"The argument he made was very good."
Translation:El argumento que él hizo fue muy bueno.
Again please bear with me, why FUE? I wrote ESTUVO because Ive seen estar used in seemingly similar sentences. I only understand Estar vs. Ser(Fue) in terms of temporary or static conditions. please help
good vs well, fue bueno it was of good quality, estuvo bien it was in good condition. In English we mix good and well, but in Spanish they are used for different things.
¨bien¨ would be ¨the argument he made was very well¨ To make well work you would have to say ¨ he argued well¨, that´s a different sentence.
My understanding is that "ser" is used with generalizations, and I used the "ser" conjugation here because I thought the sentence expressed a generalization. Whether that's accurate I can't say, but I didn't get dinged.
The best way I ever heard the difference between 'Ser' and 'Estar' was... "Ser" describes essential qualities of the subject, that is, things that define what the subject is in some way. "Estar" describes a state of being that the subject happens to be in but does not define the subject.
I use estar in past tenses when it concerns location. " I was (located) at school " - " estuve en la escuela". Fue also means went as it is the past tense of "ir" too. So "fue a la escuela " - " I went to school ". In this case fue tells you someting about the argument itself (ser), not its condition (estar). I hope this helps.
why not "hacia"!? It seems that every time I think it is a "preterite" situation the "imperfect is used, and vica versa. I thought they were pretty much interchangeable but that when used after "que" the imperfect ( ie hacia) was almost always used but not in this case???
"Hacía" has a continuous feel, as if he did that for some time on a regular basis, "hizo" marks an end to something he probably did just once, he made it, he finished it and it's over.
Why is preterite used (fue) over imperfect? Doesnt this kind of imply that like his argument was good, but now it isnt?
they didn't have an option of "el" without the accent for "The" argument. ???
Can we say: el argumento lo el hizo fue bueno? Or is it only correct with QUE?
In Spanish you need to put "que"(that) even when in English it is not required. If you look at it as "The argument that he made was very good." It should make complete sense, you can even make a word by word translation. It simply makes no sense to say "El argumento el hizo fue muy bueno.", it's like saying "The argument made he was very good."