Había vs HuboWe are taught that El Pretérito Imperfecto is used for past actions that were ongoing with no clear end that describes what was happening or what things were like. Also El Pretérito Imperfecto is used for past habitual action, repeated / regularly occuring past actions, and actions that used to happen in the past.
We are also taught El Pretérito Indefinido is used to describe past actions in a way that conveys the sense that were completed / finished, this can be one off actions / events, series of actions, actions that happened a specific number of times, actions that happened at a specific point in time, and actions that interrupt an ongoing past action.
However most of the time these two past tenses translate to the same in English which can cause us problems with which one to use.
So after studying these two tenses a lot, I think that I have a trick that helps me most of the time choose the right tense. (although with some verbs, I need to study the nuances just a little more)
So if I want to describe a past action, as in setting a scene or convey the action was ongoing without showing an ending etc. Then I use El Pretérito Imperfecto, Había, comía, hablaba, pensaba.
Now with El Pretérito Indefinido hubo, comió, habló, pensó, I have started to think of it as a fact (100%) to help me know that the action has happened and finished / completed. (or didn't happen if we use NO infront of the verb)
When it comes to había and hubo (from the verb Haber to exist in this use) they translate the same in English as '’there was'’ and our English thinking part of the brain doesn't know what to do with the word hubo.
Therefore to help with this, I asked myself '’is this a descriptive '’there was'’ (había) or is this a '’there was'’(hubo) that is stating a fact (100%)'’.
Había mucha comida en la fiesta. (descriptive)
Hubo mucha comida en la fiesta. (fact)
There was a lot of food at the party.
Había una reunión importante el sábado. (descriptive)
Hubo una reunión importante el sábado. (fact)
There was an important meeting on Saturday.
I hope I am on the right path of choosing the right tense when talking about the past, I think it's all down to what you want to convey to the listener, description or fact.
Hola Silvia y/o Inma,
Please could you tell me why the preposition a is used with sobrevivir and yet not used with superar (which was given as an alternative in the hint)? I hope it's not something obvious that my old brain isn't getting, ja ja ja!
Gracias :)
Un amigo espanol me dejó que "La mujer con la que está hablando" es correctecto pero "La mujer con quien está hablando" no es correcto. Puedes explicar la diferencia?
As far as food, I looked for restaurants... is translated as 'En cuanto a la alimentación' or 'Con respecto a la alimentación'
This is useful language but I can't find any lesson that references this structure. Is there one?
The nearest I can find is 'Preposition + lo que + clause' which would lead to:
En lo que respecta a la alimentación. Is that possible?
Gracias
We are taught that El Pretérito Imperfecto is used for past actions that were ongoing with no clear end that describes what was happening or what things were like. Also El Pretérito Imperfecto is used for past habitual action, repeated / regularly occuring past actions, and actions that used to happen in the past.
We are also taught El Pretérito Indefinido is used to describe past actions in a way that conveys the sense that were completed / finished, this can be one off actions / events, series of actions, actions that happened a specific number of times, actions that happened at a specific point in time, and actions that interrupt an ongoing past action.
However most of the time these two past tenses translate to the same in English which can cause us problems with which one to use.
So after studying these two tenses a lot, I think that I have a trick that helps me most of the time choose the right tense. (although with some verbs, I need to study the nuances just a little more)
So if I want to describe a past action, as in setting a scene or convey the action was ongoing without showing an ending etc. Then I use El Pretérito Imperfecto, Había, comía, hablaba, pensaba.
Now with El Pretérito Indefinido hubo, comió, habló, pensó, I have started to think of it as a fact (100%) to help me know that the action has happened and finished / completed. (or didn't happen if we use NO infront of the verb)
When it comes to había and hubo (from the verb Haber to exist in this use) they translate the same in English as '’there was'’ and our English thinking part of the brain doesn't know what to do with the word hubo.
Therefore to help with this, I asked myself '’is this a descriptive '’there was'’ (había) or is this a '’there was'’(hubo) that is stating a fact (100%)'’.
Había mucha comida en la fiesta. (descriptive)
Hubo mucha comida en la fiesta. (fact)
There was a lot of food at the party.
Había una reunión importante el sábado. (descriptive)
Hubo una reunión importante el sábado. (fact)
There was an important meeting on Saturday.
I hope I am on the right path of choosing the right tense when talking about the past, I think it's all down to what you want to convey to the listener, description or fact.
Do other verbs fit this pattern? Or, just these two -ir verbs?
¿Ha oído o visto usted "Use your spanish", "why not spanish" y "SpanishLand school" en YouTube? Todos esos YouTubers son de Colombia y ellos hablan español bellamente como música legato. Para mi, hablar español con acento no significa la voz profesional regional, sólo la voz regional.
why do we use preterito perfecto compuesto for 'I saw' and 'I found', i thought 'i found' would be encontre and 'I saw', yo vi not he contrado and he visto. thanks!
Wouldn't ¿Crees que has aprobado el examen? be "Do you think you have passed the exam?" I don't know the grammatical tense that applies, but on the face of it, it seems the "have" should be represented in the English.
Also, does Spanish have an equivalent of "do?" I think i read that it does not. In English it is often ommitted, so it's probably ok to not always include it in translations.
My answer: Comprend tanto carne que pescado. this was marked wrong. Why would it be tanta when carne is masculine?
Find your Spanish level for FREE
And get your personalised Study Plan to improve it
Find your Spanish level