Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

9

No hay ninguna ambigüedad en el asunto: siempre debe existir concordancia de número (y de género en otros casos) entre el pronombre y el referente. Por lo tanto sólo estos casos son correctos: Ella le dice a él. Ella les dice a ellos. Cualquier otro caso es incorrecto, aunque su uso sea habitual. Lee el item 6.a de lo referente a pronombres ...


9

In Spanish we have several constructions that can translate your sentence, That's the one that I eat the chicken with: Es con esa que me como el pollo Con esa es con la que me como el pollo Es con esa con la que me como el pollo Esa es con la que me como el pollo Maybe the most grammatically correct is the first one, but I'd say the other three ...


5

You're thinking that "He" acts as the subject, aren't you? Well, it's not. It's the verb (In fact "He prometido" is the verb) In Spanish you can apply an pronoun ellipsis when it acts as the subject. For example, you can say: Yo escribo una carta or Escribo una carta. In your example (He prometido) you're using a compound tense of the verb ...


5

It's exactly the same as "Have" in english. "He" is a verbal tense of the verb "haber". (In your example, in english, "I have promised...") Where is the doubt? Maybe you are missing the subject, the person; in spanish you can skip it because it's implied in the verbal tense itself (Yo he, Tu has, Él ha, etc.), but it would be also correct to say "Yo he ...


3

De todas las proposiciones recibidas, hemos elegido la tuya, porque era la mejor. De todas las proposiciones recibidas, hemos elegido tu proposición, porque era la mejor. En el primer caso tuya sustituye a "proposición". Este pronombre debe concordar en género con aquello a lo que sustituye y por eso decimos "tuya" y no "tuyo" (si estuviésemos ...


3

If you wanted to refer to something that happened regularly in the past, you would use: era for ser estaba for estar. Well, I don't think that you would use one over the other in order to refer to something that happened regularly in the past. You use one over the other regarding the nature of the event. For example, you say "estar enfadado" ...


3

I'll try to write my comments as an answer. First, I would say that your assumption is correct, hubiera goes into tuviera. And that's it. On a personal remark, I don't know if this method is helping you but I don't think direct translation is a good idea when learning languages. In particular, subjunctive tenses are kind of dificult to translate directly ...


3

This could fall into the case of singular nouns that refer to plural (collective) things. Concordance rules can get tricky here. From the "Diccionario panhispánico de dudas (4.7)": Los sustantivos colectivos son aquellos que, en singular, designan un conjunto de seres pertenecientes a una misma clase (gente, clero, familia, rebaño, hayedo, ...


3

You don't need "hubiera" because you don't need an auxiliary verb. To have time--in Spanish--idiomatically uses "tener" because in a way you do possess time. So what you do is put tener in the imperfect subjunctive, just as you put haber in the imperfect subjunctive in the other sentence.


2

had becomes hubiera/hubiese/tuviera/tuviese when dealing with conditional sentences. In this case, to form the Third Conditional, we use if + past perfect where the past perfect is not translated as había for the word had but hubiera/hubiese/tuviera/tuviese. Remember that have = haber/tener. The examples uses tuviera because there's first person talking ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible