29
It is not "haber, cuéntame", but "a ver, cuéntame". The meaning of a ver is
expr. U. para pedir algo que se quiere reconocer o ver.
i.e., it is used to ask to be shown or told something. It is roughly equivalent to "let's see/hear it" or "let me see/hear it" or "so", depending on the context.
8
No, it doesn't have anything to do with its etymology, although it's an interesting one. It's just that haber is an impersonal verb per se. Follow the previous link and look for the meanings marked as "impers.". You need to use se when using a non-impersonal verb (such as deber) in an impersonal sentence.
The meanings of haber in such sentences are these ...
6
"Haber que" es una forma impersonal. Solo se conjuga en tercera persona del singular ("hay que", "había que", "habrá que"), y no tiene sujeto: no se puede decir "ella había que". En muchos casos, un sinónimo de "hay que" sería "es necesario" (véase acepción 7 en el DLE):
Hay que hacerse ...
6
It is an impersonal verb equivalent to the English there is/are. An English translation might be
The buildings would not be very tall, they would be well oriented and there would be solar panels on all the terraces.
You might be more familiar with the present form hay than the conditional.
5
No, haber con el significado de existir en un lugar o tiempo es impersonal. En esa oración, muchos rumores no es el sujeto, sino el complemento directo. Si fuera el sujeto, no podríamos sustituirlo por los:
Los hubo.
La concordancia es entre el núcleo del predicado y el sujeto, nunca con el complemento directo.
answered May 13 '20 at 12:45
OnlyThenDidIReckonMyCurse
3,2731 gold badge8 silver badges22 bronze badges
5
The pronoun los is optional in this case. It's not really redundant because the impersonal form of haber normally takes a direct object. The form without the pronoun is elliptical: the pronoun is suppressed because it's clear from context what is being referred to.
Note that hay is third person singular regardless of the noun that accompanies it, precisely ...
4
in early Spanish "haber" was used to mean "tener"
That's right, and the evolution can be followed from the English analog:
Yo he un caballo = I have a horse (old Spanish)
Yo he un caballo comprado = I have a bought horse (here 'comprado/bought'
is an adjetive)
Yo he comprado un caballo = I have bought a horse (this was
originally ...
4
Using haber to express possession could certainly be used back in the day (where it had the imperative forms habe and habed), but it developed today into the virtually exclusively auxiliary (for perfects) and impersonal (for existential statements) verb we have today. There are a few situations where you might use it in legal or other contexts where ...
4
A pesar de que es un error muy difundido utilizarlo en plural, "haber" como verbo principal siempre es impersonal y se conjuga en singular. El sustantivo o frase nominal que sigue al verbo es complemento directo, no sujeto:
Habrá payasos - Los habrá.
Hubo muchos errores - Los hubo.
3
Según parece, tanto "hay viento" como "hace viento" son correctas. Por mi parte, no encuentro nada raro en las construcciones con haber, que de hecho me resultan un poco más naturales que con hacer. Sospecho que hay diferencias que tienen que ver con el uso de viento o lluvia como condiciones meteorológicas (a la par de frío o calor) o bien como eventos ...
3
To add to mdewey's answer, the sentence might be objectionable from a stylistic point of view, because there are three coordinate clauses, two with the same subject (los edificios) and an impersonal one.
This might be better:
Los edificios no serían muy altos, estarían bien orientados y tendrían paneles solares en todas las terrazas. (The buildings would ...
3
It may sound redundant –being optional, as the sentence would be still be understood without it– but having the pronoun (los) in place helps get the point across more effectively.
There are other similar cases where redundant object pronouns act beneficially, bringing a reinforced, straightforward reference.
Cuando encuentro buenos higos, los compro
...
2
Efectivamente, el participio en este caso es simplemente parte de la construcción perifrástica y no funciona como adjetivo. Una forma sencilla de advertir la diferencia es que el participio, en esta construcción, es invariable: aparece siempre en la forma que (en un adjetivo) llamaríamos masculina del singular (terminada en -ado, -ido si es regular).
El ...
2
Haber has three main meanings:
As an auxiliary for compound tenses.
As a full verb meaning the same as tener (archaic), including the phrase haber de (which means either "have to" or "must" in the sense of supposing or guessing, and sometimes moral obligation).
As an impersonal "existence" verb, and in the phrase haber que (meaning "must" only in the sense ...
1
El verbo haber en este contexto es un verbo impersonal de existencia, y por ende carece de sujeto. Al carecer de sujeto, eso que hay se expresa mediante el complemento directo.
He aquí a continuación lo que dice el DPD al respecto:
Esta construcción es heredera de la existente en latín tardío «habere (siempre en tercera persona del singular) + nombre ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible