"She had never lost."
Translation:Ella nunca había perdido.
my answer "Nunca ella habia perdido" was marked incorrect. Is it incorrect or does DL need to update the database?
I'm not 100% if correct, but many other sentences have put nunca at the beginning, so I reported it.
It is correct, but it sounds a little weird. "Nunca" can be put at the beginning many times, but when it happens it is usually because we omit the pronoun: "(Ella) nunca había perdido" sounds better than "Nunca ella había perdido" although both of them are correct.
It is the same as Nunca ella había perdido. Both sound weird but they are also correct.
It is really correct, but it dont sound natural. The problem is not really the order but the use of the subject. In common speech we just drop it off. So we would just say "¿Nunca habia perdido?"
Just looked at verb chart and realized the first and third person singular of past imperfect of HABER are the same. Yo había ido vs. Ella había ido. Do I have a witness?
That's the case for all verbs: in imperfect tense (and all tenses composed with imperfect) the 1st and 3rd sing. persons are the same.
true... I thought this was confusing until I started considering similar verb conjugations in English : I had left, you had left, he had left, we had left, they had left... I guess it just means you have to supply the pronoun in spanish to avoid ambiguity, just like you do in English...
You can omit the pronoun even if the conjugation corresponds to several pronouns: the context give the solution. And if it doesn't, well you ask to clarify ;)
In the absence of any context, any previous mention of a he or she, you'd be talking about yourself. :)
Good to know; lingot to you. Do you know why "Ella había perdido nunca" was marked incorrect? Do you think it's because the "no" acts like a clitic when the predicate verb is negated? The reason I ask is because "Ella no había perdido nunca" was offered as a correct translation.
Yes, that's the reason. In a negative statement you need to negate the verb somehow. If you don't do it with the given adverb itself ("Nunca había perdido."), you have to add a no in its place: "No había perdido nunca."
Can words like "nunca" and "ya" go practically anywhere in a sentence, just not between the "habia" and "perdido"?
First, "between the "habia" and "perdido"" -> No you can't do it. Never between the auxiliary and the past participle!!
It gives us a first rule (I think), don't put it inside a "group of word" for example "article + adjective+noun" or "auxiliary + the past participle". Otherwise, it can depends of the type of article (type = of time, of frequency...). Here some references:
Are you saying that adverbs, in this case "nunca," can only modify verbs (with compound verbs being considered as one unit) and cannot modify adjectives? (As adverbs can in English.)
No, adverbs in Spanish can modify both verbs and adjectives like in English. He is just saying that in Spanish you cant separate groups of words by adding a word between them.
That means that compound tenses can not be split. They act like a one unit (as you have said).
Thank you for the clarification that Spanish adverbs do indeed modify Spanish adjectives. Would you mind giving an example of a Spanish noun equivalent that can't be split and/or explaining why it can't be split? I have provided my own analysis and examples of some English noun substitutes and how they can be expanded (and in reverse order condensed). Does Spanish view the grammar in this way?
William Shakespeare wrote, "To be or not to be, that is the question." (Ser o no ser, esa es la cuestión.) Breaking this sentence down, the complete subject is "to be or not to be, that" (ser o no ser, esa). The complete predicate is "is the question" (es la cuestión). In English, the compound infinitive phrase "to be or not to be" is in apposition with the pronoun "that, which is the pronoun subject of the sentence. (Apposition is defined as two nouns with the same meaning placed next to each other, with the appositive noun separated by a comma on each end.) Does Spanish have a concept like apposition? If so, is it punctuated the same way?
Although "to be" and "not to be" are both infinitives being used as noun substitutes, they are English verbals and so still have the attributes of verbs, such as the ability to take subjects (nouns and noun substitutes), to take complements (predicate adjectives and direct and indirect objects), and to be modified by adverbs and adverb substitutes even while the infinitives themselves are being used as noun substitutes. Predicate adjective example: To be sane or to be crazy, that is the question. (Estar cuerdo o estar loco, esa es la pregunta.) Direct object example: To be a saint or to be a sinner, that is the question. (Ser un santo o ser un pecador, esa es la cuestión.) Modifying adverb example in which the adverb "not" modifies the whole infinitive phrase: Not to be a saint or a sinner, that is the answer. (No ser un santo o un pecador, esa es la respuesta.)
