Translation:I would like you to go to college.
Both Quisiera and Fueras are PAST subjunctive, so should this be "I would like you to have gone to university"? The translation given seems to be present tense?
A friend of mine explained this kind of thing to me not that long ago. He gave me the sentence "Juan Diego me dijo que yo FUERA a Chihuahua." (English translation: "Juan Diego told me to go to Chihuahua") and said the reason the past subjunctive is used for the "to go" is because the first clause is past tense, but in English, we don't really have to have that kind of arrangement so "to go" is good.
EDIT: I found a page on another site that explains this futher. (http://spanish.about.com/od/verbmoods/a/subjunctive_tenses.htm)
- "If the main verb is in the preterite, imperfect [which quisiera is], past perfect or conditional tense, and the dependent (subjunctive) verb [fueras] refers to action that takes place (whether in actuality or not) at the same time or after the action of the main verb, then the imperfect subjunctive is used. Example: Esperé que comieras. (I expected you to eat.)"
So if we translate the first part to be "I would (currently) like", which is perfectly legit, then the fueras can mean 'to go' either immediately or at a later time. "I would like you to go to college." And that encompasses both the present, "I would like you to go to college...now.", and a future time, "I would like you to go to college...next year."
Quisiera is not the imperfect. It is the past subjunctive. That is what is odd about the sentence. In this formulation, the "quisiera" needs to indicate uncertainty in the past, such as "perhaps I wanted...", although adding "quizas" would clarify. I know that some commenters say that quisiera is meant to convey politeness, but in virtually every conversation I have partaken, the conditional (querria) is used to convey politeness. I am having a difficult time understanding how this sentence is correct, that is, how the verb in the main clause is past subjunctive.
Quisiera is imperfect as well as subjunctive. So I thought that when the site mentioned imperfect, that included in both the indicative and subjunctive moods (because it doesn't specify either).
Maybe it's cultural, where different places use querría more often and others use quisiera.
I put "I would like it if you would go to the university," which means exactly the same thing, but it was marked wrong.
, if you went to Uni. -- is real English, no idea if it's DuoLingoly correct
Good job, homefire, in finding that link. I found it as well, and some others that confirm it. Like you, I have never heard of such a rule in spite of it four years of high school, five at the university and countless references to grammar references over the years to ensure my business correspondence had (at least) no glaring errors. Without digging out those dusty grammars, I hesitate to say this "rule" isn't imposed in the US, but it does seem that most sources alluding to it are from the UK, Belgium and the like. Or, perhaps, they are ESL sites. "Never' is a very big word, though, and to the extent the rule governs anywhere in the English-speaking world, it does not, as your link shows, apply in the case of "polite conditionals."
Also this: http://blog.harwardcommunications.com/2010/10/18/polite-conditionals-would-in-the-if-clause/ which states:
Polite conditionals – “would” in the if-clause The rule that states “never use will or would in the if-clause of conditional sentences” is not 100% true. We do use “would” in the if-clause in polite conditionals.
- I would be grateful if you would send me an answer as soon as possible, and in any event, not later than COB on Thursday.
- We would appreciate it if you would arrange for immediate payment.
I can't directly reply to you, so let me do this this way. I remember this rule form my high-school times very well. Our teachers put much effort for us to remember and stick to this rule. But different schools and different habits, eh? However, your sentence still doesn't fit into the exception. The exception describes cases where the will or would are modal verbs and not conditional clauses. Modal verbs further define the verb: I must go to school, I want to go to school, I would like to go to school. Do you see how the latter looks like an if clause? This fits into the mentioned exception. But on the other hand, languages tend to be very inconsequent at times and American English has some of these inconsequences, sadly. For example: "How are you doing? - I'm doing good". This sentence just ignores the difference between adjective and adverb. Superman does good. You're doing well.
Interesting! That is a rule that I have never heard before. Maybe a rather obscure one, since it never came up in my high school English classes?
I searched for info on this since I'd never heard of it, but really didn't find anything saying it was wrong. This page discusses it at the bottom, but it sounds like this sentence fits the exception??
In any case, grammatically correct or not, the answer I gave would be very common usage in the U.S.
In Australian English it is "uneducated' to say "I am doing good" instead of "I am doing well". That is American slang.
Conditional subjunctive future: If I would be bilingual, I must study every day.
The rule is to never use a would in an if-clause. So neither your first nor your second variant of the sentence is correct. It should either be I would like it if you went to university or If you went to university, I'd like it.
If you are writing about homefire's translation, it most emphatically is NOT grammatically wrong in English. I myself translate "I would like that" (the literal Spanish) to "I would like it if." In this English construction, the word "it" is a placeholder. I am not marked wrong either.
Paulalock, I put the sentence together just to see if there could actually be a sentence that would use the conditional verb "would" in the subjunctive, and yes, the sentence "If I would be bilingual, I must study every day" is odd sounding. Also, since I hastily coined the phrase "conditional subjunctive future" to describe the sentence's elements, it could be missing some descriptors. (IMO, some of the names of the more sophisticated grammatical terms overlap because of the nature of complex syntax. I am more concerned with whether the syntax itself is sound and defensible than with whether I recalled the grammatical construction's penultimate name.)
