Spanish language Q&A Forum

Hello Lawless Spanish,

I JUST found your excellent web site. I've been using various means to learn Spanish over the last 1.5 years, but your site seems to be the best resource so far. I'm still at A1 however.

Here's a thought that I'd be interested to know your opinion on. Often while reading an English interpretation of a Spanish phrase or sentence, I think I would like to have the more literal translation rather than the Spanish being re-worded in order to be a grammatical English sentence. Because I don't care about English grammar or want my English reinforced when I'm trying to understand how a Spanish speaker constructs their thoughts linguistically. Do you know what I mean?

Take the example from the first exercise I happened to land on,  Corro para estar en forma. It would be helpful to see a more literal translation, then I get a better idea of the words and structure a Spanish speaker uses. In the example, "estar en forma" is re-interpreted as "to keep fit." That is quite a departure from the literal. I think an English speaker is quite capable of recognizing a more literal translation "to be in form" because it is identical to the common English phrase "to be in shape." So while I know authors are trying to be helpful with English re-interpretations, I often feel cheated out of knowing a more literal construction and wording, and in the process authors may even be making less-accurate interpretations (such as "to keep fit" instead of the better "to be in shape."). What do you think?  

Indirect objects/pronouns are clearly necessary in certain cases such as when pegar is used to mean "to hit" someone/something as in "Le pega al hermano" for "He hits his brother." (Golpear takes a direct object as in "Golpeo la pelota y ella la golpea también" as in "I hit the ball and she hits it too.")  

However, when given the sentence (in Duolingo): 

"Did you see the goalie stopping all of their penalties"

why are the translations: 

1) "Viste al portero atajándoles/parándoles/deteniéndoles todos los penales" accepted

while the translations:

2) Viste al portero atajándo/parando/deteniendo todos sus penales aren't accepted?

I know that we use object pronouns in place of possessives with body parts most of the time and sometimes with clothing as in "Me pongo los guantes" for "I put on my gloves" but why #2 supposedly unacceptable (or is it acceptable also)?

Any help would be appreciated as I can find no clear explanation and most translators actually give #2 as the answer.

there is another chapter where "Having done something" with the action as subject or direct object of a sentence using El Infinitivo Compuesto (= haber + participle)

How does it differ from using infinitive?

Fumar es malo para la salud

Haber fumado es malo para la salud

if I were to guess, I am guessing that using el infinitive compuesto is that, the action was indeed being carried out where as using infinitive is just a general statement. the person we are warning regarding smoking is bad, did not smoke.

Whereas if the person indeed smoke, we will say haber fumado es malo para la salud

it seems like luego de is the only difference between LA and Europe spainish?

there are 2 separate lesson on this verb poder with the meaning of could, able to do something or not.

May I check if my understanding is correct?

Perfect tense and indefinido both means not being able to something, did not manage to do it, and we saw the result which is able or not able to. They have the same meaning but just that different time period will trigger each of them separately.

Whereas, imperfect tense is about the action not able or being able to do at a specific time but we did not know the ending. 

Hope someone could help clarify. 

Thanks

¿Dónde_____una floristería, por favor?

I answered "está" but it's saying it's "hay" even though the examples shown in the lesson show

¿Dónde está el parque?

Why was I incorrect?

Could we use "el" in this context?  No possessive is used with body parts; it seemed that a constitution is a part of government, and not "owned" by it.

the last sentence is 'to spend our money' and the answer is 'para gaster nuestro dinero'.

but can we say 'para gastarnos el dinero.'? because from what I understand, Spanish doesn't like to use pronouns with body parts and possessions.

please correct me if I am wrong.

can we say ha venido a quedarse instead of using para?