Jugar Conjugation | Conjugate Jugar in Spanish

jugar past tense forms

jugar past tense forms - win

Overview topics/tips in Spanish tree

Since I couldn't find a list like this yet, I have created an overview of which lesson in the Spanish tree has which tips/teaches which topics*. This way, it's easier to find the right lesson if you want to practice a specific topic or want to read the tips about something again.
If there are any errors, please let me know and I'll edit this post. Also, I tried my best with the grammatical terms, but there could very well be errors in it (especially with the direct vs. indirect objects, I always have trouble telling which is which).
*These are only the topics that are mentioned in the tips, a lot of these lessons also teach some other things that are not mentioned in the tips section, so if you know some of those, feel free to let me know and I'll add them
Before first checkpoint
Checkpoint 1
Checkpoint 2
Checkpoint 3
Checkpoint 4
Checkpoint 5
No tips
Checkpoint 6
I'm guessin no tips either, but haven't unlocked it yet, so I could be wrong.
submitted by monkeymaniac9 to duolingo [link] [comments]

Ærsk: The Phonology and Etymological Orthography of a Nordic West Germanic language

For ad werþe zen nýe Mannen, bez mann hæbbe allhjarted.
[ɸɔɾ ɑ ˈɰɛrːs̪ə ʃɲ̩ ˈnœʏ̯ːjə ˈmɑnːn̩ bəʃ ˈmɑnː ˈʃæbːə ˌɑlːˈʃɑrːtə]
for to become-inf the.m.sg new-def.m.sg Manne-the.m.sg be.fut.sg man.sg have-inf all-heart-def.n.sg
"To become God, you have to walk in everyone's shoes."
- Erish proverb
Erish (ærsk), an a posteriori West Germanic artlang, isn't the first constructed language I've worked on, but it is the first one I can say has come to a point where it is presentable. The concept is that, in the conworld, Erish arises from Proto-West Germanic nearby North Germanic languages as they arise from Proto-Norse, and is still in a sort of sprachbund with them. Intelligibility, particularly in speech, is hampered by Erish's own innovations, especially phonologically.
Here, I would like to provide a summary of the closest thing to a standard Erish pronunciation, as well as an account of the orthography, as its depth tells a bit about the changes that Erish has undergone. With each, I'll give a snippet about the goals I had going into them, as well as feedback questions I myself have - Erish is and will always be a work-in-progress. I am greatly indebted to a variety of resources, so I will provide several of them at the end of this post and the others that may follow it, as well as a concluding gloss.

Phonology

Most Erish speakers simply use their own dialects when speaking, up to and including the King or Queen. The pronunciation taught to foreigners, as well as the one used in national broadcasting, is that of Hamnstead, which was the city where radio broadcasting first developed in Erishland, and which is still a center of national media. The Hamnstead dialect is a Western dialect close enough to Southern dialects that its phonology is sort of a mixture of the two groups, plus its own quirks.
Goals
Personally, this phonology is my attempt at creating one reminiscent of the older stages of Germanic languages, but which feels plausibly modern and plausible in a place where North Germanic contact and influence continues into present. A bit of a summary and highlights of what that means:
Vowels
Hamnstead Erish has a rather bland vowel inventory for an Erish dialect. About the only notable feature, phonemically speaking, is that there is still a short /æ/ distinct from /ɛ/, though that's typical of Western dialects. Phonetically, though, the story's a bit more complicated - Hamnstead Erish is amongst the few dialects that can be argued to, in some limited way, preserve most of the original Old Erish diphthongs, and has re-innovated a very limited form of allophonic u-umlaut.
​
Front unrounded Front rounded Back
Close ɪ • iː ʏ • yː ʊ • uː
Mid ɛ • eː œ • øː ɔ • oː
Open æ • æː ɑ • ɑː
Consonants
Hamnstead Erish, like most Erish dialects, has a consonant inventory that is phonemically similar to the Nordic languages, but the allophony of these consonants is less so. Voiced stops regularly lenit to approximants that devoice and fricate word-finally; this leads to the notorious "Erish hiss". Notable aspects of Hamnstead's phonology are the merger of /ʂ/ and /ɕ/ into /ʃ/, a change which is common but still absent in Southern dialects, and that /ɣ/ is a velar approximant, instead of the labiovelar common to Western dialects.
​
Vclss. labial Vcd. labial Vclss. coronal Vcd. coronal Vclss. palatal Vcd. palatal Vclss. velar Vcd. velar
Nasal m n ɲ ŋ
Stops p b t d t͡ʃ (d͡ʒː) k (gː)
Cntnts. f (β) s (ð) ʃ ʝ x ɣ
Laterals l ʎ
Trill r
Phonotactics
Valid onset consonants:
Valid coda consonants:
Valid medial consonants:
All stressed syllables are inherently heavy - if there is no long vowel, the first consonant to follow is geminated. Neither long vowels nor geminates may occur in unstressed syllables.
Prosody
Like most other Germanic languages, the most common syllable to be stressed is the first (and often only) of a given word. Loanwords can follow different patterns, but a rule of thumb is that the syllable before the last consonant of a root is the one to be stressed.
Feedback Questions
Questions I personally have are:

