Spanish language Q&A Forum

Why is costar used without a pronoun to express something people in general find difficult, while other words DO use a pronoun to express general things, as explained in the "The impersonal se in Spanish" lesson?

Lesson - The impersonal se in Spanish:
Expressing instructions and general statements in Spanish with the impersonal se = one

In the phrase, ". . . y lo peor fue el viento, ya que tenía miedo . . . ," why does it use preterite (fue) and then imperfect (tenía)? Aren't they both describing the same time frame? 

¿Qué te parece utilizar "podrías pedir" en lugar de "podrías preguntar" en la segunda pregunta de este ejercicio?

Si quiero enviar a mi hijo a mi hermana, sí puedo decirle a mi mujer "Voy a enviarselo" pero no puedo decirle a mi hijo "Voy a enviarlete". Ambas oraciones son de forma verbo+enclítico de OI+enclítico de OD. ¿Qué hace que una sea correcta y la otra no lo sea? (Intento que se=hermana, lo=hijo, le=hermana, te=hijo.)

I understand that some verbs are stem changing. In the example of "e" to "ie" verbs, the last "e" of the stem turns into "ie". This rule seems to be true for verbs like nevar (nieva), but why not verbs like "tener"?

How does one determine whether to use "sido" or "estado" with haber in such instances as "I have been a good person..." or "I have been seen with ..." or "I have not been trying hard to..."?

Also, with regard to "he, has, ha....etc.", is this conjugation referred to as the present perfect indicative, the past perfect indicative (preterito perfecto), or both?

This is a helpful list.  Would you be able to add the infinitive forms, as you did with the table for the form "-yendo"?

Hola hola!

I have been reading the message board and found a lot of opinions around this sentence

She has made many sacrifices for her children.

Ha hecho muchos sacrificios por sus hijos.

There seemed different explanations for the reason why "por" was selected, one of which being an "intimate recipient". I initially liked this explanation and found it plausible. 

However, I continued reading and found the mention of "for the sake of".

She has made many sacrifices for (the sake of) her children.

Ha hecho muchos sacrificios por (el bien de) sus hijos 

Three questions:

1) Can you say "por el bien de" meaning "for the sake of"?

2) Can "por el bien de" be used in the above example?

3) Is it possible that in English "for the sake of" the (the sake of) can be omitted and likewise in the Spanish "por el bien de" the (el bien de) can be omitted?

If the answer to question 3) is yes. Perhaps, this explains and clarifies the use of "por" in the sentence.

Ha hecho muchos sacrificios por sus hijos.

Your thoughts would be much appreciated.

I feel trying to explain the por and para  debate is a difficult task and your help is genuinely appreciated   :) 

I have more questions though  ;)

This got me thinking about the  "for the benefit of":

He did it for the benefit of the company.

Lo hizo en beneficio de la empresa.

This could also be written in English as:

He did it for the company.

Lo hizo por la empresa.

I have two more question:

4) Are the following two sentences correct?

i) Lo hizo en beneficio de la empresa.

ii) Lo hizo por la empresa.

And, finally...

5) Do they have the same meaning?

I would be grateful if you answer the questions above and see if I have understood this use of por.

Many thanks,

Ryan