Hola CKFL: I looked up "to give birth" and the translation is "dar a luz" which literally means "to give to the light". Isn't that lovely? One translation for your sentence was "Ella ha dado a luz al bebé"
You are reminding me of the birth scene from the lion king. - anyway, "Hakuna Matata" ( no worries ). Any idea how we say that in Spanish ?
I can't resist asking this - is she giving the baby to the light, or giving the light to the bebe?
To CKFL: the subject of the sentence is 'bebé' (in English 'baby'). So, your phrase "SHE has birthed the baby" would not be the correct translation, because here, the pronoun "She" is the subject and 'the baby' is the object.. I hope I have helped. Greetings. February 25, 2015.
Or: She has born the baby. If that is not a possible translation, how do you say: "She has born the baby" in Spanish?
How about: "She has given birth to the baby". This does involve an extra word though (birth).
I had the same thought at first oletange, however, thought better of it. Here's why: In the sense that you use it, the correct spelling is "borne". She has borne a child, as opposed to the child has been born. "Borne" was not suggested as a hint. Although you could say in English "She has borne the baby" (carried the baby in the womb), there is no "Ella" in the Spanish sentence. This is how I figured out that "el bebé" was the subject!
i still do not understand how bebe is the subject here. is the subject allowed to be at the end in spanish?? that sounds weird. and on the other hand, it is normal to drop pronoun subjects in spanish since they can be implied by the verb ending.
"The baby" is the thing that was born - thus it is the subject of the sentence. Usually the subject precedes the verb; however, this sentence is an exception. "ha" is the conjugated verb, and it is the third person (e.g., the baby). "El bebé" is the subject and "ha nacido" is the verb.
I searched for "nacido" in the Spanish Word Reference, and found this page: http://www.wordreference.com/conj/EsVerbs.aspx?v=nacido
On that page, you will see that "ha nacido" is the 3rd person singular preterite perfecto for the verb "nacer", which means to be born. I can best understand this Spanish verb "nacer" as "to exit the womb." I can't think of a single-word verb in English that means that. We might say "the baby came" or "the baby arrived" or some similar phrase - but if we use the word born, we have to use it as an adjective following some form of "to be" (is born, was born, will be born, has been born) etc.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists the word "born" as an adjective. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/born
Since English does not have a verb that means "nacer" and the word order in the sentence is not the usual subject-verb order, this Spanish sentence is confusing for us. I hope this helps.
"Born to us on this day, in the city of David, is Christ the King." This is an example of inverted sentence structure found in English.
"Ha" could also imply "he", "she", or polite "you" while "born" is the past tense of the verb "bear" in the birthing sense.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to interpret this sentence as "She has born the baby."
Edit: It looks like the problem is that the Spanish equivalent of "to bear a child" is "dar a luz" while "nacer" applies to something being born.
This type of inverted sentence structure always used to mess me up, but as I learned more Spanish I found that many of the possible ambiguities were covered by special uses and expressions which remove the ambiguity. I am not saying that there is no ambiguity in Spanish, but this sentence is not ambiguous in the way you suggested. Nacer is a verb that means to be born. It is intransitive so the baby can't be the direct object.
Spanish uses a quite poetic sounding expression for to bear a child. Dar a (la) luz, which is often reduced simply to Dar. Here is that meaning taken from the translation of the verb to bear
- (to give birth) a. dar a luz She bore him two beautiful children.Le dio dos hijos preciosos.
That's wrong because nacer does not mean to give birth to, it means to be born. It is actually our English verbs here that are awkward, not the Spanish. This is one of those sentences that is potentially so difficult for English speakers because it has a named subject, el bebé, which comes after the verb. That Spanish subjects can follow the verb is made so much more difficult by the fact that you can also omit subject pronouns. But after a while it will just click somehow if you keep at it.
That sentence showed up for me earlier in the lesson, so my guess is DL now accepts that translation. I never know when the subject goes before or after the verb.
I've seen this type of word order where the subject (I guess?) appears at the end of the sentence. Is there a pattern to when this happens, or are both (start and end) just simply acceptable?
Maybe there's a native speaker here who can answer this question, I'm curious too.
Either way is fine, it depends on what you want to stress, "El bebé ha nacido" stresses that it is the baby rather than a duckling or whatever that has been born.
Ok, five lingots (or more) to anyone who can adequately explain when to put the subject at the end of the sentence. I know in most cases, each location, at the beginning or at the end, is acceptable, but native speakers seem to follow some sort of convention. And usually, one of them sounds weird to the native ear. Please help. Thank you.
