Duolingo is the most popular way to learn languages in the world. Best of all, it's 100% free!

"Eso lo hemos establecido."

Translation:We have established that.

5 years ago

70 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/yom_cule

Why is "lo" needed here?

5 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/rspreng

Establecer is a transitive verb, so it need a direct object, something to "establish." "Lo" is the undefined "???he/she/it" that "we have established." My understanding is you gotta have the "lo." "Eso" is added to clarify "lo" as "that."

5 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/fritssg
fritssg
  • 22
  • 10
  • 3
  • 2

But 'hemos establecido eso' is also correct. I know that if 'eso' is put at the beginning of the sentence, it requires the added 'lo', but if put at the end of the sentence it does not.

So two translation are possible: 1) eso lo hemos establecido, 2) hemos establecido eso.

In English, a similar process seems to be going on. 'That which we have established', or 'we have established that'. If that is placed at the beginning of the sentence we need 'which' (a pronoun that has 'that' as antecedent).

I would very much like to know how and why it works this way. I probably wouldn't be able to address such a question in my native language, so I hope there is a native Spanish speaker with more conscious knowledge of his language than I have of mine.

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/octavi.ers
octavi.ers
  • 11
  • 11
  • 10
  • 10
  • 8
  • 8
  • 7
  • 4

Hello there. A castillian-speaker here. La clave para "doblar" el O.D. es el énfasis. En inglés el énfasis se marca diferente. E.g. You did say that or You just said that or that's what you said....en español se pone al principio. Un truco: Imaginaos que hay una coma: " Eso, lo hemos establecido." ¡En alemán, el enfasis incluso hace que sujeto y verbo se inviertan! "Das sagen Sie"...eso lo dice usted. Ok? I can translate...

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/DaryaKrym

would be great if you wrote your explanation in english.

1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Dhawal.Vaghela
Dhawal.Vaghela
  • 25
  • 22
  • 11
  • 9
  • 1033

This is what he's saying.

The use of both lo and eso is for emphasis. Imagine a comma - "Eso, lo hemos establecido".

In English you would say "You did say that" or "you just said that" or "that's what you said" for emphasis. In Spanish it would be "Eso lo dice usted."

So this sentence means - "We have established that." In German sometimes the subject and verb are reversed for emphasis! (Like, languages use different ways of emphasizing)

3 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/lynettemcw
lynettemcwPlus
  • 25
  • 23
  • 23
  • 22
  • 19
  • 13
  • 7
  • 5
  • 5
  • 2
  • 48

Dhawal.Vaghela I had been confused about this for a while. But in reality, neither Eso nor lo is optional in this syntax, assuming you want to say We have established THAT (as opposed to it).

You can say Hemos establecido eso correctly without the lo. And if course you could say Lo hemos establecido for We have established it. But it would NOT be correct to say Lo hemos establecido eso. But WHENEVER the direct object preceeds the verb, a direct object pronoun is also required.

3 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/kpelle27
kpelle27
  • 20
  • 20
  • 18
  • 18
  • 18
  • 15
  • 14
  • 7
  • 5
  • 5
  • 3

That's not really true, though. "That which we have established" isn't a complete sentence - it's a noun phrase that refers to something that has been established. "Which we have established" is a parenthetical in this case, which means that the whole phrase functions syntactically the same as just the word "that". However, "That, we have established" could possibly be equivalent to "We have established that".

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/EntourageEffect

I feel like "that which we have established" could be an answer to a question.

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/haymeinsur

I like that construction as well, but I think Ethan is on to something. If you put a comma in there, it is easier to get: "That, which we have established". The "that" is like a placeholder, and the "which" is tied to it. The comma isn't required here in English, but it helps.

I can see this a bit clearer in the Spanish, thanks to Ethan. If you put a comma in, it becomes: "Eso, lo hemos establecido". The "lo" is tied to the "eso".

Not a grammar expert, but I think it fits.

1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/lynettemcw
lynettemcwPlus
  • 25
  • 23
  • 23
  • 22
  • 19
  • 13
  • 7
  • 5
  • 5
  • 2
  • 48

At any rate that which is essentially the translation for the Spanish lo que, although it is generally translated as what. That which (what) we have established is clear. Lo que hemos establicido es clear.

1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/ElReyLaFram

Pretty much this. Starting the sentance with eso makes that emphasis of the sentance, instead of some other thing. In hemos establecido eso the emphases is on the fact is has been established

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/nWnlJ

'that which we have established' describes a thing established by us, it is not a complete sentence.