Orthography & History

Erish is written with the standard 26 letters of the Latin alphabet and the additional letters þ, æ, and œ. Unfortunately, pronunciation cannot be succinctly described for Hamnstead Erish because the orthography is fairly etymological, essentially reflecting the pronunciation of Old Erish with a few simplifications and updates. It is, though, fairly regular, and the hope of Jugar Raskson, the father of modern Erish orthography, was that the written language would let as many people as possible derive their own pronunciation from the spelling.
Goals
Erish orthography is essentially fighting two battles: the battle to modernize spelling and keep the rules as regular as possible, and the battle to keep important cultural and religious texts from the Old Erish period as intelligible as possible. I've looked at Icelandic and Faroese for inspiration, but also incorporated principles from languages with less orthographic depth.
Vowels
The following table presents the pronunciation of vowel graphemes in Erish. Note that the "jV" digraphs are only pronounced in this way if the j is word-initial or can soften a preceding consonant:
​
Letter(s) a e, í, eì, aì i o, á, ú, aù, où u, ó y æ, já œ, jó, jú, ý, oì, eù
Short /ɑ/ /ɛ/ /ɪ/ /ɔ/ /ʊ/ /ʏ/ /æ/ /œ/
Long /ɑː/ /eː/ /iː/ /oː/ /uː/ /yː/ /æː/ /øː/
Consonants
To keep Erish consonants simple, and as allophony has already been covered, their transcription here is phonemic. In educational materials for Erish, consonants are generally divided into four groups, plain, strong, weak, and the letter g, which are grouped based on whether and how they can soften.
Basic rules about consonants include:
Plain consonants
Plain consonants are so-called because they cannot soften under any circumstances.
​
Letter(s) Hard Fricative
b /b/ binde "to bind" /ˈbɪnːdɛ/ /f/ lab "lab(oratory)" /ˈlɑːf/
f /f/ faþer "father" /ˈfɑːsɛ
m /m/ móte "must" /ˈmuːtɛ/
ng /ŋ/ wing "wing" /ˈɣɪŋː/
p /p/ pá "on" /ˈpoː/
r / rotte "rat" /ˈrɔtːɛ/
v /b/ virus "virus" /ˈbiːrʊs/ /f/ livte "lived" /ˈlɪfːtɛ/
Strong consonants
Strong consonants are "strong" enough it takes a j or z to soften them. Because strong consonants are long when softened and non-initial, they lack soft fricative forms. They include the coronal consonants which got palatalized to retroflex consonants, though z was retroflex for most of Erish history. The retroflex spellings tend not to occur in modern loanwords unless Henskland adopts a retroflex form; it's the only Land left that hasn't merged the retroflex consonants with the palatals.
​
Letter(s) Hard Soft Fricative
d /d/ dœr "door" /ˈdøː /ʝ/ bedje "to ask" /ˈbɛʝːɛ/ /s/ sæd "seed" /ˈsæːs/
l /l/ láte "to let" /ˈloːtɛ/ /ʎ/ ljúht "light" /ˈʎɔxːt/
n /n/ naht "night" /ˈnɑxːt/ /ɲ/ hænje "to hang" /ˈʃæɲːɛ/
s /s/ synge "to sing" /ˈsʏŋːɛ/ /ʃ/ sjelv "self" /ˈʃɛlːf/
st /st/ stóren "big" /ˈstuːrɛn/ /ʃ/ stjarne "star" /ˈʃɑrːnɛ/
t /t/ sten "stone" /ˈsteːn/ /t͡ʃ/ sitje "to sit" /ˈsɪt͡ʃːɛ/
z /ʃ/ meze "more" /ˈmeːʃɛ/
þ /s/ þing "thing" /ˈsɪŋː/ /ʃ/ þjúv "thief" /ˈʃoːf/
Weak consonants
Weak consonants are "weak" enough that vowels can soften them in addition to j; in instances where a soft pronunciation is used, it is either because a hard letter is used, or because there is a v "shielding" them. They include the reflexes of the Old Erish velar consonants /x,k,sk/, as well as the labiovelars /xʷ,kʷ,skʷ/. The basic principle governing their softening is that they do so before certain vowels initially, and after other vowels elsewhere. If neither of these conditions are met, they use a hard pronunciation. It is to be noted that, barring one exception, acute accented letters have the same effects as their unaccented counterparts, and so they are not treated seperately here (grave accented vowels never soften a consonant).
​
Letter(s) Conditions or example Softens initially Softens elsewhere Hard
h (short), ch (long) Conditions to /ʃ/ before e, i, y, æ, œ to /ʃ/ after e, i, y, æ, œ /x/ in all other conditions
Examples himmel "sky" /ˈʃɪmːɛl/ reht "justice" /ˈrɛʃːt/ hús "house" /ˈxoːs/
