Two Complete Sentences Separated by a CommaI have seen a lot of sentences like the examples below:
1. Todavía
no han llegado, su avión debe haberse retrasado.
They
haven't arrived yet, their flight must have had a delay.
2. Cristina
ha debido de ser una buena profesora, sus estudiantes le han comprado
flores.
Cristina must have been a
good teacher, her students bought her some flowers.
I respect that Spanish uses punctuation differently, in some cases, from the way English uses punctuation. However, the Spanish sentences and the English translations use a comma to separate the two sentences in each example (these examples were taken from a quiz on Kwiziq). For the Spanish, I've checked RAE and I cannot understand why these two sentences are joined by a comma when it seems they should be separated by a period or a semicolon (or even possibly adding a connector or conjunction to join them). For the English translation, in American English we would have to somehow separate these two complete sentences with some form of punctuation (period or semicolon). I have also seen similar constructions in other writing, but not usually in newspapers or academic writing. If you could provide an explanation, I would appreciate it. Thank you.
Hola Inma,
Yes I also missed the meaning of "con" as you explained below. When I read this sentence I also translated it as "Don't come back with that girl" as if a disapproving parent were making their feelings known. To paraphrase it, "don't bring that girl back here again."
How might I translate that meaning?
Saludos
John
What difference would it make if I used esté instead of estuviera?
Where does the word "Librólogo" come from, please? Is it a play on the word Librero/a?
I want to make sure I understand the lesson correctly--so continuar is never used with an infinitive, as it is in English? It is only correct to use it with a gerund?
Here is an example of something I have asked about before and have sent you a screen print. Unfortunately, the screen print was undecipherable for you. Here is a different approach.
B1 Pronouns
Reciprocal verbs in Spanish and position of the reflexive pronoun
Which is the correct sentence for "We can't marry each other"?
No podemos casarnos. correct No podemos nos casar. No podemos casar nos. No nos podemos casar. correct Nos no podemos casar.As you can see, there are two correct answers, but that is not what is asked in the question by indicating the, which would mean one answer. This is something which occurs quite often in these lessons.
With "tener que + infinitive" do you have to attach the pronoun to the infinitive or can it also be placed before "tener"?
Example: Tengo que lavarme las manos.
Me tengo que lavar las manos.
Are both sentences correct or is only the first sentence correct?
While experimenting with nunca in negative sentences for a while, my instinct kept telling me to include the definite article in one particular construction, where it would not be required in any of the others.
ie. Never eat sweets before dinner (imperative)
= No comas nunca LOS dulces antes de la cena
Could you clarify for me 1) if the article is actually required here at all, or 2) if it could be used correctly as an option.
I have seen a lot of sentences like the examples below:
1. Todavía no han llegado, su avión debe haberse retrasado.
They haven't arrived yet, their flight must have had a delay.
2. Cristina ha debido de ser una buena profesora, sus estudiantes le han comprado flores.
Cristina must have been a good teacher, her students bought her some flowers.
I respect that Spanish uses punctuation differently, in some cases, from the way English uses punctuation. However, the Spanish sentences and the English translations use a comma to separate the two sentences in each example (these examples were taken from a quiz on Kwiziq). For the Spanish, I've checked RAE and I cannot understand why these two sentences are joined by a comma when it seems they should be separated by a period or a semicolon (or even possibly adding a connector or conjunction to join them). For the English translation, in American English we would have to somehow separate these two complete sentences with some form of punctuation (period or semicolon). I have also seen similar constructions in other writing, but not usually in newspapers or academic writing. If you could provide an explanation, I would appreciate it. Thank you.
"Alfredo se quedó tan sorprendido que se puso pálido"
Por qué no es "se puso tan sorprendido"? En la explicación de grammática 'Using convertirse en / ponerse / hacerse / quedarse´, se dice que se debería usar ´quedar´ por los cambios permenantes, y poner por los temporales.
Find your Spanish level for FREE
And get your personalised Study Plan to improve it
Find your Spanish level