Learn Hardcore Spanish (Spain): Si yo hubiera sabido que estabas tan ansiosa, te habría acompañado a la consulta. - If I had known that you were so anxious, I would have gone with you to the doctor’s office.

The sentence talks about an unreal condition in the past (something that did not actually happen).
In Spanish, for this kind of “third conditional” (“If I had known, I would have…”) you use:

Si + past perfect subjunctive,
condicional compuesto (conditional perfect)

So:

Si yo hubiera sabido… = If I had known… (but I didn’t)
…te habría acompañado… = …I would have gone with you (but I didn’t)

Why is it hubiera sabido and not había sabido?

Había sabido is the past perfect indicative, not subjunctive.
Using había sabido in a si-clause would suggest a real past situation, not a hypothetical one.

Compare:

Si yo había sabido que estabas ansiosa, te acompañé.
→ This sounds wrong or very odd in Spanish; it clashes with the idea of an unreal past condition.
Si yo hubiera sabido que estabas ansiosa, te habría acompañado.
→ Correct for an unreal, hypothetical past: “If I had known, I would have gone with you.”

For unreal past conditions, Spanish needs the subjunctive: hubiera sabido (or hubiese sabido).

Could you also say hubiese sabido instead of hubiera sabido? Is there any difference?

Yes, you can say:

Si yo hubiesE sabido que estabas tan ansiosa, te habría acompañado a la consulta.

Hubiera and hubiese:

are forms of the same tense (past subjunctive),
have the same meaning,
are both correct.

Differences:

Spain: both are used; hubiera is generally more frequent in everyday speech.
Latin America: hubiera is clearly more common in most areas.

So it’s mostly a matter of personal or regional preference, not grammar or meaning.

What tense is te habría acompañado, and why not just te acompañaría?

Te habría acompañado is the conditional perfect (condicional compuesto).

Form:

haber in conditional (habría)
- past participle (acompañado)

It refers to a hypothetical action in the past that did not happen:

te habría acompañado = I would have gone with you (but I didn’t).

If you used te acompañaría, that would normally refer to a present or future hypothetical:

Si supiera que estás ansiosa, te acompañaría.
If I knew you are anxious, I would go with you (now / in the future).

So:

Past unreal condition → hubiera sabido / habría acompañado
Present/future unreal condition → supiera / acompañaría

Can you change the order and say Te habría acompañado a la consulta si yo hubiera sabido que estabas tan ansiosa?

Yes, that is perfectly correct and natural.

Both of these are fine:

Si yo hubiera sabido que estabas tan ansiosa, te habría acompañado a la consulta.
Te habría acompañado a la consulta si yo hubiera sabido que estabas tan ansiosa.

In Spanish, like in English, you can put the if-clause (si-clause) first or second. Meaning and level of formality do not change; it’s just a matter of emphasis and rhythm.

Why is it estabas tan ansiosa and not estuviste tan ansiosa?

Estabas is imperfect indicative, while estuviste is preterite (simple past).

Here estabas is better because:

It describes a background emotional state (you were feeling anxious),
It’s seen as ongoing at that time, not a punctual event.

Estuviste tan ansiosa would sound more like a specific, bounded episode:

Ayer, durante la reunión, estuviste tan ansiosa que tuviste que salir. Yesterday, during the meeting, you were so anxious that you had to leave.

In this sentence, the speaker is referring to the person’s general state around the time of the appointment, so estabas (imperfect) fits better.

Could you say que estuvieras tan ansiosa instead of que estabas tan ansiosa?

Grammatically, you could say:

Si yo hubiera sabido que estuvieras tan ansiosa, te habría acompañado…

…but it sounds unnatural in standard Spanish. Native speakers would usually say:

…que estabas tan ansiosa…

Why?

After sabía / sabía que / supe que / he sabido que / hubiera sabido que, when you are sure of the fact you’re referring to, Spanish normally uses the indicative:
- No sabía que estabas tan ansiosa.
- Me dijeron que estabas nerviosa.

You would use subjunctive (estuvieras) if there were doubt, unreality, or subjectivity, e.g.:

Si hubiera sabido que pudieras estar tan ansiosa… (quite theoretical / tentative)
In your sentence, the idea is simple: “If I had known that you were so anxious…”. There’s no special doubt about the content of que estabas tan ansiosa, so the indicative is normal and idiomatic.

Why is it ansiosa and not ansioso?

The adjective ansiosa agrees in gender and number with the person it describes.

If the person is female: ansiosa
If the person is male: ansioso

The sentence assumes the anxious person is female:

…que estabas tan ansiosa… → “that you (female) were so anxious”

If the speaker were talking to a man, it would be:

Si yo hubiera sabido que estabas tan ansioso, te habría acompañado a la consulta.

What is the nuance of ansiosa compared to nerviosa or preocupada?

All three express negative emotions, but with different shades:

ansiosa
- often suggests anxiety, restlessness, inner tension; can include impatience or distress.
- closer to “anxious” in English (mental/physical agitation).
nerviosa
- like “nervous”: shaky, tense, maybe fidgety before an event (exam, performance, etc.).
preocupada
- like “worried”: more about concern or mental preoccupation than physical agitation.

So:

tan ansiosa implies a fairly strong, agitated kind of anxiety,
tan nerviosa might sound more like “so on edge / jittery,”
tan preocupada sounds more like “so worried” (more cognitive/mental).

What does consulta mean here, and why not cita or doctor?

In Spain, la consulta in this context usually means:

the doctor’s office / surgery, or
the appointment / visit with the doctor.

So:

acompañarte a la consulta ≈ go with you to the doctor’s appointment / to the doctor’s office.

Other options:

cita → the appointment time itself:
- tengo cita con el médico a las cinco = I have a doctor’s appointment at five.
ir al médico → “go to the doctor.”

You could say:

…te habría acompañado al médico. (more general)
…te habría acompañado a la cita. (focus on the appointment itself)

A la consulta sounds very natural in Spain to refer to “going into the doctor’s office for the appointment.”

Why do we say a la consulta and not just a consulta?

Because in Spanish, when referring to:

a specific place (the doctor’s office),
or a specific appointment / session,

you almost always use the definite article (el / la / los / las).

So:

Voy a la consulta. ✔
Voy a consulta. ✖ (unnatural in standard speech for this meaning)

Similar examples:

Voy al banco. (to the bank)
Voy a la farmacia. (to the pharmacy)

You would only drop the article in some idiomatic or set expressions, which is not the case here.

Why is yo included in Si yo hubiera sabido… if the subject is already clear from hubiera?

In Spanish, subject pronouns (yo, tú, él…) are often dropped because the verb form already marks the person.

Both are correct:

Si hubiera sabido que estabas tan ansiosa…
Si yo hubiera sabido que estabas tan ansiosa…

Adding yo can:

add a bit of emphasis (“If I had known…”),
contrast with another person implied:
Si yo hubiera sabido… (y no otra persona) = “If I had known… (not somebody else).”

So yo is not required grammatically; it’s for emphasis or clarity.

Why is te used with acompañado? Could it be contigo instead?

Acompañar normally takes a direct object: acompañar a alguien.

Te habría acompañado a la consulta.
= I would have gone with you to the appointment.

Here te is the direct object pronoun for a ti.

You can rephrase using contigo:

Habría ido contigo a la consulta.
= I would have gone with you to the appointment.

So:

te habría acompañado (verb: acompañar
- direct object te)
habría ido contigo (verb: ir
- prepositional phrase contigo)

Both are correct; they just use different verbs and constructions. The original uses the very common pattern acompañar a alguien / acompañarte.