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Katzenperson
Katzenperson
  • 20
  • 13
  • 11
  • 10
  • 9
  • 9
  • 6
  • 5
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2

No, no, no. "That which we have established" is NOT a complete sentence in English.

There is no such "similar process" going on in English.

1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/lambisqueiro

Fritssg, you are right! (...) Cuando el CD en forma de sintagma nominal (SN) ( * ESO ) o sintagma preposicional (SPrep) encabeza la oración, debe ser duplicado por un pronombre. (LO* ) Ejemplos:         Vi a Juan. > A Juan lo vi.          Tu tío compró patatas. > Las patatas las compró tu tío.(...) http://delenguayliteratura.com/El_complemento_directo_(CD)_definicion,_explicacion_y_ejemplos.html

Eso lo hemos establecido:( Nosotros) Hemos establecido eso

1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Securinega_

As AurosHarman says "It's just a matter of emphasis" First of all, 'Eso hemos establecido' is exactly the same of 'Hemos establecido eso' both are correct and mean the same. In these sentences you are putting attention on "eso". Namely, of all things we could establish we choose "eso". But if you say "Eso lo hemos establecido" you are explaining that which we have done with "eso" is establish it.
(Corrections are welcome.)

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/demsw

Why can't "eso" stand alone as the direct object?

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Securinega_

Yes it can ;-)

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/gordonjackson1

Why isn't "eso" the object? Why do we ALSO need "lo"?

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Kirsten637255

Eso is the direct object of the sentence. You could write, "hemos establecido eso." You will notice that the "lo" is not needed because the sentence is clear in construction. Because "Eso" was put up front in the sentence before the verb in the sentence given to us my DuoLingo, the "lo" is necessary to indicate that "eso" is the DO and not the subject of the sentence.

8 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/gz7g6b

It . that. I'm lost

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/rilianxi
rilianxi
  • 25
  • 23
  • 16
  • 15
  • 14
  • 12
  • 11
  • 8
  • 8
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5

My mom, a Spanish professor, said putting the direct object first like that is called topicalization and it requires then using the direct object pronoun. In case anyone was wondering.

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/acfabro
acfabro
  • 14
  • 13
  • 8
  • 6
  • 3
  • 2

Would it be correct to say "Lo hemos establecido eso" ?

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/alezzzix
alezzzix
  • 18
  • 18
  • 15
  • 14
  • 14
  • 12
  • 10
  • 9
  • 6
  • 5
  • 2
  • 5

No, if you put "eso" at the end then you can't use "lo".

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/AurosHarman

Yup. It's just a matter of emphasis. That, we have already established.

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/rollingstock
rollingstock
  • 14
  • 12
  • 12
  • 10
  • 7
  • 5

I'll wait for a native Spanish speaker to answer definitively, but it looks like a mistake to me. You could have "Lo hemos establecido" and you could have "Hemos establecido eso." I am having trouble with both "eso" and "lo" appearing as a direct object.

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/ajabrams

Not a native speaker, but am far enough along to easily answer this. Both are not needed in this sentence, however it is not a mistake. Castellano often "doubles up" the D.O. pronoun with the actual direct object like this. Think if it as clarification, or just the way it is. You could have put the eso at the end of the sentence and dropped the lo

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/EnterM

Thanks a lot, DUO seems to do this a lot and sometimes it confuses me.

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/ricrog
ricrog
  • 15
  • 10

The simple rule here is that if you have a noun direct object appearing before its verb, then the direct object pronoun must be inserted before the verb as well. A previous Duolingo example of this was: "Esta bicicleta la usa mi hermano" With "Ese lo hemos establecido", although "ese" is technically already a pronoun (demonstrative), it is treated like a noun and "lo" is needed.

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Securinega_

Not exactly. It's could be said with or without the direct object pronoun:

Esta bicicleta usa mi hermano (=Mi hermano usa esta bicicleta), when you want to explain this bicycle is which your brother use

Esta bicicleta la usa mi hermano, if you are explaining what your brother does with this bicycle is use it.

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/pneuros

"Esta bicicleta usa mi hermano (=Mi hermano usa esta bicicleta)" I don't think so...

"Esta bicicleta usa mi hermano" would be "This bicycle uses my brother."

