1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "Jamás lo vas a entender."

"Jamás lo vas a entender."

Translation:You are never going to understand it.

March 11, 2013



Duolingo being negative about my chances.


Why would someone use "jamás" instead of "nunca"?


It's a stronger word, though both of them mean the same.


So, you're saying "jamás" is more emphasized than "nunca"?


In spoken language yes, but as I said, they mean exactly the same thing.


As in French, we say “jamais"


What is wrong with: you are never going to understand him?


Without any other context, assume "lo" means "it", "le" means "him/her".


"le" = "a el" or "a ella" so "le" would also mean "her," right?


Whoa! What? I have understood that "le" was ONLY an indirect object pronoun, meaning "him/her/it/you". Meanwhile, "lo" I've understood to ONLY be a direct object pronoun, meaning "him/it/you". What you two are saying here completely blows all this out of the water. E.g. that "lo" and "le" could be used for the same part of speech in a sentence, resulting only in a shift in reference but not otherwise in meaning. This should not be the case if one is only a DO pronoun and one only an IO pronoun.


Can you please elaborate or offer a reference where I can dig in further with this?


Your thinking was correct, I just think FrederickEason and dwhl went on a tangent about a different subject.
Originally, FE was saying when you see the direct object lo, you should assume it means it when you have no context and when you see the indirect object le, you should assume him when you have no context. dwhl then asked if the indirect object le could also translate to her without context, and FE agreed it could, and edited the original answer. Hope that explains things!


Right, sorry for confusing swingophelia


If lo and le are used in the same sentence then le becomes se. Eg: Tienes que darselo. You have to give it to him


An accent for "a" is required for dárselo.



near the end of the page it goes into him/her/you/it for lo


le is the indirect object for 'to her, to him, and to you (formal). Rarely in Spanish does le= to it because the indirect object in Spanish is for people, or some object that has been personalized.


Yes, I had forgotten that when I wrote the comment.


Le is an indirect object pronoun which can mean to/for him, to/for her, to/for formal you or to it. Lo is a direct object pronoun which can mean him, formal you or it (masculine only).


To simplify without the future tense or jamas: "You understand him"= Lo entiendes. "You understand it"= Lo entiendes. Same thing; the translation would depend on context. Without context DL needs to accept both. No?


Yes it does. But "it" is often the default position when there's nothing to suggest otherwise.


nothing is wrong with the translation the direct object lo = him, her, it


What is wrong with:you never are going to understand it


I wrote "you never are going to understand it" and I was marked wrong


It sounds fine to me if used in certain contexts eg in answer to a question.

When am I going to understand it? You never are going to understand it. (With the emphasis on the word are).

This could just be colloquial use though, I am not sure.


i have never heard that said in english


This sentence is correct. Here is an example of it in use--- Why are you studying the Magna Carta? You are never going to understand it.


Yes, that is a correct (and accepted translation). In Reinhild's question, he/she posed "you never are" instead of "you are never"


I think this sentence should be accepted, especially since we are translating the word jámas. It puts the emphasis of the sentence on never: You never are going to understand this.
In my opinion, it isn't the best translation, but not a bad one either.


Nothing. It was marked as correct for me. Maybe they fixed it


I put that sentence in and it wasn't counted as correct.


My Spanish tutor says that one can use jamas or nunca, but jamas (sorry I can't type the accent), implies never, ever.


Knowing that jamás implies more emphasis than nunca, I experimentally translated the Spanish sentence into the colloquial English "...never ever..." Not accepted. Oh well, it was worth trying.


If you put the cursor over the "lo" at the top of the page it says "it, you, or him." But they marked "You are never going to understand him" as wrong. It should be accepted. Going the other way. if you want to translate "You are never going to understand him" to Spanish then this is exactly how you would do it - "Jamas lo vas a entender."


The word "vas" sonds like "pas" need re-recoding


I wonder if "Jamas" always comes first?


[I go and find the Spanish grammar I got for $8 at the used book store]

You can either put "Jamás" first, or you can put "No" first, with "jamás" at the end: No lo vas a entender jamás.

Words that can be used in the same way to negate the verb are: nadie (no one); nada (nothing); ninguno (none); nunca (never); and jamás (never) as we've just seen.

You can also negate the verb by just putting "no" first:

No veo la casa.

(A Student Grammar of Spanish, Ronald E. Batcheldor.)


There is no additional context, so what is wrong with 'You will never understand him'?


Never are you going to understand it. What is wrong with this? Doesn't it mean exactly the same


Technically it does. But that is not how a native English speaker would phrase it in everyday conversation. If you said it like you wrote it you would still be understood perfectly though.


Of course, it's correct. It's just ... poetic? ;)


This kind of describes my Duolingo experience... :P


That's what one teacher told me--most of my Spanish is Latin American especially de Mexico.


And I thought "Jamas" was a spanish name lol


Fix it please lo =him her or it not just it


Why "never are you ... " is wrong ? Believe it has the same meaning as the suggested correct translation


Although your translation "never are you" is literally correct, tranMinhNhut, English customarily places the subject, which is "you" in this sentence, at the beginning. Accordingly, the first thing you need to do is reorganize your translation so that thet the subject is at the beginning. Lo vas a entender/You are going to understand it.

The next issue that you need to understand is where it is possible to insert the adverb, which in this case is "never." In English, adverbs can either precede the entire verb concatenation or be inserted somewhere after the first helping verb and before the main verb. For example, You NEVER are going understand it/You are NEVER going to understand it. When there is more than one helping verb, there is more latitude about where the adverb can be placed within the verb: You NEVER will be able to understand it/You will NEVER be able to understand it/NEVER will you be able to understand it.

In these examples of adverbs that do not end in -ly, the adverb always come before the verb, and never comes after it. Note that the third example shifts the subject "you" to a position after the first helping verb and shifts the adverb to the beginning of the sentence because the adverb is modifying the not only the compound verb "will be able" but also the infinitive phrase "to understand it," which functions as an object in this sentence but still can be modified by the adverb "never." To put it more simply, the adverb "never" modifies the complete predicate, which is "will be able to understand it."

Finally, I just wanted to add that adverbs that do end in -ly can be placed after the verb when they are modifying the verb: I completely understand/I understand completely. However, when an -ly adverb is modifying the whole sentence, then it can also be placed at the begining of the sentence: Truly, I understand/I truly understand BUT NOT I understand truely. This last sentence, "I understand truely" has a different meaning, which is that my comprehension is correct. That is, you do not understand falsely.


Are nunca and jamás interchangeable?


I feel like the placement of "never" can be interchanged in English.

  • 2292

Thanks for the vote of confidence Duo...


when we speak in spanish why do we say "never" first, instead of sayin "you"?


See my answer below to Sallyann_54


Where is "You are" in his sentence ?


We know it is "you" because of the tu conjugation "vas"


Why is "Never will you understand it" incorrect?


"You never are going to understand it" is correct English and should be accepted


"You are not going to understand it ever" is my translation which means in English exactly the same as Duolingo's translation. And yet, my translation got rejected as correct! I'm afraid, the software is limited after all.


Sometimes i feel this way about Spanish


Why not 'You never are going to understand it"?


"Disappears hear, reappears there."


Why Jamás in initial?


"You never are going to understand it" was not accepted . Could someone tell me why please ?


Por que me dice eso? Es bueno mis pensamientos son positivos. That vibe just aint cool.

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