Si no hubieran visto la crisis, estarían arruinados hoy.

Questions & Answers about Si no hubieran visto la crisis, estarían arruinados hoy.

Why use the past perfect subjunctive (hubieran visto) here instead of just the imperfect subjunctive (vieran)?
This is a mixed conditional. The condition happened in the past ('had not seen'), so it requires the past perfect subjunctive (haber in the imperfect subjunctive plus a past participle). If you used vieran, it would mean 'If they didn't see the crisis' right now or in general, which doesn't fit the past context of missing the warning signs.
Why do we use estarían instead of serían for 'they would be'?
We use estar here because arruinados (ruined) describes a state or condition resulting from a past event. Estar always goes with adjectives that express current states of being, whereas ser would incorrectly imply an inherent, permanent characteristic or form a passive voice ('they would be ruined by someone').
Is arruinados acting as a verb or an adjective in this sentence?
It is acting as an adjective. Even though it comes from the verb arruinar (to ruin), it describes the current state of the unspoken subject 'they'. Because it functions as an adjective, it must agree in gender and number with the subject, which is why it takes the masculine plural ending -os.
Could I say hubiesen visto instead of hubieran visto?
Yes, you absolutely can. The -ra and -se endings for the imperfect subjunctive (used here in the helping verb haber) mean the exact same thing. However, in Latin American Spanish, the -ra endings like hubieran are much more common in everyday speech.

Learn Si no hubieran visto la crisis, estarían arruinados hoy and more in Spanish

All course content and exercises are completely free — no paywalls, no trial periods, no signup needed.

  • Practice with interactive exercises
  • Track your progress with spaced repetition
  • Learn at your own pace — completely free