Before putting the sentence out there for discussion, I did a little digging so that I could justify the unusual syntax and grammar. There are several limitations if you want to use the word "would." Here's what I found:
1) In English, three types of verbs are used for subjunctive mood, and they are "were" (If I were your mother), "be" (You asked that he be quiet), and third person singular verbs used with first, second and third person nouns/pronouns, regardless of whether they are singular or plural (The teacher requested that they try harder). Accordingly, I concluded there were two conditions to be met in order to put "would" into subjunctive mood. The first was that the "unreal" conditional aspect would be indicated by an "if were " construction. The second was that the word "would" must appear in that "if were " construction so that there was no doubt about whether the word "would" was being used in a subjunctive sense. "Would" is a modal verb that can used to change the aspect of "be," so putting them together was logical. Because the word "be" can be used subjunctively, all that happened was that the aspect of "be" was changed so that the first part of the sentence was not only subjunctive but also conditional.
This had the effect of tweaking the sentence's meaning so that its first part describes a potential future outcome (If I would be bilingual) and its second part describes a timeless condition to be met in order to achieve that potential outcome (I must study every day).
2) That took care of the "If I would be bilingual" part of the sentence, but the next thing was to figure out what tense would work in the "then" part of the sentence. The syntactic issue was how to indicate a time beyond the future. "Must" is a "defective" verb that has no tense changes in English. By using this modal verb, I sidestepped the inescapable fact that events proceed from past to present to future. BTW, I probably should have used "I must study hard" in the second part of the sentence so that the lack of tense of the verb "must" was indisputable.
3) Finally, since this sentence combines elements of subjunctive mood and conditional mood with modal verbs, I just wanted to add that the word "would" is a combination of "will" + "could" and in that respect changes timelines in the sense that the meaning goes from "willing something to happen now" to "possibly making something happen later through the force of one's will."
Here are the websites I used to come to these conclusions: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conditional2.htm https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/defective_verb http://www.englishpage.com/minitutorials/subjunctive.html http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/145854/past-subjunctive-vs-present-subjunctive
For some reason I can't reply to your other post but "If I would be bilingual, I must study every day" doesn't sound right to me - need to investigate what you call conditional subjunctive future... more grammar ;)
But why do we translate the first part present tense if it is past? And why is it wrong if you don't?
It accepted "I would like it if you went to college." I prefer that English translation to the indicated answer, "I would like you to go to college," because even though it is not a one-to-one translation (e.g., "que" is not typically used for "if"), it captures the fact that even in English we sometimes use past tenses (here, "went") in relation to stuff that may or may not happen in the future.
Actually, the "went" is an example of subjunctive use in English, not past.
I would think, "I wish that you were going to college." would be more correct
This is what I suggested months ago. After all, one perfectly legitimate rendering of the imperfect subjunctive fueras would be 'were going' and it complies with the condition noted by Elizabeth0 above: "[fueras] refers to action that takes place (whether in actuality or not) at the same time or after the action of the main verb.
For example: "I wish you were going now" or "I wish you were going this coming semester.
No takers, though, nor even musings as to why not..
I think the problem is with "I wish". I wish = deseo, and I'm not sure if that is a valid translation for quisiera.
Quisiera can indeed mean I wish, but Duolingo doesn't seem to like it for some reason.
Yo quisiera que estuvieras aquí = I wish that you were here.
I think that "to have gone" would require the use of the past perfect subjunctive. The past perfect subjunctive suggests that going to college is no longer possible for you anymore.
"I would have liked you to have gone to university" or "I wish you had gone to college= Me hubiera gustado que hubieras ido a la universidad
If going to college is still a possibility (no matter how unlikely), imperfect subjunctive is used. Quisiera in imperfect subjunctive means I wish (Practice Makes Perfect Verb Tenses)
"Yo quisiera tener un millón de dólares = I wish that I had a million dollars."
In both the English and the Spanish, you still wish that you a million dollars. It doesn't mean that you wish you had a million dollars in the past, but you don't wish it anymore.
I think they screwed up the English. "I would like it if you went to Uni" sounds like proper English, though subjunctive is neglected by many dialects
Not sure where you're getting those haves from. This isn't perfect tense; the verb haber is not used.
Actually, Numinous´s response is not quite right. You can´t always translate so literally. There are numerous cases where English uses the present perfect, where Spanish might use the present, and others where English uses a perfect past tense, and Spanish a simple past tense. I have lived here 20 years. Vivo aquí hace 20 años. This happens in the subjunctive in many cases as well,and with many modals. Yo no debía decir nada. I should not have said anything. So, in general, we can not say, that just because Spanish does not invoke haber, that English should not invoke have. It is not true.
That doesn't answer my question though. "To go" is present tense, fueras is past tense. How would you phrase the correct answer using the past tense, or maybe you can explain why "to go" is correct in this sentence?
