrase, "I didnt know," one always says "yo no sabia." Is there some rule or logic here I am missing? Or is it just the nature of knowing that it is not limited by time unless we speak of very specific instances?

Second verb: haber. I simply cannot figure out whether to use "hubo" or "habia" when saying things like "there were three guys in the park." Somehow the logic is not sinking in. For example, in the foregoing sentence it is not really clear if this is a semelfactive action or a continuous action. Is it up to the speaker to decide which?

Third and final verb: estar. But not on its own; it gives me trouble when it is used in conjunction with a participle . normally when one says something like "I was thinking about going to the campo" one would say in Spanish "estaba pensando en ir al campo." But let us take another example from a wonderful song sung by Hector Lavoe, Soñando Despierto: "estuve soñando que ya tu habias vuelto, que me perdonabas, ¡que dulce el momento! Pero al despertarme, vi que no era cierto, estaba soñando, soñando despierto." I understand the reason for the imperfect in the second line, but the first line throws me. The main clause uses preterit and the relative clause uses the imperfect (which throws me too) -- but regardless of the relative clause I still dont see why the main clause uses the preterit: the act of daydreaming is not a closed, definitive action. Explanations anyone?

Btw, I am not looking for free grammar lessons, but i figure that this is exactly the kind of thing that gives students of Spanish significant trouble, so it might be useful to have a discussion of it here.

[AnnaC]

Thanks for starting this thread maco. I'm sure it will help many people.

[something_of_the_night]

Pues yo si sabo. Just kidding.

Songwriters break the rules; it's a matter of semantics.

[juancarlos]

I think, and I only think, that the estuve in this case refers to an action which was taking place for a while, but was limited in its duration. It was only for a while. I am sure Lesley will have a good explanation for it, Macocael. I think you cite several good examples I had never given any thought to, but you are right: there has to be a reason why in certain situations people use estuve instead of estaba, for example.

[macocael]

Originally Posted by something_of_the_night

Pues yo si sabo. Just kidding.

Songwriters break the rules; it's a matter of semantics.

It is not a matter of semantics, which is the study of meaning; it is a matter of what we call poetic license. But that is not entirely the case here with Hector.

[Lesley D]

Macocael, these are very valid questions and traditionally pose difficulty so don't feel like an outcast if you are challenged to understand how to use these tenses correctly. In fact, questioning the usage shows that you are paying attention to the differences in meaning and the appropriate context which in turn will make your Spanish better IMO.

In brief there are rules governing the usage of these three verbs which clearly differentiate/ distinguish the meaning of one tense over the other. How they are used in everyday speech is a whole different story. I will add that if you speak or have knowledge of another Latin based language, for example French, the usage of these two tenses is the same and identical for 'saber' (I am referring to the meanings as well as one tense over the other).


1) Saber-"sabía" vs. "supe"

-the tense usage is not interchangeable with saber.

Sabía (the imperfect tense) is the way to express I knew... or I did (not) know

Supe- (the preterit tense) changes the meaning completely. It means "I found out..." (some news, a piece of information etc).


2) Hubo/Había- Your example: "there were three guys in the park."

- The usage of one over the other does not change the meaning. Both convey the meaning "there were" but the nuances are different due the essential differences in meaning of the preterit vs. the imperfect tense. It also depends on what the speaker is trying to convey which will determine his/her choice of one over the other and sometimes there is no choice due to key 'past tense markers'.

-Hubo tres hombres en el parque/ Había tres hombres en el parque. - There is no difference in meaning but the time frame vs. a description will differentiate the usage of one over the other.

Hubo= refers to the past "en algún momento dado". *(see explanation)

Había= refers to the past but it is a description (or repetition) (in the past).

* what I mean by 'algún momento dado' is I am referring to a specific time frame in the past, that will not be repeated. Key words like 'ayer', 'la semana pasada', 'el año pasado' etc. These are key time frame markers that require the preterit tense (finality) only and not the imperfect. However, what you hear in the day to day speech may differ. People make mistakes. The ability to make the distinction depends on many of factors but you will hear erroneous usage.


Ayer hubo dos hombres en el parque. (the preterit is required because of 'ayer').

Había dos hombres en el parque (this is just a simple description of something in the past)


3) Estar- "estuve soñando" que ya tu habías vuelto"...

a)-The progressive forms tend to pose confusion and as a result are often used incorrectly. In Spanish the progressive forms are much more specific than in English and those learning Spanish use these forms more often and usually out of context but that's a different grammar issue.

b)- The progressive tense should only be used to give an 'active' description, meaning the action is actually taking place at a given moment (or that is actually in progress), this is where those who are learning Spanish usually err. Compare Juan estudia (habitual action) vs. Juan está estudiando (‘right now’). Do you understand the difference?

c)-the progressive forms have an equivalent non progressive form:

estuve soñando= is the progressive equivalent of 'soñé'
estaba soñando= is progressive equivalent of 'soñaba'.

