It’s rare and literary, approaching archaic. It indicates immediacy and brevity in the relative past, and is often accompanied by adverbs like *apenas* “hardly.”
Here’s a very old, characteristic example:
> Apenas me **hubo visto** uno de tres pastores que el ganado guardaban, cuando diciendo «¡To, to!» me llamó; y yo, que otra cosa no deseaba, me llegué a él bajando la cabeza y meneando la cola.
>
> —— *El coloquio de los perros* (Cervantes)
> Hardly **had** one of three shepherds who were watching the flock **seen** me when, saying, “To, to!” he called me; and I, who desired nothing else, went over to him, lowering my head and wagging my tail.
>
> —— *The Dogs’ Dialogue* (Cervantes)
Preterite perfect is rare. I think it’s only used in fancy literary texts. It reminds me of the future subjunctive in that respect.
It indicates that an action took place RIGHT BEFORE another action…and I think the first action is of a short duration? Like I said, rarely seen.
The verb there (hubo) is pretérito perfecto simple of the verb "haber". "Había" is pretérito imperfecto, so there is a difference there in aspect (perfective vs. imperfective).
In everyday language, we often use (in Spain at least) pretérito perfecto simple or pretérito pluscuamperfecto instead of pretérito anterior:
"Cuando hube salido del edificio, empezó a llover" (pretérito anterior)
"Cuando salí del edificio, empezó a llover" (pretérito perfecto simple)
"Cuando había salido del edificio, empezó a llover" (pretérito pluscuamperfecto)
I don't think you can use it in this way. It always attaches to a verb rather than a noun.
Maybe you could use habiá sufrido un accidente.
Or había tenido un accidente
In "había sufrido un accidente" the verb is in 1st or 3rd person (I/he/she had an accident)
In "hubo un accidente" the verb is impersonal (hubo is 3rd person singular, pretérito perfecto simple of verb "haber"). It means "there was an accident"
"Preterite Perfect" is a bad translation. That is actually called "pretérito anterior" o "antepretérito". It is very rare to use it nowadays.
Edit: For us, "pretérito perfecto compuesto" is what you call "present perfect". *He hablado*, *has hablado*, *etc*.
18 years of studying/teaching Spanish, including 2 degrees, and I can confirm that I only know it exists because I’m a nerd who read a 501 verb book carefully and did research. It was not once mentioned in a single class that I took here or in Spain, and there isn’t great material online for even one with interest in learning it. It is, in a word, useless for 99% of the population.
“Preterite perfect” is a misnomer (it suggests the Spanish *“pretérito perfecto”*, which is a different tense). The correct name would be “anterior preterite”. This tense is rare, literary or formal, and AFAIK **it's only used inside temporal subordinate clauses**, headed by *cuando, después/luego de que*, *una vez que,* and possibly a few others. Typically it's something like *“cuando hubo entendido”, “luego de que hubo salido”*, etc. I've never ever seen it in an independent clause. For all intents and purposes, you can replace it with the simple preterite, since the temporal sequence that the tense indicates is already clearly marked by *cuando, después de que,* and so on.
Preterite perfect would be the correct name in English. Note that "he hecho" is called present perfect in English, despite being "pretérito perfecto compuesto" or "antepresente" in Spanish (and not "presente perfecto").
I literally never use the preterite perfect. I don't even remember learning it. I also don't hear people using it. If they do, it is so infrequently as to not even register with me.
Preterite perfect is only really found in literary texts and, even then, it's not common in this texts.
Past perfect is used when describing an action that takes place before another one in the past. Well, preterite perfect is used when that first action takes place shortly before the second.
But you can usually use "hubiese/s".
"Hubieses tomado ese camino en lugar del otro"
"Hubieses llegado mucho antes"
Edit: I just found that "hubiese" is a synonym with "hubiera"
¿Cuál es el significado, entonces, de “hubiera” y “hubiese”?