k (short), ck (long) Conditions to /t͡ʃ/ before e, i, y, æ, œ to /t͡ʃ/ after i, y /k/ in all other conditions
Examples kyng "king" /ˈt͡ʃʏŋː/ rík "realm" /ˈreːt͡ʃ/ bók "book" /ˈbuːk/
sk (short and long) Conditions to /ʃ/ before e, i, y, æ, œ to /ʃ/ after a (not á), e, i, y, æ, œ, or a consonant /sk/ in all other conditions
Examples skíne "to shine" /ˈʃeːnɛ/ fisk "fish" /ˈfɪʃː/ busk "bush" /ˈbʊsːk/
Erish used to be far more inconsistent in representing when exceptions to these conditions occurred, but modern spelling is extremely regular in this regard. Soft consonants in instances where a hard consonant is expected are represented in different ways depending upon if they are initial, non-initial and short, or non-initial and long.
​
Desired soft consonant Location and length Grapheme(s) Example
h /ʃ/ Initial hj hjarte "heart" /ˈʃɑrːtɛ/
Non-initial and short N/A
Non-initial and long hj (singular instance) hlæhje "to laugh" /ˈxlæʃːɛ/
k /t͡ʃ/ Initial kj kjúe "to chew" /ˈt͡ʃoːɣɛ/
Non-initial and short c koc "coach" /ˈkoːt͡ʃ/
Non-initial and long zk, rarely kj þækje "to think" /ˈsæt͡ʃːɛ/
sk /ʃ/ Initial skj skjá "cloud" /ˈʃoː/
Non-initial and short N/A
Non-initial and long sc broscyre "brochure" /ˈbrɔʃːʏ
Hard consonants are represented with similar treatments, with the grapheme depending upon whether the instance is word-initial, non-initial and short, or non-initial and long:
​
Desired hard consonant Location and length Grapheme(s) Example
h /x/ Initial hv hvint "hint" /ˈxɪnːt/
Non-initial and short x exo "echo" /ˈeːxɔ/
Non-initial and long hh, rarely hv sehve "to see" /ˈsɛxːɛ/
k /k/ Initial qu quinne "woman" /ˈkɪnːɛ/
Non-initial and short qu kliqu "clique" /ˈkliːk/
Non-initial and long kk, rarely kv republikk "republic" /rɛpʊbˈlɪkː/
sk /sk/ Initial squ squeìt "(ice/roller) skate" /ˈskeːt/
Non-initial and short N/A
Non-initial and long squ fresque "fresco" /ˈɸrɛsːkɛ/
G-Consonants
The letter g is not the only consonant grapheme of the last group of Erish consonants, but the set is essentially used to indicate hardness and softness not unlike h, k, and sk. It is grouped by itself because it represents six phonemes and has less consistency in which graphemes are used to represent hardness and softness for those phonemes. In principle, g is just the voiced counter part to h, k, and sk, with the addendum that before nasals it has a nasal pronunciation that can be hard or soft; the fricativization it experiences is expectable because it is voiced.
​
Letter(s) Conditions or example Softens initially Softens elsewhere Hard
g (short), cg (long) Regular conditions to /ʝ/ before e, i, y, æ, or œ, and another vowel to /ʝ/ after e, i, y, æ, or œ, and another vowel /ɣ/ in all other regular conditions
Regular examples gæst "guest" /ˈʝæsːt/ weges "ways" /ˈɣeːʝɛs/ gá "to go" /ˈɣoː/
Fricative conditions N/A to /ʃ/ between the vowels e, i, y, æ, and œ, and the end of a word or the consonants d, s, or t to /x/ between all other vowels or l or r, and the end of a word or the consonants d, s, or t
Fricative examples N/A ig "I" /ˈiːʃ/ dag "day" /ˈdɑːx/
Nasal conditions N/A to /ɲ/ between the vowels e, i, y, æ, and œ, and n to /ŋ/ between all other vowels or l or r, and n
Nasal examples N/A regn "rain" /ˈrɛɲːn/ Ragnar /ˈraŋːnɑ
Ideally, g should have a regular distribution of "soft in hard contexts" graphemes and "hard in soft contexts" graphemes, but the reality is that etymology means different graphemes are used in what should be regular contexts. Nonetheless, there aren't so many graphemes in use:
​
Desired consonants Location and length Grapheme(s) Example
Soft g (/ʝ/, /ʃ/, /ɲ/) Initial j, gj (less common) jorþ "earth" /ˈʝɔrːs/, gjos "they (f.)" /ˈʝoːs/
Non-initial and short j garaj "garage" /ɣaˈrɑːʃ/
Non-initial and long zg, gj (rare) brizg "bridge (game)" /ˈbrɪʝː/
Hard g (/ɣ/, /x/, /ŋ/) Initial w, gv gvad "what" /ˈɣɑː/, west "west" /ˈɣɛsːt/
Non-initial and short w intriw "intrigue" /ɪnˈtriːx/
Non-initial and long gg rigg "rig" /ˈrɪɣː/
Feedback Questions
Questions I personally have are:

