1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "Ustedes tuvieron un perro."

"Ustedes tuvieron un perro."

Translation:You had a dog.

March 15, 2013



Is "You'd a dog" even proper english? Edit: I say this because DL listed it as a proper translation


It is a contraction of you+would but you would need (you'd need) to follow that with more because there is no verb in that sentence. It can also be a contraction of you+had but not had, in the sense of possession. This is had used as an auxiliary verb so you still need another verb. So, you'd a dog is not a sentence, but you'd is a legit contraction. So, you'd better put some verbs in those sentences :)


Here, take all my lingots!


don't know how many you gave but i gave you 3


You'd better not pout, you'd better not cry...Santa Clause is coming to town. That is a contraction of "you had".


Well explained :)


youd a dog is correct. youd is a contraction of you had as well as you would. DL is correct again!


As a native english speaker, i have never heard this used once and i have lived in the northeast US, california, and north carolina.


"You'd better not pout, you'd better not cry...I'm telling you why. Santa Clause is coming to town." You had.... you'd heard it, hadn't you?


No, 'you'd' would have to be be followed by another verb in order to be used properly.


No this is not correct, but you could say Y'all had a dog.


Exactly. Ustedes is plural, and without context can mean "you all" or "they" (since most Spanish speakers don't use vosotros format for you all)


Ustedes does not ever mean "they". The verb conjugation that goes with ustedes (Ellos/as) can, but if you say "Ustedes" it is second person plural: you (all)


honestly its a contraction that I say and hear often, but almost never write or read (imo)


I'm from Pennsylvania and I've never heard it in English before. That must be a regional thing.


From Oregon, never heard it either. The things we learn on DL. :)


You'd think more people would have heard this. Sorry I couldn't resist. Here in the mid-west we speak it but would never write it.


You'd better get back by midnight.
Or...christmas song: "you'd better not pout, you'd better not cry.....santa clause is coming to town." You'd be better off admitting it. you'd gone to the mall and did not have permission to drive that Porsche!!! fess up. you'd better tell me the truth.


I wouldn't say it's a real contraction, more one that occurs because h is a softer sound that can get cut out if you're saying it fast. so more i'ad a dog is how it would be pronounced, but never written. Like how i'm from the south and often drop g's in gerunds (ex. i'm goin to the store), but I would never write it out that way


You can contract "had" if it is used as an auxiliary verb. "I'd come." You cannot contract it if it is used as a principal verb. "I had a dog." That is the same as saying "I possessed a dog." If the latter, it cannot be contracted.


I know this as a contraction of "you would". From central US


Yet one would never use it in writing (I'm from the midwest). Drives me nuts that duolingo allows so much slang.


I don't know any slang words in Spanish. Maybe that's why I'm having a hard time understanding how people interpret Spanish on Duolingo.


This can be a contraction of "you had" as well, but it must be followed by a verb. And that's strange vicki, I've seen and used this contraction in text before. I'm from the south. As someone said before, I guess it's a regional thing.


We're going to have to understand slang when we visit other countries though, best to get used to it now.


You'd can mean 'You had' when using in the perfect tense (with another verb following it) but not alone to mean to have something. i.e. You'd spent all your money, you'd been there already. NOT You had a picnic, you had no money. It can also mean 'You would' which doesnt need to be in the perfect tense necessarily. i.e. You'd have spent all your money (perfect), You'd never believe who I met today (not perfect).


No, in this specific case it should not be listed as a correct translation (you'd a dog), at least for US English. We contract To Have if it is used as an auxiliary verb, but not when it's used for possession. I think I see where duo was trying to go, though. They're not trying to trick you.


"You would a dog" makes no sense whatsoever


This is an oral contraction of "You had". You may hear it said but it should not be used in written English excepted in reported speech.


I'm from Illinois and I've never heard that. :)


I'm a good bit older than most of you, and when I was very small you would hear that usage sometimes. I don't think anybody has said it in fifty years though.


