"That owl was on this farm for a month."
Translation:Aquel búho estuvo un mes en esta granja.
I think it should be but it's not. I did receive this correction "Ese búho estuvo en esta granja un mes." I'm not sure why "por" would be incorrect, although it's entirely possible that there is something that I don't know. It also doesn't seem to like lechuza instead of búho.
MY concern, actually, has to do with the spelling of ---búho---.
I wrote to the RAE a long time ago (more than 50 years ago), explaining my idea on this and similar words: they ignored the whole thing. But, my idea still stands; and, here it is--
""Buho"" has a "separator" (the 'H' ), to separate the diphthong --uo--.
IF there were no 'separator', the word would look like this:
""Buo"" (and would be pronounced like "Bwo").
BUT, because the letter ""H "" is always silent (unless it is part of ""CH ""), it makes for a perfect ""separator"", to separate the two letters (vowels) of a diphthong, so that each of those vowels can have ""its own voice"", so-to-speak.
THEREFORE, we see the following:
- ""Bu ho""
AND, in such a word, separated by the "h ", we end up with two syllables [remembering that a 'diphthong' is only one syllable].
And, the "rule of speech" that deals with two-syllable words ending in a "vowel" applies: it says that the "first" (not the "last") syllable is accentuated (automatically).
Actually, the wording is "the next-to-last syllable" receives the 'stress' or 'emphasis' (viz., is accented), without the need to add any accent marks: because we are not changing or re-directing where the accent falls.
...simply does not NEED an accent mark! Period!
This reminds me of the fact that "dio" was spelled "dió " those
fifty years ago: it simply does not "need" that accent mark (but for different
And, having "diagnosed" the problem very throroughly (as one would expect of a physician, now retired), I correlated my finding (above) with OTHER possible scenarios, like this:
""día"" (day)... has an accent mark. The accent mark is necessary.
The accent mark is necessary, in order to ""strengthen the weak ' i ', in a diphthong"" (in this case, the --ia--), so that the "i " becomes a strong vowel (i.e.,with the accent mark on it, it is no longer part of a diphthong).
The rule of speech regarding "vowels" says that ""two strong vowels next to each other"" create two separate syllables; [EXAMPLE = "Leo", diagrammed as "Le-o", to show that there are indeed two syllables]
AND, ""one weak & one strong vowel, together"" creates a DIPHTHONG. (And, the distinction, here, is important.)
Which of the 5 vowels, in Spanish, is (or are) --'weak'---?
(ANSWER: ""u"" and ""i"" are weak: the rest are strong.)
WITHOUT the accent mark over the "i ", the word --""día"" becomes...
--""dia""-- (which is a one-syllable word pronounced ""dya"").
Please remember that the two vowels in a diphthong create just one syllable.
Consider the word ""familia"". This word has only 3 syllables, like this:
(fa-meal-yah)... the diphthong is just one syllable
Going back to our example above,
- ""dí a"" has two syllables, now that the weak 'i ' is made strong...
Without the accent mark, as I have written, --""día"" would not be a two-syllable word.
A ""separator" (the 'H') would serve the same exact purpose as with --buho--:
- ""di ha"" would follow the example of ""buho": the diphthong would be broken up and the resultant word ('with' the separator) would have two syllables: without the need of an accent mark!
IF we want to "keep" the accent mark, in --buho--, just do it the same way as for the word --día--. The following spelling would result:
CAVEAT: Just as we don't need to spell ""díha"" THIS way, we don't need to spell ""búho"" with the 'H', either.
OR, if we actually DO prefer to keep the 'h', then we don't need the accent mark: it is redundant.
- ""Buho"" is the reasonable result of no redundancy.
If anything, physicians are very, very thorough--so that the following just doesn't happen:
'Oops! I took out your appendix by mistake. Sorry!'
Happy Trails, to you!
As I understand ese refers to something close by (I think of it as being able to point to it), while aquel is more general. Ese libro - that book that we can see Aquel libro - that book that we are talking about
The word bank used Aquel on this, I would've said Ese, bc the context doesn't discern that it was "more removed" from the speaker. I'm confused about aquel and ese in this translation. Any help please?
Buo was marked wrong for owl again answer was lechuza then I put that in and that was wrong also,what gives?
I continually don't know when to put aquel and when to put eso when it says "that." Any tips?