Translation:I would like that house if it had a pool.
Gustaba is the imperfect past tense. It would be the preferred past tense for gustar and would translate simply as I did not like. Gustaría is the conditional. It translates as I would like. It is used most frequently when a condition is mention, like here, When paired with the condition which makes that true, the verb after the if will always be in the subjunctive. The two clauses don't have to be in any particular order, but the if clause will always be in the subjunctive. You can have a conditional sentence without the condition be mentioned as well though. One of the common uses for this is polite requests. Me gustaría una tasa de té. I would like a cup of tea.
I'm also a native Dutch speaker and I know lots of Dutch people struggle with this. 'Were', the way it is used here, is the past subjunctive of to be and is used to convey a wishful mood or talk about something that isn't true (and a few other cases). E.g.:'If I were a rich man, I would have a pizza with diamonds on top every day."
Were to have is not the "normal" way to express something this common. I translated it as if it had a pool which was accepted. But were to have is a way to express the subjunctive mood. I think it is more common as the first clause. Examples might include: "If you were to have a seizure while driving, you would be killed. If the prices were to go up, nobody could afford it. It is more commonly used to refer to a future possibility than a current contrary to fact statement, so they are pushing it a little in this case, but it definitely expresses the subjunctive mood.
The English past subjunctive is identical to the regular past tense except for "to be": "I were" and "he/she/it were" are used instead of "I was" and "he/she/it was." It's the only verb that changes.
In traditional English, these types of phrases use the Conditional tense + the past subjunctive (just like Spanish), so this is one place you'll see it.
Of course, with grammar not being taught much, many native English speakers now use "was" instead of "were" in these cases. So I think both "was" & "were" should be considered correct in current English.
The translation I look at unlike a previous incorrect English example has: I wd like that house if it had a pool. But were to have is correct, albeit wordy. Many native English speakers don't use subjunctive as trad. standard English and it seems to be on way out, so perhaps you never heard/used it much for it to be natural. I remember hearing if I were a richman as a child feeling "error lights" come on, as it's rarely used
It's another situation where the answer is grammatically correct and maybe a more direct translation, but most people speaking English would say "I would like that house if there was a pool". For the best discussion on that check out "Thanks for having come." Grammatically correct, but everyone I've asked about it says it sounds weird to them.
Expanding on this Alexis: In English we would technically add another "had" to the complete sentence: "I would have liked that house if it had had a pool." Is the same true in Spanish? "Me habría gustado esa casa si hubiera tenido una piscina" or is it instead like common English, which often drops the second "had": "Me habría gustado esa casa si tuviera una piscina."
I feel like "Me habría gustado esa casa si tuviera una piscina" can be used colloquially. But in general we would rather use "Me habría gustado esa casa si hubiera tenido una piscina" like you said, or "Me gustaría esa casa si hubiera tenido una piscina" using conditional simple, I don't know if that can be done in English as well. By the way, it would be more common to get rid of the article and say "si tuviera piscina".
Muchas gracias Alexis. And no, "I would like that house if it had had a pool" doesn't work in English. It has to be "I would have liked that house if it had had a pool" or the more colloquial "I would have liked that house if it had a pool."
With the indefinite article exclusion someone elsewhere suggested it should be omitted in Spanish when the noun was normally only going to be one thing. Eg, profession "Soy panadero," partner "Tengo esposa," or pool in this case. I thought that was a good way to look at it, if it is correct?
It is correct, but I think it is also depends on the verb and the object of the verb, for instance, you can say "tengo perro", but it you want to refer to a specific breed you use the article "tengo un dalmata", "tengo un husky". For professions you don't use the article, but if you use it with the wrong word it can mean something else, for instance, if you say "él es payaso" you're saying that he works as a clown, but if you say "él es un payaso" you're saying that he acts like one. With verbs like oír, necesitar, ver, etc, you have to use the article, "oímos un ruido", "necesito un favor" or "vio un perro", but not if the object is uncountable or a mass noun, "oímos gente hablar", "necesito espacio" or "vio humo saliendo de la casa", in all of those cases you can also use un/una, but it would mean some instead of a. Sorry if I made it more complicated.
I am a speaker of British English and I would not use that sentence myself. I suppose I could say , 'Had it a pool I would like that house' , but it sounds rather odd to me. I use conditional sentences with subject-verb inversion quite rarely, and I think they often suggest a serious situation, eg 'Had I jumped into the river more quickly I might have prevented the child from drowning'.
Exactly. The purpose of translation here is to demonstrate your knowledge of Spanish, not to create the English sentence you would prefer. If the Spanish sentence could be modified in the same way with the same effect (but a different sentence), you are no longer translating.
