Clarifying use of PERO/SINO/SINO QUE Hola todos
So I can have a better understanding of this subtle distinction between these 3 conjunctions (pero/sino/sino que), can you please confirm if I'm correct in these following 3 examples which all share the same 1st clause:
SINO >>> El médico no me recetó un jarabe __sino__ unas pastillas. (Because simple SUBSTITUTION )
PERO >>> El médico no me recetó un jarabe __pero__ con la condición que lo vea la próxima semana para una revisión. (Because MAKING A LIMITATION to the 1st clause)
SINO QUE >>> El médico no me recetó un jarabe __sino que __ me dijo que necesité una operación . (Because DIFFERENT CONJUGATED VERB IN 2ND CLAUSE)
Hopefully this can clarify these nuances in my head once and for all!
Saldudos y gracias, ~Oscar :)
Is this expression used only in Spain? I cannot find more information about the usage of this idiom. My teacher has not heard of this either.
Un hecho -
Comó yo mientras Alberto nadó.
pero no??
Comó yo conforme Alberto nadó.
I read from the other answers that common names such as Juan and proper nouns such as movie are unable to use direct object pronouns.
Example - lo he visto pelicula is wrong but he visto pelicula is correct?
Example - lo he visto a Juan is wrong but he visto a Juan or lo he visto is correct?
how about el pelicula de Pedro lo he visto
or
he visto el pelicula de Pedro?
Thanks in advance
Why are there pronouns attached to the verbs in the first three examples but not in the remaining examples?
The first and third examples are reflexive (which explains those), but what about the second one ("comerlos")? Thanks.
Hello,
I am reading a fairly reputable bilingual version of Sherlock Holmes. On one sentence it says 'Iba vestido discretamente con un traje de mezclilla de lana....'
The translation (and my own reading of the context) suggests that this means 'He was discretely dressed....'
But if that's the case why have they used 'iba'? Is that incorrect? The man was not 'going to do' anything. He just 'was'. My searching online and using Google translate suggests that only estar (or possibly ser) in the past tense are valid here, not ir.
Thanks!
Hola todos
So I can have a better understanding of this subtle distinction between these 3 conjunctions (pero/sino/sino que), can you please confirm if I'm correct in these following 3 examples which all share the same 1st clause:
SINO >>> El médico no me recetó un jarabe __sino__ unas pastillas. (Because simple SUBSTITUTION )
PERO >>> El médico no me recetó un jarabe __pero__ con la condición que lo vea la próxima semana para una revisión. (Because MAKING A LIMITATION to the 1st clause)
SINO QUE >>> El médico no me recetó un jarabe __sino que __ me dijo que necesité una operación . (Because DIFFERENT CONJUGATED VERB IN 2ND CLAUSE)
Hopefully this can clarify these nuances in my head once and for all!
Saldudos y gracias, ~Oscar :)
The vocabulary and long sentences should make this type of story A2 or even higher. Eamples, bodegon to mean still life and lienzo. I wish there were some easier real A1 stories for me to start with. I either have to forget them or spend a lot time
does saber in the negative trigger the subjunctive?the above example uses poder in the simple future
thanks julie
Find your Spanish level for FREE
Test your Spanish to the CEFR standard
Find your Spanish level