Why isnt the "Personal A" present after the verb(tuvieron) in the above sentence? Is it because "un perro" doesn't signify a particular dog/pet? Or is the "Personal A" not allowed to follow Tener? Thanks


tener seems to be the only verb not to take a personal a...


The personal “a” is not used after the verb tener, or the verb form hay. This is true even if the direct object is a person.



Why is it not 'they' for tuvieron ?


"You all/they/Ustedes" So you can say to a group of people "You (all) had a dog". Tuvieron is past plural for "they had" and "you all had" I hope that helps! :)


Yes, the verb form "tuvieron" can be used for "Ustedes" which means "You" plural form or for "Ellos" or Ellas" which mean "They". This sentence currently has the pronoun "Ustedes" which specifies "You", I don't know if in the past the pronoun was not included in this sentence, but I am glad it is at this time.


So Tuvieron works for singular and plural forms of "had". Past Ex. Lo Vi- I saw it. Las Maestras Vieron ellas- The teachers saw them. El (He) fue mi estudiante. He was my student. Then why Lo Vi, Vieron, and Fue to describe the word "saw"?


Why are you using ser all of a sudden when the verb you are mentioning is ver? Yo vi, tú viste, él/ella/usted vio, nosotros/as vimos, vosotros/as visteis, ellos/ellas/ustedes vieron.

Fue is from ser and has nothing thing to do with your example. Also, tuvieron is the plural conjugation of tener- in the preterit. It doesn't work for singular. It can only mean they or you all (both groups of more than one person) had.


None of the lessons I have learned up to this point have taught me how to use any of these verbs correctly in the past tense. I understand the present tense but nothing about past tense. This is the first time I've ever seen the term "tener" so I certainly would not know how to use it let alone as a "plural conjugation".


Tener is the infinitive form of the verb have. You might find wordreference.com a helpful site. Also, studyspanish.com


can you not say?; You did have a dog


@GinoSamethini, "did have" would be the past perfect, "had" is the simple past. :)


Believe it or not, the past perfect would be "had had"! "did have" is simple past emphatic form, negative form and interrogatory form.

GinoSamethini "did have" is used to emphasize that it is true when someone has said "You did not have a dog." You could then say "Yes, I did have a dog." This past construction is also used in questions "Did you have a dog?" as well as in negatives. "did" is not used in regular positive declarative sentences, when you are just telling someone something.




I thought usteded meant "they" and usted meant "you"


When I was in school, the meaning of ustedes was the plural of you (all of you).


Is anyone able to explain to me why the preterite is used here as opposed to the imperfect tense?


I am not sure, but I think that the preterite puts emphasis on the fact that you no longer have a dog (You had a dog, but now you don't.) while the imperfect puts emphasis on the time that you were with the dog. (You used to have a dog.)


Why not "they had a dog" ???


Because Ustedes means You (all), not They.


It warms my heart to see that "y'all" is accepted. :)


creo que lo significa "you-all had a dog".


"You would a dog" makes no sense. What does that mean?


"Tuvieron" is They had/you all had . :)


That was what I put: They had a dog. I am still trying to understand why that is not correct?


"Ustedes" means "you" plural form (formal plural you form in Spain) and not "they"

"Ellos" and "ellas" are the masculine and feminine forms of the pronoun "they". The masculine form "ellos" is also used for mixed groups of males and females with at least one male in the group.


Here in Spain we use Vosotros for plural 'you' and Ustedes for plural 3rd person and 'they'.


Who are 'we'? Are you Spanish? In Spain the plural 'vosotros' would only be used in informal speech between a group of people who know each other, or by a younger generation which is more informal. Any older generation would always use 'ustedes' when speaking to a group of people they do not know. 'They' is 'ellos/ellas'.


Now do you usually use the pronouns though? Don't you mean "Tuvisteis" for plural "you had" and "Tuvieron" is commonly used for "they had" ?