"Hubiera" = "If there were...", not "if there was."
"If there were" is the subjunctive. "If there was" is the indicative.
"Hubiera" is an imperfect subjunctive of "haber."
Use "haber" (Hay) for "there are (hay), there were (había -- imperfect; hubo - preterite)" constructions.
That is true, but not all that haber is. The other function of haber is equally important,although it only uses the third person singular form, and has a mutant form hay in the present. Haber in the third person singular in all tenses and moods means there is or there are (in the particular tense or mood). The only unusual form is hay, so the third person singular subjunctive form Teo used is correct and would be translated as he indicated.
This issue comes up in most of DL's "gustar" sentences, because their preferred translation normally involves a subject switch. So, for example: "Me gusta esa casa" directly translates to "That house pleases me" but DL prefers "I like that house." They are probably trying to highlight that with "gustar" subject reversal is the most common/natural translation and so do not accept many of these verbatim translations, but of course, this does not make them wrong.
They are not strictly wrong, but are inferior translations in that they don't "feel the same". In the situations where a spanish speaker would say "me gusta eso", 99% of the times an english speaker would say "I like that", so that is a much preferrable translation, because it "feels" in English the same as the spanish phrase "feels" in Spanish. "That pleases me" sounds far less natural or at lest much less casual. If you were to translate "XXX pleases me" to Spanish and convey not only the same meaning but also the same nuance, you would probably pick an equally uncommon expression, such as "me agrada" or "me place".
Absolutely agreed. It comes down to DL trying to teach natural translations by marking less natural translations as incorrect, which I think is a good approach. On the flip side though, people will argue that their answers should be accepted if they are technically correct, which I can understand. So really DL is caught between a rock and a hard place in these situations.
I have only seen/heard piscina used to mean swimming pool (or perhaps another man-made pool like the pool between the monuments in DC ??) Would piscina be used for some of the other ways we use it in English like a pool of blood, a lottery pool, or the associated verb to pool? I have always assumed not as I have never heard it modified like that, but I must check my assumptions. I would not even assume that the various meaning of pool are covered by one word family.
This one is an easy pattern to recognize. It is an more advanced Spanish exercise because it uses the past subjunctive and the conditional, but once you get it down it is easy. Believe it or not it is exactly like the English. It always has two clauses, although they can be in either order. I think it is a little more common when the if clause comes first. The if clause states a questionable circumstance or a contrary to fact one. If the verb is in a past looking tense, then it is always a contrary to fact statement. I say past looking tense because, if the verb were "to be", (as it is in this wonderful "if" clause I just made without thinking) you will find the verb form may not be the normal past form. You would never say "the verb were" without the if. The verb to be is one of the only verbs you can recognize the past subjunctive in English as it generally matches the past tense. So you have this if contrary to fact clause that uses the past subjunctive. It might be easier to see if you call the other clause the then clause. But I want to emphasizr that then is seldom spoken, and sometimes not appropriate like this example where the then clause (the consequence clause) comes first. I only suggest it because we are accustomed to if...then logic. The then clause states what WOULD happen if the contrary to fact condition were met. This clause is in the conditional. Make up a few and translate away. If I had time (past subjunctive), I would do it myself (conditional). If I had the money, I would buy it right now. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride (my mother always said that when I was a kid) Then turn it around. This grass would be green (conditional consequence), if we had had rain this summer. (Past subjunctive contrary to fact condition). These sentences become easy to recognize.
Eike, it works similar to English: this is used when it is proximity or you are acquainted with something/someone. That is used when an object is far from you. Another way to think about it is like when you use here and there, where here expresses closeness. I hope this helps
That wouldn't be correct. This sentence has a common conditional clause (what WOULD happen), followed by an "if" contrary to fact statement. What we know from this statement is that s/he does NOT like the house and it does NOT have a pool. But she WOULD like the house, IF it WERE TO HAVE a pool. The preterite tense is used to express simple actions completed in the past. It cannot be used either to express what would happen (conditional) or the contrary to fact assertion which in this construction is always in the past subjunctive.
Casa is house. Hogar is home. Casa is often translated as home in expressions like ir a casa or llevar a casa where without either a demonstrative pronoun or an article means one's own house just as go home or return home does. But since that linguistic similarity is not relevant to this sentence, it should be translated house. It is not the person's home.
Good answer Lynette. Expanding on it: "Casa" can (context depending) also mean "home" when referring to other people's places. Eg. El no puede volver a casa - He can't return home. And it can mean "home" with other prepositions of motion and location. Eg. En casa - at home, Salir casa - to leave home. And "casa" can mean "home" as a description. Eg. Equipo de casa - Home team. None of these added usages are relevant to this DL sentence though, so you are right: "Casa" should be translated as "house" here.