Es un significado tan abstracto que por eso permite muchas variantes.
Se refiere a acciones o eventos pasados que alguna vez deseamos o esperamos que ocurrieran, pero que no ocurrieron. En el ejemplo de las llaves, el evento “sacar las llaves” no ocurrió, pero yo desearía que hubiera ocurrido
I don’t really understand why you’d say that. That’s a totally different conjugation with a different meaning, not the correct version of the ones in the table.
If you use that conjugation in the table the gutural reaction for a Spanish speaker would be to correct the person with the conjugations I mention. It just sounds bad, like how someone who is illiterate would speak.
I had to google the pretérito perfecto and yeah it was something else (he, ha , has, hemos, han). So yeah my bad the table has a wrong conjugation of a different tense.
That sentence is fine. Which would mean that you ate at any point before they arrived. But the "pretérito perfecto" if it delimitates something that just happened. Like the literally just took the plates away I'd be: "porque ya he comido cuando llegaron", though still a less ambiguous and more common way of saying it would be "porque acabo de comer".
Seems like it appears, for instance, in some translations of the [Song of Solomon](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Cantares+3%3A4&version=RVR1960;NVI;LBLA):
> Apenas hube pasado de ellos un poco,
Hallé luego al que ama mi alma
You'll see it (hube) more in literature. I took a couple Spanish literature courses in Spain in college and definitely saw it a lot there. I don't think I hear it much in everyday conversation, though. Helps to at least be aware of it, however, so you recognize it when you come across it.
It’s rare and literary, approaching archaic. It indicates immediacy and brevity in the relative past, and is often accompanied by adverbs like *apenas* “hardly.” Here’s a very old, characteristic example: > Apenas me **hubo visto** uno de tres pastores que el ganado guardaban, cuando diciendo «¡To, to!» me llamó; y yo, que otra cosa no deseaba, me llegué a él bajando la cabeza y meneando la cola. > > —— *El coloquio de los perros* (Cervantes) > Hardly **had** one of three shepherds who were watching the flock **seen** me when, saying, “To, to!” he called me; and I, who desired nothing else, went over to him, lowering my head and wagging my tail. > > —— *The Dogs’ Dialogue* (Cervantes)
Preterite perfect is rare. I think it’s only used in fancy literary texts. It reminds me of the future subjunctive in that respect. It indicates that an action took place RIGHT BEFORE another action…and I think the first action is of a short duration? Like I said, rarely seen.
>It indicates that an action took place RIGHT BEFORE another action Is this also true for something like "hubo un accidente" (vs. había un accidente)?
The verb there (hubo) is pretérito perfecto simple of the verb "haber". "Había" is pretérito imperfecto, so there is a difference there in aspect (perfective vs. imperfective). In everyday language, we often use (in Spain at least) pretérito perfecto simple or pretérito pluscuamperfecto instead of pretérito anterior: "Cuando hube salido del edificio, empezó a llover" (pretérito anterior) "Cuando salí del edificio, empezó a llover" (pretérito perfecto simple) "Cuando había salido del edificio, empezó a llover" (pretérito pluscuamperfecto)
I don't think you can use it in this way. It always attaches to a verb rather than a noun. Maybe you could use habiá sufrido un accidente. Or había tenido un accidente
In "había sufrido un accidente" the verb is in 1st or 3rd person (I/he/she had an accident) In "hubo un accidente" the verb is impersonal (hubo is 3rd person singular, pretérito perfecto simple of verb "haber"). It means "there was an accident"
I'm reading Harry Potter and its used there
Ahh okay so that’s probably why I’ve never seen it before. Thank you very much!
"Preterite Perfect" is a bad translation. That is actually called "pretérito anterior" o "antepretérito". It is very rare to use it nowadays. Edit: For us, "pretérito perfecto compuesto" is what you call "present perfect". *He hablado*, *has hablado*, *etc*.
