Of course not: there is nothing to distinguish there, those are two different grammatical categories. Pluscuamperfecto is a verb tense, it expresses a past that is completed and finished. Say “eat” (comer): Había comido. There was a moment in the past where somebody had already eaten, then the sentence continues with whatever happens then. Había comido cuando llegó. When he arrived, he had already eaten. That is indicative.
Subjunctive (in Spanish at least, as it was taught to me in school) is a mode of the verb that expresses not a tense (past, perfect past, pluperfect past, present, future and whatever there is are all possible in subjuntivo), but a possibility that did not come to pass. If you are fluent in Spanish subjuntivo happens automatically when you put an ojalá in front: Hubiese comido. Say for instance: Ojalá hubiese (o hubiera) comido cuando llegó, porque no teníamos nada que ofrecerle. I ignore whether the translation “I wish he had already eaten when he arrived, as we had nothing to offer” is also called pluperfect subjunctive in English, I have the feeling the anglophones use the grammatical terms differently (or not at all, more likely). If it is subjunctive in English it looks exactly the same as indicative, both say had eaten. No wonder they get confused, it looks identical but it wants to express something completely different. The same words are grammatically different.
It’s like speaking prose all your life without realizing it.
Now pretérito anterior (hubo comido), that is hard to explain to anglophones. Even Spanish speakers use that sparingly.
Working for Trump means that I don’t give people the benefit of the doubt if they’re accused of something illegal or ethically dubious. For example, the US Ambassador to Canada has been connected to an app used by an Albertan separatist group. Apparently Albertan separatists have also met with the Trump Admin. Maybe it’s a coincidence and I should be less suspicious?
Defense Secretary Hegseth, along with the chair of the Joint Chiefs (and the Agriculture Secretary for some reason) appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee to ask for $70 billion for the Iran War. And Hegseth seemed noticeable sweaty. Too much testosterone? Too little?
Trump notoriously likes his people to be aggressive when being questioned by members of Congress. So who would be surprised if little Pete thought that downing some T supplements would result in a performance that Trump would publicly praise?
I mean, it seems more likely than not.
As for the scrod/grammar joke: hadn’t heard that one before, and did laugh out loud!
Though in this Administration, ‘killing someone’ appears to be no big deal. Ask those gunned down in American cities or those in boats off South America…
Maybe he finally realized what an insecure, idiotic, posturing, worthless, hateful, excuse for a human being he is. He finally knows he isn’t qualified to clean up road kill, let alone oversee the US military. This sudden epiphany and atypical, surprising bit of self awareness about all of that made him nervous.
Hegseth said something about how the Defense Department was being “led by combat tested veterans and world class business leaders who are running the department like a business.” As opposed to the philosophy majors and classics scholars who were previously running it. And what is with this obsession with claiming to run the government or part of it like a business? (And if they really were running it like a business, they would never have gotten involved in this stupid war.)
I can see how someone who hasn’t given it much thought would think running the government like a business is a good idea, but a war? running a war like a business? damn these people are dumb.
Veterans and people from the defense industry have been running the DoD for a long time. That is actually the problem; it’s the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. Putting outsiders in charge might be a good idea.