Don't know how come no-one has replied to this! :-)
As far as I know, it's a question of emphasis: you generally start with what you insist on. In this case, it's not that the baby was born - as opposed to a kitten, a story, whatever - it's about the baby's birth, that's the news (we assume the person you talk to knows a baby was expected...!).
Sufre mucho la gente aquí = People suffer a lot here -- you emphasize on the fact that they "suffer".
Aquí sufre mucho la gente = same, but you also insist that especially here they suffer a lot.
Los niños lloran = Children cry -- this could be a general statement, showing a common feature about kids.
Estan llorando los niños ! = same but you most likely want to let the others know that the children are crying
Todo el día han llorado los niños ! = not only have they cried, but they have so the whole day!
It's not set in stone, but that is generally the reason why you wouldn't start such sentences with the subject.
Thanks so much. This aspect of Spanish (What order do the words go in!?) has always been a little confusing, and your explanation helped a lot.
Well it is hard to give you an answer because "bore" has several potential meanings.
If you meant "You have birthed a baby" that is Has dado a luz un bebé
If you meant "You have carried a baby" that is Has llevado un bebé
If you meant "You have bored a baby" that is Has aburrido un bebé
If you meant "You have bored through a baby" that is Has perforado a través de un bebé
Hope this helps.
Thanks for the Spanish examples. English grammar fyi--after "have," the past participle form for "bore" (as in "born") is "borne." "I have bored the baby" means you're dull company, so the baby is wearied, similar to the way we say "The neighbor bored us with the same old stories." However, "I have borne the baby" means you have carried or given birth to the baby. It's just one of those weird English spelling things. :)
"Tú has dado la luz a un bebé." Literally "you have given the light to a baby."
I don't quite understand why my "the baby is born" is not accepted.
If I meant that it is happening, I'd say "the baby is being born".
Here, it's precisely a recent "past" event that has a direct effect on the present, hence the present perfect. Should the present perfect always use "to have" as auxiliary ? If so, what would mean "the baby is born" ?!?
I really have the impression I heard that multiple times...
OK, I found the answer myself ! I was wondering "If the present simple exists for this verb - I am born, he is born, we are born,... - then when would you use it, since you cannot be born several times?!". Indeed, either "a baby is being born" right now, or "a baby was born" in the past... So I thought "The baby IS born" would be in between, i.e. a sort of "present past", a recent past that has just happened.
Thanks to a song (I knew I heard that somewhere), I finally understood : "7 seconds" by Youssou N'Dour and Neneh Cherry, which goes like this at acertain moment :
"...and when a child IS BORN into this world, it has no concept of the tone the sin is living in...".
So that's for a generality! :-) Then "Ha nacido el bebé" must indeed be "the bay has been born", no matter how strange that sounds! :-)
I understand where you're coming from. The present perfect (perfect is the key word here) implies that you are talking about something someone has done. It's over. Nothing else to see or do here. Sometimes the present tense is used to talk about events in the very recent past but the completeness of the event isn't always totally known.
Yes it's always: present tense of the auxiliary verb haber + past participle. The baby is born - Nace el bebé. (present indicative)
Well thank goodness for the word scramble cheat, otherwise i wouldn't know what nacido means.
Why is "the baby has born" incorrect? Why is "been" added to translation.
Because of correct grammar. If you say ''they baby has born'', it doesn't sound right.
Yes. In Spanish, as in English, you don't use Subject pronouns with named subjects. But unlike English, both a named subject and a subject pronoun can come after the verb. The baby is the Subject of this sentence. Even in English I am not quite sure what your sentence means, but I suspect it needs a preposition. (he has been born as the baby? He has been born into the baby?
It would be a form of non-standard English that I have heard native speakers use regionally. Schools would correct you. I just want to point out that I have heard this slang grammar as it were, and it came from a 3rd generation in America, not English as a second language speakers. They would say things like "It was hot the day.". Or "I had to set it, the watch." " He's been born the baby." fits right in with this.
That's interesting. I don't think I have heard much of that. IBut what you are actually talking about is clitic doubling. Your examples show A doubling of a subject pronoun and the doubling of an direct object pronoun.. That is similar to Le gustan las flores a las chicas. That is somewhat different from this. There is no redundant word here. This is just a change in syntax. It's the equivalent in Spanish to saying I don't often get angry instead of I don't get angry often. Exactly the same meaning with a different syntax. The problem is that this sentence does not say He has been born the baby. It says Has been born the baby. As Spanish students we are taught that the conjugated verb forms contain the pronoun automatically. This is because so many of the conjugations are unique that the subject pronoun is often omitted. But the conjugations actually don't CONTAIN the subject pronoun, but they can IMPLY the subject pronoun. Most of the time that is a distinction with out à différence. But it wouldn't occur to you or any Spanish speaker to translate El bebé ha nacido as The baby he has been born. With the presence of a named subject, no implication is needed. The subject is present here. That it doesn't come where WE would expect it is irrelevant.
