"My husband is currently without a job."
Translation:Mi marido está actualmente sin trabajo.
The very question before this (and corresponding thread) said actualmente HAS to go either at the beginning or end of the sentence. So, i put it at the beginning, only to find out it goes in the middle. This is infuriating.
Ser implies a characteristic, not a state. (In fact, "estar" and "state") are related.) Being without a job for the time being is a state, not a characteristic.
You will always be a teacher whether you have a job as one or not, this makes it a characteristic versus a state.
Not if by being a teacher one means having a job as a teacher, as almost everyone means when they say that. If I say I'm a lab technician, but I don't work in a lab, that would be very confusing.
Spanish is not my mother tongue, but I see nothing wrong with your sentence as far as grammar or MEANING but there is a semantic difference between saying "Currently my husband is without work" and "Currently my husband has no work". They can both mean the same thing (the guy doesn't have a job) but the difference is clearer when you substitute the word "car" for "work". Contrast "he is currently without car" to "he currently has no car". To me the former could mean a wider range of situations, maybe he has a flat tire and had to leave his car while the latter has more of a feeling that he doesn't own a car. I think this same thing exists in the Spanish phrase. I think "está sin..." and "no tiene..." have slightly different meanings, though I think the meanings do overlap enough that back to the wife thing DL could accept your translation. Sometimes DL is a stickler for a very literal translation where one is possible.
Personally I like it when they're sticklers because it keeps me on my toes and thinking. I have a tendency even in English (my mother tongue) to not be as careful and accurate in my choice of words.
Can someone explain why trabajo doesn't get the indefinite article un? Alguien, explanas por que "trabajo" no lo necesite un articulo indefinitivo, "un," por favor.
BUT in this example: 'a job' but is translated to just 'trabajo', not 'un trabajo'
Yes. In Spanish the word sin is not generally followed by an article. It can be done for emphasis, or if the object is modified. Here's a link discussing this.
Why is ' no tiene trabajo ' wrong? Is there some grammar rule in Spanish that I am not getting?
There is a slight difference there between "being without" and "not having". Sometimes DL gives a little leeway, and sometimes it doesn't. It seems like you just have to learn for which questions it wants which answers
In another sentence actualmente had to go in front or at the end of the sentence. Why isn't that true in this sentence?
The general rule is that adverbs go as close to the verb as possible. That seems to be true here.
i had the same experience. i suspect 'trabajo' is 'work', rather than 'job' so 'my husband is currently without A work'
This was bugging me, trying to figure out why it would be está rather than es. I understand now, thanks. Work in this case would be a place. A work place.
Don't overthink that :-D "Él está muerto" is normal, and it has nothing to do with being temporary or in a place. Ellos están casados. Estas flores están marchitas (dried up). I like to say that five-year-olds can be understood just fine without (knowingly) using a single language rule.
Actually it would be clearer to say that being without a job or without work is a condition. Estar is used for Position, Location, Action, Condition and Emotion (PLACE) Ser is used for Description Occupation Characteristic Time Origin and Relationship (DOCTOR).
As far as "mi esposo," I think it would be. It might be because of your use of the indefinite article "un." It might be that "work" (I mean it as a noun here) is a better translation than "a job." I.e., the thought being translated is "My husband is currently without work" rather than "My husband is currently without a job." Turning it around, "My husband is currently without a job" would be fine translation for "Mi marido (o mi esposo) está actualmente sin trabajo."
I tried "puesto" instead of "trabajo." Isn't that correct too? It was marked wrong.
"Actualmente mi esposo no tiene un trabajo" - can someone tell me what's wrong with this?
I think you could say "mi esposo no tiene trabajo" without the "un". It's sort of like saying "my husband doesn't have a work" in English. You can say "my husband is out of work" or "my husband is without work". Though you can say "my husband doesn't have a job" because "a job" is specific and "work" is general.
Thanks Greg, but looking it up, trabajo can also mean job "Él consiguió un trabajo de maestro" but I'm thinking that maybe we only include the article (un) when we specify what the job actually is? Can a native speaker confirm?
