"I am going to assume that it is."

Translation:Voy a asumir que lo es.

April 26, 2018


Sorted by top post


I'm not clear on the grammatical rules here, but would "voy a asumir que es" be an acceptable alternate translation, or is the "lo" necessary to preserve the structure of the sentence? Thanks!

April 29, 2018


I believe the use of lo is purely idiomatic and not required by any rule of grammar. In other words, I believe Spanish doesn't require an "it" here any more than English does. However, it may sound better to include lo and that may be something we should be learning.


I'm also confused by why "lo" -- an object pronoun -- would replace a subject use of "it," which should be either "él" or "ella"!


The "lo" is still an object pronoun, which is implicit in the English sentence. The phrase "lo es" means "it is (something)," with "lo" being an explicit reference back to a something stated earlier or clearly understood by all parties. For example:

That book she gave you is yours to keep, right?
I'm going to assume it is (mine to keep).

In the above exchange, "lo" would represent the parenthetical bit. I assume it would sound incomplete to a native Spanish speaker if you left "lo" out.


I agree English speakers like subject pronouns and spanish speakers like object pronouns

In "it is it", "ello es lo" (neither of which sound natural) we drop the second it, it is (that), they drop the first (eso) es lo.


I tried ¨voy a asumir que es¨and was marked wrong. The "lo" must be necessary.


The "Lo" here is really necessary, otherwise the Spanish sounds wrong. Here is an explanation from the web to illustrate this. Using Lo With Ser and Estar It is common when answering questions to use lo before the verbs for "to be" to refer to a preceding noun or adjective. When used in this way, lo has neither number nor gender. —¿Es nueva tu computadora?. —No lo es. ("Is your computer new?" "It isn't.") —¿Estaban felices? —Sí, lo estaban. ("Were they happy?" "Yes, they were.")


"Asumiré que lo es." Rejected and reported April 16 2019.


Can 'lo es' as such be used as "that's it" ?


I don't know whether it's a possibility, but in general That's it = Esto/Eso es


I should think it would be - eso lo es. In this sentence, I believe the phrase que lo es means "that it is it." The last "it" is implied in English, but is represented by lo in the Spanish. Also, the "that" is really a conjunction and is part of the "assume that" phrase.


Why not Yo voy...


It falls on ears strangely. I think Voy a asumir lo que es sounds much better. The lo is in the subject positon in the clause. It just seems wrong. Voy a asumir que eso es seems a better choice of words.


But, "lo que es " is very different from "que lo es." That is, you can't use the two phrases interchangeably and expect the meaning to be the same. And for that reason, you can't use "lo que es " as a translation of "that it is."

  • "voy a asumir lo que es" = "I'm going to assume WHAT (someone/something) is"
  • "voy a asumir que eso es" = "I'm going to assume (that) that is (something)"

The "lo " only appears to be in the subject location because the subject has been omitted. It's actually a "proclitic" Spanish construction in which the direct object pronoun is always placed immediately before the verb.

Given the original English sentence we are to translate, I see no grammatical reason to include "lo." However, its inclusion by Duo suggests it is idiomatic or used to make the statement a little more emphatic. In either case, including "lo " seems common enough in this particular phrase (you can easily find a lot of examples on the web) that it seems worth emulating.


Why are we not using the subjunctive form for ser after the conjunction que?


Voy a suponer lo que es.

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