Probablity vs futuro imperfecto Both my native certified teacher from Madrid and ChatGTP agree that this translation is wrong. There's no "might" about it - the neighbors WILL call. There is no nuance here.
Un árbol se ha caído; los vecinos llamarán al ayuntamiento.
A tree has fallen down; the neighbours might [sic] call the council.
Please consider these changes:
"El Futuro Simple, also known as El Futuro Imperfecto, is used when we want to express the probability of something happening in the PRESENT" -- i.e., not the future.
And replace bad (what you call "nuanced") examples with ones that make sense like:
Dónde está Ana?? [i.e., right now, in the present] --Estará en casa. (She's probably at home.)
Quién llama?? [i.e., right now, in the present] --Será Pablo. (It's probably Pablo.)
Because I kept getting this wrong, I asked Chatgpt: Can one use deber conjugated in El Pretérito Perfecto, followed by an infinitive to express in Spanish that something must have happened, as when making an assumption or wondering what must have happened? The response was: No—not if your goal is to express an assumption ("must have happened").
The pretérito perfecto of deber (ha debido) normally means "has had to" (obligation), not "must have" (probability).
Are there certain countries (e.g. Costa Rica) in which "a" is not used for talking about certain parts of the day like morning, afternoon and evening but only por manana or en la manana would be used. Seethe example below?
A la mañana desayuno cereales.I have cereal for breakfast in the morning.
I appreciate the inclusion of this lesson as an effort to educate us in a nuance. My particular American English formed brain just can’t seem to grasp the subtle differences. I’m wondering if in conversation with a native speaker, it would be an issue if the non-native speaker didn’t differentiate between the two forms. I think if I were speaking in Spanish and trying to explain a situation about not being able to open a door last night, I would choose words that made it clear that number one: He just couldn’t open the door or 2, at first, he couldn’t open the door, but then someone came to help him. Well, now that I’ve written out these examples, I realize how far I am from understanding the nuance. I’m hoping you will say that in conversation with a native speaker it really doesn’t make a lot of difference. Verdad?
I can't get my translator DeepL to use pocos as 'a few' of something and I don't hear it used locally. It normally seems to be : unos cuantos amigos, unas cuantas manzanas. Is this a customary phrase in Spain, or perhaps is USA?
One of the difficulties in spanish is there are so many ways to same the same thing. These exercises don't allow for that. I don't know how this can be included....
What is the reason that "Me alegro DE que..." is constructed differently than "Me entristece que...."? Do other similar phrases tend to follow one of these two patterns?
The lesson says: Notice how, sometimes despite using the singular "lo + adjective" (lo menos caro), we conjugate the verb in the plural form (son). This is because, being a neutral idea, it can refer to a group of things, i.e "The least expensive things..."
This wording is not clear to me. Do you mean to say that the verb is single or plural depending on the object of the sentence? For example:
Lo más impresionante del viaje fue la cantidad de museos interesantes.
"la cantidad" is single, so "fue" (single) is used - is that correct?
Lo menos caro de esta tienda son los accesorios.
And here, "los accesorios" is plural, hence "son" (plural) - correct?
Both my native certified teacher from Madrid and ChatGTP agree that this translation is wrong. There's no "might" about it - the neighbors WILL call. There is no nuance here.
Un árbol se ha caído; los vecinos llamarán al ayuntamiento.A tree has fallen down; the neighbours might [sic] call the council.
Please consider these changes:
"El Futuro Simple, also known as El Futuro Imperfecto, is used when we want to express the probability of something happening in the PRESENT" -- i.e., not the future.
And replace bad (what you call "nuanced") examples with ones that make sense like:
Dónde está Ana?? [i.e., right now, in the present] --Estará en casa. (She's probably at home.)
Quién llama?? [i.e., right now, in the present] --Será Pablo. (It's probably Pablo.)
Hola!
I've been following this and could do with some expert assistance. I was looking at this line:
Note that conjunctions o/o bien can either present a person with a choice to make (either one thing/idea or another) or both options are seen as possible. There is a choice to make here:
Tiene que venir o tu padre o tu madre. Tu hermano no puede venir a la reunión.Either your father or your mother has to come. Your brother cannot come to the meeting.My question is, is there something implying exclusivity - that it's the father or the mother, but not both? I would assume in English that it could be vague still - it might be the case that there's only room for one person, or it could be that one or both parents come, but a brother isn't suitable.
Thank you so much!
Ciaran
Esta explicación es incorrecta:
Verbs ending in-zar in Spanish, like organizar (to organise), analizar (to analyse), cazar (to hunt) are irregular in El Pretérito Indefinido because the spelling changes for pronunciation reasons in the first person singular (yo).
De hecho, ze y ce tienen la misma pronunciación. Más bien es una regla ortográfica que la Z generalmente no va con la E ni la I.
How would I know is I should use ,tengo un Hermano’ or ,tengo el Hermano?’
Find your Spanish level for FREE
And get your personalised Study Plan to improve it
Find your Spanish level