I didn't dispute the meaning of trabajo, I think that's pretty clear from what I wrote above. Here's some info I found on the topic of trabajo. http://spanish.about.com/od/translationsfromenglish/a/work.htm A great place to ask question is over at the wordreference.com forum. I've gotten a lot of great help there with odd words and idiomatic phrases I couldn't find definitions for anywhere else.
Great page, thanks. OK, got it! So no article with "trabajo" ever, unless it's broken down into a specific job :)
Another correct translation of this sentence is "Mi esposo está actualmente sin (un) trabajo."
I said, "Actualmente mi esposo está sin un trabajo" and they corrected it to "Mi marido actualmente se encuentra sin un trabajo." But here it looks like they accept "está"...so am I just wrong because I put "actualmente" in the wrong place (even though they've told me before the adverbs are supposed to go at the beginning or end)? A lot of the comments said the "un" was the thing that was wrong, but they included that in their correction.
Spanish is not my mother tongue, but I do live in Latin America and study hard, and I do think that if you say "sin un trabajo" it sounds stilted, even if it might be acceptable grammatically.
I think the issue with the UN trabajo is this. In English we say my husband is without work or my husband is without a job. Spanish uses the same word for work And job, but in the sentence in question the meaning is the equivalent to work. We would not say in English my husband is without a work. I think in Spanish you would only use the UN trabajo when you're talking about a specific job. A literal word for word translation of "my husband is without a job" into Spanish yields something which is not proper grammar, it's not the way people actually talk.
The purpose of Duo's translation is not simply getting the meaning correct. It is mirroring the grammar and word choice as much as possible. While saying my husband is currently unemployed has mostly the same meaning (there might be some difference between employment and having a job, but that's not likely), it is not the same sentence by either word choice or grammar as My husband is currently without a job. People often read the sentence, translate, interpret into their own way of expressing it and then put that down. It can be difficult, but it is important to distinguish between the times when the language requires you to make a change in grammar, syntax or semantics and when it does not. Be as literal as possible here. In the text translation module, translating for the best flow and meaning is appropriate. Here it is not.
So I was confused about the use of "esta'" versus "es" in these sentences with actualmente. I suppose it is because in one sentence the person already has a job and in this instance he does not which must change the state of being. Correct? The other sentence was 'El es actualmente un actor.
Yes it is a little strang5aattaa5aaatvaavatvv@ à, e, but consistent. If you are familiar with the acronyms for the use of ser and estar it makes a little sense though. Ser uses DOCTOR Description Occupation Characteristic Time Origin Relationship. When you are stating an occupation it always uses ser, even if it is temporary. You can't say Estoy maestra, although you can say Trabajo como maestra or estoy trabajando como maestro. Estar uses PLACE. Position Location Action Condition Emotion. Being unemployed is not considered an occupation, it is a condition like being sick or alone. (of course many things we consider à condition in English actually avoid the ser/estar debate by using tener in Spanish like tengo frío or tengo hambre). It is this question of condition/emotion versus characteristic that is the heart of most of the times when Spanish may use either ser or estar for different situations. Él está enojado He is angry vs Él es enojado He is an angry person. But it is some of the other ones like physical descriptions, occupations and relationships which often are quite short-term that tend to confuse non native speakers. But those invariably use ser. Well almost invariably. I understand that in some places or among some groups being divorced is moving out of relationships into conditions. But Soy divorciado is still the standard usage.
This sentence doesn't have esta in it, it has está. Está is a feminine demonstrative adjective or pronoun. Está (with the accent and a different pronunciation) is the third person singular present indicative of the verb Estar. All third person singular ar regular verbs end in a in the present indicative regardless of the gender of the subject. Similar most first person singular present tense verbs end in o regardless of the gender of the yo. Estoy is obviously an exception there. Beyond the accent you have to be aware of the word's function in the sentence. There are other verbs that have a conjunction that looks like another word. Examples include como I eat and como like/as (let alone cómo how) and para he stops and para for.
Why is it esta and not este? Marido y esposo son ambos masculino.... por que no este?