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/rilianxi
rilianxi
  • 25
  • 23
  • 16
  • 15
  • 14
  • 12
  • 11
  • 8
  • 8
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5

Technically it could mean either one. Context clears it up.

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/rbergeron3

I translated this as "That's what we have established" and was counted incorrect. I think I am correct. Comments?

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/alezzzix
alezzzix
  • 18
  • 18
  • 15
  • 14
  • 14
  • 12
  • 10
  • 9
  • 6
  • 5
  • 2
  • 5

The literal translation to your sentence is "eso es lo que hemos establecido", it has got the same meaning I guess.

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/jmontro
jmontro
  • 24
  • 11
  • 4
  • 769

I tranalated it to, "we have that established," and it was not correct.

5 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/lynettemcw
lynettemcwPlus
  • 25
  • 23
  • 23
  • 22
  • 19
  • 13
  • 7
  • 5
  • 5
  • 2
  • 48

That's interesting because I am not sure how you would translate that sentence. But the standard English syntax always puts the direct object (that) after the verb. Moving it in English alters the meaning of the sentence subtly When you say We have that established the implication is that there is something else that is not established (at least as yet). Moving the direct object in Spanish before the verb does not alter its meaning like that, although it does require that redundant lo. I tried Spanishdict.com translator on your sentence. As a rule I hate machine translation engines, although Spanishdict.com at least uses three different ones. But I essentially got garbage from two of them, although one gave me a similar sentence to this. Essentially I don't think they wanted the sentence to include that additional connotation, but I am not a native speaker and so I am not sure whether they are literally correct in marking it wrong.

5 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/ThomasSpra1

Can lo be replaced by le ?

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/rollingstock
rollingstock
  • 14
  • 12
  • 12
  • 10
  • 7
  • 5

I think that ("Eso le hemos establecido") would mean "We established that for him (or her)."

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Securinega_

Yes, that's right. Just an example:

Creemos que el mejor horario para su actividad es el nocturno. Eso le hemos establecido.

However, I feel this verb "establecer" sounds pretty awkward here.

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/AurosHarman

It might, or it might just be ungrammatical if establecer has no ditransitive form.

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/MtnWolfGrl
MtnWolfGrl
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 24
  • 18
  • 16
  • 14
  • 13
  • 373

"Le" has several uses, but not as a direct object

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/rilianxi
rilianxi
  • 25
  • 23
  • 16
  • 15
  • 14
  • 12
  • 11
  • 8
  • 8
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5

In some dialects, they use le instead of lo when it refers to a person.

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Caesar_Corey

I understand the merit in preserving more literal (or at least roughly word-for-word) translations, but I answered "We have already established that," and I think that ought to be accepted, as well. I will report that to duolingo after finishing this comment.

I have two reasons for thinking "already" should be accepted: 1) At least in American English conversation (I cannot speak for other regional dialects), one would be more likely to hear someone say "We have already established that" than "We have established that" without the "already." 2) The apparent reiteration of "eso lo" (rather than one or the other) in the Spanish original seems to be well matched by the use of "already" in English translation.

Tienen pensamientos sobre este problema? Gracias por la ayuda.

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Securinega_

I think your question is about temporal adverbs. You could always use a temporal adverb like "already" in this kind of sentences, for instance:

Eso, nosotros lo hemos establecido / ya / esta mañana / ahora mismo /el año pasado / en esta temporada / ayer / en muy poco tiempo / rápidamente /etc, etc.

But none of that words were in the sentence proposed to translate.

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/lambisqueiro

About the conversation in English I can not comment. I agree in point 2 when we speak in Spanish. RAE: ESTABLECER: 1. tr. Fundar, instituir. Establecer una monarquía, una fundación.2. tr. Ordenar, mandar, decretar.3. tr. Dejar demostrado y firme un principio, una teoría, una idea, etc.4. prnl. Avecindarse o fijar la residencia en alguna parte.5. prnl. Abrir por cuenta propia un establecimiento mercantil o industrial. "han establecido que el sentido natural y obvio de las palabras es el que les de el Diccionario de la Real Academia de la lengua..." Respuesta: "Eso, ya lo hemos establecido".

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/mandyturtle

ya eso lo hemos establecido.

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Xavier355682

Why must it need have

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/marcy65brown
marcy65brown
  • 25
  • 24
  • 12
  • 1180

It needs "have" to translate "hemos." The present perfect tense is made up of two words: haber + past participle, translated "to have + done something."
He establecido = I have established
Has establecido = you have established
Ha establecido = he/she/it has; you (formal) have established
Etc.