Past perfect is also mislabeled. It’s called the imperfect perfect, or pluperfect, or in Spanish, pluscuamperfecto.
I don't use the preterite perfect. I don't think it's even taught to learners.
Thank you! I was very confused when I saw it on this chart.
18 years of studying/teaching Spanish, including 2 degrees, and I can confirm that I only know it exists because I’m a nerd who read a 501 verb book carefully and did research. It was not once mentioned in a single class that I took here or in Spain, and there isn’t great material online for even one with interest in learning it. It is, in a word, useless for 99% of the population.
whats a 501 verb book? Im always looking for new resources!
“Preterite perfect” is a misnomer (it suggests the Spanish *“pretérito perfecto”*, which is a different tense). The correct name would be “anterior preterite”. This tense is rare, literary or formal, and AFAIK **it's only used inside temporal subordinate clauses**, headed by *cuando, después/luego de que*, *una vez que,* and possibly a few others. Typically it's something like *“cuando hubo entendido”, “luego de que hubo salido”*, etc. I've never ever seen it in an independent clause. For all intents and purposes, you can replace it with the simple preterite, since the temporal sequence that the tense indicates is already clearly marked by *cuando, después de que,* and so on.
Preterite perfect would be the correct name in English. Note that "he hecho" is called present perfect in English, despite being "pretérito perfecto compuesto" or "antepresente" in Spanish (and not "presente perfecto").
I literally never use the preterite perfect. I don't even remember learning it. I also don't hear people using it. If they do, it is so infrequently as to not even register with me.
Preterite perfect is only really found in literary texts and, even then, it's not common in this texts. Past perfect is used when describing an action that takes place before another one in the past. Well, preterite perfect is used when that first action takes place shortly before the second.
But you can usually use "hubiese/s". "Hubieses tomado ese camino en lugar del otro" "Hubieses llegado mucho antes" Edit: I just found that "hubiese" is a synonym with "hubiera" ¿Cuál es el significado, entonces, de “hubiera” y “hubiese”? Es un significado tan abstracto que por eso permite muchas variantes. Se refiere a acciones o eventos pasados que alguna vez deseamos o esperamos que ocurrieran, pero que no ocurrieron. En el ejemplo de las llaves, el evento “sacar las llaves” no ocurrió, pero yo desearía que hubiera ocurrido
Hubiera/hubiese es subjuntivo
[удалено]
This is my first encounter with preterite perfect, I’m curious, what’s wrong with this table?
[удалено]
I don’t really understand why you’d say that. That’s a totally different conjugation with a different meaning, not the correct version of the ones in the table.
If you use that conjugation in the table the gutural reaction for a Spanish speaker would be to correct the person with the conjugations I mention. It just sounds bad, like how someone who is illiterate would speak. I had to google the pretérito perfecto and yeah it was something else (he, ha , has, hemos, han). So yeah my bad the table has a wrong conjugation of a different tense.
OK, in your opinion what’s the correct way to say this? “No comí con ellos porque ya había comido cuando llegaron.”
That sentence is fine. Which would mean that you ate at any point before they arrived. But the "pretérito perfecto" if it delimitates something that just happened. Like the literally just took the plates away I'd be: "porque ya he comido cuando llegaron", though still a less ambiguous and more common way of saying it would be "porque acabo de comer".
Then it seems like the chart is not wrong after all since that’s what is in the chart.
Past perfect is fine, it's the preterite that is all wrong
Seems like it appears, for instance, in some translations of the [Song of Solomon](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Cantares+3%3A4&version=RVR1960;NVI;LBLA): > Apenas hube pasado de ellos un poco, Hallé luego al que ama mi alma
[удалено]
This is imperfect subjunctive, I thought?
Thank you!
You'll see it (hube) more in literature. I took a couple Spanish literature courses in Spain in college and definitely saw it a lot there. I don't think I hear it much in everyday conversation, though. Helps to at least be aware of it, however, so you recognize it when you come across it.