-The preterit and imperfect progressive forms have the same rules of usage as the preterit and imperfect non progressive forms.

- Of course Lavoe's choice of the preterit is unknown but the usage is correct (gramaticalmente hablando) because if you break it down grammatically what he's saying is 'estuve soñando' ('en algún momento dado') it could be 'ayer', 'la semana pasada' etc. Lavoe just did not reference the time frame. In the second phrase 'estaba soñando' is just a description. No one knows 'when', 'how often' thus the usage of the imperfect tense.

-Also you are naming the tenses incorrectly. For example in Lavoe's song 'ya habías vuelto' that's not the imperfect tense that's the pluscuamperfecto or in English "the pluperfect tense". (This tense is also referred to as the 'past perfect' in some grammar books but I prefer to use the 'pluperfect' tense which comes from Latin).

-The usage is correct in the song because it coincides with the sequence of tenses in Spanish i.e. moving from a past tense form to another form of the past tense. Song writers do break the rules or sometimes use combinations that may seem rare but if you go back to the rules of grammar the answer is always there.

For example the rule for the sequence of tenses in the past (main clause to subordinate clause) is:


Pretérito (Preterit)
Imperfecto (Imperfect)
Condicional (Conditional) = can be used with the Imperfect tense or the Pluperfect tense
Pluscuamperfecto (Pluperfect)
Condicional Perfecto (Conditional Perfect)

-There are few exceptions but this rule is virtually flawless. As you can see in Lavoe's song he went from the preterit progressive (estuve soñando) to the pluperfect tense (ya habías vuelto). The rules were followed to perfection.

-My suggestion is to read more to get comfortable with 'el imperfecto' and increase the level of complexity of what you read bit by bit. It's important to understand these differences.


I hope this helps.


-LDG.


PD- if there are any typos I will fix them later.

[MaineGirl]

Fantastic post. I find that as an oral learner (I learned via immersion) I often use the correct tenses, and now I can explain exactly why thanks to this post. As a Spanish teacher at the beginning levels we only start to touch on these grammar points. As always, Lesley, you have helped me as a teacher and as a student of Spanish.

[macocael]

"Helps"?! You bet. That was a serious grammar lesson! I feel a bit guilty though because I dont want you to spend so much time teaching all of us, when you are already doing so much.

The distinction between "sabia" and "supe" is entirely clear to me now, and I have a feeling that I had come across this explanation in my grammar somewhere, but couldnt for the life of me find it when I posted this thread.

The distinction between "habia" and "hubo" now is also clear. Btw, the use of the word "description" makes the distinction very clear. Why this is so will become apparent when i respond vis a vis the third verb, estar.

So, estar: Point "b" I understand well enough, and my grammar book covers that well. what threw me in Lavoe's lyric was that he initially refers to the act of daydreaming using the preterit but then later on switches to the imperfect or past progressive. But this is indeed a "description" and that makes the switch clear to me now. Moreover, it so happens that in the second verse of the song, which I just checked, he sings,

Ay anoche soñe que mi suegra se había muerto.
Y me puse a llorar al despertar y vi que no era cierto.

so in fact while the first instance of daydreaming is not introduced with a modifier that defines the time frame (anoche), it is implicit as it is obviously a parallel example. It is crystal clear to me now.

Btw, when I said that the relative clause uses the imperfect I was referring to the second relative clause, "que me perdonabas" not to the first, "que ya tu habias vuelto" and in my haste I neglected to clarify that.

I suspected as well that proper sequence of tenses played a role here,but after reading the potted description in my handy pocket grammar (which usually gives pretty comprehensive explanations), I was still at a loss. So now I have the rule plainly spelled out.

Thanks a bunch Lesley D, and I hope that other DR1 members can profit from this, as I suspect that this is one of things that give them constant trouble.

If I think of any other sticky grammatical issues I will post them.

[M.A.R.]

Originally Posted by something_of_the_night

Pues yo si sabo. Just kidding.

Songwriters break the rules; it's a matter of semantics.

past, present, imperfect, perfect, aya yay!!!!!
just curious, Macocael where do u find the time?????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????

[Lesley D]

As long as it helps your understanding that's fine. No extra effort or research on my part. I just need the time. I rather be thorough once and not have to have subsequent posts.

-LDG.