1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "Ustedes no tendrían dinero."

"Ustedes no tendrían dinero."

Translation:You would not have money.

February 6, 2013



Why is "You would have no money" wrong?


In terms of grammar, the verb is negated, not the noun. In practical terms, not a big difference. To Duo's robotic teacher, maybe ;)


It was accepted for me, 5 jul 14


The sentences in this lesson feel incomplete; it might help if at least some of them had an additional clause to make them more explicable. The sentence above seems to imply that "ustedes" do in fact "tienen dinero," but that they would not if it were not for some other factor e.g. parental support.


I agree. 'You wouldn't have money.', is not a stand alone sentence. It begs further information.


"You had not have money" is not proper English


Inserting "any" is usually accepted. I make no guarantees. This the the DL universe and therefore, tempermental.


my first pass I got it wrong. It said I did not say ANY. the second time I again did not use any and it accepted it. I think sometimes they just want me to type!!! :)


Duo accepts that answer now. 1/20/2019


I put "You all would not have money. Ustedes means you plural. I usually put "You all" for that and it is accepted.


"They would not have money" should be correct too since the form is Ustedes


If this were "no tendrían dinero" without ustedes, then I would agree that "they would't have any money" would be a possibility.

However, "Ustedes no tendrían dinero." = You wouldn't have money. Ustedes always means "you" and not "they."


This could also be "you couldn't have money" or "You must not have money" right?


No because "couldn't" is "no podría/podía" and "must not" depends on context.


You couldn't have money= no pueden tener dinero.

You must not have money: no deben tener dinero


" You would not have any money" is much more likely in English, but I suppose it would not be accepted.


I don't think so. "You would not have any money" implies they wouldn't have money at all, while the sentence in spanish could also mean that they wouldn't have enough money for a certain purpose, for example "you wouldn't have money to buy that car".


That is actually accepted.


They wasn't accepted whiles ustedes is plural?...


Can any-one explain why there is no "ningun/o"? If it were in there, would it have a different meaning?


If you said "no tendrían ningún dinero" then it would mean "you would not have any money", so... similar meaning, but you're adding in a word that wasn't in the original sentence.


What is the difference between money and cash, in English they both mean coins, notes, or cards.....


Cash refers to the physical currently, like bills and coins, but money refers to any currency you have. You could have a lot of money in your bank account, but have no cash on you.


No, in English, cash is specifically not cards.


Was this a question about Spanish??

Money = dinero

Cash = effectivo

Moneda(s) = coin(s)

Credit card = tarjeta de crédito


Why would the correct answer say the noun should be 'you'? I've learned thay Usted is you (formal), and Ustedes is they (formal). Also the verb tendrían has the ending for 'they' whereas tendrías would be for 'you'.


You've learned that wrong, I'm afraid. There's no such thing as a formal "they"--Ustedes is the plural way to say "you". In much of the Spanish-speaking world, it is both formal and informal. (Duolingo follows this usage.)

Just as "usted" uses the third-person singular form of the verb (the same as for "he" and "she"), "ustedes" uses the third-person plural form of the verb (the same as for "they"). That does not make it mean "they," though.


Ustedes is not "they". They means "ellos"


They = ellos or ellas which do use the same verbs conjugations as "ustedes" = you plural, but the pronouns don't all mean the same thing.


I have listened to many other programs that teach Spanish and find that duo has the worst and at times impossible to understand! They should have Speakers from Spain who enunciate correctly, were learning Spanish, not Mexican or central or Cuban etc. If wr learn Spanish correctly we can go to any Spanish speaking country and converse.


The people in the programs are people. Duolingo doesn't use real people. It's text-to-speech. So Duolingo has it's place but it's not a substitute for speaking to real people.

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