"Ella me ha obligado a caminar."
Translation:She has forced me to walk.
Obligar: to force, to obligate, to oblige => "She has obliged me to walk" should be a perfectly correct sentence.
This site has more lists of the prepositions that follow specific verbs in Spanish. I think that memorization is the obvious way to master this.
I think this is one of those Linked Verbs that uses "a" before putting another verb (infinitive) Please someone correct me if i'm wrong
So true, HC. I can still hear the teacher's voice echoing down the corridor "DON'T RUN!"
"She has obliged me to walk" should be accepted, but it wasn't for me. I reported it.
It's not super common in English, but it is perfectly acceptable, especially if you're speaking in a formal tone. It's also is less negative. Being obliged is less forceful and negative than being forced or made to do something.
Both should be accepted. However, my impression is that the Spanish obligar is usually more forceful and means force, compel, or make somebody do something.
"She's forced me to walk to school, day after day!" That doesn't sound bizarre to me. Maybe what sounds weird to you is simply the fact that the contraction "She's" has been expanded to "She is."
Taylor, "me" is a direct object pronoun; mi without an accent is a possessive adjective: mi libro, mi novio; mí with an accent is a prepositional object pronoun: para mí, sin mí, después de mí, a mí...
Thanks Melita2. This site has been very helpful and I am thankful to nice people like you answering questions.
I left out "has" on purpose this time to see what would happen. I wrote, "She forced me to walk". It was accepted as correct. Does someone know why this wouldn't need the preterite form of the verb?
Because the person that has been forced into walking is still walking. Preterite would suggest she forced me to walk but that walking has now finished.
Literally, true, but I can't imagine anyone talking like that. Come to think of it, "She has forced me to walk" seems like it needs to include a time to make sense (e.g., "She has forced me to walk in the past.") Otherwise, a better translation would be "She made me walk" or "She forced me to walk," IMO.
' She made me walk '. Duolingo accused me of leaving a word out, but English can be wonderfully succinct .
"She made me walk" is in the simple past tense, but this activity is all about teaching you how to use the past perfect tense.
Yes, "made me walk" is simple past (or preterit/preterite).
But, NO, this is about learning the present perfect, not past perfect.
http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/presentperfect.html http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/pastperfect.html http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/simplepast.html http://www.spanishdict.com/answers/231526/english-grammar-choosing-between-the-simple-past-preterite-and-the-present-perfect-tenses#.WMQ2RG8rLA4
NO! "Made" is past (preterite, preterito) tense. Duo wanted you to practice "present perfect", i.e. "he, has, ha obligado." http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/presentperfect.html
Take a look at what section of Duo this is in: https://www.duolingo.com/skill/es/Verbs%3A-Present-Perfect/practice
compelled = obliged - neither is common in English - but synonyms should be accepted
If "She has bound me to walk." then why does Duo suggest "bound" as a translation for obligado? also "bound" can mean oblige or obliged.
In Spanish, many verbs must be followed by a preposition, which may or may not correspond to the preposition (if any) used in English. The following is a list of Spanish verbs which require a when followed by an infinitive. http://www.elearnspanishlanguage.com/grammar/verb/verbswithprep-a.html
This may be more of an English grammar question, but could you not say "She has made me to walk?" DL said that " She has made me walk" or "She has forced me to walk" are good, but it did not take my answer.
That's a great question KLA, and I can't think of a logical answer.
After we have considered the rules of grammar we generally fall back on the question: "Does it sound right?' In this case my only answer is that sometimes we use "to" and sometimes we don't.
So "She has forced me to walk", "She has required me to walk", "She has allowed me to walk" all sound OK, but we would say "She has made me walk". "She has made me to walk" just sounds wrong.
It seems to be just the way language has evolved. Let me draw your attention to the 23rd Psalm.
In the King James version of the christian bible (written around the end of the 16th Century) it starts:
"The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures;"
By the time we get to the Modern English Version (from the second half of the 20th Century) it goes:
"The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures;"
So "maketh" has changed to "makes" and the "to" has disappeared. Is there any logic working here? If there is, I can't find it!
I can only suggest that, when you put the words in your vocabulary notebook, you can write: "to force to", "to require to", and "to allow to", but you should write: "to make (NOT to make to!!!)".
I agree. I was falling back on your early observation, "does it sound right?" Also, as you might say both Spanish and English have evolved standard idioms, or ways of saying, which are not necessarily logical -- except possibly from an historical standpoint.
Beginning early in the 20th century, philosophers of language and science tried to make science talk, and science, purely logical (in the sense that math is logical). . By the end of the century, they realized that was not possible.
Language can be a somewhat blunt instrument when we need to communicate ideas with precision. In my former career as a scientist, I had on occasion to apply some linguistic gymnastics to write accurate reports without tripping up over unintended ambiguity and mis-representation.
In Animal Farm, George Orwell famously satirised the way language could be manipulated in order to deliberately mis-lead and confuse. [ I might suggest that all languages are equal, but some are more equal than others! :-) ]
And in his much blacker comedy 1984, Orwell had his characters continually re-writing the dictionaries and other reference books (and destroying all previous issues) in order to meet the latest aims of the ruling classes.
Of course this could never happen in real life, otherwise we might (as a purely imaginary example) have politicians refusing to call their country's perceived enemies "prisoners-of-war" in order to avoid their obligations under The Third Geneva Convention. Yes, a ridiculous notion indeed!
Sorry, I am an engineer, not an English or linguistic major, I sometimes get the words wrong. In English this would be the same thing if you said "I she had obliged to walk" Which, of course, you wouldn't say in English. So having the "Ella" right next to the "me" is odd to my eyes and ears.
A Haiku Entitled: An ode to Perfection
I forgot a word. Brain farts are indeed still wrong. ::Sighs:: I just can't win.
I have just had obliged rejected and told the correct word is obligated. Obligated sounds crazy in this context