So the distinction between "used to go" as a habitual past action vs "were going" as an incomplete action in the past should be clear from context in real language use, right?
With a word like iban, I'm kinda like wait.. what? So I click on it to see what it is, and find out it's a form of ir. I'm like, okay cool, so I look through the chart of all the different forms of ir and there is no iban. So... uhh......
How did you know my name! Oh, it's in my profile. Well I guess that explains it. Those Usted words are tricky. I plan to never use them. I plan to be a very impolite Spanish speaker. Gracias por la cadena (I don't know how to say link but chains have links)
Foo: Same problem for months, today I click on Iban, then conjugate, and see down at the bottom (for more tenses) click and there it is. I can't believe its been there all along and never noticed, maybe its new.
does past imperfect always need 'used to' ? can't we have 'you would go in that region' as a translation ?
That could also work, if you mean "would" as in the past. You could also use "were going" as a translation
TheBurlapChap who has 0xp in Dutch, And likes Pokemon. The only guys i know from pokemon are: Pikechu, Charasard, Squrtal, And Lucario!
how come when I translate to: you went to that region, it was correct when it should have been : you were going? either it past tense or past imperfect . this is very confusing
You 'went' would usually be expressed as 'ustedes fueron', which would imply one occasion, whereas 'iban' implies repeatedly.