2

I understand that with the phrase "no estaría de más que.." uses the preterite subjunctive of imperfect .

example " no estaría de más que fuéramos al cine?".

If I were to say: " No estaría de más si..." would it take the indicative? Example:" No estaría de más si vamos al cine?."

Also, is the same true for " estaría bien que.." . I believe it is also followed by the preterite subjunctive of imperfect.

Example: "estaría bien que pagáramos para los billetes?".

And " " Estaría bien si pagamos para los billetes ?"

I think both phrases basically mean "would it be a good idea if.." or " would it be such a bad idea if ..."

Thank you

1
  • 1
    In English, we just say: imperfect subjunctive for that Spanish tense. Not: preterite subjunctive of imperfect. The only way we use it in English: the preterit or simple past. No e. si after a conditional would generally take the imperfect subjunctive. A si clause shows doubt.
    – Lambie
    Dec 5, 2021 at 18:54

2 Answers 2

1

Example: "estaría bien que pagáramos (subjuntivo pretérito imperfecto) para (por) los billetes?".

OK. Pagábamos(Indicativo pretérito imperfecto)

And " " Estaría bien si pagamos (Indicativo presente OR Indicativo pretérito perfecto simple) para (por) los billetes ?"

OK. I would actually prefer to say either:

  • No se molestan si (les) pagamos(indicativo presente) paguemos(subjuntivo presente ) las entradas. ==> Would you mind if we do ==> something is happening now.

or

  • Les molestaría que pagaramos/pagásemos(subjuntivo pretérito imperfecto) ==> Would you mind if we did ==> conditional on sth that is going to happen.

I think both phrases basically mean "would it be a good idea if.." or " would it be such a bad idea if ..."

No estaría de más si..." would it take the indicative?

Also, is the same true for " estaría bien que.." . I believe it is also followed by the preterite subjunctive of imperfect.

R. In that case, I'd prefer to use:

  • No estaría bien/mal ir al cine" (No estaría mal+infinitivo)

  • No sería malo/bueno si vamos vayamos al cine" (No sería malo si+indicativo presente)

  • No estaría mal que fuéramos iremos al cine" (No estaría mal que+subjuntivo pretérito imperfecto )

  • No estaría mal si ocurriera/ocurriese nada más que una vez al año. (No estaría mal si+subjuntivo pretérito imperfecto) ==> it wouldn't hurt if....

  • No sería malo si se trajera traía para acá (+subjuntivo pretérito imperfecto) => it wouldn't be bad/wrong if

  • No está/estaría de más que los llames(subjuntivo presente) llamas(indicativo presente) or llamaras/llamases(subjuntivo pretérito imperfecto)llamabas de vez en cuando" (No estaría de más si+subjuntivo pretérito imperfecto)

  • No estaría de más si los llamaras/llamases llamabas de vez en cuando" (No estaría de más si+subjuntivo pretérito imperfecto)

  • No estaría de más si los llamaras(subjuntivo pretérito imperfecto) => it wouldn't hurt if...

  • No estaría de más que se enterara(subjuntivo pretérito imperfecto) => it would do a bit of harm to

  • No es/sería mucho pedir que laven(subjuntivo presente) lavan(indicativo presente) or lavaran/lavasen(subjuntivo pretérito imperfecto) lavaban(indicativo pretérito imperfecto) los platos" (No sería mucho pedir que+subjuntivo presente or subjuntivo pretérito imperfecto)

EDIT:

Also, separately, why is it" estar bien /mal" and "ser bueno/malo".?

One possible explanation for this is that "No sería malo/bueno si vamos al cine" tends to sound like an established fact,

  • "No sería bueno" because e.g. it's getting late and we've got a lot of work to do.

In "No estaría mal" the speaker is giving their subjective opinion. E.g:

  • "No estaría mal" because it'd be a good time for us to take a break.

Anyway, "es/sería" are automatically followed by "malo/bueno" and "está/estaría" by "mal/bien".

One last question- why is it "No sería malo si Vamos " and " no sería malo si se trajera.".

In the case of "no sería malo si se trajera" He/She would appreciate it if someone could bring something in. The speaker wants someone to bring it in, but they have not done so, and show no signs of doing so. It's a construction that indicates doubt, so it require the subjunctive.

Also, negative statements usually require the subjunctive. e.g: * No sería malo +trajera. In the case of "No sería malo si vamos" I get the impression something is happening now.

3
  • Thank you. Very thorough explanation
    – Bluelion7
    Dec 7, 2021 at 16:27
  • One last question- why is it "No sería malo si Vamos " and " no sería malo si se trajera.". Also, separately, why is it" estar bien /mal" and "ser bueno/malo".?
    – Bluelion7
    Dec 7, 2021 at 16:48
  • @Bluelion7 In short, In the case of "No sería malo si vamos" I get the impression something is actually happening now. In "no sería malo si se trajera" the speaker wants someone to bring it in, but they have not done so, and show no signs of doing so(In doubt the subjunctive is required) In "No estaría mal" the speaker is giving their subjective opinion. In "No sería malo/bueno" tends to sound like an established fact.
    – cocteau
    Dec 8, 2021 at 2:37
1

Both "no estaría de más que..." and "estaría bien que..." require the preterite subjunctive of imperfect. Example: No estaría de más que dijeras gracias. / Estaría bien que dijeras gracias.

Using the indicative or any other tense would still be understandable but wrong. You wouldn't use those tenses. Example: No estaría de más que digas gracias. / Estaría bien que digas gracias.

1
  • Thank you. I understand, I think. They both take Imperfect Subjunctive. So, if I say " No estaría de más Si .." it also takes the Imperfect Subjunctive? Also, if " Estaría bien si..." it also is Imperfect Subjunctive? I think this is what Lambie is saying. Tnx
    – Bluelion7
    Dec 5, 2021 at 22:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.