por v. para 3Thank you Silvia,
In "La vida de Eva (B1)" gapfill test we have:
"Eva siempre ha sido una persona que nunca toma decisiones por dinero o por conveniencia. Su familia la quiere mucho y, para ser sinceros, ha hecho muchos sacrificios ______ sus hijos."
The hint for the gap is:
"she has made many sacrifices for her children."
the accepted answer is "por"; "para" is marked wrong.
The explanation given for this is:
"Lesson: Using por (not para) to express the originating cause or reason"
Could you please help me to see
why "for" is interpreted here as indicating the "cause" and not the "recipient"?
According to the Cervantes Institute "no porque" must be followed by the subjunctive. Not sure where you guys get that you can use indicative.
How in the hell is that "llegaremos"? Even with about 50 repeats I did not get that. Is she actually saying something else or how does that work? Always sounds like "digaremos" to me :-(
Puedo decir "con tal de que aspiren a un buen futoro en vez de con tal de aspirar?
Kevin
Why would you say soy un cantautor? I thought you were not supposed to use an indefinite article when saying what occupation you have?
This rule does not work with amable. If you do an exercise on superlatives with a question on "amable" before you read the lesson on -co, -go, -ble, and -z endings you will make a mistake. Perhaps this lesson should should point out that -ble endings are an exception.
Of course I will always remember the rule now after spending some time trying to discover why "amablísimos" was wrong.
Thank you Silvia,
In "La vida de Eva (B1)" gapfill test we have:
"Eva siempre ha sido una persona que nunca toma decisiones por dinero o por conveniencia. Su familia la quiere mucho y, para ser sinceros, ha hecho muchos sacrificios ______ sus hijos."
The hint for the gap is:
"she has made many sacrifices for her children."
the accepted answer is "por"; "para" is marked wrong.
The explanation given for this is:
"Lesson: Using por (not para) to express the originating cause or reason"
Could you please help me to see
why "for" is interpreted here as indicating the "cause" and not the "recipient"?
The lesson was unclear on whether this sentence structure is colloquial, formal or written only. Kindly elaborate. Regards
Correct sentence in English should read...
It would be better if you talked to the lawyer first
For the question:
¡________ me has traído! ¡Qué lugar más espectacular!
The English translation that is given is:
Where have you brought me! What an amazing place!
It seems that the English is a bit ambiguous because it is phrased as a question but there is an exclamation mark rather than a questions so I don't know whether the original question in Spanish is intended to be a statement or a question.
Find your Spanish level for FREE
Test your Spanish to the CEFR standard
Find your Spanish level