I am interested in where you are from though. I tend to think of clitic doubling as more British colloquial speech than US. Of course, there are many forces at play in language change. But one of them is exposure to other languages and dialects. People copy each other to a great extent so an expression or way of phrasing can catch on in a community and spread to people who have no connection to the original source. Some of this will eventually creep into Standard English, some remains regional and some dies out over time.
"The baby's been born" should be accepted, as "The baby's" is a contraction of "The baby has"
No. But that is a great point to bring out. English doesn't have a verb which describes what a BABY does to be born. The word born is actually the past participle of the verb to bear, which is of course the verb describing what the mother does in having children. So the active voice sentence would be She has born a baby. As in other cases, in order to make the baby, which is the object of the active voice statement, the subject of the sentence, you remove reference to the original subject and employ passive voice. If the Spanish verb applied to the mother, then you would have to either use the formal passive voice or the more common se passive that you mentioned. But the verb nacer describes what the baby does as an active verb not as the object of a verb. It is an active voice sentence and nacer is not a transitive verb so a passive voice construction is not possible. We don't actually talk about a women bearing children except in a medical situation, but we never came up with an active verb for the process. Spanish probably has a verb like bear which could be used, but the expression I have heard used for what the mother does in Spanish is dar a (la) luz. To give a baby to light or to the light (I have heard both).
I should mention that although I have never seen nacer as a reflexive verb, I have seen morir as reflexive. That made absolutely no sense to me at all since to die is definitely an active voice expression in English. The only way I could interpret it as reflexive would be suicide, which is NOT what it means. After a long, frustrating search for an explanation, I was finally told by one of Duo's great users (with sources) that morirse is used if you want to express that the death was recent or particularly impacted you. I say this only to highlight the fact that, although you can often figure out the Spanish perspective of why a verb is reflexive, sometimes the reflexive pronoun changes the verb in an unexpected way.
Lol I tried "she has hatched the baby"... I was thinking about animals. Hatched a baby bird?
Guys, I'm a Portuguese native speaker but I'm taking this course as if I was an English speaker in order to learn both at the same time. I have a question about the English actually, not Spanish. I've translated this sentence as "The baby has borned", and they gave me two different possible translations: "The baby has been born" and "The baby was borned". In "The baby has been born", what is the use of "been"? And why "been born" and not "been borned"? And in "The baby was borned" isn't it simple past?
First, "borned" does not exist.
"Born" comes from "to bear", which is an irregular verb in English : "bear, bore, born". A [fake] regular simple past would be "beared", which does not exist. There is no need to add "-ed" at the end of "born" to mark the simple past tense, as it is already within the past participle "born".
The idea is that on your birth, you are being born, carried, brought,... into the world.
Then, the question about "been" or "was" in this : it is the same in all [main European] languages, as far as I know, i.e. it has to do with the relation between subject (the baby) and the verb (to bear) :
is it active or passive ? Does the baby "do" the action (ACTIVE) or is it in fact the object on which the action is done (PASSIVE) ? If the meaning is active, we generally use "to have" as an auxiliary to form compound tenses with the main verb ; if it is passive, then we must use - at some point - "to be" as an auxiliary (in conjuction or not with "have").
I believe it is the same in Portuguese, isn't it ?!
The baby doesn't do anything (grammatically): so there must be the auxiliary "to be". By the way, the infinitive "nascer" is "to be born" in English.
"the baby has been born" : the action has just happened, this is present perfect. You'd say that sentence on the baby's actual birth day (not the party, the real screaming one).
"the baby was born" : the action happened at some accurate point in the past, this is simple past (what you must use when talking about yourself, "I was born in...").
Hope it helped.
Wow, I've never known that the verb "born" was in a past tense, I've always thought it was infinitve.
Actually, in Portuguese, "nascer" is an active. "O bebê nasceu" (literally "the baby born"). If it were passive, it would be "O bebê foi nascido" ("the baby WAS born), which makes absolutely no sense.
We also don't have a present perfect tense, it's a little hard to get the idea when we're introduced to this tense. This exercise makes the definition a teacher gave of present perfect a little funny: he said that the sentence "I ate an apple" means that he ate an apple and that's it, but "I have eaten apples" means that he has eaten some apples in his lifetime and he can eat more apples if he wants to. In this case you were born one day, but you cannot be born another time in your life.
