Ojala + que

Question

Is there any reason to ever NOT use "que" after ojala? For example, is this construction ok: "Ojala que hubiera sabido que no tomes. No habria llevado vino." Or does that sound weird? Would it be better to say "Ojala hubiera sabido que no tomes..." (Also sorry I haven't used any of the appropriate accents here. I don't know how to find them on my keyboard!)

*I see one of the kwizq teachers responded that they are interchangeable ("ojala" and "ojala que"), but that using ojala without "que" is more common. Is that different in different countries? I feel like I've mostly heard people in Mexico say "ojala que," but I'm also only B1 and may have totally just not registered when they used ojala without "que!"

Any insight or advice appreciated!

Silvia Piriz · Accepted Answer

Hola Elizabeth C.
Great question! Actually, both "ojalá" and "ojalá que" are grammatically correct and interchangeable. Generally speaking, "ojalá" without "que" tends to be slightly more common, especially in Spain, but using "ojalá que" is also very frequent, particularly in Latin America, including Mexico, as you've observed.
Regarding your example, "Ojalá hubiera sabido que no tomes..." would indeed sound unnatural because it mixes different verb tenses. A better choice would be either:
"Ojalá hubiera sabido que no tomabas" (to express regret about a past habit)
"Ojalá hubiera sabido que no ibas a tomar" (to express regret about a past action that didn't happen)
The presence or absence of "que" doesn't impact correctness here, just personal or regional preference. You're probably more aware of "ojalá que" usage from your experience in Mexico, but rest assured, both options are valid.
I hope this helps clarify things!
Saludos
Silvia