"Nosotros salvamos a los animales."
Translation:We save the animals.
I think it is the "personal a". We say "salvar la Tierra" (to save the Earth), but when it is a human or an animal, we add an "a". So:
¡Salva al (a+el) perro! = Save the dog! / NOT: ¡Salva el perro!
I thought it was only for people and animals with which there was an emotional attachment, i.e: pets. From what I know, it doesn't apply to wild animals, so surely it shouldn't be used here? Unless it is referring to pets.
No reason to assume domesticated OR wild animals as the phrase must be able to used with both with minimal adjustment. In Australia people often need to save the animals (farm and pet animals such as horse) in event of fire. I have a (potential at least) attachment to all animals I am responsible for and it would not be logical to assume that Los animals must have a natural bias---that can easil be provided by (not) using a personal "a" and no other change
There is no personal attachment unless it is a human or a pet. There is not considered to be a personal attachment if it is a wild animal. It is completely plausible for people to be saving wild animals.
There is no mention of wild animals, just animals. Many people save stray cats and dogs and give them to adoption, they are obviously attached to them altough they are not pets yet. I would say that personal attachment is about affection, not about technicality. Altough, it sounds better without that 'a'.
? I feel personal attachment to all animals, I don't have to own an animal to care about it personally
hbeasley- wild animals, don't need personal A, unless maybe when you know its name, for exemple in a zoo, or when a bear or a panda is known all over the world. the firemen can save animals when a house is on fire, maybe he doesn't know these animals but they're the pets of someone.
And the assumption when talking about animals is that they mean wild animals. It also doesn't mention that the animals are tamed, or pets, therefore it is more logical to assume that they are wild. Otherwise it would have said they saved the pets, or strays, in which case the personal 'a' would have been understandable.
Unless in Spanish, the phrase "a los animales" automatically means pets, which would solve this ambiguity.
My thoughts as well. Just when I thought I had "a" figured out, they throw this at me.
Most likely you can say the statement without the personal "a" or with it depending on how you feel about the animals
hbeasley, if there's a fire at my house, I will save the animals, voy a salvar a los animales. And if I want to save them, it's because I love them and I care for them.
Just to complicate further the matter of the personal "a", one of the earlier questions was, "Yo salvo los animales", without the "a". After seeing both questions, I concluded that Duolingo's point of view must be that use of the "a" depends upon the speaker's feelings. For example, if the speaker is merely listing his charitable deeds (donates to medical research, supports women's rights, saves animals), then he would not use the "a"; but if he feels strongly about the need to protect animals in general (wild or domestic), then he would use the "a". Does this make sense to native speakers?
Does the personal 'a' disqualify this from being a statement of generality? And hence does that mean that 'the' is compulsory in the translation?
Good point, as usual right to it. I hope so. We could start the tradition if not? There is in fact a personal/impersonal web of connections to all species whether we "own" them or not. It's mentioned in Genesis, an early work by humans, that we name them and they are part of a "garden" so this conception is OLD. Older conceptions (Native American, etc) do recognize these connections and brotherhoods in rich varieties of ways. But in travel/, we always hope to avoid connecting with certain species. There are always rules and exceptions, exceptions to exceptions.
Hey, can you go check out my question? Since it's recent it's on the bottom. I think that the most recent questions should be on the top so that they should be answered, but since they aren't do you think you'll be able to answer it?
I'm trying to decide if you're talking about Genesis in a biblical point of view or not.....
Genesis or Creation is the term originally derived from the Old Testament, the Torah! Bob Dylan popularized it more recently in his song "In the Beginning" and the lyrics go: God made all the animals in the beginning, long time ago.
Marie.. I agree on everything you said! That "web of connections to all species" is also known as The Tree of Life !!
Not that difficult to understand if you bear in mind that the stress is on the first syllable.
This sentence is in present and also in past simple. We do not know the context. Salvamos is past simple and present
Since I'm practicing I decided to use the drop down suggestions and try
"We are saved by the animals"
Given the suggested meaning of each word this should be literally correct.
nosotros (we) salvamos (are saved) a (by) los animales (the animals)
Can someone tell me why it isn't?
(Nosostros) salvamos means "we save", not "we are saved". The subject is the people, who are saving the animals, not the other way round.
"We are saved by the animals" would be "Los animales nos salvaron", I believe (The animals saved us).
'We are saved by the animals' is a sentence in the passive voice so it would have to be translated as a passive sentence in Spanish: "Nosotros estamos savlados por los animales."
paminala- you used passive form,, that's why it isn't correct, you're saying that we are saved by the animals, it's the opposite. You also translated the personal A in English, but personal A has no translation in English.
Because Subject + Predicate, nosotros "we" salvamos "saved"
With regards to pets (animals you have personal feelings/connection with) too.
So that can be all animals. Or most. I'm thinking of bedbugs, and wondering what ecological purpose they serve. I could do without that concern while traveling. We do have oak mites in the US now and most of us exposed to them would rather they were not in the US or anywhere. Beetles that kill evergreen forests, and ash borers. Ok. There is always a bit of an undertow to generalizations.
why is this incorrect as the correct solution was put in and was marked incorrect
Does anyone else have problems when answering. I"m answering correct; but it wont take it; counting me wrong.
Why is there a to before the animals? We are going to save to the animals. They keep doing this and no one has explained why....
I think this is already covered in other comments on the page but basically it's the "personal a", so the Spanish sentence is implying there is a personal attachment between "us" and the animals or that the animals are being personified.
In case you aren't familiar with the "personal a", you might notice in the lessons to date that whenever a verb acts on a person Spanish adds an "a" before the person. e.g. Spanish translates "him" as "a él", "her" as "a ella", even though there there is no "to" before the pronouns in the English sentences. It's always used with people and is sometimes used with animals - this lesson is an example of it.
The previous one was I save the animals, 'without the a' so now I am totally confused