"I am here for the conference."
Translation:Estoy aquí para la conferencia.
There are two availabletranslations for this sentence: "Estoy aqui para la conferncia" and "Estory aqui por la conferencia". What is the difference?
I think "para" would mean, "for the purpose of attending the conference", whereas "por" would mean, "because of the conference." But that's just a guess. And really, seems pretty similar. I guess "por" makes it sound like you're subject to the conference, versus "para", which makes it seem like the conference is the task you came here to complete. Anyway, that's my uninformed take on it.
Well, both might be right.
Para is the purpose and por is the motif. Actually the first, though used, is slightly less logical. [..] para asistir a la conferencia, para hablar en la conferencia.
It might be correct. "Congreso" is a "conferencia", but a "conferencia" is not always a "congreso". It should be accepted in any case, since there's no context.
Anyone have a good rule of thumb for when a word ending in "-ia" will have an accent over the i?
I think this to be difficult as well, but it depends on your stressing in spoken spanish. I think conferencia is stressed on the second e, so there is no accent on the i...but you always have to learn by heart, which word is not stressed at the normal place. All those words get an accent...nevertheless it is much easier than english or german as you know how to spell a word as soon as you see it in written form the first time...
I don't really see the problem... It has an accent when it carries the stress eg decía/líalo, not when it doesn't eg conferencia. It behaves according to the standard Spanish written accents rules. Remember "ia" is a diphtong that becomes a hiatus "ía" when stressed.
@jonnycc, as a general rule of thumb (and it is very general) noun forms tend not to have the stress
I've heard "estar" used to mean "estar aquí" (ex: ¿Pablo ya está?). Should you really need the "aquí" in the translation?
As long as the English sentence says here you should put aquí in Spanish. Although you can omit aquí in Spanish when there is a previous context e.g. *"¿Por qué has venido aquí? He venido [aquí] por el congreso."
The expression you mention "¿Pablo ya está?" is ambiguous, and it depends on previous information to know what you are referring to. E.g. it may be that they're asking if he está listo (para salir) - is ready (to go out), or ya está (aquí) i.e. ya llegó (he already arrived), or many other possibilities.
Deeply confused- a previous question will only accept 'confrencia' as the Spanish translation for the English word 'Lecture'. So why in this example does 'confrensia' not translate to lecture in English?
"Conferencia" can be (is usually - I stand corrected, see Siorghlas below) a conference, but can also be a lecture. http://dictionary.reverso.net/spanish-english/conferencia
Native speaker here. It is the other way around. Typically, a conferencia is a public lecture. That is the primary meaning (http://dle.rae.es/?id=AEKrwuF) and what I would understand. When a conferencia is really a conference, it typically is qualified "conferencia de..." e.g. "Conferencia de científicos sobre el cambio climático. Conferencia de jefes de Estado. Conferencia de paz.", at least on first use, afterwards you may say conferencia alone when your audience knows what you're talking about.
In this case this should be translated congreso or convención.
Thank you, please report this with your reference. At the very least, "lecture" should also be accepted or they should change the Spanish word as you mention.
I dont get it either! Anybody ? So I googled it. Here is what it says: "Soy" is used to talk about a permanent situation. On the other hand, "estoy" is used for something temporary. Thats easy now!
Could it be lecture? I remember that in some other sentence on Duo you had to translate ''the lecture'' as ''la conferencia''.
Hola, CaliFox: this link may help.
That's kind of a big question. Both words mean I am, BUT: basically, ser, the infinitive form of soy, first person singular, is used in ENDURING situations, while estar, the infinitive form of estoy, is used in situations that are short-term, or which involve location, or the result of some action. If you want to say I am a human being, you will use the verb ser, it is enduring, it will never change. If you want to say I am in the city, that is short-term, also location, so estar. As you progress further along, you will hopefully get a better feel for this concept, and the difference in usages.