1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "Si vas al cine, llévate a tu…

"Si vas al cine, llévate a tu hermana."

Translation:If you go to the movies, take your sister.

September 29, 2013



Why llévate rather than lleva?


Though not literal, it is like ¨Take your sister with you¨, vs just ¨Take your sister¨


That's how I understood it, too, rogduo. So I wrote "... take your sister along", and was promptly marked wrong!


They accepted from me "… take your sister with you".

I agree that "take your sister along" should also be added to the alternative correct translations.


No, they did not now ( 2wks later)


This was my translation


For the same reason llevarse is used for "to wear". When you carry something on your person, you use the reflexive pronoun. Metaphorically, you're being told to carry your sister with you -- to keep her safe. That kind of protective big sibling / little sibling relationship is implied with just the single added syllable. It's actually kind of a neat feature of the language.

If you were just going to drive your sister to the movies and drop her off, it could just be lleva.


llevar can be used to take something somewhere, but in that case you need to specific the location. llevarse can just be used to mean to take something with out, without mentioning the destination. I think that is the reason for the pronominal version here. It doesn't matter grammatically, I don't think, that the movies is mentioned in the prior phrase.,


Why does only 'movies' work here? why not "movie"?


Reading the Duo mind, my hunch: 'el cine' is a place, the movie theater (often referred to as 'the movies') as opposed to going to view a specific movie (una pelicula)


Cinema always works as an English translation of cine.

  • 2188

But it should. I'll report it.


No, if it was "if you go to the movie", it would be película, not cine.


But, you wouldn't say in English, "If you go to the movie..." Would you? Most likely you would say, "If you go SEE the movie..." or "If you go to the MOVIES..."


Yes indeed you WOULD say "if you go to the movie...." in the event that you had previously discussed going to a specific movie. It SHOULD be an accepted answer.


That wouldn't be "cine", though, that would be "película".


I translated cine with theater, and it didn't accept it. A lot of people refer to movie theater with the only word theater.


Why si vas, not vayas


After Si, you will most always find the indiciative - and as Melita said, that is "vas"


But I thought statements of indecision and uncertainty are subjunctive. Still don't understand why this isn't "vayas"?

Could someone explain and maybe give an example of how "vayas" would be used?


The indicative is used for both the “if” and “result” clauses if it is a “real” condition. In an “unreal” or “contrary-to-fact” condition, a past subjunctive is used in the “if” clause, and normally the conditional is used in the result clause.

That's according to this

Note: Scroll down to "VI. 'If' clauses"

Here is a great discussion specifically related to your question ("Si vaya…"). Despite the advice (which is, of course, a sound one) seen everywhere that says "never use the present subjunctive after si!", someone quoted Lazarus (who's a god [for me] when it comes to Spanish grammar in forums) in that discussion:

"There are rare cases where present subjunctive can be used afer "si", but leave them until you are fluent. Many natives have never seen them before."


Thank you for putting a link to this discussion. I did not know this rule. Now, how to go about remembering it....


The alternative would be to use past-subjunctive: "Si tú fueras al cine..." That would mean something like, "If you were to go to the cinema..." or, "If you went to the cinema..." -- but not in a past-tense sense, in the sense of, "If you went to the cinema right now, I would feel sad, because I thought we would go together tomorrow." Si tú fueras al cine ahora, me sentiría triste, porque pensé que iríamos juntos mañana.


Why would you use the certain "vas". From my understanding, subjunctive is to be used if something is not certain. The sentence here says "If you go..." so it seems to me like it should be "si vayas al cine" and not "si vas al cine." :/


Why does cinema not translate from cine here?


I am reporting that cinema should have been accepted. 1/20/2020


Cinema still not accepted 3rd Sept. 2020


Why not subjunctive? Si vayas


The present subjunctive is never used after si.
If something is really uncertain you can use the past subjunctive
yes I know, using the past subjunctive for a future hypothetical
event might not make much sense but actually the same thing
is done in proper English.

If I were to win the lottery, I would quit my job.
This is past subjunctive in English and then same can be done in Spanish
Si yo fuera a ganar la lotería, renunciaría mi trabajo.

However, the subjunctive should only be used, both in Spanish and in
English if the possible of occurrence is seen a low / doubtful.

That is why it isn't used in the present sentence.
The probability that he goes to the movies is seen as quite possible.


Maybe I have missed a previous lesson, but why does the e in llevate have an accent above it?


When verbs are in their original (infinitive) form, they end in "r". We all know that any word ending in a consonant other than "n" or "s" is naturally stressed on the last syllable -- "lleVAR" ("cociNAR"). However, when a verb is conjugated, its ending becomes a vowel (or an "s" for "tú" and "vosotros"), so now the natural stress must be on the second-to-last (penultimate) syllable according to the rules -- so "lleVAR" becomes "LLEva" ("cociNAR" becomes "coCIna"). But we need to add one more syllable now -- "te"; however, we also need to keep that stress on the "LLE" part of the (conjugated) verb itself ("te" is just a pronoun attached to a verb, but it's not part of the verb). So to do that, we need to write the accent; otherwise, it would naturally move to the new penultimate syllable "va" and the word wouldn't be pronounced correctly.


Why not 'llevala a tu hermana"? Isn't the sister the direct object? Another sentence in this lesson was "Llevame al hospital" where 'Me' was the direct object. What's the difference with this sentence?


Emory, 'llévame al hospital' - as you say the 'me' is the direct object. In 'llévate', the 'te' is an indirect object which would translate to 'with you', but DL has not translated it. My step-mother used to say 'wash me these dishes' which meant 'wash these dishes for me'. She spoke a regional type of English. The reason you cannot say 'llévala a tu hermana' is because in Spanish, you need either the direct object pronoun or the direct object noun, but not both. You could say 'llévala al hospital', take her to the hospital, or 'lléva a tu hermana...' take your sister to the hospital, but you would then be using the verb llevar instead of llevarse. The latter has that extra nuance that the sister is going with you. An indirect object pronoun and a direct object noun, which go very well together.


"If you go to the cinema, take your sister." was not accepted. That is just bad form duolingo!


I got this right and it was markes wrong. When it was repeated at the end, it was accepted.

Learn Spanish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.