Overcomplicating Using the Spanish simple future to express probabilities ...This lesson overcomplicates what should be a pretty straightforward use of the simple future tense. Just look at all the questions on this topic! While all of us know that the future is not fixed or 100% predictable, we still make predictions that sound pretty guaranteed even if they are technically probabilities.
The quiz questions complicate this further by giving us examples that are, frankly, poor translations. For example, one quiz question asks us to translate: "With this crisis, the currency could lose value." I would bet serious money that if you gave this sentence to 100 native Spanish professors, at least in Mexico, not a single one of them would ever give the supposedly correct answer: "Con esta crisis la moneda perderá valor." Not a single one of my three Mexican professors, including a DELE examiner, translated "could lose" as "perderá."
They all used "podría" for "could," with either "podría perder valor" or "podría depreciarse." Conversely, in reverse translation of the Spanish answer to English, they all 100% translated "perderá valor" as "will lose value", with certainty—not as "could lose value."
Maybe Spanish from Spain is different, but that quiz question and translation are not correct in Mexican Spanish. I suggest editing the lesson and quiz questions to remove the "could, might" possibility from translations using the simple future tense—at least in the Latin American Spanish lessons. At best, it's confusing, but more likely, it's just not a good translation.
Why isn't it sigues when verás is used. Is it Tú or Usted?
Why is “Las voces” translated as “Those voices” instead of “The voices?”
This lesson overcomplicates what should be a pretty straightforward use of the simple future tense. Just look at all the questions on this topic! While all of us know that the future is not fixed or 100% predictable, we still make predictions that sound pretty guaranteed even if they are technically probabilities.
The quiz questions complicate this further by giving us examples that are, frankly, poor translations. For example, one quiz question asks us to translate: "With this crisis, the currency could lose value." I would bet serious money that if you gave this sentence to 100 native Spanish professors, at least in Mexico, not a single one of them would ever give the supposedly correct answer: "Con esta crisis la moneda perderá valor." Not a single one of my three Mexican professors, including a DELE examiner, translated "could lose" as "perderá."
They all used "podría" for "could," with either "podría perder valor" or "podría depreciarse." Conversely, in reverse translation of the Spanish answer to English, they all 100% translated "perderá valor" as "will lose value", with certainty—not as "could lose value."
Maybe Spanish from Spain is different, but that quiz question and translation are not correct in Mexican Spanish. I suggest editing the lesson and quiz questions to remove the "could, might" possibility from translations using the simple future tense—at least in the Latin American Spanish lessons. At best, it's confusing, but more likely, it's just not a good translation.
It is easier to think of the translations of these phrases in formal (or correct) English.
En lo que As far as
Con lo que with that which
Para lo que for that which
de lo que of that which
Por lo que because of what
a lo que to that which
And don't encourage bad English. "You can never place the preposition at the end of the clause like in English: Be careful what you wish for." You should never end with a preposition in English Be careful of that which you wish or Be careful for what you wish.
I don’t understand how the infinitive is less ambiguous than the gerund. Is it because the infinitive is directly associated with the verbal structure while the gerund could hypothetically be separated from the verbal structure by a comma? La escuché, (while I was) cantando en la ducha.
Regarding incomplete and complete actions: Let’s say you’re hypothetically talking to someone about Carlos.
He visto a Carlos fumar.
I saw Carlos smoke. (complete action) Does this mean, I saw Carlos smoking. (But now he’s back at his desk. (action complete))
He visto a Carlos fumando.
I saw Carlos smoking. (action in progress) While this means I saw Carlos smoking. (He is still smoking outside if you are looking for him. (action in progress))
Thanks!
Just a question on Spanish cultural prosody . . .
In each story, the "mi" as in mi casa, mi ciudad, para mi, mi opinión, mi familia . . . is subdued rather than accentuated as a prosodaic emphasis. In English, my opinion, my family etc. would be naturally emphasized. Is it a Spanish "thing" to avoid doing that?
Hola! ¿Cómo está? Soy estudiante. Me gusta escuchar música y practico basquetbol en mi calle. En mi famila yo tengo los padres y una hermano. (I Am worried Duolingo is messing me up because my Spanish teachers is from Cuba but I think Duolingo teaches Spanish from Spain but i want to learn Spanish from Latin America . Also I always mess up when to put el or la and when to put una or un can you guys help please)
Están comparando varias frases con pasar y pasarse, pero las traducciones en inglés son iguales. ¿Un error?
Pasó un mes en Canadá con su familia.He spent a month in Canada with his family.Se pasó un mes en Canadá con su familia.He spent a month in Canada with his family.He pasado un día entero escribiendo esta redacción.I spent a whole day writing this essay.Me he pasado un día entero escribiendo esta redacción.I spent a whole day writing this essay.
¿Porque?
¿Hay otros casos en lo que usamos esto?
Gracias.
Wondering the answer to the below question is. I noticed this too: me permitan hacerla
Find your Spanish level for FREE
And get your personalised Study Plan to improve it
Find your Spanish level