th difference between hace -v- desde haceA valuable lesson! But can you please explain the difference in the use of "hace" and "desde hace"? It seems that "hace" means "ago":
Lo compré hace tres semanas. - I bought it three weeks ago.
And that "desde hace" means "for": Lo tengo desde hace tres semanas. - I’ve had it for three weeks.
However I keep coming across examples where either "desde hace" or "hace" can mean both "for" or "ago". Does it depend on context as to which one means "for" or "ago" or are they interchangeable?
It seems that translation is dependent upon interpretation:
"que no saldrá del cajón y le saldrán telerañas" translates as "which won't leave the drawer and it leaves with cobwebs" BUT is interpreted to mean "which will stay in the drawer gathering cobwebs".
I note that in Mexico, official documents have to be translated "literally" but in the case above, that really wouldn't make much sense! How far can one go in interpreting versus translating?
xx
I asked about the carne because I see it's being used as card in this passage, carne de conducir for example.
Let's forget about our problems and let's enjoy ourselves.
Olvidémonos de nuestros problemas y disfrutemos!
-monos ("s" dropped from mos before "nos" added) used for olvidar,
but -mos (present subjunctive) used for disfrutar. Rule?
I am having difficulty understanding the difference in terminology between "impersonal se" and "passive reflexive se" and in particular the difference in their translation into English. ¿Puedes ayudarme?
A valuable lesson! But can you please explain the difference in the use of "hace" and "desde hace"? It seems that "hace" means "ago":
Lo compré hace tres semanas. - I bought it three weeks ago.
And that "desde hace" means "for": Lo tengo desde hace tres semanas. - I’ve had it for three weeks.
However I keep coming across examples where either "desde hace" or "hace" can mean both "for" or "ago". Does it depend on context as to which one means "for" or "ago" or are they interchangeable?
It seems that translation is dependent upon interpretation:
"que no saldrá del cajón y le saldrán telerañas" translates as "which won't leave the drawer and it leaves with cobwebs" BUT is interpreted to mean "which will stay in the drawer gathering cobwebs".
I note that in Mexico, official documents have to be translated "literally" but in the case above, that really wouldn't make much sense! How far can one go in interpreting versus translating?
xx
Hi,
For this sentence "formaré un círculo como base del iglú" could I have used this sentence instead?:-formaré un círculo para el base del iglú
Thanks
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?
.....antes fue a tontaría. I believe this should be 'lo de que' as 'ir is conjugated, but the answer shown as correct is 'lo de', why?
The English translation sounds like El futuro perfecto should be used instead:Es probable que yo habré hecho toda la tarea antes de ir al concierto.
Is it that both can be used, or do they have different implications? Or am I just overthinking it? Can you clarify this please? Thanks!
it says to use the EN sentance order - what is that? Where can I find the answer?
Find your Spanish level for FREE
Test your Spanish to the CEFR standard
Find your Spanish level