So "perdido" means "lost" as in "lost/found" and it also means lost as in "won/lost"?
It's amazing to me that the Engish word "lost" has two distinct, unrelated meanings and the Spanish word "perdir" has the same two, unrelated meanings. The same as the words "second" and "segundo:" both meaning "second" as in "first, second..." and "second" as in "seconds, minutes..."
She had never been lost = "Ella nunca había estado perdida." In this sentence "perdida" is an adjective describing "Ella" (not a past participle). So the "O" ending has to change to "A" in order to agree with the feminine gender of "Ella."
Is it valid to conjugate two verbs that goes right after each other, both in present perfectum?
Hola,Torgrim1. I assume you are referring to the phrase "...había estado perdida" in the previous sentence. "Había" is the only conjugated verb in the sentence. "Estado" is the past participle of estar and "perdida" is an adjective (see my reply to UzbekSultana above).
In answer to your original question, no, I can think of no instance where you can have a conjugated verb following another conjugated verb. When a conjugated verb is followed by another verb, the second verb will either be an infinitive (Yo sé nadar), a past participle (as in "...había estado..."), or a present participle (Él está trabajando).
Torgrim1 was referring to the previous comment regarding "Ella nunca había estado perdido"
The past participle has a few uses. Two of its uses include forming the perfect tenses and forming adjectives. http://www.spanishdict.com/topics/show/33
The past perfect (pluscuamperfecto) is formed using the imperfect of haber + Past participle. http://youtu.be/5VpGDhJ8eNw
In the sentence (Ella nunca había estado perdido,) había estado is the past perfect conjugation of estar in the third person/single (ella, él, Ud.) http://www.wordreference.com/conj/esverbs.aspx?v=estar
Perdido is an adjective and not a second past perfect right up against the other past perfect.
Ok, you're probably thinking that you don't care what I call it, the point is, can we use that english sentence construction in spanish. I have been trying to figure that out since i first started studying spanish, and i have never found a clear answer. It's not a construction taught on any of the spanish grammar sites. However, there are references to its use in forums. I suspect that that construction can be used the same way in spanish as in English, but it's just not as common.
Here are some forum discussions on this construction:
I believe it would be either of the following, but my hunch is that the first is more natural in Spanish:
1) Ella nunca se había perdido.
2) Ella nunca había estado perdido.
I think sentence 1 puts a bit more of the blame on the person who got lost, sort of like "She got lost," vs. "She was lost."
It's "ella nunca había estado perdida". In spanish we use genders, perdido is a lost man and perdidA is a lost woman
And, of course "ella nunca había perdido" means "she'd never lost" like in won/lost! I am sorry, I think my english isn't enough to explain these things!
The second one is wrong. It should be "Ella nunca había estado perdido". "Sido" is the participle of ser, and "ser perdido" is ahm.. somehow overly dramatic, but not wrong in every context, though.
no,its okay i am argentinian and you was mixing the genres "ella" is for females and "perdido" is male there is no examples in english but in spanish the las letter changes the genre for example el conejo(male) la coneja(female) the male usually ends in E or O and females on A
Julian, since you are learning English - it's not "genre", it's "gender". Genre refers to types or styles, for example in music the popular genres are pop, HipHop, Rock, etc...
I was also wondering this. Would it be, "ella nunca se hab`ia perdido"?
"Perderse" (where "...se...perdido" comes from) means "to get lost" in the sense of losing your way or orientation. On the other hand, DL's sentence means "she had never lost" in the sense of a win /lose game. So... using "se" in this sentence is incorrect.
'Ella nunca se HA perdido' = she HAS never been lost; 'Ella nunca se HABÍA perdido; = she HAD never been lost
Because we use "perdido" in the way of found/lost and won/lost, in this case it means that she'd never lost a game or something. She had never gotten lost means "ella nunca había estado perdida".
It's a suitable English sentence on its own. I'm just not entirely sure if that's an accurate translation of the Spanish.
In English, this would need a direct object, eg, She had never missed a day at school.
You're not alone! I'll try to help with some mnemonics. In the '101 Dalmatians' movie, Perdita, the mother dog loses her pups to the evil lady. So 'perdido' is 'lost'. And the other one is pedido- asked for.
Or...If you order or ask for (pedir) steak in that restaurant you will "pay dear" for it.
'She had never lost' does not need an object, it is just a statement of fact.
Why do you keep putting definitions up bit they cant be used as correct. Habia perdido = had gotten lost ???
DuoLingo provides hints for each word regardless of whether they can be used in the given context. I like this feature because it helps me understand that the same word may have quite different meanings in other contexts.
In this case they provide "had gotten lost" as a translation for "había perdido", but because getting lost is something you do to yourself it would require the reflexive form "perderse".
So "She had never gotten lost" = "Ella nunca SE había perdido"
Hope that helps.