"to go" has no tense at all as it is the infinitive, which is why it can be used here. In Spanish they have many subjunctive tenses, but we do not have as many subjunctive tenses in English. We actually prefer to use the infinitive. http://conjugator.reverso.net/conjugation-spanish-verb-querer.html http://conjugator.reverso.net/conjugation-spanish-verb-ir.html See the lack of correspondence from English to Spanish which means that in English we will use modal verbs and infinitives instead. http://conjugator.reverso.net/conjugation-english-verb-want.html http://conjugator.reverso.net/conjugation-english-verb-like.html http://conjugator.reverso.net/conjugation-english-verb-go.html http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/would
Here you will see the present subjunctive used, negative continuous and passive forms, but what to do for the past? http://www.englishpage.com/minitutorials/subjunctive.html Then I realize: How can something truly be in the past if it has not happened? A possibility that something happen is conditional. A wish that something happen is subjunctive - and you may have wished in the past, present or future, but what you are wishing for may or may not happen - timeless, rather like the infinitive, don't you think?
Of course, the Spanish think of this very differently.
I'd like it if you went to college is accepted. 'went' is past tense, and even though it's obviously about the future in that English sentence. Subjunctive is odd.
The subjuntivo in the past form mainly means that the person which the sentence que introduces is different than the subject of the main sentence AND that what the subject suggests the other person does, is highly unlikely that they would do it. To go is not present tense, it is infinitive therefore it can be used as a loose translation but it fails to demonstrate the low possibility of it happening. "I would like it if you went to college" gets a bit closer but it still is not the same.
It is my understanding that "ser" and "ir" are interchangeable in the preterite. Anyone know definitively why not?
So... quisiera is a past subjunctive, but it's being used here to form a polite request?
Yep. Quisiera is the most polite way to say "I would like." A bit more polite than Me gustaria and more polite than quiero
Isn't that more like the future I "would like". I'm not disputing what you say just trying to understand. I could just memorize it, but it's better if I understand
I do not think of it a future so much as conditional. E.g., consider the sentence: " If you were any taller, you would be able to touch the ceiling." This is not future tense expressing what will happen when conditions change; it is subjunctive mood indicating what would be true right now under different conditions.
"queria" would be "I wanted" "querria" (the conditional form) would be correct, but it is almost never used, "quisiera" takes its place :)
Why isn't "quisiera" also "I wanted" if it's the Imperfect Subjunctive? I got "I wanted you to go to the university." wrong because they said "wanted" should be present tense "want" and I don't understand why? Wouldn't present tense be: "Yo quiera que tú vayas a la universidad."? Please help me understand. :))
Shouldn't this be something more like: "I would have liked that you went to college"?
Or, I would have liked for you to have gone to college, if we wanted to go out of our way to preserve both clauses in subjunctive English (which is a decreasingly common practice).
I passed the AP Spanish exam, years ago, after taking Spanish for 5 years in high school and middle school. I've gotten so rusty at it, but Duo has been great at helping me re-learn it. One thing I have very clear memories of is that this mood/tense was pretty much learned right at the end of my fifth year and only because we'd probably need to know it for the AP test. It was by far the hardest of all the verb forms, and I wasn't sure that I was still remembering it correctly.
Most literally, I believe it would be translated as something like: "I wanted that you went to college" or "I expected that you went to college." But "wanted that" is VERY awkward in English and "expected that you went" doesn't necessarily convey the subjunctive mood. It just sounds like a fact in English ("I expected that you went, so you did").
So we end up inserting all kinds of helping verbs like, "I expected that you WOULD HAVE GONE..." or "I WOULD HAVE WANTED for you to go..." to make sure it's clearly understood that the wish/hope/desire was unfulfilled. The problem with this is that it makes the verbs seem to be in the conditional tense when they're really not.
A similar thing can occur when translating the imperfect past: for example, "miraba" could be translated as "I saw", "I used to see", "I was seeing", or even "I would see", in the sense of e.g., "I would see my grandparents every Sunday when I was a child." It's not conditional tense even though it might look like it.
I largely agree. How the rest of best translated, it would seem to me, is chiefly predicated on whether one assumes quisiera to be subjunctive literally in the past (back then, I wanted you to go..) or is merely the polite form of saying ¨I would like¨ (now) that you would have done some thing (in the past).
Tricky, and I think subject to that first interpretation of quisiera
I see what you're saying. At this point, I don't even remember which sense of meaning I had in mind when I made my original post. Maybe an easier way to differentiate between the two forms you bring up would be: "I wish you would have gone to college" vs "I wished you would have gone to college".
Re-reading my first post now, it seems obvious that I originally meant something more like the first. But these past few days I've been thinking of it as the second. Very tricky indeed.
If I am sitting in a restaurant, thirsty for a beer, I would probably say to the waiter "Quisiera una cerveza." But in the vein of this discussion, would I say "Quisiera que me traiga una cerveza," or "Quisiera que me trajera una cerveza?" The first one sounds right to me, but maybe it should be the second?
You're definitely right... But I put ''I wanted you to go to the university'' and got it wrong.
"wanted" is the indicative past and not subjunctive. We just don't have past subjunctive, instead we use the modal verb "would". Also , "quisiera" like "would" is not necessarily referring to the past. http://dictionary.reverso.net/spanish-english/quisiera/forced http://www.englishpage.com/minitutorials/subjunctive.html
I mean you could use the present subjunctive and say "I want that you go to the university." , but we do kind of notice that the tense doesn't match so we use timeless versions "I would like you to go to the university."
