Translation:There was only one chair at that restaurant.
22 Comments This discussion is locked.
Let me clarify: tener = to have and can be used with all personal pronouns. Haber = to have ONLY when used as a helper verb (Yo he ido a la casa de mi amante = I've gone to my lover's house) Otherwise haber when conjugated (hay, hubo, haya, etc...) is only used to mean there is/are/were and all that sort of stuff. I hope it helps, it's a tricky thing
I'm not sure about that though. What you're saying makes sense, but I think if they meant that only one chair was available then they'd say "sólo había una silla disponible". I think which the way the sentence is written, the connotation is that there was only one chair that existed in that restaurant. But I'd like a native speaker's input, because I could be wrong xD
Because it is an ongoing action. It was not just one time that there was only one chair, which would be "hubo", but as far as we know when we got there, there was only one chair, when we were there, there was only one chair, when we left there was only one chair; as far as we know there still is only one chair. Therefore, we must use imperfect: "había"
We would use "hubo" only if we knew that one time there was only one chair, but all the rest of the times there were more chairs.
For something that could not exist now, exactly this way. For something that could exist now, hubo. I've been told that if you say "Hubo un restaurante en esa ciudad" it sounds like it is not there now. Pero: Seres humanos vivían aquí hace 6000 años. Contrast that with teachers that generally translate the imperfect as "used to".
I did not get this one right, and I theoretically knew better.