WEll, I am confused ---- now "p e s a r" does not mean "cost" but it means "weigh" --- I hadn't thought it meant "cost" when I wrote an incorrect answer a few questions back and now I use "cost" as was correct in that earlier answer and it elusively slips away in meaning toward "weigh" ---- Help with understanding "p e s a r"
Yep, some issues here. Pesar means "to weigh" both figuratively and literally, both tonnage and "heavy on my mind." I know Duo just used it for "cost," but that is a concept I suggest you get out of your head, for the sake of maintaining your sanity. Costar = to cost. The issue is muddled by "peso" meaning both weight and monetary unit (like "shekel," but I digress). Such are the frustrations of dealing with Duo, sometimes.
One English pound was literally one pound of sterling silver. The French had Livres for the same reason. The linkage to other coinage is the same idea, a weight unit of precious metal, or in some cases because coins were of standard weight they were used as units and let their name to the measurement.
In English "He is going to weigh a lot" can be interpreted in two ways - He is going to be very heavy - He is going to weigh many things. I'm guessing that because "pesar" can be transitive or intransitive without altering form (just as in English) then the same could be said of the Spanish sentence, but I'm wondering if "mucho" on its own would satisfy the object requirements of a transitive "pesar." ie: Would "Va a pesar mucho" suffice, or would you instead have to say "Va a pesar muchas cosas" or perhaps even "Los va a pesar muchos"?
No, depende de a qué se refiera, tanto mucho como muchos pueden considerarse pronombres, en la oración "Vas a pesar mucho", si interpretases mucho como pronombre, yo diría que equivale a un sustantivo no contable, pero si dijese muchos estaría haciendo referencia a algo contable, creo que a lot es ambiguo porque podría referirse a algo tanto en el plural como en el singular (a lot of fruit = mucha fruta / a lot of things = muchas cosas).
I am assuming that the use of mucho as too much is actually situational and not something that Duo represents well. It has a possible English paralell: You didn't finish your potatoes. Didn't you like them? Response: I loved them, but they gave me a LOT. (Interpreted as too much)
Another not so good recording. I figured it was either "besar" or "pesar" and went with "pesar". I know the Spanish b, v, and p are close, but usually the "p" is more distinct than the "b" or "v" which are very similar. Here in Venezuela you see graffiti that says "no votar basura" and "botar para candidato x".
Meaning-wise they are related, but pesar comes from the Latin verb pensāre (to weight, to calculate, to think) and peso comes from the noun pensum (task, duty). The name of the monetary unit comes from the ancient Spanish peso, a silver coin (the equivalent of the British pound), apparently its weight was a very important factor when determining its value.
Duo does have one exercise where it identifies mucho as meaning too much, but I think that is a little misleading . For the most part mucho just means much or a lot and demasiado means too much. Just as someone could say This is going to weigh A LOT. With vocal emphasis which indicates that they mean too much, Spanish speakers can do the same thing with mucho. But these sentences exist without context and are spoken without any added inflection or emphasis, so there is really no way to tell this special circumstance. But you would probably figure it out from your own recognition of the situation anyway.
This is a very common mistake. Lo is never a subject pronoun. It is only a direct object pronoun. There is NO subject pronoun that means it. And actually if you think about this sentence, the it in this sentence is obviously a concrete noun. Abstract nouns don't weigh a lot. So here we know that it has to be Él, or ella even as an it as whatever weighs a lot will have grammatical gender. But even with abstract its, like is never a substitute for the missing subject pronoun.
I agree that "Lo" is a direct object pronoun, not a subject pronoun, and it is not required in this sentence because there is no direct object.
However, I think you've misstated when you say "There is NO subject pronoun that means it." You contradict this yourself by correctly suggesting that "él" or "ella" (depending on the grammatical gender of the noun they are substituting) could be used as subject pronouns for "it."
If you were meaning to say "There is no subject pronoun that means it in a gender neutral abstract sense" actually there is. "Ello" can be used (but rarely is) as a gender neutral pronoun for "it."
Also, abstract concepts can have weight. Tag "en mi mente" onto this DL sentence and we get "Va a pesar mucho en mi mente" - "It is going to weigh heavily on my mind." In this case the "it" can be abstract and gender neutral.
So, it would be possible to say "Ello va a pesar mucho" if you really wanted to include a subject pronoun, but the specific context required for a gender neutral pronoun standing in for an abstract concept should make its inclusion redundant.
Anyway, the upshot is that three subject pronouns could be used correctly (if redundantly) here: Él - if the "it" represents a masculine noun; Ella - if the "it" represents a feminine noun; Ello - if the "it" represents a gender neutral abstract concept.
There is no very as a qualifier. Mucho here simply means a lot.
Va a = It is going to
Pesar = to weigh
Mucho = a lot
If the sentence had said it it going to be heavy, then you could add muy to mean very. So Va a ser pesado would become Va a ser muy pesado. Mucho doesn't ever mean very, it basically means a lot as an adverb, and adjective or a pronoun.