Resources

This last section is dedicated to the resources I think have been most useful in the creation of Erish, and that are valuable to people looking to make a Germanic language, or even a conlang in general. I'm certain some of these sources will be familiar to many members of this sub, but they're there for those to whom they aren't:

Conclusion

It's been a long post, so I won't take up so much more space. Seeing as how it's a common enough translation in initial posts, though, I would like to provide the Lord's Prayer in Erish:
Written Erish:
Faþern osren, Hlárden gwen bez í Hjomn,
Be namen zín werþe heligende;
Be ríked zítt kome;
Be wiljo zí skehe pá jorþo zí som í Hjomn;
Be geve til oss í dag ossert daglige brod,
end forláte oss skuldostos osros sá som wid forláte osros skuldos;
End be bringe ick pá oss í fresnos, men frælse pá oss frá yvel.
Zítt bez ríked, end mahten end ero í œighedo.
Amen.
​
Hamnstead Erish pronunciation:
[ˈɸɑːs̪ɐn ˌɔs̪ɾn̩ ˈxl̥ɔrːd̪n̩ ɰn̩ bəʃ ˌɛɪ̯ ˈʃɔmːn]
[ˈbɛɪ̯ː ˈnɑːmn̩ ˌʃɛɪ̯n ˌɰɛɾs̪ə ˈʃɛɪ̯ːlɪjn̪̩d̪ə]
[ˈbɛɪ̯ː ˈrɛɪ̯ːt͡ʃə ˌʃɛt̪ ˈkʷʰoːmə]
[ˈbɛɪ̯ː ˈɰɪʎ̟ːɔ ˌʃɛɪ̯ ˈʃɛɪ̯ːʃə ˌpɔʊ̯ ˈjʷɔrːs̪ə ˌʃɛɪ̯ s̪ɔm ˌɛɪ̯ ˈʃɔmːn]
[ˈbɛɪ̯ː ˈjɛɪ̯ːβ̞ə ˌt̪il ˌɔs̪ ˌɛɪ̯ ˈd̪ɑːx ˌɔs̪ɐt̪ ˈd̪ɑːxˌlijə ˈbɾoːs̪]
[n̪̩d̪ ɸɔɾˈlɔʊ̯t̪ə ˌɔs̪ ˈs̪kʷʊl̪ːd̪ɔs̪t̪ɔs̪ ˌɔs̪ɾɔs̪ ˌs̪ɔʊ̯ s̪ɔm ˌɰi ˈɔs̪ːɾɔs̪ ˈskʷʊl̪ːd̪ɔs̪]
[n̪̩d̪ ˈbɛɪ̯ː ˈbɾɪŋːə ˌɪt͡ʃ pɔ ˌɔs̪ ˌɛɪ̯ ˈɸɾ̥eːs̪ˌnɔʊ̯s̪ mn̩ ˈɸɾ̥æl̪ːs̪ə pɔ ˌɔs̪ ˌɸɾ̥ɔʊ̯ ˈyʉ̯ːβ̞l̩]
[ˌʃɛt̪ bəʃ ˈrɛɪ̯ːt͡ʃə n̪̩d̪ ˈmɑxːt̪n̩ n̪̩d̪ ˈɛɪ̯ːɾɔ ˌɛɪ̯ ˈœʏ̯ːˌjiˌʃːɛɪ̯s̪ɔ]
[ˈɑːmɛ̠n]
​
Gloss:
father-the.m.sg our.incl-m.sg lord-the.m.sg who.m.sg.dir be.fut.sg in Heaven
be.fut.sbjv name-the.m.sg thy.m.sg become-inf sanctify-ptcp.prs.m.sg
be.fut.sbjv realm-the.n.sg thy.n.sg come-inf
be.fut.sbjv will-the.f.sg thy.f.sg happen-inf on earth-the.f.sg thy.f.sg as in Heaven
be.fut.sbjv give-inf to us.incl.dat in day our.incl-n.sg daily-def.n.sg bread
and forgive-inf us.incl.dat guilt-the.f.pl our.incl-f.pl so as we.excl forgive-inf our.incl-f.pl guilt-pl
and be.fut.sbjv bring-inf not acc us.incl.acc in temptation but free-inf acc us.incl.acc from evil
thine be.fut.sg realm-the.n.sg and power-the.m.sg and glory-the.f.sg in eternity-the.f.sg
amen
​
English translation:
Our father, the Lord who will always be in Heaven,
May it always be that thy name sanctifies itself;
May it always be that thy kingdom comes;
May it always be that thy will comes upon your Earth as in Heaven;
May it always be that thou givest us our daily bread,
and forgive our guilts for us, as we forgive our guilts;
And may it always be that thou dost not bring us into temptation but free us from evil.
Thine will always be the kingdom, and the power and the glory in eternity.
Amen.
Notes about the translation:
submitted by Phalanx-Spear to conlangs [link] [comments]

