1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. No veo al perro.


No veo al perro.

What does this sentence mean? 'I can't see the dog' or 'I'm not looking at the dog'?

September 1, 2012



It translates to "I do not see the dog".... "al" means "a + el". In Spanish, there are certain words that you combine when they are together (e.g. de + el = del). If you're confused because you do not understand why "a" was used here, I think that it is because we treat dogs as people in a case like this ("personal a" is used with people). It is because of human attachment to dogs... If you try changing just the last word on google translate to moose or paper (for example, and put a period at the end of the sentence, because it will change google's translation), those do not translate with a "personal a"... if someone does not agree with my answer, please correct me.


The sentence translates to "I do not (don't) see the dog." "can't" is acceptable, and fine with me, but is an interpretation. 'mirar' is 'to look' as in 'to look at'. 'buscar' is 'to look' as in 'to look/search for'. Regarding 'al', it is a conjunction of 'a el'. 'al' and 'el' both mean 'the dog'. The personal 'a' is used to indicate a closeness of relationship. The dog that he does not see is not just any dog, but a dog that he knows well, or is otherwise showing additional respect for. I am not a native speaker, so can't answer to specific situations, including this one, as to whether the personal 'a' is optional or required. In this case, it is my guess, that either construction is correct, but don't hold me to it.


" mirar " is to look, to look at , to watch , " ver " is to see So it can't be ....I'm not looking at the dog . I would have thought that if you wish to say " I do not see the dog " that there is no place for the " a" ...i.e. You would write " No veo el perro ". I'm not happy with the answers you have received so far !


My question for Malkieway is why is 'a' there at all? All I know is that 'a' can mean 'at', 'to', or 'a' in some cases.

Why can't you just say "Yo no veo el perro." or "I don't see the dog" instead of "I don't see at the dog?"


"al" = "a"+ "el". When a direct object is a person (or an animal being considered as a person), the direct object is preceded by the personal "a". So in your example, "perro" takes the personal "a", and becomes "al perro"


Since you're using "can", wouldn't that be "poder" and be something like "Yo no puedo ver el perro"?


I'm asking for meaning of the sentence in the title. And 'can see' in English mean seeing something (being able to see it). I doubt you need to use a word 'can' in Spanish.

My confusion originates from word 'al'.


Drawing from http://duolingo.com/#/comment/44144 and jack_fosho.

You add an 'a' in between the verb (veo) and what it is referring to, the noun (el perro), which makes it '...veo a el perro.' Then from that you apply the rule jack_fosho said, "a + el = al".

I believe..


GoodandPlenty ...what do you think ?


Using my Oxford Spanish Dictionary "no veo" can be translated into" "I don't see" but most of the examples got "I can't see." without "puedo"

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