It is está as in the conjugation of the verb estar. You would use este if you wanted to say “this” but está here means “is”
Someone had this same problem on another exercise today. It is not está, nor is it este or esto,. This question has está. In this case, that accent mark changes both the meaning and the pronunciation. Esta/é is a demonstrative adjective or pronoun which means that. There is no that in this sentence. Está, however, is the 3rd person singular present indicative of the verb Estar, to be. Verb endings do not change according to the gender of the subject, they change according to the "person" (1st, 2nd or 3rd, singular or plural) and the tense. Estoy is an exception here, but most first person present indicative forms of verbs end in O whether or not the subject is male, and third person singular forms end in a whether or not the person is female. I am talking present indicative here again of course. It is important to pay attention to the function of the word in the sentence to avoid this type of confusion. There are a few cases where verb forms look exactly like another part of speech without even an accent or a different pronunciation. For example como I eat vs como like or as vs cómo how. There is also para He/she/you/it stops vs para for/in order to.
It told me "Mi marido sin un trabajo actualmente." is the correct answer. There isn't even a verb.
Why marifo? Why espodo incorrect, althoug both words displayed in the comments?
Either you copied wrong or you have two typos. But to answer your question, either marido (with a d not an f) and esposo (with an s not a d) should work as husband. The important thing to remember about marido is that it only works for husband. Marida is not a noun at all. With esposo/esposa it is easier to remember. But marido is a common word that Duo needs to teach
I think that it generally does, although it may have issues. I know esposo is generally my word of choice. Marido is quite common, but it is rather harder to teach on Duo's system because people tend to assume that if marido is husband marida is wife, which it isn't, but that tends to happen when you make a noun from an AR verb. I think this exercise is just throwing the word out there.
Wow. We definitely have different world views here. So I guess that also implies a different sense of logic. As a means of explanation if you are an American let me just say I am a Democrat, or, as I prefer to define myself, a member of the Christian Left. But people have differnt opinions and the world would be a lot more boring if they didn't. So let me just say, Peace be with you.
it's true that the us government is hard to compare to the uk and vice versa, but not impossible, just not achievable in the comment section of duolingo haha. i will say that the nhs was created as you probably know right after ww2 and even then with britain's decimated population it was overwhelmed with the demand. i wonder what the general american opinion was at the time of the nhs being introduced, considering they were practically opposite to the uk ecnomically after the war. it's true that milking the benefits system exists on both sides, so that's why i believe the system has to be hard. in the uk, it definitely isn't. i always heard that america was a lot harder with welfare, and i imagine obamacare is being scrapped or has been. i understand your worries surrounding trump, but i'm surprised that given your experiences (living through the cold war in the us or the uk) that you aren't as cynical, as young and possibly naive me. my parents talk about growing up and thinking a bomb would hit any time, and nowadays they're a lot less bothered, though maybe desensitized. however, even though i agree that trump isn't a thoughtful or even smart leader, i still prefer a 'no-man' to a yes-woman. of course, if that resulted in nuclear war i'd eat my words but i'll leave it at that. i appreciate the prayer, i'm glad i could read most of it lol. i also appreciated the opportunity to talk with you, saludos
haha, i don't know if i came off crude, i wasn't trying to. i just stated a fact, pretty much any country with a benefits system has people who exploit that benefits system. im from the uk, not the us. not sure why you brought up your religious and political positions lol, i don't really like today's left in most western countries but I'm centralist and agnostic. i respect religion as long as it guides your life and doesn't govern it.
Sorry, I probably overreacted. Certainly there are people who take advantage of benefit systems. There are people who take advantage of any system or anyone that they can, both among the haves and havenots. But there are more that don't. I guess I feel that saying that unemployment defines anybody sets up a two dimensional image. Some of the people you are talking about might be defined by greed, opportunism, sloth or other greater or lessor pecadillos, but I don't think unemployment itself defines almost anyone. And negatively stereotyping a whole group of people you don't know based on their economic circumstances tends to create more of an us and them ideology which will solve no problems. But I do understand people have reasons for their opinions, and the right to them.
