"Yo hubiese tenido dinero."
Translation:I would have had money.
This translation is a bit weird. I think I understand what is going on, but maybe someone can explain more fully. I thought "I would have had money" would be "Yo habría tenido dinero."
As far as I have learned, subjunctive is used with certain subordinate clauses, for example: "Espero que yo hubiese (hubiera) tenido dinero" would translate to "I wish that I had had money." But, in English you would frequently say "I wish that I would have had money."
So I guess in this case "I would have had money" is a sentence fragment that could be translated as "Yo hubiese tenido dinero" on the assumption that the rest of the sentence requires use of imperfect subjunctive.
Seemed ridiculous at first, quite a mouthful and more trouble that spelling it out, BUT then I thought of "I would have done it" and realized that "I'd've" is how it would be contracted...However double contractions are at BEST only spoken, and never in anything but a casual conversation!
'This is the top link on google: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/689/is-idve-proper-use-of-the-english-language
Look, we could go on for ever if we wanted. What I am going to say is that I have taught in the UK and Australia in all types of schools and I also read a lot. I had never seen anyone write "I'd've" nor any double contraction, ever.
Double contractions might be 'correct', but they are something that you don't write.