"Estoy completamente dedicado a ti."
Translation:I am completely dedicated to you.
Devoted in English is a better choice than dedicated. Dedication i s to a cause, not to a person.
If I am COMPLETELY dedicated to you wouldn't there be an argument for "soy" instead of "estoy"?
That's exactly the question I was about to write. It may be because one might say,"At this time I am completely devoted to you but that could change."
My point exactly. I know what my wife would say if I said that to her, lol.
To answer my own question, and yours Ranchers, it seems that even though characteristics use "soy", states of being, even if they are permanent (as my wife would hope), use "estoy". Hence "estoy vivo" and "estoy muerto" despite nothing being more sure than the former, or more permanent than the latter.
Don't use temporary vs. permanent as a way to decide between ser and estar, because that will just drive you batty. I teach my students that estar is used mostly for location and condition, and ser for everything else. Estar is also used for certain set phrases, this being one of them: estar plus a past participle used as an adjective. "Vivo" and "muerto" from your examples, jellonz, are also past participles used in this way, and therefore follow the same rule. http://www.studyspanish.com/lessons/pastpart.htm
why is "estoy" used here and not "soy"? In previous examples "fue" was used to express " he was dedicated" and "fue" is "ser" not "estar" - it seems DL goes back and forth with ser/estar and these types of adjectives ( pagado/pagada, deidcado/dedicada) so do you use ser or estoy with adjectives...??
Yeah I'm confused about this too, only reason I can think of is that this is considered some sort of civil status like marriage, but that seems a bit far fetched.
"Estoy" here denotes a state of being. If you used "Soy" that would change the meaning to a characteristic. This was probably the case in the examples where jjcthorpe saw "fue" used: eg "El fue dedicado"="He was dedicated"=""He was [a] dedicated [person]" - Characteristic. Whereas "El estuvo dedicado"="He was dedicated"="He was dedicated [to something/someone]" - State of being. You can't use "Soy" in this DL sentence though because of the "a ti." This "to you" makes his dedication a state of being towards someone instead of a characteristic.
It is a state of affairs, not an intrinsic trait defining me...
That was my translation, but still wrong. Not being an English native speaker, could someone pls comment if that would be correct? Cheers :-)
It's ok, but we tend to use "committed" more with abstract ideas rather than people. So we might say we are committed to a cause, or committed to a job etc. If you said you were committed to a person it would probably be understood as saying you are committed to the relationship you have with that person.
Thanks jellonz :-) - interesting, as I would have used dedicated to a cause, not a person, and yes, committed in a relationship "to" that person - or devoted to a person... so good to hear this clarified :-)
I do not fully understand what this lesson is about but am i right in presuming that "To be (verb) + -ando/iendo = to be (verb) + -ing" and "To be (verb) + -ado/ido = to be (verb) + -ed".
That's a good enough way to think about it at the novice stage, but just keep in the back of your mind that, when you read a conjunction table like this one, the Spanish and English are not exactly equivalent, so some of the translations in later exercises may appear peculiar when they don't follow the same format.
Can you elaborate on the unequivalence (Is it for the most part the same with exceptions or the other way around) or give me a link to look at? Because I do not even know what a participle is, lol, I just know that something like "I am cooking" would be either "cocino" or "Estoy cocinando" (The latter only being used with the present and not progressive past). ¡Muchas gracias mi compañero!
By all means you are welcome to more information. (I didn't know how much detail you were expecting.) I'll look back through my notes and see what I can find. I will get back to you.
In english the adverb comes after the verb 'i am dedicated completely to you' should be acceptable
When you put it as "dedicated completely," it could make sense, but it sounds off and changes the meaning in English and sounds like "you" are the one and only thing I'm dedicated to.
so in these cases --when the participle is not being used as part of the perfect--it is not only necessary to have the adjectival agreement but also one can separate the verb and participle?
De nada Emily. I should also have mentioned "Te," which is the regular object pronoun for "you." It either precedes a verb or can be attached to infinitives, gerundios, and positive imperatives. "Ti" differs because it is only used after prepositions.
And while I think of it there are a few exceptions (as always). The following prepositions are not followed by "ti" as you might expect but are actually followed by "tú":
entre - between
según - according to
incluso - including
excepto / menos / salvo - except
In these few cases Spanish differs from English and uses subject pronouns where we would use object pronouns. So, for example:
Between you and me - Entre tú y yo
Except you and her - Excepto tú y ella
One way to remember these exceptions (except for según - according to) is that they are prepositions often mistakenly followed by subject pronouns in English: Between you and I; Except he and I etc.
I cannot find "dedicated" applied to "someone" in the Oxford dictionary for advanced learners. On the contrary it specifies the complement of "dedicated" as "something". On the other hand, "devoted", in the same dictionary, has a sentimental connotation that I do not identify with what our Spanish "dedicada" implies.... In Guatemala at least, you use "dedicada" in the sense of investing a lot - or all- of your time to tending to someone or to doing something. And although I notice that I used "devoted" just now with a similar meaning,, I do not feel that "completamente dedicada a ti" might be rendered by "completely dedicated to you" .......
In the same section is "El nino es muy dedicado". If this uses "estoy", why doesn't that example use "esta"?
"ESTAR" INDICATES A STATE OF AFFAIRS, SOMETHING TEMPORARY, WHILE "SER" REFERS TO SOMETHING INHERENT OR INTRINSICAL.
"ESTAR DEDICADO IMPLIES THAT SOMEONE TYPICALLY DEVOTES A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT INTO SERVING SOMEONE, AND "SER DEDICADO" MEANS THAT SOMEONE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WORKS AND DEVOTES TIME AND EFFORT TO ACHIEVE OR TO DO SOMETHING.