Gerund vs present continuousHi. I'm a big fan of this site, for many reasons, so I am pointing this out in a spirit of collaboration, not criticism: I think this page should refer to "present continuous" and "present participles", not gerunds.
The gerund is a form, derived from a verb, which ends in --ing, but it is the noun from the verb. This page is all about an alternative verb form.
For example: "Smoking is bad for you."
"Smoking" is a gerund, as it has become a noun.
"That man is smoking" is the present continuous form of the verb. "Smoking" in this sentence is the present participle, i.e. not a gerund.
I am prepared to accept that this might be a US/UK English thing; I'd be very interested to hear if this were the case.
Best wishes
Andrew Wenger
In the section about no porque you say: "if the causal subordinate clause is negative, it allows both the indicative and the subjunctive (without changing the meaning)."
A says that no porque must be used with the subjunctive according to the Cervantes Institute, and you (Inma) seem to agree with him, saying: "with no porque you use the subjunctive."
I just did a Kwiz where "no porque era" was a correct option.
So, what is going on there? Can no porque take both the subjunctive and the indicative or just the subjunctive?
I know that "hay" means "there is/are" but how do I say the same in the future & the past?
I thought the original post cut off some of the contents, ergo the 2nd post, which is redundant (somewhat in keeping with the theme of this post
This sounds like an amazing hotel! All that yummy food too! I would certainly spend a week there. So, if you could note the address I'd be most grateful, haha
1. In your "hint", you told us to "... use a pronominal verb for 'take advantage' " -
- but despite that^, in order to get a correct answer we were supposed to write: "Aprovecha la ruptura para conocerte más a ti misma" - [i.e., with 'aprovecha', a non-pronominal verb?]
("Aprovecha la ruptura ..." is of course quite consistent with the guidelines given in your lesson at Spanish verb Aprovechar vs Aprovecharse (pronominal verbs) [number 7478] ... so it is only your 'hint' which needs to be modified, not your text).
-.-.-.-.-
2. In your sentence: "... ya que ambos estábais sumergidos en una relación tóxica", there should not be a tilde in 'estabais'?
I had much trouble with the accent of the man who was dictating... He says "s" with "th" and spoke very quickly....Very difficult to understand.
We don't use "th" here or "vosotros"...so it's very different... But the man spoke very quickly with the words intertwined.
The bank WOULD lend, therefore should this not be conditional eg El banco te PRESTARÍA más dinero?
Seria genial que añadieran preguntas de comprensión lectora al final de cada lectura. A mis estudiantes les encantarían!
Hi. I'm a big fan of this site, for many reasons, so I am pointing this out in a spirit of collaboration, not criticism: I think this page should refer to "present continuous" and "present participles", not gerunds.
The gerund is a form, derived from a verb, which ends in --ing, but it is the noun from the verb. This page is all about an alternative verb form.
For example: "Smoking is bad for you."
"Smoking" is a gerund, as it has become a noun.
"That man is smoking" is the present continuous form of the verb. "Smoking" in this sentence is the present participle, i.e. not a gerund.
I am prepared to accept that this might be a US/UK English thing; I'd be very interested to hear if this were the case.
Best wishes
Andrew Wenger
The example has hay with foggy but esta with sunny. I don’t understand
Find your Spanish level for FREE
And get your personalised Study Plan to improve it
Find your Spanish level