Yes. Best answer here yet. Sometimes, one has to translate somewhat idiomatically, and not so directly. And tense and perfect vs imperfect can not always be preserved. Good answer!
I was just helping my friend do this. Apart from Spanish being my first language, I have plenty of experience teaching it to English speakers. NONE of the "correct answers" duolingo offers to this sentence are actually correct. The correct answer is rather marked as wrong. "I wish you would go to college" is the right translation
Ha ha Ha I live in Nicaragua and my friends almost NEVER correct me when I mess up with the subjunctive mood. Here's a Lingot for giving me a healthier outlook.
That should be accepted. Did you report it? Of course, in English we often use the infinitive instead of the subjunctive, but they are both correct, as well as "I would like that you go to college."
Why is fueras being used if it is present tense? Wouldn't you use present subjunctive for the second verb (vaya), Yo quisiera que tu vaya a la Universidad (sorry, no accents)
junevilleco: If the primary clause is in the past, you must use past subjunctive in the secondary clause. After "quisiera" (past subjunctive of "querer") you must use past subjunctive in the second clause; therefore "vaya" would not work -- that is present subjunctive.
junvilleco: Just a further point: Just because you use past subjunctive in the second clause, does not mean that it necessarily would be translated in the past in English (like this current sentence).
I am still confused. It the translation is "I would like for you...." how is that past subjunctive? The entire sentence is in the present, why isn't it all present subjunctive?
june: First of all, eliminate the word "for" from your English translation. There is nothing in the Spanish that would indicate "for". .......It is a rule: If the primary clause is in any past tense and uses a word that calls for subjunctive, then the secondary clause must be past subjunctive. .......so......If we use "Quisiera" (past subjunctive) in the primary clause, we must also then use past subjunctive ("fueras") in the secondary clause..................so...........technically, the translation would be "I wanted that you went to the university", but that doesn't sound right, so we say: "I would like you to go to the university (or to college)".
OK, thanks; I understand the importance of agreement with dependent and independent clause.
Okay, I'm going to submit that the translation of this sentence should be, with fueras is in its ir form:
- I [would like / wish] (that) you were going to the university.
(Rendering the preposition "a" as needed by the English collocation: we say "at the university" or "going to" the university.)
Isn't "quisiera" from the verb "querer," meaning "want"? Why isn't "wanted" or "would want" accepted?
Because in English we don't really have a past subjunctive form for "want". The closest is "I would like".
Translating subjunctives into English is always a bit tricky.
My Spanish teacher likes us to use quisiera as it is polite and educated but if I use it when I'm with Spanish friends they think it's "cursi"!
At last, some Spanish I can really use. Gringos immersed in Spanish are cursi. We feel like we're walking on thin ice.
Depends where we are and what we are asking for. If I am in a place where I know the staff I would just say "ponme una cerveza por fa" - probably sounds abrupt to some but here in Andalucia it's fine. Me gustaría is better for more formal occasions and not as "cursi" as quisiera LOL.
When I was traveling through Andalucia, I read a guide book on Spain that said that Andalucianos are very curt in their speech. This is true of the speech but by and large they are also very friendly.
Right, so because Quisiera is being used in the present sense of "I would like" but is technically a past subjunctive, the other clause in the sentence also has to use the past subjunctive to represent the present. So while the sentence technically means something like: "I wanted that you wented to university" It idiomatically means "I would like you to go to university" Am I right?
I think the whole "would like" translation is iffy. If you think of "would like" as present conditional, then the past-tense form of it is "would have liked". Would, should, could, might, and all those other helping verbs' past forms are would have, should have, could have, etc. This is doubly confusing because "would" seems to suggest the conditional tense and "have" suggests the present perfect tense. In actuality, we're dealing with the past subjunctive. So it can all get very confusing very fast.
1) "I would like you to go to college" is really just simple present (subjunctive). "I want you to go to college." "I want that you go to college." It's all essentially the same.
2) It's different than "I would have liked you to go to college" ("I wanted you to go to college" or "I wanted that you went to college"), which is its past tense form.
What nobody seems to know is which one of those two this sentence means. If it means "I want you to go to college", then how do you say, "I would have wanted for you to go college"?
Please remember that "to go" is an infinitive which has no tense. It is timeless. It can be used for any tense, because he may or may not go now or in the future or even in the past he may or may not have gone, but we wish in the past, present or future.
There is no past subjunctive in English "went" is not used unless it is indicative. "wanted" is not in past subjunctive mood either. The alternate for 1 would be "I would like that you go to college."
The perfect subjunctive exists in Spanish and that is where you would use the first sentence from 2, but the second sentence is not in subjunctive at all. It's alternate would be "I would have liked you to have gone to college." or "I would have liked that you go to college." The last "go" is not present indicative. It is subjunctive.
"I would have liked you to have gone to the university." Why is this not accepted? "fueras" is imperfect subjunctive. How can it be translated "to go"? Alternatively, "I would have liked that you had gone to the university."
Both of your sentences are in perfect tense, but the Spanish sentence is not. That would need to be something like "Yo habría querido que fueras a la universidad."
