1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "Esos hombres se habrán lleva…

"Esos hombres se habrán llevado el dinero."

Translation:Those men will have taken the money.

May 17, 2013



What is the function of the "se" here?


The difference between "llevar" and "llevarse" is quite subtle. "Llevar" tends to be used when the destination is either mentioned or implicit, whereas "llevarse" puts more focus on the fact that something has been taken from somewhere.

If for example the money needed to be taken to the bank, and "those men" were the ones doing it, then the "se" would be dropped because within the context we know the destination.

With the "se" though, the emphasis is on the act of taking the money, and no destination is implied.


Gran explicación. muy gracias


I've always thought of this as a combination of the reflexive-as-metaphorical-completion seen with "ir" (irse is the kind of "going" in which we're sure that the go-er is actually gone; llevarse is the kind of "carrying" in which we're sure that the thing being carried has really been carried to someplace else) and the true reflexive (because those doing the carrying-away have to take the thing onto their person / into their possession).

I'm trying to decide if I think that Duo should accept "gotten" here. I think probably not, because that would be much better as "obtenido" here. But "get" is at least sometimes an acceptable translation of "llevarse".


It made more sense to me to translate it as "They must have taken the money" and the reflexive makes more sense. DL accepted the answer but doesn't accept the future perfect as probability in every case in this exercise. The future perfect is also used to express probability or conjecture for something that took place in the recent past and that is the way I use it on occasion but DL seems to not be consistent in accepting it for this exercise. Some of the translations sound strange to me. Gracias antemano por la atención pero esta lección me vuelve loca.


Thanks, well explained


well that's tricky, thanks


So would "...taken the money themselves" be correct? DL marked me wrong but I thought se was reflexive.


'Se' furnishes the indirect object. Sometimes that can be thought of as <x>self, but sometimes not, and you might want to drop that interpretation.

For instance, you know that llevar can also mean "to wear", but what's going on with it being reflexive is that I'm not wearing this shirt myself, I am carrying this shirt on me, i.e., wearing it.

In the above sentence, I think the men are carrying the money and they are their own intended recipients. That is, they have taken the money, in English.

Once the meaning has shifted to include the indirect object, I think you've kind of "used up" the reflexive portion.


Briilant explanation. Thank you.


¡Muchas gracias! Aquí tiene un lingot.


So to summarize, I am understanding that with "se," destination is there. Without "se," destination is not there or just not as important as the "taking it" part. Thanks for your explanation.


I think it was the other way around


"se" indicates they took the money for themselves, if you don't use it it implies they took the money to move it or give it to someone/somewhere else.


Llevarse means to transport something. So this sentence is not about merely taking as in "taking possession of," it is taking, as in taking something along with you. If you leave a hotel you take your belongings with you, se llevas sus pertenencias contigo.


I answered " Those men will have taken the money with them" and it was accepted. I think that's what the "se" implies, but I'm not sure...


But now you are sure because, yes that is what the "se" is for: with them.


Can llevarse mean steal?


Sort of. It means "take away" or "leave with sth", which you can use to imply stealing.


As davux said, it may be implied, just like we do in English...

  • Oh my god, someone took the money! (meaning they stole it)

But if you want to say "steal" explicitly then you use the word "robar".

In DL your job is to translate what is there, not to infer meaning.


DL says this sentence means " ...have stolen..." or "...have taken..."


Why not "brought the money" instead of "taken the money"? it was marked as wrong. "Llevar" translates to "bring" in the dictionary


Firstly, this is "llevarse", which is different to "llevar" (see my explanation above).

Generally "llevar" = take (or carry or wear); and "traer" = bring - but it's not quite so simple. Spanish is much stricter in their use than in English.

Both refer to moving things from one location to another. "Traer" always refers to moving things to the speaker's location (which almost always is "bring" in English). "Llevar" refers to moving things to a place other than the speakers location (which usually is "take" in English, but sometimes we say "bring")

For example, I'm having a party and I call my friend to ask him to bring some plates...

  • "Trae unos platos" (Bring some plates)

She's happy to help out, and says...

  • "Voy a llevar unos platos" (I'm going to bring some plates)

Notice how in English we are using the word bring in both cases, but the Spanish being more explicit distinguishes these as traer or llevar depending on the location of the speaker.

It may sound complicated, but all you really need to know is "Am I talking about bringing something to the location I am currently in?" - Is so use "traer", in ALL other cases use "llevar".


Thank you! :) I read your explanation above (about "llevar" and "llevarse"). I assume that the word "bring" is the wrong word to use when translating the "llevarse" because "brought" implies a focus on the location.

As to your distinction between "llevar" and "traer", I'm not quite sure what you wanted to say ... you wrote that in English one would be able to say "bring" i both cases. But "bring" was the verb I used in my translation, so what was your point?


If implied theft is a possible translation here for llevarse, then why is "Those men will have taken away the money" marked as wrong?


Because every sentence on here has dozens of plausible translations and the developers couldn't possibly have thought of all of them. That's why we have the "My answer should be accepted" option under the Report button.


The Spanish sentence didn't include a word for 'away' so you added an unnecessary word.


Sounds like a heist!


What about "carried" the money?


Because it is "llevarse", not just "llevar", then "carried" isn't a correct translation (see my longer explanation on the difference above).


Why not "eses hombres", thought eso used when the object is not clear on masculine or feminine.


Just searched online, there is no such a thing called "eses" or "estes". When you are talking about plural, "esos" or "estos" is the right way to go.


Esos narcos se habrán llevado el dinero, by the time you get to netflix :)


¡Rápido!¡Id tras ellos! >:V


Why is it "with them"? Why not "for them"?


This one is hard!


I was marked wrong for "those men will have brought the money". Is that incorrect?


En este caso llevar significa "take". Como se mencionó anteriormente, llevar y traer pueden significar "bring" en inglés pero no en español. Por ejemplo: me traes la manzana (bring me the apple); sí, la te llevaré (I will take it to you) aunque en inglés se puede decir I will bring the apple to you. Es desde el punto de vista del interlocutor. También en este caso, el futuro puede expresar la probabilidad, conjetura, o suposición, vea aquí http://blogdeespanol.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/PROBABILIDAD-fut.pdf


¡Muchas gracias! ¡Tu explicación fue excelente! ¡Muy claro!


can't "llevar" also mean "to bring"? "They will have brought the money (with them)"

[deactivated user]

    Why "people" is incorrect - and "men" is correct??? To me, both are fine.


    the owl told me those men will have stolen the money, wtf


    I have learned "llevarse" as "to take away." But Duo does not accept, "Those men will have taken the money away.


    Brought the money, carried the money.....where do they get TOOK the money from the verb llevar.


    Read jonbriden's response at the top of this page. To briefly summarize, the verb being used here is not llevar, it's llevarse (which has a subtly different meaning). Hope you get it!


    jonbriden's explanation is excellent. Maybe this link will work for you. I googled "llevarse el dinero" for examples and teaching resources. https://context.reverso.net/traduccion/espanol-ingles/llevarse+el+dinero


    If those men will have taken the money to the bank, it would be llevar rather than llevarse?

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