An extensive, RAE-endorsed explanation of the differences between ser and estar

Okay, so the RAE didn't literally endorse this Reddit post, but the following is more or less an English-translated summary of the sections in their Nueva gramática de la lengua española that detail the difference between these two verbs that cause so many problems for non-native speakers. I'm an Australian citizen and Mexican resident, I study a BA in Hispanic Literature at the University of Guadalajara, I privately tutor a few other expats living in the city, and I'm currently using the summer vacations to prep for the DELE C2, which I hope to take at the end of the year. This is an end-of-semester project in which I had to explain a grammatical topic with apples and oranges, and for which I was given 100. I've just rejigged it for an English-speaking audience. If you're a learner or non-native speaker of Spanish, I hope this helps dispel some doubts for you. Even if you're a native, you might learn something interesting, so read on!
The most common explanation, the one that abounds in internet forums for Spanish learners, is that ser means "permanent" and estar means "temporary". Most native speakers give this explanation, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is plainly, objectively incorrect. It is true that usually sentences with ser refer to something more or less permanent and usually sentences with estar refer to something impermanent, which is why this myth gets propagated so much, but as the saying goes, correlation does not imply causation. Here is an example of a sentence with ser which is definitely not permanent: Soy estudiante de Letras Hispánicas de segundo semestre. As soon as the semester finishes, this is no longer true. Conversely, Martin Luther King está muerto is very much a permanent situation, despite using estar, so permanent vs temporary is clearly not right.
Let’s look at the following two sentences:
El muchacho es alto.
El muchacho está alto.
First things first: both of these sentences are grammatically correct, and both of them plant the idea of a tall boy in the listener’s mind. So what’s the difference between them then? Focus. El muchacho está alto isn’t trying to say that the boy is temporarily tall, and that he’ll be short again tomorrow. That’s just ridiculous. Rather, using estar focuses our attention on one of two things: the boy is taller than he was, or taller than the speaker had expected him to be. And that is essentially the nuts of estar: a state that has come about as the result of a process of change, or a state that is in some way circumstantial, or a state that flies in the face of our expectations. This isn’t all there is to know about estar, but when it comes to using estar with an adjective, this is pretty much the essence of it. The other sentence, then, El muchacho es alto is focusing on an intrinsic characteristic of the boy: he is a definitively tall boy. An example to illustrate, but not restrict, the prior explanation: if the boy is 6’7”, without a doubt, el muchacho es alto. Few people grow to that height, so at any time of his life, in any company, he is tall. On the other hand, if at 11 years old, he’s 5’8”, el muchacho está alto, because while 5’8” isn’t all that tall in the grand scheme of things, it is quite tall for an 11 year old boy, certainly taller than we would expect. If the boy is 6’7”, you can still say El muchacho está alto. You’d just be focusing on his growth and change, or on your own surprise at his height, rather than the absoluteness of El muchacho es alto.
You may have noticed that estar carries more semantic weight than ser. Neither of the two words are really very heavy with meaning, since they’re both copulative verbs at the end of the day, whose job is simply to link two lexical elements, but you should be able to see that estar does have a little more nuance behind it than ser.
---
This is the TL;DR line. Everything above is the main argument. Everything below is a supporting detail. If you're still a beginner, you should definitely stop here to avoid overloading yourself with too much information.
Of course, it gets more complicated than that. When qualifying a group (when dealing with plural nouns), ser applies to the group in its totality, whereas estar only takes on meaning if referring to a specific portion of the group recognisable to the listener. Let’s look at these two examples to see what I mean:
Los perros son lindos. - Dogs are cute or lovely in general.
Los perros están lindos. - The specific dogs in question are cute or lovely. Again, the aforementioned applies about inherent vs resultative or circumstantial. The dogs could be looking lovely because they’ve just been bathed, for example, which would constitute a process of change.
Let’s look at another example:
Los tacos son ricos. - Tacos, in general, are delicious. It’s an inherent characteristic. This doesn’t necessarily mean that every taco ever made is delicious, but that they generally are.
Los tacos están ricos. - That is, the ones I’m eating right now. They’ve gone through a process of change (being prepared by the taquero), and they’ve attained a delicious state.
NOTE: this rule doesn’t apply when the adjective is a participle. In this case, estar is used to apply an attribute to the total group, since ser with a participle would form the passive voice. So Los perros están prohibidos means that dogs, all dogs, are prohibited.
Since I’ve just mentioned the passive voice, this is always formed with ser. This is a set construction of the language, just like it is in English: La víctima fue agredida por un sujeto en motocicleta/The victim was assaulted by an individual on a motorcycle. This construction is used frequently in newspaper Spanish, although it is also useful when we don’t know or don’t care who performed an action: El agave es cultivado para hacer tequila (por miles de personas). Of course, Spanish also has the impersonal passive, with se, but that is beyond the scope of this lesson.
Only ser can be used with nouns, while only estar can be used with adverbs. So, Soy estudiante is correct, but *Estoy estudiante isn’t. On the other hand, Estoy bien is totally fine, but \Soy bien definitely isn’t. In an example like *Estás burro (literally: "You are donkey", an affectionate way of calling someone silly in Mexico and possibly other countries), burro is acceptable because it’s actually functioning as an adjective. Even the great Cervantes converted nouns into adjectives with estar: Muy filósofo estás, Sancho (Cervantes, Quijote II). This literally means, "Very philosopher you are, Sancho", which we can take to mean that Sancho was speaking or behaving very philosophically in that moment.
There is one other situation in which you can use estar with a noun, and that is to indicate the presence of someone or something. In this case, an adverb of location, such as aquí or ahí, is always implied. So Estamos cinco means five of us are present, whereas Somos cinco means we are five people or, in more natural-sounding English, there are five of us. Somos cinco en mi familia: madre, padre, mis dos hermanas, y yo. If you ask ¿Está el jefe?, you’re asking if the boss is here (if you’re speaking face-to-face) or if the boss is there (if you’re speaking over the phone). Contrast this to ¿Es el jefe? which is asking if someone is the boss.