The fact that "fueras" is in the imperfect has nothing to do with its real tense. It is only in the imperfect tense because the main verb, quisiera, is. The actual tense, or rather time, of fueras could be at the same time as the quisiera is taking place or afterward as this site (http://spanish.about.com/od/verbmoods/a/subjunctive_tenses.htm) tells us:
- "If the main verb is in the preterite, imperfect [which quisiera is], past perfect or conditional tense, and the dependent (subjunctive) verb [fueras] refers to action that takes place (whether in actuality or not) at the same time or after the action of the main verb, then the imperfect subjunctive is used. Example: Esperé que comieras. (I expected you to eat.)"
Now, quisiera can mean a wanting in the present, it's technically in imperfect tense, but it is still used to politely express a present action (and "would like" is the more polite way we say it in English even though we don't actually mean it to be conditional on anything). Therefore, since that quisiera can be describing a current want, that means that fueras (which either takes place at the same time or after the action of the main verb, a current wanting) is also in the present tense or something you want to happen at a later time. So if we translate the first part to be "I would (currently) like", which is perfectly legit, then the fueras means 'to go' either immediately or at a later time. "I would like you to go to college." And that encompasses both the present, "I would like you to go to college...now.", and a future time, "I would like you to go to college...next year."
In the above analysis I can see where you could accept the "to go" as Duolingo has, however, I am at a loss as to why the "were going" or "gone" would be rejected.
There are a ton more past subjunctive tenses to learn including past perfect versions. "to go" is not a present tense. It is the infinitive which is timeless. http://conjugator.reverso.net/conjugation-english-verb-go.html http://conjugator.reverso.net/conjugation-spanish-verb-ir.html
I think that may lose the possibility of meaning going to college in the future. Those two sentences are just talking about going to college in the present (wishing they were already there attending college), but according to the site I quoted at the top, I think the Spanish includes both the possibility of present and future.
Maybe if you said something like, "I would like it if you were to go to college" that might be accurate (but probably not accepted by Duolingo).
No, actually it does not lose the possibility of meaning an occurrence in the future. The given construct covers both instances, depending on context, understanding or explicit expression:
"I would like it if you were going to college right now."
"I would like it if you were going to college this coming semester."
"I would like that you went to the university" was accepted even though it is tortured English.
I always use word "if," which is sometimes and indicator of the subjunctive in English, as well as the placeholder "it" in subjunctive sentences like these. "I would like it if you went to the university." I always get marked as right. Just remember, it doesn't work the same way when translating back to Spanish. ;)
I tried the natural, but non-literal "I wanted you to go to college", without success.
After thinking (and referencing) this a bit, I think that would be, "Quise que tú fueras a la universidad."
Using the preterit here, we make the wanting a completed task.
I believe that the "que" is part of what makes it subjunctive in Spanish.
"Quisiera" and "would like" can be used to request in the present as well as indicate the past.
Would not, "I wish that you were going to college." be more correct as past subjunctive?
In English, we rarely use the subjunctive. We prefer to use the infinitive whenever we can. I suppose that it could be correct, just rarely used. So, how to get people to understand that when we use the infinitive in Spanish you must use the subjunctive? This is why we have sentences like this.
this is a mood, something that is Irreal or impossible. for sure the translation is wrong in english. but grammar wise, an imperfect subjunctive tense always go with an imperfect subjunctive tense...
Except that there is no imperfect subjunctive tense in Englsih. We prefer to use the timeless infinitive.
Why not: "I would want you to go to the university"? I'm not a native english speaker and i don't know what is wrong with this translation... thanks!
I have seen some texts where they translate "I would like" as "yo quisiera"... this made me think i could use it in that way :s whatever... something more that I've learnt (perdón si tuve muchos errores al escribir) Thanks!
"I would like" is fine, but "I would want" changes the meaning to the conditional in English. For example: "I would like some cake" is just a polite way of saying "I want some cake" whereas "I would want some cake ..." requires a condition "... if it were chocolate."
What's confusing is that we commonly say things like "I would like some cake if it's chocolate" which is kind of a polite conditional hybrid that mixes tenses and conditionals and grammarians probably hate it, but it sounds very natural.
Anyway, to clarify the main point:
"Would like" = polite "want."
"Would want" = conditional "want."
"I would like you to go to college" is accepted but "I would like you to go to university" is not because with the latter they say you need the word "the" before the word "university". If they will accept "I would like you to go to college" then they should accept "I would like you to go to university". The difference adding the word "the" before the noun "college" or "university" is that you are specifying a specific institution rather than the concept.
My translation "I would like you to go to university". Wrong! Correct solutions "I would like you to go to THE university" or "I would like you to go to college." Why is the definite article required for one but not the other?
It's a problem many have had. I think it stems from American English (DL's default) treating "university" as a concrete noun only. That is, they refer to it as something physical, but not conceptual. I'm from NZ, but we share the British English usage of "university," which can be concrete or abstract (the former requiring an article, but the latter not). Keep reporting it. DL will update the answer database eventually.
