Spanish language Q&A Forum

Hola Inma,

I don't understand the use of subjunctive here:  "Nunca hubiera pensado". Why not había pensado ?

Un saludo coldial

Ελισάβετ

Hi,

Qu 10

It is good that you read every night..........why does READ have to be in the subjuntive

    I am sure that I am missing something that is right before my eyes, but I am going to ask for clarification anyway.

    The lesson states that "cualquier is used BEFORE a singular noun."

    Further it indicates Cualquiera must be preceded by un or una + and comes AFTER a singlular noun.

    Lastly it references the plural of Cualqiera: cualesquiera. This has no requisite precedent (un/una). 

    Therefore, please explain if there is an exception as apparent in the following:

"La Unión estará de CUALESQUIERA derechos de aduana." This test question has no article precedent (un/una) and CUALESQUIERA appears BEFORE the noun (derechos de aduana); that is, it appears to act more in line with the singular CUALQUIER. So the question is: Is CUALESQUIERA the plural of Cualquier and not the plural of Cualquiera. Thank in advance for your help and response.

hola

________ digo siempre lo que pienso.I always tell him what I think.I answered 'lo' thinking that it was the direct object but the answer was 'le'Is 'lo que pienso' the direct object and 'him' the indirect object?
as a note , I never recieve email notifications of answers - so sometimes miss themthanks for your help

You might have fried too much the potatoes.

You might have fried the potatoes too much.  (Is better in English)

I just missed this question:

¿Viajan ustedes ________ placer? Are you travelling for pleasure?

I chose "para" because I read "for pleasure" as indicating purpose. The endorsed answer is "por"; apparently I'm supposed to read "for pleasure" as an originating cause.

Looking at the examples here, the most relevant would seem to be:

Va a estudiar medicina por seguir la tradición familiar.
She is studying medicine because it's family tradition.

It seems to me, you could also use para here, with a different meaning:

Va a estudiar medicina para seguir la tradición familiar.
She is studying medicine to follow the family tradition.

Here it's pretty easy to tell them apart because they differ in English. With

Are you travelling for pleasure?

... I guess I don't even know what "originating cause" means in this example. It's because you wanted to obtain pleasure, right? That seems to me like a purpose.

If the originating cause were a noun ("amor", "los niños"), or a pre-existing state/action ("ser el primo"), then it's pretty easy to see it's an originating cause as opposed to a purpose. But for a verb that seems to relate to future action, I don't know how I would know.

Any guidance?

In this sentence from the exercise: "Él es muy famoso, expone en muchas galerías y museos y tiene muchos premios."

The word "muchas" is feminine, but since it seems to include "museos" I was thinking it might be "muchos". Is it a rule that the first in a series determines the gender, or was this done to say "many galleries and (some) museums"?

Hola Inma,

No entiendo el uso de "a" en la siguiente frase: "Muchos años de trabajo y buen producto han convertido a esta denominación en la mejor garantía ..." ( párrafo 7). ¿ Es un error tipográfico o tiene algo que ver con el verbo convertir ? He buscado en el dictionario y solo he encontrado "convertir en" y "convertir a alguien a una idea". ¿ Me podrías explicar ?

Muchísimas gracias

Ελισάβετ

Hello, 

I am reading a fairly reputable bilingual version of Sherlock Holmes. On one sentence it says 'Iba vestido discretamente con un traje de mezclilla de lana....'

The translation (and my own reading of the context) suggests that this means 'He was discretely dressed....'

But if that's the case why have they used 'iba'? Is that incorrect? The man was not 'going to do' anything. He just 'was'. My searching online and using Google translate suggests that only estar (or possibly ser) in the past tense are valid here, not ir.

Thanks!

This grading of this question appears to be an error on the part of Progress. Conditional Perfect is the answer specified, which is "no habríamos muerto" and is the answer that I provided  The answer from Progress is given as "no hubiéramos muerto" and is Preterito Plumamperfecto Subjuntivo, not Condicional Perfecto.