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/tockar
tockar
  • 24
  • 21
  • 7
  • 19

Yeah, one of the examples why I will never learn this language.

1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/DanielMack6

What is wrong with "We have that established"?

1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Jacinta401367

Word order in English means the same.

9 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/zorb11

Why doesn't "we have that established" work? It is the same thing

6 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/lynettemcw
lynettemcwPlus
  • 25
  • 23
  • 23
  • 22
  • 19
  • 13
  • 7
  • 5
  • 5
  • 2
  • 48

I think the essential answer is that We have established that is a syntax which is used many times more frequently in English. Actually, to my native ear at least, they would not be used in quite the same circumstances. I would only say we have that established if we were talking about a multifaceted issue. Putting that in front of established would tend to imply to me that there was something still left to establish. That was my first strong reaction, although I have no idea how many others would agree with me. I also don't know whether there would/could be any change that might affect the Spanish in a similar way. So I reverted to the common for common concept.

6 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Gnosto

So you could conceivably leave off the "eso" but never the "lo"?

5 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/lynettemcw
lynettemcwPlus
  • 25
  • 23
  • 23
  • 22
  • 19
  • 13
  • 7
  • 5
  • 5
  • 2
  • 48

No. You could rephrase the same sentence and remove the lo, but not the eso (assuming that the translation is still that). Hemos establecido eso neither requires nor accepts a lo. Eso is the direct object in this sentence. The subject is still essentially nosotros even though the subject pronoun is omitted. In Spanish the subject can be inherent in the verb conjugation. When the direct object precedes the verb in Spanish, the direct object is always used. In other situations, the direct object is replaced by the direct object pronoun. This is different from the indirect object pronoun which is always used, whether or not the indirect object is mentioned.

5 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/rubescube

You All take a sentence and make it even more harder to learn with your loooong winded theory's. Augh!!?

5 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/lynettemcw
lynettemcwPlus
  • 25
  • 23
  • 23
  • 22
  • 19
  • 13
  • 7
  • 5
  • 5
  • 2
  • 48

It might help you if you knew English grammer better. More harder is not correct English.

5 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/skepticalways

Lynette, Rubee would be impatient with reading the l-o-o-o-ng explanations in a Spanish textbook, too! I get a LOT from the forum regular xontributors, and appreciate them so much!

I admit, when a long explanation appears in Spanish, or is quoted from RAE, I have to skip a lot of it because the explanation is at a level I cannot readily comprehend, and I do not have time to look it all up.

If we have long explanations of our English use, it is to help the more advanced students who want to speak and write correctly, so as to sound really fluent and educated in English. I know I started too late in life to ever be fluent in Spanish, with the amount of time I have to spend, so I'll learn what I can, to communicate in some small way, and help with English when I can. :-)

4 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/icecaloric

Spanish word order is really killing me.

5 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/SamuelOrr

Can a spaniard provide some definitive comment on this sentence and explain how both "Eso" and" lo" are required and what they mean in the above sentence? Are they essentially in apposition to each other?

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/ajabrams

See my comment below

4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Audrey5775

Or rather, above;)

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/mmigs

Why does Eso come first? Can you put it in the end? "Lo hemos establecido eso"

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/sawone

i right it down with a spelling error and they count it wrong. I am not here to learn how to spell something your way or any way, only to learn the language. Spelling means nothing to me.

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/skepticalways

Scott, if all you want is to learn words to speak, then do not worry about being counted wrong! Those who want to read and write correctly benefit from the corrections.

1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/gabrielwangbati

Hemos establecer eso should also be correct, right? I didn't put this as my asnwer. Just checking

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/alezzzix
alezzzix
  • 18
  • 18
  • 15
  • 14
  • 14
  • 12
  • 10
  • 9
  • 6
  • 5
  • 2
  • 5

No, present perfect tense in Spanish goes like this: haber + past participle. The past participle of establecer is establecido. Maybe you were think of hemos de establecer...?

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/gabrielwangbati

Sorry, I think what I mean is 'Hemos establecido eso'. Is it right?

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/alezzzix
alezzzix
  • 18
  • 18
  • 15
  • 14
  • 14
  • 12
  • 10
  • 9
  • 6
  • 5
  • 2
  • 5

Yes, that is correct.

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/kswenson22

NOT TRUE!!

3 years ago