I'm Canadian, and I would say "go to university." I don't think people from the U.S.A. would say "the university" either (although they would probably say "go to college," which is not the same thing here.) To me, if you say "the university," you're referring to a specific one, like maybe the only one in the country. Or, "I would like you to go to the university to register," as opposed to, "I would like you to go to university, so you can get a degree."
Throughout all the lessons of Duolingo's Spanish tree, Querer has always been translated as To Want. But all of a sudden in this question Querer is translated as To Like. It's so confusing. How should we know where to use which?
It's the English that's confusing. "Would like" equals "want" in this context, so the Spanish hasn't changed, only the English.
Is there a reason that "I wish you were going to college" isn't accepted.
According to Practice Makes Perfect Verb tenses, "quisiera que" means "I wish that."
Yo quisiera que estuverias aquí = I wish that you were here.
If you translate the English translation back to Spanish, you would use vayas instead of fueras.
Are we sure about that?
The normal sequence of tenses applies, so when quisiera is followed by a conjugated verb, the following verb must be in an imperfect subjunctive form.
- Quisiera que salieras. (I would like you to leave.)
Yes, I am. Quisiera que sepas que loro en silencio From "Me Vuelvo un Cobarde" sung by Cristian Daniel.
Or take this example. -Quisiera un vaso de agua por favor. -?Perdón? -Quisiera que me traiga un vaso de agua. -Sí, se lo traiga en seguida.
Okay, so you are certain. I would be happy to have your thesis confirmed, and perhaps your examples show some use of present subjunctive (vayas instead of fueras). But if "vayas" is what you "should" use rather than what some "might" use, why do so many Spanish grammar authorities consistently indicate the following:
(With reference to: http://users.ipfw.edu/jehle/courses/sequence.htm)
When the governing (main clause) verb in a “past time” tense, i.e., if the governing verb is in one of these tenses:
- imperfect indicative
- preterit indicative
- conditional perfect
- imperfect subjunctive (as is "quisiera")
- past perfect subjunctive
Use one of these tenses when the subjunctive is required:
- imperfect subjunctive [for a simultaneous or future state/action]
- past perfect subjunctive [for a prior state or action]
This is interesting, and confusing. I also thought I knew the "rules", but I've just been on Contexto-Reverse and had a look at real world examples. 8 or 9 out of 10 follow "quisiera" with the imperfect subjunctive as you'd expect, but the others follow it with the present subjunctive.
Testing "quisiera que fueras" versus "quisiera que vayas" the former returned 4 times as many Google hits, but this result would be skewed by "I would like you to be" versions. "Quisiera que sepas" returned 6 times as many hits as "quisiera que supieras", suggesting that with "saber" at least the present subjunctive after "quisiera" is actually far more common. Native input would be good.
I'm sure the immigrants I have served and worked with will be quite willing to only use quisiera with the past subjunctive once they've been been corrected. These are the people I have learned Spanish with for more years than I 'd care to admit.
No, conditional would have an if statement. Try reporting it. diego.z
Duolingo says "I would like you to go to college" is an acceptable translation, yet when I put "I would like you to go to the university" it's wrong?? Wtf
"I want you to go to the university" was accepted in spite of the fact that the nglish translation uses two present tense verbs. ??
Even though neither of the verbs is in the present tense, it's still referring to a "present" idea. I think Spanish uses the conditional/past subjunctive combo more often than in English, but it is used in English too. Think of the sentence "If I were hungry, I would eat." Were, a past tense verb, is the English subjunctive, and would eat is the conditional. But it is still an idea that's referring to the present.
Actually, "were" in your example only looks like past (i.e. it has the same form as simple past). It is actually present subjunctive. The subjunctive here just means that the statement is contrary-to-fact (you are not hungry, which is why you are not eating).
I think DL should drop this tortured example entirely. Clearly there is no accepted English translation that sounds remotely good to anyone with a grasp of the English language. And even Spanish-speaking folks here seem to differ on what it's trying to get across.
Perhaps the subjunctive/past is a topic too far for a site such as this. I know that for me as a Spanish language neophyte, it's a serious hindrance to the fulfillment of what was, until I hit this point, a really rewarding experience.
"Clearly there is no accepted English translation that sounds remotely good to anyone with a grasp of the English language."
What is wrong with their main accepted translation of "I would like you to go to college."? That sounds like perfectly fine English to me...
Because it's more of an interpretation than it is a translation and quite a step away from the phraseology used in the Spanish example.
I believe it requires a higher level of competence in Spanish than I for one possess, so I question its utility for this beginners' programme.
Perhaps you're a quicker study than I am?
Ok, I see what you mean. I agree that they don't give enough for at least most people to be able to understand this and actually learn what they're trying to teach with this sentence. But...I think that's when this discussion section comes in handy because people who don't understand can ask about the concept and those who are further advanced in Spanish can help, so that does the teaching job for them. Plus at this point in the tree, its immensely helpful to use other resources along with this site to actually understand the concepts in the lessons you're currently doing and use Duolingo more as practice.
When I was doing this section, I was glad to come across this sentence because it reaffirmed what I had learned from other places (that quisiera, although past subjunctive, can be used as a polite way to say you currently want something, and that fueras is used because it is something you want, therefore subjunctive, and is only past tense in Spanish because the first clause is past tense [but since that doesn't hold in English, "to go" is a good translation for it]), and it gave me practice with the concept.
