Always using the definite article with what you are good (or bad) atI have some confusion (and frustration) around use of definite articles in Spanish generally. In this lesson, I noticed what appears to be an inconsistency with this rule.
A mí, se me da bien contar chistes.
My question is, why is it not, "A mí, se me da bien contar los chistes".
Also, my other question concerns highlight #5 and use of "a".
The first example notes: "Se me da bien el tenis". [I am good at tennis], then later there's the example, "A mí, se me da bien contar chistes" [I am good at telling jokes.]. My question is the subject of both examples is first person ("I"), so why wasn't the first example written as "A mí, se me da bien el tenis". ?
Thank you for a clear explanation of these two issues.
Regards,
Pati Ecuamiga
"dentro del seno de una familia catolica, (etc)" = within the bosom of a catholic family. Why pare down the literary parts to just the basic meaning of "to a catholic family (etc)"? The "dentro del seno" seems to indicate that he was born into a loving, caring family (O.K. plus wealthy and traditional!). But when we read Cervantes and Shakespeare aren't those literary embellishments what made them classics?
This triggers subjunctive. may i ask if this is because this sentence is asking for advice?
Because i remember that only negative construction of opinions will trigger subjunctive, for example i dont think that = no creo que..
or is this understanding of mine wrong too?
thanks
This example is wrong, no? Quizá Miguel no aprobara.
This is in the imperfect subjunctive. Shouldn't it be apruebe?
Habría valido la pena mostrar imágenes de los cuadros para reforzar las emociones que supuestamente suscitan.
¡Anda, qué bien te han dejado en la peluquería!
Could this also be stated as? ...
¡Anda, qué bien te han hecho en la peluquería!
Or is that rude? I probably wouldn't have thought to use dejado.
In the lesson, these sentences do not make sense to me in English:
Ofrecerían más descuentos cuando pasara la temporada de invierno.They might offer more discounts when the winter season was over.Pararíamos para descansar cuando llegáramos a Toledo.We might stop for a rest when we arrived in Toledo.Why are pasara and llegáramos translated in English as the past tense when they refer to future events that haven't happened yet? It sounds more natural to me to say "when the winter season IS over" and "when we ARRIVE in Toledo."
"-¿A ________ vamos a ver esta noche? -A Luis y Gerardo."
I wrote 'quién' because I thought the questioner wouldn't necessarily know that they would be seeing more than one person. That answer was marked wrong. Would we normally use the plural when asking about an unknown number of persons?
EDIT: I just looked at the question again and see that there was a hint (which I managed to miss) about which PLURAL to use, but my question about which we would normally use still stands.
Hola,
The last sentence says "Los pájaron volaban sobre nosotras.", shouldn't it be pájaros?
I have some confusion (and frustration) around use of definite articles in Spanish generally. In this lesson, I noticed what appears to be an inconsistency with this rule.
A mí, se me da bien contar chistes.
My question is, why is it not, "A mí, se me da bien contar los chistes".
Also, my other question concerns highlight #5 and use of "a".
The first example notes: "Se me da bien el tenis". [I am good at tennis], then later there's the example, "A mí, se me da bien contar chistes" [I am good at telling jokes.]. My question is the subject of both examples is first person ("I"), so why wasn't the first example written as "A mí, se me da bien el tenis". ?
Thank you for a clear explanation of these two issues.
Regards,
Pati Ecuamiga
¿Podemos decir también: “No hay baile en el mundo más español que un pasodoble”? Entiendo que no es exactamente igual pero significa lo mismo, ¿no?
Find your Spanish level for FREE
Test your Spanish to the CEFR standard
Find your Spanish level