In the writing exercise "Everlasting Love in Caazapá" [B2], I used the alternative form for the passive by writing: "Sus aguas están conocidas por todos los lugareños"...[Inma explained this at https://progress.lawlessspanish.com/questions/view/passive-with-estar ] However, I failed to apply the rule later when I answered (and was corrected): "Es como si estas aguas *fuesen* benditas" [< which is wrong]; should be "... estuvieran benditas" … I could of course have got a clue from the use of 'benditas' (the irregular past participle, which is more like an adjective) instead of 'bendecidas'. Perhaps one might also say? - "Es como si estas aguas hubiesen sido bendecidas", although that refers to the distant past: "... had been blessed".
Freeform Writing Exercise B2
Yes, exactly. If we hadn't given the hint "bendito = blessed" and had left the translation a bit more open, you could have said as you said "Es como si estas aguas hubiesen sido bendecidas". When we use estar + adjective/participle we don't need the "agente": por + someone as the focus of this is the result, not who did it. However when using the periphrastic passive with ser + participle, most of the time the "sujeto agente" is present. In this instance the sentence could have been " "Es como si estas aguas hubiesen sido bendecidas por los dioses."
Thank you Inma - it is all becoming clearer. Does it mean that if "por" is included, then we must use "ser"? … In other words, can it only be: "Sus aguas son conocidas por todos los lugareños"?
Sign in to submit your answer
Don't have an account yet? Join today
Test your Spanish to the CEFR standard