Spanish language Q&A Forum

If the presence of “a” after a verb means it is “Ir” a not “ser”, Then why is  “yo fui de fiesta an Ibiza” also conjugated “as ir?” The verb is not followed by “a”. Only the noun is followed by a. So why is it “I went,” and not “I was at”?

I find this very confusing. Does the rule apply to a and de alike ?

What is Tengo's exact meaning.  

Hi. As I have been learning the difference between imperfecto and indefinido, I have come to understand that imperfecto could be expressed as "used to " and indefinido as "-ed". So comer would be comia hongos (I used to eat mushrooms, imperfecto) or comi (I ate mushrooms, indefinido). 

This description of habia vs hubo seems to be the opposite: habia (imperfecto) is what I would think of as "There used to be... ", whereas hubo (indefinido) would be "There was". So I would think it'd be something like this: 

Habia muchos ninos en el parque - shouldn't this be like "There used to be a lot of kids at the park"? Definately a completed thing. 

Hubo muchos ninos en el parque - shouldn't this be like "There were a lot of kids at the park"? Who knows if it's a completed thing. 

But this lesson has it backwards, like "Habia" is - "There were..." and "Hubo" is "There used to be..." 

So I'm confused. I'm understanding the completed actions vs incomplete actions, but this lesson feels backwards. Can you please help me understand where I have it wrong? I've read many of your responses, and I'm not understanding where I'm off. 

Thanks.

Jeff

El médico quiere que me tome estas pastillas.

Voy a pedirle que me lleve a su casa.

Is the rule for the position of the Me in both sentences that there are two clauses, the second being subjunctive and the verb reflexive therefore owning the M1e? I was confused because both the first and second verbs are conjugated.

I answered 'si, tengo' but it was marked incorrect and should have been' si, los tengo'.   Would you explain please? Many thanks.

"con todas las velas?" Right now it says "todas la velas"

Is there any reason to ever NOT use "que" after ojala? For example, is this construction ok: "Ojala que hubiera sabido que no tomes. No habria llevado vino." Or does that sound weird? Would it be better to say "Ojala hubiera sabido que no tomes..." (Also sorry I haven't used any of the appropriate accents here. I don't know how to find them on my keyboard!) 

*I see one of the kwizq teachers responded that they are interchangeable ("ojala" and "ojala que"), but that using ojala without "que" is more common. Is that different in different countries? I feel like I've mostly heard people in Mexico say "ojala que," but I'm also only B1 and may have totally just not registered when they used ojala without "que!"

Any insight or advice appreciated!

I have a doubt. I came across the following sentences in a book:

1. El ruido me bombardea los tímpanos sin cesar cada día

2. Los sonidos resurgían dentro de mis tímpanos

Sentence 1 seems like a perfect example of how you explained in this article. But what about sentence 2? Why would we use the adjective here instead of the article?

Thanks!