Example of an infinitive phrase used as the direct object of the predicate verb "want: "I want TO WRITE A LETTER." (Quiero escribir una carta.) Complete subject: "I." Complete predicate: "want to write a letter." Predicate verb: "want." Infinitive used as a direct object: "to write a letter." Object of the infinitive: "a letter."
Example of an infinitive phrase with a direct object that itself has an indirect object and a direct object: "I want TO WRITE HIM A LETTER." (Quiero escribirle una carta.) Complete subject: "I." Complete predicate: "want to write him a letter." Predicate verb: "want." Direct object of the verb "want": to write him a letter." Infinitive direct object: "a letter." Infinitive indirect object: "him."
Example of an infinitive phrase with a direct object of its own and an indirect object as its subject: "I want HIM TO WRITE A LETTER." (Quiero que escribe una carta.) Complete subject: "I." Complete predicate: "want him to write a letter." Predicate verb: "want." Direct object of the predicate verb: "to write a letter." Subject of the infinitive phrase"to write" AND indirect object of the verb "want": "him." Direct object of the infinitive: "a letter."
Example of an infinitive phrase with a direct object of its own, an indirect object of its own, and the indirect object of "want" as the subject of the infinitive: "I want HIM TO WRITE ME A LETTER." (Quiero que ME ESCRIBE UNA CARTA) Complete subject: "I." Complete predicate: "want him to write me a letter." Predicate verb: "want." Direct object of the predicate verb: "to write me a letter." Subject of the infinitive phrase"to write" AND indirect object of the verb "want": "him." Direct object of the infinitive: "a letter." Indirect object of the infinitive: "me."
I have to admit it takes me a while to read all your reply and I'm not really sure what is your question, especially because we were talking about verbs (compound tenses: haber + participio) and you asked about nouns that can not be split.
No. That would mean she was the object (with the personal 'a'). Or, since there is no pronoun, it's actually ambiguous, so it could mean she was the indirect object ("to her"). But in neither case is she the subject :)
Yep. You cannot split the verb phrase in Spanish. The 'habia' could then be interpreted as the past imperfect of the 'hay', but there are two subjects. Perdido could be interpreted as the adjective instead of the past participle.
Eventually, the listener figures it out, just like any "garden path" sentence (e.g., "The old man the boat" or "the horse raced past the barn fell). It breaks linguistic continuity. Although I do find those tons of fun :-D
can "hubo" not be used in this case?? it "seems" that the imperfect is usually used but I was curious why....
No. "Hubo perdido"....esta forma (el pretéterito anterior) indica anterioridad, en un tiempo pasado, a otra acción verbal, con el valor añadido de inmediatez. En qualquier caso, el uso del pretérito anterior es poco frequente y empieza a sentirse como forma arcaica.
my answer 'ella había perdido nunca' was judged wrong and should have been 'ella nunca habia perdido'. Why is this? The alternative 'Ella no había perdido nunca' is a double denial which is quite common in Spanish but that does not make it right, or?
Double denial is correct grammar in Spanish.
The thing with Spanish negative sentences is that you need to say a negative word before the verb (Negative words are "no", "nunca", "jamás", "nada", "ningún", etc...). If you are going to use a negative word after the verb you also need to add "no" before the verb to make a double denial. It function is simply advise the listeners/readers that you are denying the sentence. It's like saying "hey, I'm denying the thing that comes after this". If you want to avoid double denial, just put negative adverbs before the verb.
Correct: Nunca había perdido = No había perdido nunca.
Incorrect: Había perdido nunca. (this is incorrect Spanish grammar and native Spanish speakers don't talk this way, although it is totally understandable).
Additionally if there are Direct object pronouns, indirect object pronouns, reflexive pronouns, etc. before the verb, the "no" used to build double denial is located before them:
No lo dice nadie = Nadie lo dice (Nobody says it)
No te he dicho nada = Nada te he dicho (I have told you nothing)
No me vi nunca en el espejo = Nunca me vi en el espejo (I never saw myself in the mirror)
Does anyone know why, "Ella no había perdido nada," is wrong, but "Ella no había perdido jamás," is correct? Maybe I just don't understand the use of nunca vs jamás.
Well, "jamás" and "nunca" are synonyms and you can use them interchangeably but in your sentence you have used "nada" which means nothing. So you have translated "She had lost nothing" instead of "She had never lost."
Thank you. So I guess it's nada and nunca I got mixed up. Have a lingot for your help. Thanks again.
Could this sentence be done as a double negative. Ella no había perdido nunca. ???