A question about indirect object pronouns and IO or reflexive pronouns instead of possessive pronouns?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.
A ella le molestaba que nosotras ________ con su novio.It bothered her that we had spoken to her boyfriend.HINT: Conjugate "hablar" in El Pretérito Pluscuamperfecto de SubjuntivoHi all, In the above phrase... There is nothing hypothetical. It's a fact that the girl was upset that some people spoke to her boyfriend.. It should be indicative in my opinion... Pls help
Should it read:
Using the present or future tense IF the main clause does not change the meaning of the sentence. IF in place of IN
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.
In the example "Estas mesas, las cuales he comprado recientemente, son de madera.
These tables, which I bought recently, are made of wood." the "I bought" is not conjugated. Comprado is in the present tense, is this correct or should it be comprade - I bought in past tenseThis sentence sounds more like do not come back with that girl... could I say No vueulvas a esa chica?
This is really a question about one of the quiz questions:
I correctly chose the response “por más que lo intento” ________, no consigo recordar todo el vocabulario.
But would it have been grammatically incorrect to say “por más que intento, no consigo...” ?
Hi... so sorry. There was a problem on my own Google page. It was interpreting the Spanish as French for some reason !!!. I got it sorted. Sorry again for the hassle.
You are doing great work
Joseph.
Why do the pronouns that refer to the grandparents collectively switch between "les" and "los" in the text? For example: "Los visito siempre que puedo y nunca les he visto tan felices en mi vida."
It would greatly enhance your course and the use thereof if you included the same “Play All” feature for all the examples given at the end of each of your approximately 600 lessons.
Find your Spanish level for FREE
Test your Spanish to the CEFR standard
Find your Spanish level