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."
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?
Can somebody link me to an explanation of the rule that makes "el abogado" the subject?
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.
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.
I guessing.... I think you can tell el abogado is the subject because of "lo". "Lo" is a direct object pronoun.
I have noticed that if the object is written before the verb (especially esto/eso) it seems to require the DO pronoun as well.
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.
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."
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".
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.
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 ?
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.
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