¿Hubiera o habría?

Sin faraon ho habría piramides

Sin faraon no hubiera piramides


Cual es la diferencia?

According to A Modern Reference Grammar for Modern Spanish, section 14.7.5, the auxiliary verb "haber" can be used in the -ra form of the imperfect subjunctive instead of the conditional (but not in all cases). However, in this sentence, the verb isn't being used as an auxiliary verb (it's not modifying another verb). It's possible that the second statement is an error. If not, it's simply a fancier version of the first statement. In any case, the intended meaning is the same.

- Kef

'According to A Modern Reference Grammar for Modern Spanish, section 14.7.5, the auxiliary verb "haber" can be used in the -ra form of the imperfect subjunctive instead of the conditional (but not in all cases). '



Agreed. However at times we must make distinction with "would" and "could / had". No matter what A Modern Reference Grammar for Modern Spanish implies. This is only evident that Spanish speakers are getting lazier and dumber and are sinking down to the colloquial level of inhabitants that use it in that idiom manner.


Examples, of how it should be written and said:

Si me habrían dicho yo hubiera ido = If you would've told me I would have gone.

Si yo tuviera dinero yo lo compraría. = If I had money I would buy it.

Si fuéramos a España, primeramente iríamos a Barcelona = If we've gone to Spain, in the first place we would go to Barcelona.

Queríamos ir a la playa, de modo que gozáramos del día. = We wanted to go to the beach, so that we could enjoy the day.

etc.

Addendum
Si me habrían dicho yo hubiera ido = If you guys would've told me I could've gone.

Sin faraon (ya) no habría pirámides = Without Faraon there wouldn't be Pyramids.

Sin faraon no hubiera pirámides = Without Faraon there couldn't be Pyramids.


....eh? I say the first one sounds and looks better.

Kef is right. The first sentence is better.

<<Agreed. However at times we must make distinction with "would" and "could / had". No matter what A Modern Reference Grammar for Modern Spanish implies. This is only evident that Spanish speakers are getting lazier and dumber and are sinking down to the colloquial level of inhabitants that use it in that idiom manner.>>

Guest, comparing Spanish tenses with its English equivalents to say how Spanish native speakers should speak and write is quite naive of you.

I assure you that colluialisms and "mistakes" in grammar usage in native-dialects has very little to do with IQ.

Pedro de Perú

> Sin faraon (ya) no habría pirámides = Without Faraon there wouldn't be Pyramids.

"Faraon" means "pharaoh", so it means "Without a pharaoh..."

Guest, comparing Spanish tenses with its English equivalents to say how Spanish native speakers should speak and write is quite naive of you. I assure you that colluialisms and "mistakes" in grammar usage in native-dialects has very little to do with IQ.


It is what it is. Don't feel put down by what I wrote, It's not my fault Spanishs' grammar and lexical is getting simpler and simpler as English continues to intervine Spanish (especially in latinamerica). It's a sad inconvenience.

All I wanted was to know if any of those sentences could be used in the place of

Si no hubiera faraón, no habría piramides

because those 2 sentences are shorter.



What I want to write is

Without a Pharao, there would have been no piramids


Another question

Sin Faraón no hubieran habido piramides, or hubiera habido?

If you want to say "there *would have been* no pyramids", that would be "Sin faraón, no *habría habido* piramides." But if you want to say "there would be no pyramids", then first sentence in the original post should be fine.

I don't see any reason to prefer "hubiera" over "habría" in either sentence, so it'd probably be safer to just stick with "habría".

- Kef

It would be "hubieran" I don't know how to explain it but it just sounds better.

"Hubieran" is incorrect. When using "haber" to mean "there is/there are", the verb is always conjugated in the singular: "había tres casas" and not "habían tres casas". (Consider that in the present tense you would probably say "Hay tres casas" and not "Han tres casas".) A lot of people do say "Habían tres casas", but grammarians universally reject it. (Kind of like how English speakers often say "There's three houses", but at least we have the excuse that it's easier to say than "There are three houses" or "There're three houses". ;))

I'll have to look over my grammar book again to see if there might be another reason why "hubiera" might be used instead of "habría", but my instinct is still to use "habría"...

- Kef

From Spain:

Sin los faraones no hubiesen habido pirámides. (past) (there wouldn't have been)

Sin los faraones no habrían pirámides. (present)

For a native speaker it'all also important to say "el faraón" with an article and not just "faraón". Since we are speaking of several pyramids we are speaking of several of several "faraones".

Salut i força Manolo,

Escolta, tinc une dubte amb respecte els teus exemples.

¿Estoy mal o en español, "haber" cuando se refiere a "hi haver" no se debería conjugar?

Si efectivamente no se conjuga, entonces se diría así:

Sin los faraones no hubiese habido pirámides. (past) (there wouldn't have been)

Sin los faraones no habría pirámides. (present)

Aclaraciones a mi duda bienvenidas, y saludos a todos.

Please... Catalans tend to make this common mistake.

"Sin los faraones no hubiesen habido pirámides. (past) (there wouldn't have been)" - wrong because it's impersonal. "Pirámides" is the object not the subject, since there is no subject!!!!

"Sin los faraones no habrían pirámides. (present)" - - wrong again for the same reason

Sergio's answer - as usual - is the correct one (let's keep it simple)

--- Sin los faraones no habría pirámides ---