couldn't sus llaves also be your keys? As in "She could not have lost your keys." Marked wrong, but makes sense in the real world.
Yes, I did exactly the same thing and got it wrong. I have reported it as "My answer should be accepted." You should report it as well, because they pay more attention when multiple users have the same problem. Teamwork is key. =]
I agree. If you are 100% sure that it should be an accepted translation, then report it.
I think in a sentence like this it's presumed the keys are hers unless they clarify.
You've used could instead of can but otherwise I agree and have reported it.
As in its meaning or its use? It's meaning is "to have" or just "have." The infinitive is used because it follows a congregated verb (puede).
How come it is haber in this case? Is it because she "could not" have?
Like if I said She "has" not lost her keys, wouldn't it be, "ella no ha perdido sus llaves."?
In this case, it's haber, because the verb poder has already been conjugated in order to show the action in the sentence; the action being "She can't".
It's present tense versus past tense.
"Has" is the present tense: "She has not (currently) lost her keys (because she has them)."
"Can't have" is the past tense: "She cannot have lost her keys (yesterday because she drove to the market this morning).
...uuummmm I don't believe this is a case of present versus past, [although I did like the explanation from Cristophe 2068].
'Cannot' is the negative of the modal verb 'can' which implies possibility [amongst other modifying traits]. This given sentence is the present perfect structure [have as auxillary + past participle of the main verb] together with the modal verb 'can' which is indicating probability without actually changing tenses or the timeframe of the event. The past of 'can' is 'could'. So, this particular sentence structure remains relevant to this section on the present perfect. Duolingo also accepts both 'cannot have' and 'couldn't have', and this makes sense to me.
However, I [on behalf of the duolingo community] would like to have some confirmation of this theory, or may it be blown from the skies by a true linguist hotshot!
What is the past or future tense of ' can' in English? Isn't it a kind of conditional qualifier that works with another verb? Such as -I can do it- is different than 'I do it ' in that I might or might not do it or maybe I'll do it in the future. Or the negative in ' I could not do it ' implies the past, but without the negative - I could do it- this does not imply the past.
Same sentence. sus can mean her, his, its, and their. Context within the conversation helps to determine this.
Surely it should be "can't" as puede is present, not "could" which is conditional or imperfect subjunctive in spanish?
Alas, the inconsistency of DuoLingo. The same sentence was marked wrong 03/06/2019
poder= to be able to" so, "she isn't able to have lost her keys" should be accepted
The saying "I am able to" is not as commonly used as "I can". These are two (similar) concepts which I think (don't quote me on it) Spanish does not distinguish and so uses just one word for those concepts. Also, the way you are translating the sentence sounds strange in English even if you are being grammatically correct.
Sus is used if the object is plural. In this case, you could say "su llave", if she lost her single key. Since she lost more than one it becomes "sus llaves."
You would also use it in cases like "sus pantalones."
Can someone explain why She cannot have lost his keys is wrong. I am thinking of my wife always losing (misplacing!) my keys
stocker-I believe that when there is a definite subject (Ella), the possessive adjective (sus) is generally taken to be reflexive, referring back to the subject. If there is no definite subject then 'sus' could mean 'his, hers, your, or its. In the given sentence, to mean 'his keys' one would write: Ella no puede haber perdido las llaves de el.
Habere can mean to have in Latin, such as possession and not as an auxiliary verb. In Italian, there's a derivative known as avere. In Old Spanish, haber could be used as both an auxiliary verb and a synonym of tener. Can the same be done in modern day Spanish?
I think the English translation is an example of a past participle called conditional perfect ("cannot have lost").
The conditional form of can is could as in she could not have lost her keys.
"She can't have lost her keys".... That is wrong grammar, that's what I got in "correct solution". Duolingo needs to work on their grammar.
what is the perfect infinitive tense doing in a lesson about the present perfect tense?