Sometimes we use "been born" in the passive way when we talk about the town or date when a third person was born, like: "João da Silva, nascido em 10/08/1970, em Irajá..." (meaning exactly "João da Silva, 'been' born in 08/10/1970, in Irajá city...". But this use is very unusual, used only in extremely formal situations like a trial or in a written document.
But thank you very much, your answer was very clarifying, very much food to thought.
I know it's not the same "logic" in Portuguese : my mother tongue is French, and "naître" (to be born) follows roughly the same pattern; I'm not fluent in Portuguese, but in French a proper simple past would "le bébé naquit", which is never used in oral French. We use "le bébé est né" : "est" comes from "être" (to be), but we don't use it here because it is passive, but because of the type of verb, i.e. a verb that implies a change of state.
But in English, the idea behind "to be born" is not the same as in Romance languages such as ours : that's why I explained the meaning of "to be born" in English, coming from "to bear", so as if the baby is being taken, carried, brought into the world (hence the "passive" aspect in English).
It's an interesting use of the verb for the idea of being born, as "dar a luz al bebé". I like it when the languages get poetic.
Yes, I was very surprised to learn that "nacer" was in the active voice in Spanish. In English, the active voice would be used only for the mother ("She bore a baby"), although it's almost never expressed that way in practice.
ElGusso, thanks for delving so deeply into the verb use. What made it confusing for me was in another lesson of present perfect, I tried translating using part of a "to be" conjugation and got it wrong, so I was trying to avoid "has been." Since the verb was 3rd person, I thought I could choose "she" and "has birthed" therefore making it an active verb having a direct object, the baby. That "born" was passive never occurred to me, but makes sense.
"Ha nacido el bebé.", why is the verb/subject combination inverted here? Thanks!
This is mostly off-topic, but do any other English speakers think that saying "She drinks" in Spanish ("Ella bebe") sounds like a flirtatious greeting in English?
Yes. What is tricky is that you are forced to use a passive form, in english. Cause in the cauntries where they speak english children do not give birth to themselves. They need a mother for them in order to "come to the light". And, note to myself, remember to say "I have been born that way" or, better, "I was born..." , and not "I have born that way".
The "correct" translation given was "the baby was born" which is incorrect. That would be "Nació el bebé." Because there was no "estado" involved, I considered using the above translation, " the baby has been born" but used what would be generally used in English, "the baby has arrived". It should qualify as correct, but with the other also suggested as an alternative. ~But the "correct" version in the test is most definitely wrong.
The problem is that in English we do not have an equivalent verb to nacer. Nacer is the verb performed by the subject, the baby. In English to be born is an entirely different concept grammatically, although obviously describing the same event. Essentially it is the past participle of the verb to bear, which makes the English sentence a passive voice sentence because the subject of the active voice sentence would be the mother. But since the verb to bear has fallen out of use, people might also view born as a predicate adjective. The shown above the discussion section is generally the one considered best by Duo, although other answers may come up as correct after you complete the exercise. That is The baby has been born. Although, as noted above, this is not quite a parrellel construction to the Spanish, it does show a perfect tense. But in these cases where the verbs work differently in the two languages greater leeway is given as long as the correct meaning and time frame is represented. The baby has arrived however would not have been accepted I don't think because you can use the parrellel construction for that in Spanish with the same meaning.
Yes. In virtually any sentence in Spanish the subject can either preceed or follow the verb. There are stylistic and emphasis reasons for the choice, but as far as I know no grammatical ones. And certainly subject before verb is always appropriate. But it is important to get used to the subject following the verb especially since if you assume some he/she or it subject pronoun has been omitted you can often get confused trying to make the subject the direct object. Or at least I could. It was one of my biggest problems when I started learning Spanish.
I think the baby had to be born before we could phrase this and thus the subject is at end, just guessing.
The English verb is "to be born." For examaple, the baby was born, the baby is born, the baby is being born, ergo, the baby has been born.
Yes. The birth process is treated a little differently in English. To be born is a phrasal passive voice verb. Spanish and the other languages I know use an active voice verb. But the only active voice verb is the one most often used to describe what the doctor or midwife does, although it is occasionally attributed to a mother: to birth. We speak of being born as something that happens to a baby. Spanish speaks of it like any other verb, an action performed by the subject. You could argue either side, but the problem is that it sometimes takes a minute to adjust one's thinking to use it correctly.