1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "Esto no lo ha previsto el ab…

"Esto no lo ha previsto el abogado."

Translation:The lawyer has not foreseen this.

February 3, 2013

34 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Allinuse

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


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/TSAnvil

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."


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/John__Doe

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?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/pkingiam

I'm nearly certain you are correct, but confirmation from a long-time learner or native speaker would be nice.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Oso-the-Bear

Namayani nails it below. Thanks


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/KyleBotten

there is no "been" part


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

This looks more intuitive to me.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Matias829364

Si esta bien dicho de esa manera también


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/nathanlanza

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


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/dac123

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


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/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.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/mollyglot

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.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/El_Capitan84

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


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/mormels

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


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/julie653

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


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/bajaca

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


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/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.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/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."


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/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".


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/wilmie

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


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/rspreng

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


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/tiarella9

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


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/jbmc10

Duo disallowed 'attorney' for 'abogado'!


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/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.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/gesav

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 ?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/monimark

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


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Joel926356

I just don't understand the structure of this sentence. If the translation is "This has not been foreseen by the lawyer", then shouldn't there be a "por" before "el abogado"? And it just seems backward.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/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.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/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


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/claudiosouza1991

why "does not have" cannot be accepted?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Christophe118821

would, "Esto no ha el abogado." , also be right?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Collin751445

I'm struggling to understand why the word is "previsto". Most other verbs conjugated un the present perfect tense end in either "-ado" or "-ido", so is this an irregular conjugation or something?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/RebeccaAKr1

You can think of "prever" as pre-"ver" - the conjugations follow those of "ver" which in this case is the irregular "visto." This happens fairly often with verbs that are derived from other verbs that have irregular conjugations (like "conseguir" following the rules for "seguir", or "detener" and "obtener" following rules for "tener" etc.)

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