That said, while the Spanish usage says "house" there is probably an argument that "home" should be accepted based on it being a possible synonym for "house" in English. At least where I live the two can be interchangeable. Real estate agents have a field day with it :) They like to say "a beautiful home" instead of "a beautiful house" for example.
Jellonz is correct. Spanish is a language with perfect tenses and they would have to be used in both clauses of this sentence. Actually, although the subjunctive clause uses the past subjunctive, this sentence is not a past tense sentence. This construction is actually quite common, both in Spanish and English. You have two clauses, where either one can come first. One clause uses the conditional and other clauses is an "if" clause that states the condition under which the other clause would be true. This if clause uses the past subjunctive.
While the subjunctive introduces doubt or uncertainty into a sentence as a rule, the past subjunctive can also be used to make a contrary-to-fact statement. This is the same in English, although most verb forms actually are not different in the subjunctive in English. Using an example with the verb "to be" in English (which does change in the subjunctive), you would have something like "I WOULD GO to the doctor if I WERE sick. "Would go" is conditional and "were" is past subjunctive. (normal first person past of to be is, as you know "I was"). This has a present tense meaning. The dialogue might be something like this. A: "Go to the doctor. You seem sick" B "I am not going to the doctor because I am not sick. I would go to the doctor if I were sick." So you know from this sentence that the person is not going to the doctor and is not sick. Our Spanish sentence is similar. The speaker doesn't like the house and the house doesn't have a pool. Not having a pool is the reason s/he does not like the house, and therefore the condition under which the person would like the house.
There is no past conditional per se, but there is a present perfect conditional which will set the statement in the past. But that would require that the subjunctive clause be in the present perfect subjunctive to balance it.
It is always somewhat ironic to me that almost all sources tend to say gustar is to be pleasing to but somewhere else they will always say like. The fact is that to be pleasing to is a bad translation for gustar. The only reason that this definition is used is that it is the only way to express like in English at all which uses the same grammatical structure as the Spanish where the person is the object of that which is liked. There is no difference in meaning between me gusta (in all its tenses and moods) and the applicable form of I like. I do find a subtle but distinct difference in English between liking and pleasing (and thus being pleased by). Complacer is the Spanish verb which better translates to please. http://www.spanishdict.com/translate/complacer
Well, I am not really in the economic bracket where I would ever assume a pool in a house I was buying, but when I was house hunting I did say something very much like this if you substitute pool with a bigger master bedroom, back yard, or two car garage. If you have ever watched the reality style real estate shows on the House and Garden Station or the like, you may well hear this exact sentence. When you are buying or renting a home, you seldom find the perfect spot. Many places may be very attractive but have some flaw. Then the job is to figure which flaws are the ones you want to live with. For some people not having a pool can be a fatal flaw.
Okay, I get that rich people might say this, but few regular people would let the fact that a pool is on your property be the defining factor in purchasing a house. and, about saying similar things, everybody does when doing the sacred ritual of "House Hunting" I didn't buy a very nice house because it had too small of an attic. I only posted this comment because 1) I wanted to seriously know if a person would let the fact of a pool on their property be the defining factor of buying a house, and 2) I wanted to be a part of the community by commenting something stupid but serious.
Well welcome to the community. Obviously the major reason for this exercise is the conditional to past subjunctive construction. Perhaps whoever came up with this one thought that if you had to make a condition, you should dream big. But the question of pool or no pool is somewhat related to where you live. I grew up around Boston. If I had stayed there, I would probably never even consider a pool that I would only use three months of the year. In that case it would be Me gustaría esa casa si no tuviera una piscina. But I now live in San Diego where a pool is usable easily 9 or more months a year. And my brother moved to Glendale, AZ where with summer Temps over 100° almost every day and mild winters when you can still use it, he did have a pool on his list of requirements. And since he bought at close to market low in a cheaper market than he came from, he got it
I get that this is just a exercise for "past subjunctive construction" but I wanted to take a look at the actual sentence, I have done this for many sentences that help you learn stuff like "Christmas sayings" and "past subjunctive construction" and I thank you for welcoming me to the community. Live long and prosper.