For expressions of place, ser identifies a place, whereas estar localises it. What does this mean?
Aquí es mi casa. - This (place) is my house. I’m saying what the place is.
Aquí está mi casa. - My house is (located) here. I’m saying where the place is. Notice how this is once again a use of estar to express a permanent state (unless your house is a campervan, of course).
We always use estar for localising objects, as in:
Mis llaves están en mi casa.
On the other hand, for denoting the place where an action or event is carried out, we must use ser:
La fiesta es en mi casa.
The question of identifying vs localising also extends to time:
Hoy es jueves. - I’m identifying today as Thursday. This applies for any period of time. Es junio. Es 2020. Es el siglo XXI. Es la una y media de la tarde. Son las nueve de la noche.
Estamos a jueves. - I’m localising us: we’re “in” Thursday.
Many adjectives change their meaning if combined with ser or estar. There is, however, often (although not always) a logical connection between the different meanings based on the canonical meanings of ser as inherent or defining and estar as a resultative, perceived or circumstantial state.
Pedro es listo. - Pedro is clever. (I like to think of this as being inherently ready for almost anything due to his cleverness; it’s a satisfying explanation for my English-speaking mind.)
Pedro está listo. - Pedro is ready.
Estudiar es cansado. - Studying is tiring or tiresome.
Martha está cansada. - Martha is tired.
Tu mamá es buena. - Your mother is a good person, or perhaps she has good abilities for raising her children.
Tu mamá está buena. - It’s probably best that you don’t say this to anyone, ever. (It means "Your mum is hot.")
There are lists of these adjectives that can be searched on the internet or in grammar manuals. None of them, not even the one in the Real Academia´s behemoth 6700-page Nueva gramática de la lengua española, are exhaustive, but they do usually cover the most common and important ones, and from there you can use your logic to figure out the rest as you go.
Another key distinction with adjective use is personality (ser) vs mood or circumstantial behaviours (estar). Let’s examine another pair of examples:
Catalina era valiente y decidida. - Catalina was brave and resolute. This is her personality. Combining the adjectives with ser paints them as inherent characteristics of Catalina: her personality.
Catalina ha estado muy valiente frente a la situación; está decidida a seguir luchando por la justicia. - Here we are talking about behaviours that arise due to a particular circumstance: she has been brave and determined to overcome the situation that she is confronting.
However, when the behaviour comes to affect other people, we use ser with the preposition con. For example, La maestra ha sido muy indulgente con nosotros. The teacher has been very lenient with us. She may not always be lenient, but with us she has been.
Think about Joaquín es triste and Joaquín está triste. One of them is saying that Joaquín is a sad, melancholic guy, while the other is saying he’s upset due to the circumstances: his dog died or something. This also explains why Soy feliz is congruent. The happiness might not last forever. One day you might be lonely and broke with no hope for the future, but for the time being, your average mood is positive. Estoy feliz, once again, would be the result of a circumstance. Estoy feliz porque mi prima vino a visitarme.
Impersonal statements that follow the structure It’s + adjective + that in English or It’s + a/an + noun + that follow the same structure in Spanish with ser:
Es evidente que has mentido.
Es una lástima que haya tanta corrupción.
Just like the earlier example about the lovely dogs, this sentence structure requires estar if the adjective is a participle:
Está comprobado que el universo se expande.
An exception to this rule is the adjective claro, which can be used with either ser or estar without any significant change in meaning.
Es/Está claro que te gusta jugar con mis sentimientos.
Equative sentences –sentences which essentially say that one thing equals another– use ser. These order of these sentences is reversible, and they require the use of a definite article (el/la/los/las). For example, Fabián es el ganador or El ganador es Fabián. Furthermore, sentences with infinitive complements always use ser, such as Eso es sufrir.
On the topic of set sentence structures, estar is always used in the progressive tenses, to describe an action that is currently under way –Estoy aprendiendo latín– or to describe the action of a given moment in the past or future: Estaba caminando por la calle cuando se escuchó la balacera. En una semana más, estaré festejando el fin del semestre.
Ser is always used to mention someone’s profession or occupation, such as Juan es médico, or my original example, Soy estudiante de Letras Hispánicas de segundo semestre. Temporary jobs can, however, be mentioned with the expression estar de, as in the example Estoy de repartidor de comida, pero en realidad, soy ingeniero aeroespacial. (I’m working as a food delivery man, but I’m really a rocket scientist).
We use ser de to talk about the origin of something or someone:
Soy de Sídney.
Estos cigarros son de Cuba.
To mention the material with which something is made, we can also use ser de, as in Este escritorio es de madera or Las Macbooks son de aluminio. However, we can express more or less the same information with a slightly different focus using the phrase estar hecho/a de:
Este escritorio está hecho de madera.
Las Macbooks están hechas de aluminio.
This is congruent with our baseline uses of ser (inherent characteristic or state) and estar (state achieved as a process of change; in this case, being made is the process of change).
Finally, when we want to say that something is or seems a certain way for or to someone, or talk about the impression something has on us, we use ser with an indirect object pronoun (me, te, le, nos, os, les)
Esto me es molesto/útil/interesante.
Espero que esta explicación les haya sido útil.
Let's go back, then, to the first example of estar that I used:
Martin Luther King está muerto.
This was the first sentence that made me realise that estar isn't necessarily temporary, but now I know that it is congruent, because it describes a state achieved through a process of change. Life is the process. The end of the process, death.
So, that's just about it. If you have any doubts or disagree with anything that I've said above, feel free to comment below, and I'll be happy to share the relevant documentation with you.
---
Principal Reference
Real Academia Española. (2011). Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Sintaxis II. (subsections 37.7a-37.9t). Barcelona, Spain: Espasa Libros.
Additional References
Bradley, P. & Mackenzie, I. (2004). Spanish: An Essential Grammar (pp 211-212). London, UK: Routledge.
Butt, J. & Benjamin, C. (1994). A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish (2nd Edition, pp 375-381). London, UK: Routledge.
Kattán Ibarra, J. & Pountain, C. (2003). Modern Spanish Grammar: A Practical Guide. (2nd Edition, pp 103-107). London, UK: Routledge.
Larousse. (2010). Gramática de la lengua española (subsections 158 & 161). Barcelona, Spain: Larousse.
Ser and Estar - The No-Nonsense Guide. (2016). Recovered from: https://itsnachotime.com/ser-esta
submitted by donnymurph to Spanish [link] [comments]

