Spanish language Q&A Forum
Questions answered by our learning community with help from expert Spanish teachers
6,015 questions • 9,831 answers • 1,013,802 learners
Getting that for you now...
Questions answered by our learning community with help from expert Spanish teachers
6,015 questions • 9,831 answers • 1,013,802 learners
2nd paragraph: Is there a lesson that discusses "que" used to mean "to be?"
I searched on "que" and got 1620 hits, so I scanned the first 60 and did not see "que" and "to be" in any lesson title.
In the writing challenge we are asked to translate: "The Spanish guitar has 6 strings and consists of a wooden box, a neck and a fretboard". Kwiziq's answer is given as "La guitarra española tiene 6 cuerdas y está formada por una caja de madera, un mástil y un diapasón" and "está hecha de una caja..." is given as an alternative answer.
I used consistir en instead of estar formada por or está hecha de. However, if the sentence had been "The Spanish guitar is made of..." I'm pretty sure I would have gone with está hecha de.
So, is my answer wrong? Or, could my answer be considered a third alternative? And could you explain the differences between the two forms, consistir en and estar formado por/estar hecha de, and in what contexts I might use one in preference to another.
Saludos
Hola,
Just to confirm, although I think it is implied already - formal usage is with le/les?
Gracias,
Hi,
What if I wanted to say "the other lamp" instead of "another lamp"?
Would that be "la otra lámpara"?
Fred
According to the Cervantes Institute "no porque" must be followed by the subjunctive. Not sure where you guys get that you can use indicative.
Thank you so much for these regional notes. Do you have any sense of whether the use of the European construction is confusing to LA speakers? Or vice versa? Or would the meaning still be easily understood?
One of the quiz examples translates They achieved the objectives for the year. using el preterito indefinido.
My first thought would be that this sentence would fall under the "in the same time period" rule and end up being el preterito perfecto (rule is at this link) link When to use the perfect tense versus the simple past (Perfecto vs Indefinido)
I am curious how I can tell (other than the hint given in the exercise) that this should be indefinido.
Thanks.
If one translates: "I learned everything"
It is written: "J'ai tout appris."
But if I translate: "I learned everything I needed to know"
It is written: "J'ai appris tout ce que j'avais besoin de savoir."
Why does "tout" move out from between the verb to behind it? Is it because of the subordinate phrase?
Hola Inma,
I'm struggling with this construction. I have been googling and found that saber and agradecido/a are commonly put together presumably meaning "to be grateful (for)" perhaps.
Therefore I'm stuck on the use of sé, as this is the first person "I know" and that doesn't translate because the article is about giving advice / using the imperative, but the speaker definitely says "se or sé." I thought that agradecerse was the verb leading me to write down "se agradecido" but I don't think you can use the pronominal in this way. So that may be another dead end!
Can you help me make sense of this please?
Saludos. John
Find your Spanish level for FREE
And get your personalised Study Plan to improve it
Find your Spanish level