Yeah, I can understand how you might well get more from the example if you've already been exposed to subjunctive concepts in Spanish before encountering it in this lesson. Unfortunately, I'm learning all my Spanish grammar here so haven't reached the level of understanding you clearly have.
In order to progress with this topic (and I only just scraped through after about a dozen tries :-) I will need to commit a significant amount of time to it, but that time will be better spent polishing up all the other areas of weakness DL gleefully informs me that I have. (sigh)
Right now V:S:P will have to wait for me to get quite a lot better at Spanish. :-)
Thanks for your comments - this site is really good for finding knowledgeable folks to put oneself straight.
Yes, gild your other lessons with gold before coming back to this one. :) When you do come back to this one, I would recommend reading these two lessons:
Also, this site http://www.spanishdict.com/conjugation is really helpful for finding a specific conjugation of a verb or for making sure you know which one Duolingo is using in a certain sentence. I use that site all the time. :)
I don't know crap about whether the translation is good, but yeah it's obvious that this lesson is bad. It's a confusing topic to learn about, and so it needs good explanation and lots of practice on the learner's part--but instead they just whiz right past it. I don't know why they even put it in, if they were only going to barely touch it like this. It just feels like somebody's trying to make sure they get through some checklist of "important topics" before the school year is up, so to speak, rather than actually trying to teach. Which, yeah, is especially weird because of how good nearly all the preceding lessons felt.
I couldn't agree more, AndyNZ. There is no reason to even mention this very complicated subject on a site as simplistic as DL.
Subjunctives are used in Spanish all the time (I live in Spain and without understanding them I wouldn't understand what is being said) so we need to at least recognise them even if they don't have direct translations - I admit they are hard, but necessary.
Paulalock - I did not intend to say that a basic mastery of all the elements of the Spanish use of the subjunctive is not necessary to speaking Spanish well. It obviously is, but I do not think DL's minimalist approach to "teaching" Spanish is anywhere close to being robust enough to really teach this very complex subject. I would much rather see greater coverage on DL of the proper usage of "por versus para," "ser versus estar" and other important, and more easily illustrated, elements faced by practically all students of Spanish, especially at the relatively basic level DL is capable of "teaching." I have traveled extensively in my life and work and know, without a doubt, it is far more useful, when first learning a language, to be able to use the right words (ie have a large vocabulary), even if one's grammar is incorrect. Native speakers can sort out more meaning from the right words used incorrectly by a visitor, than from a smaller vocabulary spoken perfectly in a grammatical sense. Teaching the Spanish subjunctive is best left to better tools than DL provides.
I am personally glad they have these lessons on these subjects. I really like the way DuoLingo does it. They just touch a little bit on everything, and that forces us to then go, often to another site or book or sometimes it's just right here in the discussion, and actually learn each subject - the hard ones as well as the more basic ones. And then DuoLingo is here to offer practice on everything to help reinforce what you learned elsewhere. But everyone's different, so I guess it can't be the ideal way for everyone.
School based language learning is horribly inefficient. If you travel much you may have noticed that street urchins often speak better English than than Americans with advanced college degress peak the local langauge. That is empirical evidence that exposure and practice count far more than rules of grammar or formal education. If you throw enough ____ at a wall, some of it sticks. OF course another key factor is motivation. All but the most dedicated language learners are not actually motivated to lean a foreign language. They are just rackign up points for graduation. DL students for the most part are a self selecting group who come to DL voluntarily so motivation is a driving force. Street vendors in a foreign country also have motivation, no language no sales. They also have constant exposure to foreign visitors. Their language might not be refined, but is serviceable. DL might not be perfect but due to teh Internet its availability is ubiquitous and tis methods are subject to testing and refinement. It is a bit like climbinb Mt. Everest. You do not have to be a genius, you only have to keep putting one foot in front of the other. The genius is the Wizard of OZ (DuoLingo) working behind the scenes to make things happen. Gotta go, I have a mountain to climb.
There are a lot of comments here, but I was mainly confused about the use of the subjunctive in the first clause "quisiera" - it's nice to know this is a common way to say "I would want" - kind of like "ojalá" for I hope
"I wanted you to go to the university" should also be scored as correct.
So, when I was doing this on Sept 3, 2014, this was the first answer given":I want that you went the university.. Really??? I want that you went the university????? Not "to" mind you...just went the
Out of curiosity, I used their translation noted above (I want that you went the university.) and it accepted it...just too weird for words
What is this section called? It says subjunctive p. On my phone. I assumed p meant past tense but none of these sentences seem to be past tense to me
Querer and poder operate in a different way in the imperfect subjunctive. "Quisiera" , imperfect subjective, translates most closely into "would like" In this instance since the verb querer, to want, is used, it calls for the subjunctive in the next verb.