Andreaja69 - yes I agree with you, that's why I was confused as to why when I answered with the presumption that they were using ustedes as the 'they', I was marked as wrong.. I live in Spain and as you rightly point out it can be used as both formal plural 'you' and also as 'them'.


Yes it's an error on duolingo part unfortunately because they completely ignore that Spanish from Spain exists!!


allintolearning - Whether one uses the pronouns or not, one must still know the possible meanings of a particular verb ending. For instance, 'tuvo' could mean, he/she/it/you had (usted). We have no way of knowing. 'Tuvisteis' is indeed plural 'you had . It is the ending for 'vosotros', which is the informal plural of 'tu'. 'Tuvieron' is certainly correct for 'they had', but also translates as 'you had' when referring to 'ustedes', the plural form of the formal 'you, 'usted'. The pronouns 'usted/ustedes' are quite often added to the verb to clarify that the subject of the sentence is not he/she/it or 'they'.


MarieBarcelona - Don't forget that 'ustedes' means 'you' , not 'they' in both Spain and Latin America. 'They' would be 'ellos/ellas', although the verb ending is the same. It is only when the pronoun is omitted and you have to depend on the verb ending that there can be some confusion. In this sentence they have included 'ustedes' to make the subject quite clear. Had the subject been 'they', they would have added 'ellos/ellas'. What they do not use in Latin America is 'vosotros' as the plural for 'tu' - they use the verb ending for 'ustedes/ellos/ellas'. All very confusing!


It does advertise itself as teaching Spanish as used in Latin America, so I wouldn't consider it an error on their part. It would be nice if they offered a course for Spanish as from Spain as well. The same is true for English. They advertise as offering American English, but it would be nice for folks to have the chance to choose between American and UK. Maybe someday. Then we could possible have UK English for American English speakers. :D


FULL DISCLOSURE: Native English speaker - US, Southern Appalachian dialect. Other uses of English may vary. Advice about Spanish should be taken with a grain of salt.


¤´¬§´{^¿´{¬¿ mgeuk dim


Just wondering - can this spanish sentence be spoken with a question implied, Ustedes tuvieron un perro?


Yup, but normally the subject would move behind the verb. Not in every case, but in this one ¿Tuvieron ustedes un perro?


You would (what ? - verb required) a dog?


"you'd" is also a contraction for "you had", but we also would not use that contraction if no other verb were following.


why not you had a puppy? puppy and dog are like the same thing


Puppy is a baby and a dog is an adult for the most part. They are not the same thing. It is like pointing to a male child and saying "look at that man".


they is appropriate. can mean both


"Tuvieron" without a subject pronoun can mean "they had" or "you had" (plural form). "Ustedes" means "you" plural form and not "they". https://www.thoughtco.com/using-subject-pronouns-spanish-3079374


I said "you had a dog" and missed it. What's up? This has happened multiple times


I used "You guys had a dog" and got it correct. This is what I would naturally say coming from Northern California.


That is colloquial, and I'm sure Spanish has a similar phrase, but 'you guys' is not a translation of 'ustedes', which is the formal word for 'you' in the plural.


Could you not say "I used to have a dog"?


I can't use tuviste?


"You would a dog" is not a sentence.


I don't think anyone said it was.


The accepted translation "You would a dog" is not a sentence - it lacks the verb contained in "Ustedes tuvieron un perro"


Haha oh wow I didn't realize duo listed that as acceptable. Yeah that's not a sentence.


He/She/Them as well as Singular/Plural/Neutral have so many variations of the same word in past tense that I'm confused and struggle with them. Will someone help explain proper usage for future lessons? Thanks.


So how does tuverion come from tener


Can anyone explain in this sentence why "Ustedes" is used and not just "Tu"? Would both be correct?


I'm not sure which exercise you are seeing since many exercises link to the same comments. However, assuming that you were given the sentence in English as "You had a dog" then any of the following should be considered correct:

"Ustedes tuvieron un perro." "Usted tuvo un perro." "Tú tuviste un perro." "Tuviste un perro." "Vosotros tuvisteis un perro." "Vosotras tuvisteis un perro." "Tuvisteis un perro."

