por el bien de 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
What if I want to use querer in el preterito indefinido, but I don't want it to be interpreted as tried or refused? Por ejemplo:
Yesterday, I wanted apples, but today I don't.
The action is complete, it requires the preterito indefinido, but I don't want to interpret the sentence as: Yesterday, I tried apples, but today I don't.
'Tis a conundrum for me.
Is there any reason to ever NOT use "que" after ojala? For example, is this construction ok: "Ojala que hubiera sabido que no tomes. No habria llevado vino." Or does that sound weird? Would it be better to say "Ojala hubiera sabido que no tomes..." (Also sorry I haven't used any of the appropriate accents here. I don't know how to find them on my keyboard!)
*I see one of the kwizq teachers responded that they are interchangeable ("ojala" and "ojala que"), but that using ojala without "que" is more common. Is that different in different countries? I feel like I've mostly heard people in Mexico say "ojala que," but I'm also only B1 and may have totally just not registered when they used ojala without "que!"
Any insight or advice appreciated!
In one of the questions it says headaches.... plural, but the answer is given as singular version of docker??
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 :)
The correct answer is mucha but selectedmucho because I thought the stress was on the first syllable. So is that not the casewith hambre?muchomucha
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?
Buenas días
I understand Afectar is a transitive verb, which requires a direct object (without a preposition).
I saw these sentences:
La nueva ley no afecta al pequeño empresario.
La falta de oxígeno afecta al cerebro.
I'm curious to know why these two sentences use a preposition "a".
Muchas gracias
What, if any, are the circumstances in which "si" introduces a clause that is followed by the indicative mode of a verb, rather than the subjunctive mode?
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
Find your Spanish level for FREE
And get your personalised Study Plan to improve it
Find your Spanish level