It is the same in English; technically, "would" is past tense but is also used for present and future requests. It is commonly used in subjunctive just like "quisiera". The infinitive "to go" is also not a present tense. It is an infinitive which is timeless. Also, English does not have tenses to match all the Spanish subjunctive tenses. We prefer to use modal verbs and infinitives. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/would
Thought this might be asking the bleeding obvious, but after reading through this discussion it seems nobody else has asked it yet: Would it be Ok to use the present subjunctive, "quiera," instead of "quisiera?" I'm guessing the "to go" would also have to match tense, so maybe "Yo quiera [que] tú vayas a la universidad." If this is incorrect, then when is the present subjunctive used?
I think the purpose of this particular exercise is to introduce the imperfect subjunctive of Querer. The imperfect subjunctive of querer and poder operate a bit differently than might seem by direct translation. Querer in the imperfect subjunctive translates as a much more polite way to ask if someone wants something. It moves from "I want a cup of coffee", certainly direct and clear, to I would like a cup of coffee" My text indicates it is used to be more courteous.
Similarly, if you ask a person "Can you wash the windows" Puede limpiar las ventanas" it is clear and direct, but it is much more courteous to ask "Could you wash the windows? (or, more exactly, if you could, would you wash the windows". Less direct, but a far more gallant way to ask for help. Si quisieras, limpiarías las ventanas", which actually translates as "Could you wash the windows"
Gracias, but I understand the usage of "quisiera" here. What I was wondering is can the present subjunctive "quiera" be used similarly. And if not, in what situations would it be used?
The present subjunctive would not translate as I would like, that would be more like the conditional tense, querría. Querer is not so much used IN the subjunctive (though it is, and when it is, it translates as the present tense) as it sets up the condition to USE the subjunctive.
Like all present subjunctive, it translates the same as the present tense...it is just telling you there is a "mood" that is different.
It's not used all that much, but when it is, a common usage would equate to our English "ever" suffix. You can do it whenever -- cuando quiera. Or whereever - donde quiera.. Or in any situation indicating present subjunctive, like verbs of influence or suggestion. As Cheap Trick might say, I want you to want me. Quiero que me quieras.
Above I see "that" can be used and not " if " which is used more in the conditional. Even more often we use the infinitive which is the current sentence above.
So 'que' now means 'if.' Even though 'that' makes a perfect translation in English.
I got this wrong for using British English (which does not use an article, i.e., it is "go to university"). Also, college and university are not synonyms in either country.
DL accepts "I would like you to go to college" but it doesn't accept "I would like you to go to university", but it does accept "I would like you to go to the university". Adding "the" before university in that context means a specific university, not university in general.
"I would like if you went to university." It gaves me the correct answer as "I would like if you went to THE university", is the article so necessary here?
What is wrong with "I would like you to go to university"? Duolingo thinks I need the definite article before "university". Wrong!
Every now and then my "501 Spanish Verbs" offers enlightenment. I had written at the bottom of the "querer" page this explanation for the imperfecto de subjunctivo: "to be polite, technically not correct." So....we want to be polite, right? I can offer no context as I have probably owned the book 20 years through my start and stop quest to learn Spanish. Further enlightenment would be lovely. BTW, it is March 5th and snowing hard in Minnesota.
I cannot see any reason why - I would 'want' you to - is wrong as it is the verb 'querer' and not 'gustar'. Anyone?
I reversed the translation on Google to Spanish... The answer does not equate to DL! "Me gustaría que fueras a la universidad."
duo uses quisiera as “i wanted” elsewhere in this lesson and marks “i would like” as incorrect, but not in this case. why?
I wrote, "I would like that you went to university" and it was marked wrong. Anyone know why?
Does anyone else suffer from my problem. There are two suggested answers. • I would like you to go to university. • I would like you to go to college. I can deal with " I would like you to go to college," but " I would like you to go to university" is impossible for me to even think without changing it to, " I would like you to go to ("a" or "the") university."
Assuming from this question you are American...
It's just a difference in dialect between British English and American English. We say, "go to college or the university, they say "go to university".
Wazzie I made a typing error. My answer was not accepted and DL said one of the acceptable answers was, "I would like you to go university." Clearly a mistake on DL's part and not a normal part of American or British usage.
"I would like you to go to university" is perfectly fine in Canadian English. It means the same as "I would like you to go to college", that is, a general desire that the other person obtain post-secondary education. Basically, "university" in used in Canadian English the same way "college" is used in American English. Where an American might say "I want to go to college", Canadians will say "I want to go to university". The reason for this is because, for Canadians, attending college is different than attending university (because of the differences in type of education received).
"I would like you to go to the university" indicates that a specific university is meant.
British English = i would like you to go to university
American English = i would like you to go to college
In the UK college is (often) the step between school and university. In the US i think students would usually go straight from high school. So the meanings are essentially the same but just dependant on whether you speak the Queen's English or not... :D
I got dinged because I used the word "university. " It should be an acceptable alternate response. I reported it 3/30.2017
Why not? We do not have so many subjunctive tenses in English, but we must learn the Spanish subjunctive. In Spanish if they use "quisiera" then the following clause will also use the Spanish imperfect subjunctive tense http://conjugator.reverso.net/conjugation-spanish-verb-ir.html http://conjugator.reverso.net/conjugation-spanish-verb-quisiera.html In English, we just have subjunctive. We prefer to use the timeless infinitive.