"We had not established rules."
Translation:No habíamos establecido reglas.
Why is it not "las reglas"? The article seems to have been needed when discussing whether my parents, in general, like "la cerveza" in a previous exercise.
because there isn't article in the english sentence.
- "We had not established rules" = "No habíamos establecido reglas.
- "We had not established the rules" = "No habíamos establecido las reglas.
Sometimes i just want to say that this language is so stupid. First they say you alway need the article and then they say you don't. And all this gender and number agreement is for the birds. There are at least half a dozen versions of many words. Aaugh! Sorry for venting.
Thank you for trying to help, but Spanish does use the equivalent of "the" sometimes when English does not: http://www.spanishdict.com/topics/show/5. "Les gusta la cerveza a mis padres" is an example previously here on DL and the sentence was translated as "My parents like beer." Not a specific beer, but beer in general.
I agree with you, in spanish we always use the article before a noun, is more natural to say Las reglas than just Reglas.
Ok, sorry, I should have explain more : "there isn't article in the english sentence" in which putting it or not doesn't really change the meaning (it's still those undefined unmade rules). So in this case, I should say that you can do it literally.
But in fact in our case, it seems to come from the fact that the subject of "gustar" needs an article.
Interesting that your own sentence about an English sentence not having an article is actually missing an article. :)
Is there any specific reason the 'no' could come after 'habiamos' and be phrased "habiamos no establecido reglas"?
Wisecookiesheet, we cannot separate the auxiliary verb from the main verb. The negation must go before the first verb.
That doesn't sound right. The "No" has to come before the verb. There is a nice overview of the Past Perfect at Studyspanish.com where I found this: "The auxiliary verb and the past participle are never separated. To make the sentence negative, add the word "no" before the conjugated form of haber." - read more at http://www.studyspanish.com/verbs/lessons/pastperfect.htm
I guess I didn't understand "establecido" should not be plural. I don't think I saw the reason here, just curious what it is. I answered incorrectly with "No habiamos establecidos reglas," which sounds incorrect now ha. Thanks for any feedback :)
In the compound times you don't make agree the participle (see, e.g. http://www.wordreference.com/conj/EsVerbs.aspx?v=perder).
NB: it's not like in French where we make agree with "être" and, under certain rules, with "avoir".
In Spanish, compound tenses are formed with haber and the participle of the compound tense is always the same. It's, for regular verbs, root + 'ado' for verbs ending in "-ar" and root + 'ido' for verbs ending in "-ir" or "-er". And for irregular verbs, well it ends with "-o" but it's not anymore root + something, as puesto, abierto, dicho.
EDIT: correction -> "coumpound". Thanks jaucey.
Ok. I can understand a bit...I am not as competent as you, thank you for taking the time to answer me...I keep making mistakes so if I come up on this again I will try and re-read this with better comprehension. Thank you again! I hope you have a great day :-)
Jaucey - you might try reading the explaination of Past Perfect at StudySpanish.com - it covers the difference between the past participle as an adjective (when you have to make it agree with the noun in number & gender) and past participle as part of the present or past perfect tense, when it does not change. See this page: http://www.studyspanish.com/verbs/lessons/pastperfect.htm
Would "no habíamos tenido reglas establecidas" also be possible? The context isn't clear if "established" refers to "had" or "rules".
I see what your getting at, but you've doubled up the "hads" in your Spanish sentence, so it translates to "We had not had established rules."
That is gramatically correct, but not a precise translation. We had not established rules. Should always mean that the rules had not been established.
I don't understand "habiamos." This sentence contains the past perfect tense which is a combination of the past tense of "haber"--"hubimos," "we had"--and the past participle of "establecir," "establecido," "established." "Habiamos" is the imperfect tense: "We used to have" established rules. Where am I wrong?
Firstly, remember that both the preterite and the imperfect are past tenses; there isn't one that is the true past tense and one that is something else. The imperfect tense is used almost universally when forming the past perfect. The preterite perfect is extremely antiquated and mostly seen in old formal writing.
It looks like you're analyzing the sentence "We used to have established rules" so that 'established' becomes an adjective modifying 'rules' when it's not, so that reading doesn't make any sense. Also, English doesn't have a good equivalent to the imperfect tense, and 'used to…' only works to a certain point because it doesn't capture the entire scope of imperfect uses.
The reason for using the imperfect lies in the fact that the perfect aspect implies that either 1). an action or state continues up to the reference time or 2.) a previous action is still relevant at the reference time. Consider two past perfect examples for these two meanings:
1.) I had lived there for three years.
The state of living continues from the far past into the more recent past, which is the reference time (Imagine adding "when…" onto the end to understand reference time).
2.) I had seen that movie already.
Perhaps the fact that you saw the movie sometime previously was relevant because you were telling someone that you didn't want to see it again. It emphasizes that the far past action is pertinent to your nearer past decision.
So the imperfect tense is a better fit than the preterite to form the past perfect because both uses of the perfect aspect involve the concept of a stretch of time without a defined endpoint (perhaps the far past action will remain relevant into the future…). That is the ultimate hallmark of the imperfect: an undefined start or end of an action. Compare this to the preterite, which requires definite start and end times.
So let's think about this sentence: "We had established rules." When the rules were established is not important, but we know that it happened before the reference time because the perfect aspect tells us that it was already the case and that it was still relevant at that time. How long the rules remained in effect is also undefined, as is when the reference time even is, so the imperfect is the right tense to use.
I should have made the sentence negative. My mistake. Anyway, in the sentence "We had not established rules," the rules' state of not being estsblished had been the case forever up until at or after the reference time, and when that is is not defined, so it is still a case of example 2.) and it still points to using the imperfect.
The past perfect is translated as "had + (past participle of verb," e.g. había corrido antes de ducharme = I had run before showering.
I think Danielleferg is referring to the lack of "las" before "reglas." Spanish often includes a definite article before general object nouns when none exists in English, especially when the object noun is abstract, as it is here.
por que no "las reglas" ??? Why do they teach us a lesson and then negate it ?
People!!! In spanish you can also say "no teniamos reglas establecidas" and is totally RIGHT!!! Have= haber/tener
Tener and Haber both mean "to have" but they mean it in a different way and they are not interchangeable.
Haber is a helping verb used in the perfect tenses = I have already read that book. She has left. They had seen it.
Tener means "to have" like to own or be in possession of something. Tengo coche - I have a car
You're right of course, but I think that is what Ratakoolta was suggesting. Notice he has used the adjective "establecidas" not the verb, so what he is saying is "We did not have established rules." The "We had no ..." construction relating to a lack of possession is less common but acceptable. EDIT: Apologies, I just reread the DL sentence and see it is "We had not ..." which is even more uncommonly (borderline archaically) used to express a lack of possession. Incorrect, no, eg: "We had not a penny to our name" but I can't see DL employing it in this way.
I am a native spanish speaker and the most accurate translation certainly is duolingo's but "no teníamos reglas establecidas" is more used among native spanish speakers. Just saying
Gotcha. But doesn't this translate to "We did not have established rules" using "established" as an adjective? This is a very different sentence in English from "We had not established rules" in which "established" would normally be considered a verb.