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



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

July 30, 2013


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."

August 11, 2014


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?

September 1, 2014


there is no "been" part

October 9, 2014


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

August 1, 2014


This looks more intuitive to me.

February 6, 2014


Si esta bien dicho de esa manera también

February 22, 2018


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

April 14, 2013


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

April 26, 2013


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.

July 22, 2013


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.

December 15, 2013


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

March 16, 2014


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

September 26, 2014


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

March 22, 2014


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

October 12, 2014


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.

March 29, 2014


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."

March 29, 2014


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".

May 1, 2018


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

February 3, 2013


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

February 3, 2013


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

March 18, 2014


Duo disallowed 'attorney' for 'abogado'!

March 31, 2014


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.

March 31, 2014


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 ?

August 25, 2014


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

June 3, 2014


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.

July 12, 2014


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

June 19, 2018


why "does not have" cannot be accepted?

August 29, 2019
Learn Spanish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.