Spanish language Q&A Forum

In the exercise the phrase 'Haciendo la compra a mis mayores' is used. I would have expected 'para mis mayores'. Is the use of 'a' instead a common Spanish usage?

Si quiero enviar a mi hijo a mi hermana, sí puedo decirle a mi mujer "Voy a enviarselo" pero no puedo decirle a mi hijo "Voy a enviarlete". Ambas oraciones son de forma verbo+enclítico de OI+enclítico de OD. ¿Qué hace que una sea correcta y la otra no lo sea? (Intento que se=hermana, lo=hijo, le=hermana, te=hijo.)

Si alguien me pregunta ¿A qué planta vas? en el ascensor, ¿cómo contesto? Se pueda decir ‘a la quinta’ por ejemplo o ‘al cinco’? Gracias

Is this lesson demonstrating the use of the PRESENT perfect subjunctive after "esperar" or the PAST perfect subjunctive? If the former, why is it referred to as "Pretérito Perfecto Subjuntivo", if we ordinarily translate the word "pretérito" as "past"?

                                                           OR

To phrase this question differently, when I use "haya", "hayas", "haya", etc. plus the past participle of a verb, am I using the Present perfect subjunctive, or the Past perfect subjunctive, or, in fact, is there another name, English and/or Spanish for this conjugation?

I had a really big cup of coffee this morning!

Your answer to Marcos does not explain why a feminine version exists since, as you say, 'When we form a noun using the augmentative suffix -ón, the new word is always masculine, regardless of the gender of the originating noun. This is because nouns ending in -ón are generally masculine’.

Hola hola!

I have been reading the message board and found a lot of opinions around this sentence

She has made many sacrifices for her children.

Ha hecho muchos sacrificios por sus hijos.

There seemed different explanations for the reason why "por" was selected, one of which being an "intimate recipient". I initially liked this explanation and found it plausible. 

However, I continued reading and found the mention of "for the sake of".

She has made many sacrifices for (the sake of) her children.

Ha hecho muchos sacrificios por (el bien de) sus hijos 

Three questions:

1) Can you say "por el bien de" meaning "for the sake of"?

2) Can "por el bien de" be used in the above example?

3) Is it possible that in English "for the sake of" the (the sake of) can be omitted and likewise in the Spanish "por el bien de" the (el bien de) can be omitted?

If the answer to question 3) is yes. Perhaps, this explains and clarifies the use of "por" in the sentence.

Ha hecho muchos sacrificios por sus hijos.

Your thoughts would be much appreciated.

I feel trying to explain the por and para  debate is a difficult task and your help is genuinely appreciated   :) 

I have more questions though  ;)

This got me thinking about the  "for the benefit of":

He did it for the benefit of the company.

Lo hizo en beneficio de la empresa.

This could also be written in English as:

He did it for the company.

Lo hizo por la empresa.

I have two more question:

4) Are the following two sentences correct?

i) Lo hizo en beneficio de la empresa.

ii) Lo hizo por la empresa.

And, finally...

5) Do they have the same meaning?

I would be grateful if you answer the questions above and see if I have understood this use of por.

Many thanks,

Ryan

First off, a minor suggestion wrt this lesson to break the ice: ;)

When you are talking about the position of 'se', you are in fact referring to the position of BOTH 'se' and a corresponding direct object pronoun. You might want to note this in the explanations somewhere.

Now, my real question:

With a participle, does the combo of se & direct object pronoun HAVE to be attached at the end, or this is just an option? "Se la estamos decorando" and "Estamos decorandosela" are both grammatically correct and semantically equivalent, right? Or are we allowed to say "Se la estamos decorando" only because we have two verbs next to each other?

PS

I agree with the other poster who pointed out that these agglutination rules totally warrant a separate lesson.

Hi, I'm really struggling with this one, and there are only two possibilities!  It's "Aquí tienes 20 euro por si……. dinero para un taxi.", with the options of necesitas and necesitaras. The questions says that the speaker thinks there's a low probability of the money being needed.  The correct answer is the imperfect subjunctive, necesitaras.  I suppose that it has to be that because the present indicative is not permissible in this structure, but I don’t know why.

Thanks in advance,

Dave

Why is ‘has been …ing’ sometimes el Pretérito perfecto progresivo and other times a perífrasis verbal?     eg:

Carlos lleva trabajando en ese colegio dos años.

Carlos has been working in that school for two years. 

Laura has been seeing her boyfriend secretly.

Note that in El Futuro Simple, only the 3rd person form habrá is ever used on its own and it means there will be.

I don't understand the meaning of this statement. Can you explain and/or give an example?