"Esto no lo ha previsto el abogado."

Translation:The lawyer has not foreseen this.

5 years ago

28 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/Allinuse
Allinuse
  • 18
  • 12
  • 10
  • 10
  • 8
  • 6
  • 5
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2

Can you say "el abogado no ha previsto esto" or something similar?

5 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/dlhennig

This is the difference between active and passive voice. The sentence is written in passive voice but the English translation has been written in active voice and thus I think some of the confusion. As written it more accurately translates as "This has not been foreseen by the lawyer."

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/John__Doe
John__Doe
  • 21
  • 12
  • 5
  • 2

IMHO, if it is written in passive voice in Spanish, there should be the appearance of se... not sure though, can someone confirm or correct me please?

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/KyleBotten
KyleBotten
  • 22
  • 14
  • 11
  • 5

there is no "been" part

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/cdhicks1
cdhicks1
  • 25
  • 25
  • 66

Geez I like this better. DL's sentence is ass backward

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/mck4y.jm

This looks more intuitive to me.

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Matias829364

Si esta bien dicho de esa manera tambiƩn

8 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/nathanlanza

Can somebody link me to an explanation of the rule that makes "el abogado" the subject?

5 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/dac123
dac123
  • 25
  • 25
  • 10
  • 8
  • 8
  • 6
  • 5
  • 5

Yes, can someone please explain how to tell which is the subject?

5 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/namayani

In this particular case, we can tell that "el abogado" is not the object because there's no personal a preceding it. If this has not foreseen the lawyer, the sentence would be, I guess, something like "Esto no lo ha previsto al abogado." Also, I think the context is a fairly big clue: it makes a lot more sense for the layer to be the subject than the object.

5 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/mollyglot
mollyglot
  • 17
  • 11
  • 9
  • 9
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4

Yeah, I was only able to get it by the context. The personal a makes sense, too. I was wondering if it had something to do with "lo," but I guess that would be there either way.

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/El_Capitan84

I guessing.... I think you can tell el abogado is the subject because of "lo". "Lo" is a direct object pronoun.

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/mormels

But then there should be "al (a el) abogado"

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/julie653

I'm confused by the presence of both "lo" and "esto." Why are both needed?

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/bajaca
bajaca
  • 25
  • 16
  • 81

I have noticed that if the object is written before the verb (especially esto/eso) it seems to require the DO pronoun as well.

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/jarymoth

It's to be specific about what the lawyer hasn't foreseen. It's the difference between "the lawyer hasn't foreseen this" and "the lawyer hasn't foreseen it", which is more ambiguous.

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/julie653

It would be "it" if the "esto" were left out entirely. But I still don't understand why you need both for it to mean "the lawyer hasn't foreseen this."

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/ErgemAugusto

When the direct object (here it's esto) precedes the verb, direct object pronoun is required (lo). In fact that "lo" is why we're sure that the lawyet is the subject. That and also the lack of personal "a".

6 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/wilmie

I think "hasn't anticipated" is same or similar to "hasn't forseen"

5 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/rspreng

Duo sometimes gets hung up on "hasn't" versus "has not," too.

5 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/tiarella9
tiarella9
  • 23
  • 22
  • 11

The spelling is "foreseen," but I agree it means the same as "anticipated."

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/jbmc10
jbmc10
  • 22
  • 18
  • 8
  • 2

Duo disallowed 'attorney' for 'abogado'!

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/jarymoth

I suggest reporting it. It's possible there's a subtle difference between attorneys and lawyers (no idea what that might be) but Google translate thinks your version is good.

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/gesav
gesav
  • 18
  • 12
  • 10
  • 10
  • 9
  • 2

This sounds more like "This has not foreseen the lawyer" not the other way around .... am I wrong ? How would you say that id not like this ?

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/monimark

Why is the "personal a" not needed before "el abogado"?

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/ken.goodwi

I got this with the thought of lo being he(who is he? The lawyer) this he has not foreseen. Seeing some comments regarding of lo being it, i am wondering if i am wrong with that thought.

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Slamp411

There is no difference in English between "this the lawyer has not foreseen", and "the lawyer has not foreseen this", yet the app considered my answer incorrect

4 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/brendals

I'm with wilmie :-) It's the same thing

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