Still confusedThis still makes no sense. Quoting from the lesson:
However, if the verb used is transitive, we usually use a direct object pronouns: me, te, lo, la, nos, os, los, las.
Les ha hecho pedir perdón al profesor.He made them apologise to the teacher.You say that pedir here is a transitive verb (perdón being the direct object), but then you go ahead and use an indirect object pronoun (les), exactly the opposite of what you said in the lesson.
Again quoting from the lesson:
There is a tendency to use an indirect pronouns me, te, le, nos, os, les when the verb is intransitive.
Then you give an example using an intransitive verb (arrodillarse) but you use a direct object pronoun (lo) in the example.
Lo hizo arrodillarse para declarar su amor.She made (forced) him get on his knees to declare his love.
This too is the opposite of what the lesson says.
Please explain.
Hola, Inma!
Cuáles son las oraciones correctas:
1."No sabía si ERES mi amigo." o 2."No sabía si ERAS mi amigo."
La misma pregunta también aquí:
3."Quería saber si ERES mi amigo." o
4."Quería saber si ERAS mi amigo."
Muchísimas gracias,
Miltcho
This is more of a complaint that a question. There is confusion in tense nomenclature. What is often referred to here as Pretérito Perfecto is really Pretérito Perfecto Compuesto.
The Pretérito Perfecto Simple is referred to Pretérito Indefinido. The action in the Pretérito Perfecto Simple has definitely been "perfected". When doing quizzes quickly I often make a mistake when the Pretérito Perfecto is asked for. It would be nice if a uniform terminology were used in the teaching of Spanish
Hola Inma,
I can’t work out why whether the information is already known to the parties concerned, that the subjunctive is used [in the pretérito imperfecto].
Also why using the pretérito indefinido would indicate that the information is new information.
In other words what is the logic behind this when forming the subjunctive? I completely get the idea of a hypothetical idea requiring the subjunctive, but the aspect of whether the information is already familiar to the people concerned, is confusing me. Saludos. John
This still makes no sense. Quoting from the lesson:
However, if the verb used is transitive, we usually use a direct object pronouns: me, te, lo, la, nos, os, los, las.
Les ha hecho pedir perdón al profesor.He made them apologise to the teacher.You say that pedir here is a transitive verb (perdón being the direct object), but then you go ahead and use an indirect object pronoun (les), exactly the opposite of what you said in the lesson.
Again quoting from the lesson:
There is a tendency to use an indirect pronouns me, te, le, nos, os, les when the verb is intransitive.
Then you give an example using an intransitive verb (arrodillarse) but you use a direct object pronoun (lo) in the example.
Lo hizo arrodillarse para declarar su amor.She made (forced) him get on his knees to declare his love.
This too is the opposite of what the lesson says.
Please explain.
"Hacía varios días que alguien me acosaba" means:
Someone was stalking me for several days.
I was stalked for several days by someone.
Someone had stalked me for several days.
None of these answer carry the sense of being in the time frame of the past the way the examples do, such as "someone had been stalking me for several days". In English, I don't think the 2nd or 3rd answer are functionally any different. The first one is the only one to partly give a sense that this is an ongoing thing, even though it doesn't give the same frame of reference.
I suggest you change the available answers.
saber--- in addition to how conjugate would be nice if you had some meanings given.
This kinda happens in uses.
to taste and know is about saber.. I guess I can use a dictionary. This is the first time I have noticed not much in the way of meaning is given. Has a very long entry in the dictionary.
This is not really a question just an observation.
I answered: yo no dije esa palabra. Why is that marked as incorrect
I understand it grammatically or literately. What I am trying to figure out is what the semantics is. The sentence seems breaking the semantic chain of the text. What is the author trying to tell us?
Find your Spanish level for FREE
And get your personalised Study Plan to improve it
Find your Spanish level