A Summary of the Imperfect (Imperfective Aspect) - Part 2

Hi, there!
In the last post, we summarized the three main features of the imperfect.
Now, let's talk about the most problematic aspect of the imperfect.
A TL;DR will be placed at the bottom for your convenience.
-----
Here are the examples from the last post expressing the three main features of the imperfect:
Recall the following from the last post:
  1. In Spanish, situation 1 can be expressed with either the bare imperfect form or with "solía" and the infinitive. In English, "used to" with the bare infinitive is analogous to "solía" with the infinitive. "would" with the bare infinitive can also be used as a habitual marker in this context. ("would" is NOT a marker for the conditional mood here.)
  2. In Spanish, situation 2 can be expressed with either the bare imperfect form or with the imperfect progressive. In English, only the past progressive is applicable here.
  3. In Spanish, situation 3 can be expressed only with the bare imperfect form. In English, only the past simple works here.
...and there, you have the most problematic aspect of the imperfect: situation 3. Unlike in situations 1 and 2, where forms other than the past simple can be used, situation 3 works only with the past simple.
Now, in Spanish, this isn't a big deal because the past simple still has two forms left: the bare preterite and the bare imperfect. Thus, you can just rely on the verb ending to tell you whether or not the situation here is imperfective.
However, in English, the past simple has only one form, and it is mapped to both the perfective and the imperfective. Yikes! That's unfortunate! Since there are no other verb forms available, you have to rely on the context to tell what's imperfective and what's not.
Sometimes, this is pretty easy to do. For example:
"I had good news this morning."
This verb is clearly perfective. It expresses a completed state.
Another example:
"The girl was so beautiful when she was a teenager."
The first verb is clearly imperfective, unless you want to imply that the girl's beauty was acquired and not a state in progress during her youth. Then, that would be weird.
The second verb is also clearly imperfective, as the girl's being a teenager was also a state in progress, not an acquired state for a limited time.
Sometimes, you can change the verb itself to convey a more obvious perfective meaning as long as the new verb has the same meaning as the original verb. Here are some examples:
Here, all verbs express the end of a previous state and the beginning of a new state. Thus, they are all evidently perfective.
Okay. So far, telling what's perfective and what's imperfective from the context doesn't seem so hard.
Ah, but what about situations like this?
"How did you know?"
Well, shoot! Now, how are we supposed to decide what's perfective and what's imperfective? It's not as though we can just change the form of the verb!
Don't worry. If we try thinking through the example and translating it to Spanish, we might have our answer.
Actually, "How did you know?" can be either perfective or imperfective, so you have these two options:
So, what on earth is the difference between the two?
The first question focuses more on how you gained knowledge of something. In other words, it's asking when you began to know (or realized) something.
In contrast, the second question focuses more on how you had prior knowledge of something. It's asking how you already knew about something.
I'll provide some additional context to illustrate the difference. For the first one:
For the second one:
In the first example, the beginning of knowing something is conveyed as there is no implication of prior knowledge. In other words, the sentence "¿Cómo lo supiste?" really means "How did you begin to know?"
In the second example, the reverse is true. The possession of prior knowledge is conveyed, not the acquisition of it. In other words, the sentence "¿Cómo lo sabías?" really means "How did you already know?"
In Spanish, these meanings are made more evident with verbal inflections. In English, you have to guess these meanings from the context, which, again, can be quite difficult to do.
-----
Okay, so English sometimes relies on context for perfective/imperfective meanings whereas Spanish uses verbal inflections to do the same thing. What is the significance of this?
Well, let's look at the very first examples again. This time, we'll remove the verbs from all of the sentences.
When conveying perfective/imperfective situations, English and Spanish use syntax that is essentially identical. The only difference between these sentences in the two languages is how the verbs encode verbal aspect.
In Spanish, verb morphology is used to convey the preterite/imperfect distinction. Periphrasis ("solía" + infinitive) and the progressive aspect (-ando/-iendo verbs) are also available for use.
However, English doesn't use verbal morphology to express the preterite/imperfect distinction. Instead, English uses context, periphrasis ("used to" + infinitive), the progressive aspect (-ing verbs), and sometimes altogether different verbs to express the difference. Essentially, English has more ambiguous, roundabout ways of expressing the contrast.
All of this implies that English speakers already know the difference between the preterite and the imperfect. In other words, their sense of P/I is just as good as any native Spanish speaker, so they don't need to acquire the imperfect as a new feature.
So, what's the issue, then? English speakers just don't know which Spanish verb form to use to express the P/I difference, which makes sense as they're not used to marking such aspects with morphology.
That's okay, though. With quality exposure to the language, English speakers will eventually "remap" the intended meanings of the past tense verbs onto the correct morphological forms. This is entirely possible.
So, don't get discouraged. The preterite/imperfect contrast is acquired late for second-language learners, so with time, you'll eventually master it. You just need to keep listening to comprehensible Spanish.
-----
TL;DR -- Both English and Spanish make the perfective/imperfective distinction. English just has clunkier ways of expressing the distinction due to the lack of corresponding verbal morphology.
However, the P/I contrast in Spanish can be acquired. In fact, English speakers can gradually learn to "remap" their verbs in the past tense onto the correct morphological forms.
In other words, the only way to get a solid sense of P/I is (a) to simply expose yourself to Spanish that you can understand and (b) to wait. The imperfect is a late-acquired feature of L2 Spanish. You must be patient as your brain gradually learns when to use the imperfect and when not to. Relying on poor rules-of-thumb for telling the difference between the preterite and the imperfect is NOT going to speed up the acquisition process and may actually hinder it.
Thanks for reading!
submitted by VGM123 to Spanish [link] [comments]

