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

"Jamás lo vas a entender."

Translation:You are never going to understand it.

0
5 years ago

60 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/FLchick
FLchick
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 13
  • 9
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2
  • 948

Duolingo being negative about my chances.

138
Reply44 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/skturner

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

59
Reply14 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/alezzzix
alezzzix
  • 18
  • 17
  • 15
  • 14
  • 14
  • 12
  • 10
  • 9
  • 6
  • 5
  • 2
  • 33

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

65
Reply13 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/thefifthjudge
thefifthjudge
  • 23
  • 13
  • 12
  • 12
  • 7
  • 7
  • 6
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2

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

6
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/alezzzix
alezzzix
  • 18
  • 17
  • 15
  • 14
  • 14
  • 12
  • 10
  • 9
  • 6
  • 5
  • 2
  • 33

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

9
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/RamseyLinguist

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

28
Reply5 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/FrederickEason
FrederickEason
  • 25
  • 23
  • 20
  • 17
  • 14
  • 14
  • 11
  • 11
  • 10
  • 10
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 4
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 308

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

22
Reply25 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/dwhl
dwhl
  • 16
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6

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

2
Reply4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/swingophelia

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.

http://www.studyspanish.com/lessons/iodopro.htm

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

20
Reply4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/wazzie
wazzie
  • 25
  • 11

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!

21
Reply14 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/dwhl
dwhl
  • 16
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6

Right, sorry for confusing swingophelia

1
4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/swingophelia

Thanks, that helps!

0
4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Stuart428506

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

2
Reply2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/markgjensen

http://www.spanishdict.com/translate/lo

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

1
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/jfGor
jfGor
  • 16
  • 2
  • 2

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.

5
Reply4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/FrederickEason
FrederickEason
  • 25
  • 23
  • 20
  • 17
  • 14
  • 14
  • 11
  • 11
  • 10
  • 10
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 4
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 308

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

0
Reply4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/dwhl
dwhl
  • 16
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6

Thanks!

0
Reply4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/doolaney

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?

6
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/malkeynz
malkeynz
  • 25
  • 25
  • 11
  • 1397

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

1
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/frenchnero
frenchnero
  • 17
  • 17
  • 14
  • 13

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

3
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Reinhild

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

8
Reply5 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/TildeSteele

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

3
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Mark2020
Mark2020
  • 25
  • 25
  • 22
  • 16
  • 5
  • 4
  • 56

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.

2
Reply4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/allanchao

i have never heard that said in english

0
Reply5 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/improvjon

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.

3
Reply5 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/restlessruby

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

5
Reply5 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/wazzie
wazzie
  • 25
  • 11

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.

4
Reply4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/improvjon

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

0
Reply5 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/karenmaryh

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

1
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Cathy_Gates

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

6
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/kite420

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."

5
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Sallyann_54

I wonder if "Jamas" always comes first?

3
Reply4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/PatriciaJH
PatriciaJH
  • 25
  • 25
  • 21
  • 7
  • 158

[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.)

9
Reply34 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/AnthonyFal1

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

3
Reply4 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/PaulineReyes

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

3
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/dsignerheart

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.

3
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/tessbee
tessbee
  • 25
  • 19
  • 28

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

3
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/zorba333

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

3
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/justin.sheen

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

2
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Cathy_Gates

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

2
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/CyanCjManu

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

2
Reply2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/lrnrlynx

And I thought "Jamas" was a spanish name lol

2
Reply1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/susanmarybrown

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

1
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/TranMinhNhut
TranMinhNhut
  • 25
  • 24
  • 21
  • 16
  • 14
  • 14
  • 12
  • 11
  • 9
  • 9
  • 6
  • 6
  • 1111

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

1
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Linda_from_NJ

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.

0
Reply11 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/wbeeman
wbeemanPlus
  • 22
  • 13
  • 13
  • 9
  • 9
  • 9
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 5
  • 2
  • 608

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

1
Reply2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/nrz0
nrz0
  • 25
  • 3
  • 1253

Thanks for the vote of confidence Duo...

1
Reply8 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/spade

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

0
Reply5 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/bweera

Where is "You are" in his sentence ?

0
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/linburnlane

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

2
Reply3 years ago