As for why I overreacted in the first place, I guess you would have to put a little blame on our Tweeter In Chief, excuse me I mean our President. I am an aging, liberal, woman living in America in the age of Trump where none of those things are great to be at the moment. I guess any short statement which appears to condemn a group of people agrevates my Twitter-storm PTSD I have developed since the election. As for why I mentioned my political and religious and political positions, that's because many of the people here who would support your statement are members of the Christian Right. They have attempted to set up the picture of the Religious Right against the Godless Left. Now there's a lot of room for discussion of methods and philosophies, but I am tired of being told that my politics make me un-Christian. Christ said "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" As an agnostic that may or may not mean anything to you, but I say that only as explanation not to preach. As for you being a Centrist, I guess I forgot that there were such people. There aren't many of them here anymore, or if there are you can't hear them over the division and screaming. But forgive me for inflicting my baggage on you.
duolingo won't let me reply to your last comment but eitherways you seem like a nice woman concerned for her country. personally i think the two party system is a terrible idea. hillary sounded just as bad as trump to me, just a different side of the coin. trump's overly crass and stubborn while hillary is robotic and a push-over to whichever agenda has the most money. just my thoughts. i also don't agree with making sweeping generalizations but i did say "benefits define MANY people" not all. there are good reasons for welfare, but the uk is on another level compared to the us haha. it's entirely possible where i live to live comfortably off benefits and the most you have to do is pretend you're still searching for a job by just applying with a bad resume and screwing up interviews. considering that these people essentially become burdens to the hard-working public through their taxes, it isn't something i agree with. it sounded like you had more of a problem with me saying it defines them though, and you're right that it is a sympton and not a cause so define is probably not the best word, i concede that. but if they fit the categorization of idle and useless to the general population in this way, i find it hard to describe them nicely. also, i grew up catholic and going to catholic schools. jesus is a great role model, though not the only mode of living your life. but anyone who truly wants to live by the teachings of jesus is a good person. i don't go to church or personally believe in god anymore, and i think jesus would be turning in his grave when it comes to the decadence of the vatican city. but basically i'm saying that as long as you're a good person, i don't think not going to church or praying should send you to hell, and i'm willing to take the chance that if there is a god, they would want us to question them. this got stupidly political and theological but if people don't talk nothing will be achieved lol so i encourage this. you definitely inflicted no baggage on me.
Yes it is difficult for Americans and British to discuss government benefit systems in any concrete way because it is comparing apples to oranges or maybe better apples to grapes. You have had a National Health System since long before I lived in England in 1968 (I was in the 4th Form), and we never quite got there because of our refusal to even look at a single payer system. And people had been working on gutting welfare for 25 years before it essentially died in the 90s. In the 70s there was a program in Massachusetts which paid companies to hire people on welfare for low wages, but they had to accept. People were actually fired from good jobs so the companies could take advantage of the cheaper wages and subsidies. Some people got on welfare only to get hired back at the same job but they were still on welfare. As I say milking a system happens on both sides. I wasn't a fan of Hilary either and I don't know how I would feel about her now. But I suspect I would not be feeling like a disaster was imminent. Trump spreads hate and venom domestically (hate crimes are way up) alienates allies and dances at death's door with adversaries. I very honestly don't think he has the mental stability to be President. Of course you have had Brexit and all that led up to it, so you have a whole other set of issues. But as I say apples to oranges.
But I do appreciate have this exchange with you. Of course we haven't done much in Spanish. To rectify that, let me give you this translation of the Irish Blessing. I am not trying to convert you, I promise. I have just always loved the English version and thought you might appreciate the Spanish.
Que el camino nos lleve a encontrarnos, que el viento sople siempre a tu favor, que el sol brille cálidamente sobre tu rostro, que la lluvia empape suavemente tus tierras y que, hasta que volvamos a encontrarnos, Dios te guarde en la palma de su mano. Que Dios esté contigo y te bendiga, que veas a los hijos de tus hijos, que seas pobre en infortunios y rico en bendiciones. Que sólo conozcas la felicidad a partir de este día Qué el camino nos lleve a encontrarnos, que el viento sople siempre a tu favor, que los cálidos rayos del sol caigan sobre tu casa y que siempre tengas cerca una mano amiga. Que siempre esté verde la hierba que pisas y azul el cielo sobre ti, que sean puras las alegrías que te rodean y sinceros los corazones que te aman.
I think it is also correct to translate this sentence into "Actualmente mi marido esta en paro"