Some folks might also suggest that you can drop the subject words "ustedes" and "usted" for correct answer, but I do not believe that is correct. From everything I've read, one generally keeps those subject words instead of dropping them like the others as a matter of courtesy. It is held to be more respectful to use them in this form, which is also considered a more respectful, formal tense.

FULL DISCLOSURE: Native English speaker - US, Southern Appalachian dialect. Other uses of English may vary. Advice about Spanish should be taken with a grain of salt.


I thought that tener in preterite meant "to have acquired" and tener in imperfect meant "to have had in the past"


As a Brit I find this bonkers


Is there any logical way to know that a 'v' would be added to "tiene" here for the past tense use or is it just a matter of remembering? I understand the "ieron" part but the v just kind of pops out of nowhere.


Tener is an irregular verb like estar and ser. These, I'm afraid, we must just remember. I use SpanishDict to help with irregular verbs. There is a conjugation tab on the definition page. There you can find all the conjugations, pronunciations for all of them, and links to pages explaining the various tenses and moods.


FULL DISCLOSURE: Native English speaker - US, Southern Appalachian dialect. Other uses of English may vary. Advice about Spanish should be taken with a grain of salt.


Geez they should have said y'all


wow! is this a U S tragedy? I'm worried about "tuvieron" (trying to learn spanish) and the whole discussion seems to go around 'd a dog....To contract or not to contract....what a question!


From where I'm from 'You'd' is for 'You would'. Maybe this is a bug on DLs behalf? "You'd do it if you were making $1,000,000'".


I thought you could use it in both need, I had or I would may be I'm wrong... Actually Google gave me this Contractions: 'would' vs 'had'

The auxiliary verbs would and had are both contracted to 'd. How can they be distinguished? • Would is always followed by a verb in the infinitive without the to: I'd like some sugar please. I would like some sugar please. I'd be glad to meet you. I would be glad to meet you.

• Had is followed by a past participle and allows us to conjugate the verb in the Past Perfect: When I arrived, she'd been in my office for two hours. When I arrived, she had been in my office for two hours. Until he bought his sports car, he'd been saving money for years. Before buying his sports car, he had been saving money for years.

Note: Some other expressions (had better, had best...) use had without being followed by a past participle: I'd better leave. I had better leave. It's better if I go. Hope this is making clearer


I was corrected from "you all have a dog" to "you all owned a dog". Now, I get that me saying "have" was wrong because that isn't in the past - I should have said "had a dog".

I'm wondering why they swapped "had" for "owned".


Don't know or remember why I'm in this discussion but It looks to me it says: you were a dog! H'm I'd better revise my verbs!


Surely the plural ustedes which I translated as you all had a dog


Certainly in the UK we never use 'you all' to translate the plural pronoun 'ustedes', it is just 'you'. However I'm no sure this is the case in the US.


It depends on where you are in the States. In my neck of the woods, it's "y'all". In other areas it is "you", "you all", "youns", or "you guys". There may even be others that I haven't heard yet.

FULL DISCLOSURE: Native English speaker - US, Southern Appalachian dialect. Other uses of English may vary. Advice about Spanish should be taken with a grain of salt.


I answered "You all had a dog", and it was accepted today 3/4/2018.


This is wrong on many levels, but mainly because, as a person living in Spain as opposed to South America, the use of Ustedes is more likely to refer to 3rd person pural i.e. 'they all' as we use vosotros over here for 'you all'. I can accept that Duolingo only concerns it'self with the Americas and not us here in Europe but it should still accept both answers and not consider it wrong Spanish!


'Ustedes', in Spain or anywhere else, always means 'you', plural, formal. It does indeed use the same verb ending as 'they', but it certainly does not mean 'they'. 'They' would be 'ellos/ellas'.


Should read they had a dog

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