1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "It is not worth much."

"It is not worth much."

Translation:No vale mucho.

January 20, 2013



There seems to be a lot of mucho confusion as to why "Es no vale mucho" is incorrect here. Can anyone out there explain why and put us back on the straight and narrow?


'Es no vale mucho' is incorrect because in that sentence you have two verbs es (ser) and vale (valer)
ser = to be; es = is
valer = to be worth; vale = is worth
So, the sentence Es no vale mucho would roughly translate into It is is not worth a lot.


Unfortunately I also wrote 'Es no vale much.' A great explanation. Thanks.


OK, I had to exercise my brain a bit. "vale" is a verb form. 3rd person singular of "valer" to be worth. I was thinking it was an adverb (?) like "value". I got fooled by a "false friend" or my own assumptions. So "es" would be both incorrect & redundant.


To be worth - Valer is a verb. Even if you wanted to use ser or estar in front of it, you wouldn't use the conjugated form of valer, but instead you'd use the infinitive. However this is also incorrect because it's vale itself means It/he/she/you "has/is worth" since it's meaning is "to be worth". There are a few verbs like this, be careful.


Why isn't "Lo no vale mucho" correct?


Could be 'ello no vale mucho' but the 'Ello' is almost always elided.


English sentences require a subject. When the subject isn't otherwise stated, we default to using the "dummy subject", the pronoun 'it'.

Spanish does not do this. If the subject isn't stated, it's assumed to be implied. This means that 'lo' is used exclusively as an object pronoun (that which the verb is acting upon, rather than that which is performing the action).

This is why English says "It is raining", while Spanish says "Llueve". Or, "It isn't worth much" as opposed to "No vale mucho". The 'it' doesn't stand for anything in English, and Spanish just leaves it out entirely.

If I wanted to use 'lo' here, I might restate the sentence as "No lo valgo mucho", which would mean that I don't value it highly. Note that 'lo' has become the object of the sentence, that which is being valued, while the subject is the implied 'yo'.

I hope this helped. Cheers.


Why is only "No vale mucho" correct, and not "No vale mucha"?


Here mucho is an adverb, and as adverb it only has masculine form. The two forms, masculine and feminine, for mucho/mucha is used when it is an adjective:

  • no tiene mucho valor
  • no tiene mucha valía


I presume because "it" is indeterminate, so takes the masculine form.


I said "No lo vale mucho." and it was marked wrong. Should that be considered correct or incorrect?


It is the subject not the direct object and lo is a direct object pronoun


so did i. the question asks "IT is not worth much" so why not use the indefinite article? anyone?


I think you mean indefinite pronoun, and even that wouldn't be right.
Spanish doesn't really have a subject pronoun for it (unless you count, ello, but it's only used in rare cases). Lo is a direct object pronoun. A direct object pronoun answers who or what the verb is action on. The above sentence doesn't have a direct object.


Thanks to you both. You helped.


I keep making that mistake, but it is a mistake. I think of it his way: no lo vale mucho would mean "he/she does not value it much". "it" is implied subject when you leave it out


TANTO y MUCHO? ¿Qué es la diferencia? Por favor!


"Mucho" = much, many, a lot (of), long. "Tanto" is like an intensified or comparative "mucho." "Tanto" = so/as much, so/as many, so/as long. They are close, but not the same. I think that covers the essence of it. Hope it helps.


I feel that they say also "No vale la pena" :-)


Hola Vladao: That is the equivalent of "It is not worth the effort" or "it is not worth it" in English.


Es no vale mucho isn't right?


no, "valer" is a verb that means "to be worth" so "vale" means "it is worth"....


yes, traslating word by word is not good sometimes.


Would this sentence be ok?

No tiene mucho valor.


It's another way to say it, so It's ok


Why is " no se vale mucho" wrong? If you want to ask "how much does it cost" you can use a reflexive form and say "cuanto se vale" So what is the diffrance between the two contaxts which make the reflexive wrong?


That reflexive form of valerse verb is only used with the meaning of fend or avail oneself :

he fends himself=él se vale por si mismo

The use of reflexive pronoun with valer sounds very awkward (typical of hicks)


I typed in " no es vale mucho" and I see why it isn't correct. But the answer it gave me instead was "no cuestra mucho"...what?


"It doesn't cost much".
Sometimes when you give an incorrect response, duolingo will give you a "correct response" that they think is most similiar to your incorrect answer. I'm not sure the connection in this case, but "no cuestra mucho" wouldn't be a bad/wrong translation here.


Just so anyone else may know, my answer was: "No tiene mucho valor." and was counted as correct. I guess I was thinking along the same line as "tiene años" for expressing one's age, or "tiene miedo" for being afraid. Would this be an odd or particularly inferior expression of the idea of value to a native speaker?


Why the reflexive form (No se vale mucho) is considered incorrect by Duolingo? I thought it would be fine to use.


Just out of curiosity. Would 'No Vale nada' = 'it is worth nothing'? I ask because the double negative thing still gets me sometimes.


I put 'Esta no vale mucho', can someone explain to me why it's incorrect?


Lalisii You right. It is correct. They just don't have it among their variants. You have to report your opinion. It is that what they call a contribution.

Learn Spanish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.