still confused - how to say "would have had" in spanish?

Question

Thanks to each and all of you that have answered but I'm still not getting it. I think the best answer came about using haber in the subjunctive tense but I don't quite understand it yet. I know the tenses of haber and know when to use it. But I'm still baffled about the spanish gramatical construction reasoning in this case.

Add to that BabbleFish gives me this and it seems possibly correct - "si tu había hecho lo qué te dije, habría podido tener 10 dólares ahora.

I'm missing something here and I think it's understing how to use the subjunctive tense of haber in this case. I want someone deep into spanish grammer not only to give me the "how to say it" answer (thank you for that but that's not my question) but to "unwind" it and go deep into spanish grammer and explain why this is said as it is and how it works grammaticly.

An example - If you had done what I said, you would have had 10 dollars by now.

I know how to say all but the "would have had" and need detailed help.

Answer 1

We called them past conditional sentences, and they usually have a verb in a subjunctive tense and another verb in the conditional tense. You shouldn't try to translate everything into English because the structure of the language is different and you might get confused.

You should write:

"Si tu hubieses/hubieras hecho lo que te dije, habrìas podido tener 10 dòlares ahora"
OR
"Si tu hubieses/hubieras hecho lo que te dije, habrìas tenido 10 dòlares ahora"
OR
"Si tu hubieses/hubieras hecho lo que te dije, tendrìas 10 dòlares ahora"

In the first part of the sentence, you need to use the subjunctive because you talk about something that wasn't done in the past but that could have been done. So, an hypothesis in the past. The second part of the sentence it's hypothetical result of the action that hasn't been done and you have to express it with a past conditional.
In this particular case, you are talking of a result in the present (the word "ahora"), so you could also use the conditional in the present tense (tendrìas). It changes the meaning of the sentence a little so you have to decide which one suits better the idea that you want to express.

So more o less it's possible to say that you can translate "would have had" as a past conditional (habrìa hecho, habrìa tenido...), but you have to check if the second part of the sentence refers to a present result or a past result.


Do you understand this construction?:

"Si hicieses lo que te digo, tendrìas/podrìas tener 10 dolares"

The other one is exactly the same, but using past tenses.

Is difficult to explain this in a few lines, but if you need more help or further explanations, just contact me from my profile, I would be glad to help you.

Answer 2

There are a couple of ways of expressing this in an 'if' clause:

Si hubieras trabajado más, hubieses tenido suficiente dinero.
If you use hubieras in the first part it sounds slightly better to use hubieses in the second part and vice versa.

Si hurieras trabajado más, habrías tenido . . . is also OK.

A third possibility is (when the subject of the first clause is the same as the subject of the second clause) De haber trabajado más, habrías tenido suficiente dinero - this construction cannot be used in sentences like 'If you had arrived on time, I would have had dinner with you' because the subjects are different - Si hubieras llegado a tu hora, yo habría cenado contigo, etc.

Answer 3

Would Have In Spanish

Answer 4

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
still confused - how to say "would have had" in spanish?
Thanks to each and all of you that have answered but I'm still not getting it. I think the best answer came about using haber in the subjunctive tense but I don't quite understand it yet. I know the tenses of haber and know when to use it. But I'm still baffled about the spanish...

Answer 5

its like this

"Si hubieras hecho lo que te dije, hubieras tenido 10 dolares ahora"

The point you are missing here is that while in English have/had is also a verb for "having something as in your hands"

Its not the same in Spanish, the verb for that is "tener" not "haber" that is also used as a verb in the first part of the phrase in English but cannot be literally translated in Spanish in the second part, there you should use the verb "tener" (to have) in its form "hubieras tenido" or more commonly used "tuvieras"

hope it helps

Answer 6

The online translators say mi nombre es because the translate word for word. Me llamo is used by human spanish speakers because it comes from the verb llamarse, which means to be called.

Answer 7

A note to teaser 3 above:

"I would have ten dollars if I had taken that job" refers to a condition in the present.

"I would have had ten dollars if I had taken that job" refers to a condition in the past.

Answer 8

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/W6rgP

Yes, "Mi nombre es _______" is "My name is______" "Me llama ______" is not correct. Maybe your teacher is saying "Me llamo _______" which would be correct also. Both ways are "real", the first one is just more formal than the second.

Answer 9

There is no instance in the English Language wherein it would be appropriate to say, "would have had."

The words "would have" suffice. "You would have ten dollars."

Maybe this will help clear up your translation issue.

Answer 10

the easiest translation to .... could have had

podria tener