Había vs HuboWe are taught that El Pretérito Imperfecto is used for past actions that were ongoing with no clear end that describes what was happening or what things were like. Also El Pretérito Imperfecto is used for past habitual action, repeated / regularly occuring past actions, and actions that used to happen in the past.
We are also taught El Pretérito Indefinido is used to describe past actions in a way that conveys the sense that were completed / finished, this can be one off actions / events, series of actions, actions that happened a specific number of times, actions that happened at a specific point in time, and actions that interrupt an ongoing past action.
However most of the time these two past tenses translate to the same in English which can cause us problems with which one to use.
So after studying these two tenses a lot, I think that I have a trick that helps me most of the time choose the right tense. (although with some verbs, I need to study the nuances just a little more)
So if I want to describe a past action, as in setting a scene or convey the action was ongoing without showing an ending etc. Then I use El Pretérito Imperfecto, Había, comía, hablaba, pensaba.
Now with El Pretérito Indefinido hubo, comió, habló, pensó, I have started to think of it as a fact (100%) to help me know that the action has happened and finished / completed. (or didn't happen if we use NO infront of the verb)
When it comes to había and hubo (from the verb Haber to exist in this use) they translate the same in English as '’there was'’ and our English thinking part of the brain doesn't know what to do with the word hubo.
Therefore to help with this, I asked myself '’is this a descriptive '’there was'’ (había) or is this a '’there was'’(hubo) that is stating a fact (100%)'’.
Había mucha comida en la fiesta. (descriptive)
Hubo mucha comida en la fiesta. (fact)
There was a lot of food at the party.
Había una reunión importante el sábado. (descriptive)
Hubo una reunión importante el sábado. (fact)
There was an important meeting on Saturday.
I hope I am on the right path of choosing the right tense when talking about the past, I think it's all down to what you want to convey to the listener, description or fact.
If the following is true:
Bear in mind that used as adjectives, the hundreds must agree with the noun they accompany:
Había veinte mil trescientas personas en el concierto.
There were twenty thousand three hundred people at the concert.
Then why is the following the opposite?
Ciento is invariable and doesn't have to agree with the noun it accompanies, for example:
Ciento treinta y cinco mil casas
One hundred and thirty-five thousand houses
As other users have commented, "había" seems to be the past-tense equivalent of "hay".
"Había" is the past imperfect conjugation of haber, but the present tense conjugations of haber (he has ha hemos han) do not include "hay".
Is the word "hay" some other conjugation of "haber", or is not actually from the same root word?
Por favor, la última oración usa la frase "Creo que", y yo creyó que normalmente se necesite usar el subjuntivo después esta expresión... ?porqué no es "Creo que mañana vayamos a buscar más accesorios"?
Gracias
We are taught that El Pretérito Imperfecto is used for past actions that were ongoing with no clear end that describes what was happening or what things were like. Also El Pretérito Imperfecto is used for past habitual action, repeated / regularly occuring past actions, and actions that used to happen in the past.
We are also taught El Pretérito Indefinido is used to describe past actions in a way that conveys the sense that were completed / finished, this can be one off actions / events, series of actions, actions that happened a specific number of times, actions that happened at a specific point in time, and actions that interrupt an ongoing past action.
However most of the time these two past tenses translate to the same in English which can cause us problems with which one to use.
So after studying these two tenses a lot, I think that I have a trick that helps me most of the time choose the right tense. (although with some verbs, I need to study the nuances just a little more)
So if I want to describe a past action, as in setting a scene or convey the action was ongoing without showing an ending etc. Then I use El Pretérito Imperfecto, Había, comía, hablaba, pensaba.
Now with El Pretérito Indefinido hubo, comió, habló, pensó, I have started to think of it as a fact (100%) to help me know that the action has happened and finished / completed. (or didn't happen if we use NO infront of the verb)
When it comes to había and hubo (from the verb Haber to exist in this use) they translate the same in English as '’there was'’ and our English thinking part of the brain doesn't know what to do with the word hubo.
Therefore to help with this, I asked myself '’is this a descriptive '’there was'’ (había) or is this a '’there was'’(hubo) that is stating a fact (100%)'’.
Había mucha comida en la fiesta. (descriptive)
Hubo mucha comida en la fiesta. (fact)
There was a lot of food at the party.
Había una reunión importante el sábado. (descriptive)
Hubo una reunión importante el sábado. (fact)
There was an important meeting on Saturday.
I hope I am on the right path of choosing the right tense when talking about the past, I think it's all down to what you want to convey to the listener, description or fact.
As with the majority of these writing options, how about including common Latin American options like el carro, manejar, and ¡Qué ganga! for this exercise.
I greatly appreciate all the hard work in making up these exercises, and adding the options for Latin American speakers would make this site and these exercises even better.
why are "they are always eating chocolate" "Ellos siempre están comiendo chocolato", and not "Ellos siempre está comiendo chocolato"?
Este es un ensayo bien escrito con mucho vocabulario excelente. Gracias por la oportunidad de estudiarlo. Sin embargo, tengo algunos comentarios sobre el audio. El hablante es simplemente demasiado lento, claro y entrecortado para un ejercicio de nivel C1. Muy pocos nativos hablarían así. Es bastante artificial, como hablar con alguien que no sabe español, y no es para nada de nivel C1. Es más bien de nivel A2 o inferior en cuanto a velocidad y dicción. La actriz está poniendo paradas guturales, o algo así (bastante común en inglés), entre casi cada palabra, lo cual es lo opuesto a lo que hacen los hablantes nativos de español, donde toda la frase es realmente un sonido continuo, ¿no es cierto? Un ejercicio de C1 debería ser eso, de nivel C1, con un hablante nativo hablando a un ritmo normal, conectando palabras y mezclando sonidos vocálicos para dar el flujo natural del español, que es tan difícil de aprender a menos que aprendas a escuchar las vocales mezcladas entre palabras. Así que, desafortunadamente, por mucho que me guste y aprecie el ensayo, este audio simplemente no funciona como C1 y enseña tanto malos hábitos de habla como no ayuda a un estudiante intermedio con la comprensión auditiva, mucho menos a un estudiante avanzado. Si algún estudiante piensa que entender este audio es C1, estará completamente perdido en una conversación promedio o un video de noticias básico, etc. Además, ni los exámenes de audio DELE ni SIELE suenan tan entrecortados o lentos ni siquiera a un nivel B1, mucho menos a un nivel C1. Así que, ¿puedo sugerir educadamente rehacer este audio y hacerlo un audio C1 genuino haciendo que la actriz lo lea justo como lo leería a sus amigos para que el audio coincida con el ensayo de alta calidad?
In the third sentence, all the words in the list of nouns have a definite article in front of them, except for "tiranía." Why is that? It seems inconsistent.
Find your Spanish level for FREE
And get your personalised Study Plan to improve it
Find your Spanish level