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
Why is the verb "Coger" used in some of these practice questions when the focus is Latin American Spanish? Would it not be better to use the verb "agarrar"?
According to my dictionaries, there is a double 'e' in "irreemplazable"... [When I tried to leave my post like that^ - i.e. as just one brief sentence, Kwiziq refused to accept it, saying that I had not provided enough detail ... However, there is no need to say more... Admittedly, it is only a small point].
How can I pull up a quiz to test strictly on relative pronouns. I'm zeroing in on learning them -thanks.
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
Hello. Can someone provide insight please? It says you use Hay in front of a noun so why is it used to say something is foggy. I am sure that foggy is an adjective just like the word sunny so why is esta used to say something is sunny but you can’t use it to say it is foggy?
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?
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!
Hola , yo podría utilizar tambien Futuro Perfecto o Condicional Perfecto ?
Serían las siete cuando terminó por fin la reunión.- Habrán sido las siete cuando terminó por fin la reunión.
Tendríamos diez años en esa foto.
-Habríamos tenido diez años en esa foto.
Gracias
I just did a test related to this section on "regular" -er verbs and the verb used was escoger. The question did not relate to the 1st person singular so it did have a regular -er ending, but it was little confusing for this to be presented as regular when it has the same g-> j change as coger. There are plenty of completely regular verbs to choose from.
Find your Spanish level for FREE
Test your Spanish to the CEFR standard
Find your Spanish level