But a bedroom? I don't think so. In a museum or school they may dedicate a "section" a room, a library to you. But a bedroom, is not going to illicit much donation money! I know , translate as you see it. I saw cuarto in this instance as must be meaning "section" as nothing else made any sense.
For a quick revision of demonstratives, this is a nice site: http://www.studyspanish.com/lessons/demonstratives.htm
To quote from the above site the following are demonstrative pronouns (demonstrative adjectives are also on similar lines):
- este (this one - masculine)
- estos (these ones - masculine)
- esta (this one - feminine)
estas (these ones - feminine)
ese (that one - masculine)
- esos (those ones - masculine)
- esa (that one - feminine)
esas (those ones - feminine)
aquel (that one over there - masc.)
- aquellos (those ones over there - masc.)
- aquella (that one over there - fem.)
- aquellas (those ones over there - fem.)
For neuter form:
- esto (this matter, this thing)
- eso (that matter, that thing)
- aquello (that matter/thing over there)
In another sentence in this section, they have Este libro es dedicado . . .. For the book, being dedicated is a property of the book, so you use ser. For the room, being dedicated (i.e. reserved) is a state (not a property) so you use estar. However, I think you could use ser if there were a plaque with your name on it in the room.
No. Ser or estar + participle isn't always passive. It can be passive construction, but it also can simply link a verb to a descriptive adjective as in English. He is bad. El es malo. El cuarto esta reservado. The room is reserved. Sometimes it is difficult to discern whether passive construction is being used or whether the adjective is simply descriptive. However, true passive construction isn't used often in Spanish. Se plus a verb is more common "Se reserva el cuarto." This is an area of confusion for most Spanish students including this one. Fortunately, even though the grammatical mental conflict may remain, sufficient exposure to the language tends to resolve these issues and alleviate confusion in usage.
It's not so much that it can change as that, for the purpose of this conversation, you are treating it as a state, not a property. Linguists call that "conceptualization." As a rule of thumb, when you describe something, you list its properties. When you describe state, you qualify it with "at the moment". Color is a property of your hair but a state of a traffic signal. Not that your hair can't change color but in normal conversation you conceptualize it as fixed.
When I first ran into this on the section test, I used Es dedicado, because I thought it meant that for some reason, someone put a plaque on the room honoring me. I didn't think of it as being merely a reservation. They are not doing true justice to the estar/ser quandary most English speakers have with that construction. In addition, mixing it with the passive voice, which is rarely used in formal Spanish, is a great disservice.
i always struggle to understand this, why is an object of the preposition usable here without an object pronoun, but in other sentences an object pronoun needs to me used. Compare "me lo pasó (a mi)" It is not that i dont know what to write i'm just not sure why im writing it, why with some verbs is the object pronoun dropped?
Wouldn't a far more natural English translation be, "This (bed)room is reserved for me?" I mean, I know it's the wrong verb and everything but to the best of my knowledge rooms are not sentient and therefore do not have the capacity for feelings of devotion and/or dedication. Harumph.
This is one of those sentences that trips DL up in clumsy literal translations. I guarantee you the sentence "This bedroom is dedicated to me" has never been spoken in English. Obviously dedicado is much more common and has more meanings in Spanish than dedicated does in English.
Another classic example of how after 7 years of nonsense, Duo continue to makes it clear that they do not value the input of native speakers of English, instead preferring the "authority" of native speakers of Romance languages, who make these ungodly, literal translations.