1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "Ese día habíamos ido a la ig…

"Ese día habíamos ido a la iglesia."

Translation:That day we had gone to the church.

February 18, 2013



It is the same as 'we had gone to the church that day' and still my translation was marked incorrect!


I reported a problem as well. The good news is, they've fixed a number of problems based on my feedback. The more reports, the better Duolingo gets! :)


You can translate it that way into English but not vice versa.


Is this wrong? we had gone that day to the church why?


I believe that is correct. Click on report a problem the next time you see it, if you'd like.


It's correct in English, DeutschCDMX.

Both "ir" (to go) and "ser" (to be) have the same conjugations in the preterite tense. That means that "went" (the past tense of "to go") and "was" (the past tense of "to be") both get translated as "fui, fuíste, fue, fuimos, fuisteis, or theron," depending of the subject pronoun.

"Habíamos ido" (We had gone) is the past perfect Spanish plural first person of "ir."

"Habíamos ido" (We had been) is ALSO the past perfect Spanish plural first person of "ser."

However, this literal translation of ser and ir doesn't tell the whole story, which is that "estar" is used for locations. Thus, if you want to say "We had gone to church yesterday," you have to use the past participle "ido."

The present participle of "estar" is "estando," and the past participle of "estar" is "estado."

The present participle of "ser" is "siendo," and the past participle of "ser" is "Sido."

The present participle of "ir" is "yendo," and the past participle of "ir" is "ido."


Most people would not say it like that Deutsch


I said "On that day we went to the church," why is that wrong?


You added an unnecessary word to the English translation, taylorbritt1865.


is "we had been to the church" not a correct translation? I keep putting "been" for ido, I think it comes out to mean the same thing, is it just more idiomatic and so duolingo doesn't know it, or is there a real reason they aren't the same?


I think I see the confusion. The word "ido" would be the past participle of "ir," not that of "ser" (which is "sido," see: http://www.wordreference.com/conj/ESverbs.aspx?v=ser). The form for "ser" would not make sense in this context a couple of reasons. First, in order for the English to be "been" in this context, the Spanish would have to be "estado." Remember, "estar" is used for location status, and "ser" is used for location of origin, as it pertains to identity. Secondly, "a" is used as a preposition denoting movement ("ir a," but not "ser a"). The phrase "ser de" would mean "to be from (identity)," and the phrase "estar en" would mean "to be in/at" (status). Therefore, in order to get "we had been at/in/to the church," we'd need to say "habíamos estado en la iglesia."

Here's an example of both ser and estar in action to further illustrate the difference:

"Cuando había sido un chico, había estado en Nueva York." "When I had been a boy, I had been to New York."


Thanks! So, in english, the phrases "we've already been to the store" and "we've already gone to the store" would be essentially interchangeable in meaning--this isn't the case in spanish though? Or is this maybe like venir vs llegar, where in english they're used almost interchangeably, and they are in spanish as well, but because duolingo wants us to learn the difference between the words it doesn't let us use them interchangeably? I hope this question was understandable...


No problem at all! It was definitely an understandable question. :)

The phrases are interchangeable in English, but not in Spanish. The reason: "been to" is a prepositional phrase that makes sense only in English, and does not exist in Spanish. The closest English to Spanish equivalent would be "been in" or "been at," which both get translated to: "estado en." I hope that helps!


It helps tounderstand DL's computer logic, but it doesn't alter the fact that 'I had been to church' is a valid translation of 'había ido a la iglesia'.


"Been to" is NOT an English prepositional phrase. Rather it is an English past participle + a particle. As per Google:

A particle is a word that has a grammatical function but does not fit into the main parts of speech (i.e. noun, verb, adverb). Particles do not change. The infinitive 'to' in 'to fly' is an example of a particle, although it can also act as a preposition, e.g. 'I'm going to Spain next week'.

For me, the easiest way to define a preposition is to think of it as a word that relates a noun to a verb (adverbial prepositional phrase) or to another noun (adjectival prepositional phrase). Sometimes words that are not ordinarily thought of as prepositions can function as "preposition substitutes." See:




See my reply to jwilson above.


The character illustration "speaking" the phrase was obviously Sikh. They go to a Gurdwara, not a church.


I find the use of habíamos confusing here. I think of that as 'we were' rather than 'we had' since it implies a continued action rather than a completed action??


Habíamos literally means "we had." Some people confuse the helping verb "haber" with the main verb "tener," but what you're doing, sherry575663, is to confuse the past perfect tense (uses había/habías/habíamos/habíais/habían as a helping verb that means "had") with what the preterite tense is.

The preterite and the imperfect are the two simple Spanish past tenses. There is NO preterite perfect tense! The preterite deals with completed actions, and the imperfect deals with actions that were ongoing in the past. By definition, neither the preterite nor the imperfect has a perfect form. The Spanish present imperfect tense and the Spanish past imperfect tense are their own animals.


Doesn't she speak awfully fast!


That day we would have gone to the church - is this OK? It's marked incorrect

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