I am assuming that this question was to me,but I am not sure what you are asking why I care about. I responded to your first question because although it seemed to be just asking about needing a pool, it was potentially also a question about when one might use the construction. Obviously from Duo's point of view piscina is a simple vocabulary word which can be reinforced with this sentence and creates a simple one word condition. While many of the Duo users are not in the pool needing population, If you look at the number of houses with pools in the US, and people who put small pools into crowded backyards, there are obviously people who feel that they need them whether for cooling down, exercise or status. My point is always that it is the ability to construct a sentence and understand what one hears that is being drilled. If Duo were limited to sentences that were only said frequently, it would merely be a phrase book. But speaking a language fluently means creating and understanding sentences that you may have never heard before. So many Duo sentences will always seem random or not what people say all the time. But that is almost the point. From this one template you can construct 100s of sentences that you don't even know yet that you will need if you want to speak Spanish fluently in life situations.
They really are only interchangeable in some circumstances even in English. Remember the Carpenters, or are you too young? There is one place where they are somewhat reversed. In English we can say we are staying at the house or staying home. The latter option can only be used if it is your house. In Spanish they use a casa or en casa for home here, not hogar. Hogar is less commonly used in Spanish, a it is hardly rare.
To be literal about it quisiera is I would want and me gustaría is I would like. I know that they are pretty interchangeable when ordering in a restaurant and the like, but perhaps less so in a situation like this. I suspect if you were actually talking about buying the house it wouldn't matter much, but if you are just saying you would like somebody else's house if it had a pool you would use me gustaría.
Your tense is wrong. The first clause of your translation is in the conditional perfect instead of just the conditional. This is a conditional phrase which is essentially talking about now, not some time in the past. Your sentence is would be the transaction for Me habría gustado esa si si tuviera una piscina.
No it shouldn't be. Gustaría is the conditional form of gustar and means would like. I would like that house if it had a pool. This is a classic example of a conditional and past subjunctive sentence. The conditional part says what would happen if the past subjunctive, contrary to fact clause (beginning with si) were true. The clauses can be reversed without changing the meaning. Si tuviera una piscina, me gustaría esa casa. If it had a pool, I would like this house
Gustaría is would like. Querria is would want. When ordering in a restaurant they can be somewhat interchangeable, although for some reason the rule seems to be me gustaría is the lower level of politeness and if you want to be more polite you use the imperfect subjunctive of querer, quisiera. But this sentence implies that you don't currently like the house. From not liking the progression is liking first which may or may not ever become wanting. I like more things than I want, but if I am ordering in a restaurant I guess the assumption that I would like the item and thus want it (imperfect subjunctive).
It shouldn't have. Definitely report it. I know that they used to accept it. Sometimes a random accepted answer is marked wrong, and if the accepted answer they show is not what you tried it looks as if something is wrong that isn't actually the problem. Of course, alternatively you are staring at the exact same answer they just told you was wrong. But at least in that case you understand that it was an internet transmission error or something on Duo's side. But just, as a general rule, don't always assume that the most obvious thing is the reason. I say that because in addition to marking correct answers wrong, sometimes they simply use a different accepted answer which seems to suggest a different problem. I have gotten confused or upset by what I thought they wanted me to answer when, in reality, I had simply made an unrecognized typo like missing an s on a plural. But the answer they showed me when in a different way.
I just read so many discussions on this thread. Not a one mentioned "it" (the house). I would like that house if IT (that house) had a pool. I am curious why an article for it is not used. In other sentences IT is an article like lo or la or le. So, my question is why is an article left out of this sentence when referring to the house? I would like that house if that house (IT) had a pool. Me gustaria esa casa si "LO" (?) tuviera una piscina. (entiendes?)
It is both a subject pronoun and an object pronoun. As a subject pronoun it is almost alway omitted in Spanish. Spanish is not a language which tends to use él and ella to represent masculine and feminine nouns like French does. Since subject pronouns can always be omitted, the norm is that you always omit it. It is big is es grande,etc. Lo and la are object pronouns. Lo is masculine or neuter and la is feminine, but either can represent an it. There is actually a subject pronoun that is the neuter, abstract it. It is ello. You have probably never seen it. I have almost never seen or heard it used strictly as a subject pronoun, but I have seen it used in formal writing as the object of a preposition like por. Except for the yo and tu forms, the object of a preposition uses the subject pronoun in Spanish. This sentence is a compound one. It has two subjects and two verbs joined by a conjunction, si. The tenses and moods make it seem strange. But if we change it from this conditional subjunctive situation, you wouldn't miss the it. Me gusta esa casa. Tiene una piscina.
Yes it is. But out of curiosity,, are you British? The verb to have, like the verb to be, can be reversed in constructions like this. Most verbs don't work that way. That syntax is often considered more elegant that the one here, so I know many Americans who might write it, but not many who would say it. And some of those who would say it would say it in the past perfect with an extra had.