Because that is poor English in addition to not being the meaning of the Spanish phrase.
It's not poor English, just British English. ;)
Most Americans would say, "She had never gotten lost." If you mean it should be, "She had never been lost," instead, well that's just another perfectly valid way to put it with a slightly different meaning. "Getting" lost is more like "becoming" lost than simply "being" lost. And I wouldn't suggest saying, "She had never become lost."
Poor British English too. "She had never got lost" would be correct or "She had never lost it. "
"She had never got lost," is what @ivanaha said, and what I was commenting on. Anyway, not a good translation for the Spanish; I just wanted to point out that it wasn't bad English.
Apologies, MrCliffJones, I thought you were referring to "She had never lost" as a sentence in British English.
Although just thought of a sentence "she had never lost (a tennis game before the one she played on Tuesday). That would make sense. However here, without the context, it doesn't.
cyberdoctor, im not sure, but i'll give it a try.
She was never lost. Ella nunca está perdida.
When, if ever, is it appropriate to say "perdida"? I assumed the subject 'ella' would modify the adjective to 'perdida'.
You have answered your own question in a way. If it is an adjective then perdido/perdida/perdidos/perdidas need to match the noun in number and gender. In this sentence though, "perdido" is the participle not an adjective.
Some examples with adjectives...
El recuerdo de un paraíso perdido = The memory of a lost paradise
Sentía nostalgia de mi libertad perdida = I felt nostalgia for my lost freedom
Se sintió dichoso con poder recuperar las horas perdidas = He was happy to be able to recover the lost hours
Esfuerzos perdidos = Wasted effort
(Note that perdido is sometimes translated as "wasted")
So 'She had never lost herself' (as in she got messed-up) would translate to 'ella se nunca había perdido'?
I've noticed that the computer tends to pronounce the "b" as a "v." Is that supposed to be?
'B' and 'v' are pronounced almost identically in Spanish, sometimes more like a 'b', sometimes more like a 'v', and often something in-between the two.
Doesnt anyone have the problem with the usage of the past perfect here in the first place? I mean shouldnt this sentence be: she has never lost. (Present perfect) if it means what i think its supposed to mean and that is that the women has never lost, than the right form to use is present perfect. Whereas if you wanted to say she had never lost (past perfect) up until now (since she lost now) than past perfect would be ok. Isnt past perfect supposed to be used to point out to the action which happened before another action or in any case to indicate sth that happened in the past and stayed in the past. e.g. She had never lost until 1989. Than its fine. If you want to say she has never lost and thats still true, than you should use present perfect and not the past perfect. This is in my opinion a typical present perfect sentence.
You answered your own question. It's an action in the past and remains in the past. You shouldn't change the sentence to your own preference. Presumably the past perfect tense is being practised here, not the present perfect.
'gotten lost' is one of the translations suggested by Duolingo. Surprising to find that was considered WRONG.
So that she keeps pronouning it 'avia' (habia) is spanish spanish ( the 'v' instead of the b -part) or also how it's pronounced in Latin America?
The "H" is always silent in Spanish. The "B" and "V" are often pronounced alike (more like a "B"). Although, in some places, you will hear more of a distinction between the two. So, "había" (note the accent) would often sound like "ah-BEE-ah," but sometimes like "ah-VEE-ah." Duo seems to use both pronunciations. The link below will let you hear native speakers pronouncing the word.
(Sorry, but the link seems to choke on the "í." You have to type in the "ía/#es.")
Apparently I got a wrong from duolingo because I did not have the .(period) at the end, but the whole sentence was right
DL does not check for punctuation or capitalization. It must be wrong for some other reason.
The translation above is what wrote and it was considered wrong. What is happening?
'She never had lost' sounds rather strange. One would normally say 'She had never lost.
After reading the various comments here, ¡Estoy perdido!...yo pienso. ¿O es?... ¡Me estoy perdido! No lo sé.
I don't like using the word "had" when it isn't needed. So this lesson is not my favorite :/ my incorrect answer: she never lost before.
Incorrect answer and incorrect English. The word 'had' is indeed necessary.
this sentence does not make any sense, lose is a transitive verb, she had never lost what?
It's used as transitive and intransitive in English. Typically it's used without the subject when it's already known. For example, if the woman in this question was a boxer, this sentence could be said with the assumptino understood that she has never lost, a boxing match. Or anything else, really.
A game of checkers, a tennis match, a 400 meter dash. I think the sentence makes perfect sense in that context. (As opposed to her having lost an object, such as her left shoe.) And since "lago" confirmed that they are both proper usages for "perdido", I think there's no problem.
If referring to a lost physical item it would need to be stated but something like a political election, fight, contest or game would not.
Hillary lost the 2016 Presidential Election. She had never lost.
Ronda Rousey got her ass kicked by Holly Holm. She had never lost