The Preterite & Imperfect - Post #3

Hello, again!
Now, let's discuss some common problematic rules of thumb about the preterite and the imperfect.
This is going to be a fairly long post, so if you want a TL;DR, skip to the second-to-last section.
Here's a list of some of the most problematic rules of thumb:
  1. The imperfect describes background actions or describes the scene.
  2. The imperfect and preterite change the meaning of some verbs.
  3. The imperfect can be replaced with “used to + verb,” “would + verb,” or “was verb + 'ing'.”
  4. The imperfect describes emotional activity.
  5. Certain phrases are used with the imperfect whereas others are used with the preterite.
  6. The imperfect expresses repeated actions.
  7. The preterite involves actions with a specific or explicit time frame.
  8. The preterite is used for punctual events (i.e. events with a single dot on a timeline).
All of these are either half-truths or falsities. As a whole, they're not entirely wrong, but they fail to capture all or even most instances of the proper use of the imperfect and preterite.
Let's look at some counterexamples, shall we?
1. The imperfect describes background actions or describes the scene.
This rule is pretty useless as not all imperfective actions describe background actions or scenes.
How do you explain a sentence such as, “Yo no estaba listo para el examen”? That sentence doesn't involve a background action.
Moreover, how do we even define “background action”? That’s a vague rule of thumb because it’s subjective. What one person interprets as a background action may be interpreted as something else by another person.
A similar issue is present with the "snapshot = preterite" and "movie = imperfect" analogy. Again, it's quite vague and subjective.
2. The imperfect and preterite change the meaning of some verbs.
No, not quite. How do you explain the following sentence?
“Siempre quise ser abogado.”
“Quise” and its sister conjugations are always said to mean “to try” in the past. Here, that rule of thumb doesn't work very well. Both “quise” and “quería” mean “to want.” The only thing that differs is whether or not the action or state is “completed” at a relevant moment of time in the past.
Here’s another sentence:
“Mis padres nunca quisieron decirme la verdad, así que la escondieron.”
Here, it is often said that “quise” in the negative means “to refuse,” but that isn’t always the case. There’s no refusal taking place here. The parents simply didn’t want to tell their child the truth, so they hid it from her.
Here's one final example.
"A medida que ellos se conocieron, se enamoraron."
Those who have read the first post of this series will remember this example. "Conocer" is often said to mean "to have met" in the preterite. Though that interpretation can work sometimes, it won't always work.
It certainly doesn't work at all in this example. This particular sentence means, "As they got to know each other, they fell in love."
3. The imperfect can be replaced with “used to + verb,” “would + verb,” or “was verb + 'ing'.”
This is only half-true. Consider the following examples.
“Yo jugaba/solía jugar al baloncesto cuando era joven.”
“I used to play/would play basketball when I was young.”
“Mientras Ana leía/estaba leyendo el periódico, el teléfono sonó.”
“While Ana was reading the newspaper, the telephone rang.”
These sentences work.
However, you would never say, “When I used to/would be a kid” or “When I was being a kid.”
Instead, you would say, “When I was a kid,” which corresponds with the clause, “Cuando era niño.”
That, and the “was + -ing” rule doesn’t always work. In Spanish, “-ing” verbs can be either imperfect or preterite. Consider the following examples.
“Yo estaba viendo la televisión cuando la apagaste.”
“I was watching the television when you turned it off.”
“Estuve hablando del partido durante tres horas.”
“I was talking about the sports game for three hours.”
So, what’s the difference, then? The first puts the listener in the middle of the action whereas the second does not.
4. The imperfect describes emotional activity.
Nope. Either aspect can be used. Take a look at the two sentences below.
“Tuve miedo cuando el incendio empezó.”
“Ella se puso triste cuando su abuela murió.”
If you're trying to express that one past action immediately resulted in another action, then using the imperfect here would not make much sense. Only the preterite would work here.
5. Certain phrases are used with the imperfect whereas others are used with the preterite.
No, not quite. “Siempre” is said to trigger only the imperfect, but that's not always the case. How do you explain a sentence such as, “Siempre supe que tu novio te fue infiel”?
“Siempre” can be used with either aspect. The choice of aspect isn't dependent on adverbs, conjunctions, or phrases, such as “ayer,” “siempre,” “anoche,” “a menudo,” “mientras,” “cuando,” “todos los días,” “de vez en cuando,” etc. It depends on how the speaker wants to convey the action.
6. The imperfect expresses repeated actions.
Not necessarily. Both aspects can do that.
“Él me pegó repetidamente cuando éramos niños.”
“Él me pegaba repetidamente cuando éramos niños.”
Either aspect can convey a repeated action. The only difference is that the second sentence implies that the past action took place regularly whereas the first sentence does not imply that.
7. The preterite involves actions with a specific or explicit time frame.
This rule of thumb never really made sense to me, even as a beginner, and it’s pretty easy to see why.
There are plenty of cases where the preterite involves a clear time frame. For example:
“Durante dos minutos, la profesora gritó.”
But, there are also plenty of cases where the preterite does not involve a clear time frame. For example:
“La tormenta fue horrible. Mis hermanos y yo tuvimos miedo.”
There’s definitely a time frame here, but it isn’t explicit at all, yet the preterite is still used.
8. The preterite is used for punctual events (i.e. events with a single dot on a timeline).
This rule of thumb is actually not wrong. The preterite is often used for one-time events. However, this rule is not complete because it fails to account for the following sentence:
“Durante varios meses, el tren llegó tarde.”
This event is not a single dot on a timeline as “durante varios meses” implies, yet the preterite is used, anyway. Why? It’s because the event is seen as “whole” (i.e. it's expressed in its entirety).
In fact, this rule of thumb seems to be a by-product of flawed rule of thumb #6 mentioned above: "The imperfect expresses repeated actions."
For whatever reason, many learners often have a hard time understanding that events that occur repeatedly within a bounded or closed interval of time can be seen as preterite. This paper explores that issue in more depth.
Instead, these learners think that “repeated = imperfect” and “punctual = preterite” when that doesn’t adequately cover the entire concept.
For example, if a wife wanted to talk about her late husband, she might say something along the lines of, “Mi esposo siempre me amó.” This is not a punctual event, but it is seen as "completed," nonetheless.
-----
Anyway, I could keep providing more counterexamples, but you get the point.
TL;DR -- Basically, you shouldn't rely on rules of thumb to decide when to use these aspects because these rules are often very wrong.
Don’t worry too much about it, though. Even if you screw up the aspects, people may still understand what you mean. You just won’t sound as precise.
As an example, let me share an anecdote with you. When I was a student in high school, I was taking a Spanish 3 class, and we were to write a short story. I wrote mine entirely in the past tense, and because I was a beginner, I randomly chose which aspect to use. As you would expect, my teacher, who was a native, marked most of these verbs as incorrect and wrote down the correct forms. When I asked about why I made the wrong choices, he couldn’t explain it to me. That’s okay, though. He still understood what I meant.
-----
Now, here’s a little exercise for you. Can you decide what appropriate aspect to use for the following sentence?
“Cuando vimos los zapatos nuevos en la tienda, _____ (quisimos/queríamos) comprarlos.”
For additional context, a few girls are shopping together at a mall, and they saw a new pair of shoes that looked very cool. Then, they wanted to buy the shoes.
(Hint: See the section discussing flawed rule of thumb #4.)
If you said "quisimos," you were correct!
Stay tuned for post #4!
submitted by VGM123 to Spanish [link] [comments]

jugar past tense forms video

PastTenses is a database of English verbs. One can check verbs forms in different tenses. Use our search box to check present tense, present participle tense, past tense and past participle tense of desired verb. Jugar: Past Perfect Tense. Using the chart below you can learn how to conjugate the Spanish verb jugar in Past Perfect tense. Definition. to play. Want a qualified Spanish teacher to walk you through verb forms? Try a free lesson with a Live Lingua online Spanish tutor. Try a 1-to-1 lesson free Preterite of Jugar. We use the preterite to talk about finished actions in the past. Jugar is regular in this conjugation, except for a small change in the first person, so you will just need to Preterite (Past Tense) Conjugation of jugar – Pretérito (pretérito perfecto simple) de jugar. Spanish Verb Conjugation: yo jugué, tú jugaste, él / Ud.… Imperfect Tense Conjugation of jugar – Imperfecto (de indicativo) de jugar. Spanish Verb Conjugation: yo jugaba, tú jugabas, él / Ud.… Full verb conjugation table for jugar along with example sentences and printable version. Over 1000 Spanish verbs conjugated. PastTenses is a database of English verbs. One can check verbs forms in different tenses. Use our search box to check present tense, present participle tense, past tense and past participle tense of desired verb. Conjugate Jugar in every Spanish verb tense including preterite, imperfect, future, conditional, and subjunctive. Select the forms of the verb jugar that best fill in the blanks: A: ¿A qué _____ el fin de semana, Determine what you understand about 'jugar' in the past tense with this worksheet/quiz An easy to use chart of all the conjugations of the Spanish verb Jugar use it online, or your mobile device or go old school and print it out to use as a worksheet.

jugar past tense forms top

[index] [3373] [7918] [2566] [8858] [5914] [204] [9122] [4021] [434] [3247]

jugar past tense forms

Copyright © 2024 top.playrealmoneygametop.xyz