142 Comments This discussion is locked.
Llevar can be translated mostly as "to take". There is no "to wear" in Spanish, and how you get that verb is by "llevar puesto". Unfortunately "puesto" is commonly omitted because normally the context will tell you where are you standing. I believe if you remember this, you'll be fine.
@RamNagel, in your message below, where it is below, because the Duolingo programmers recently altogether totally screwed up where messages get shown in a thread, what I think you mean is that "llevar" can be translated as the English word, "wear," and not that it MEANS "wear" because the situation is just as RAMOSRAUL directly stated: "there is no 'to wear' in Spanish." This means there is no Spanish word which MEANS "wear." What a word means in a language and what the word can be translated to in another language are two entirely different matters, and it is a gross error to be using the words, "MEAN," and, "TRANSLATE," interchangably.
And as far as "in the context of clothes" is concerned there are a great many instances in which the English verb,"take" would apply. Many, many, many.
This is not a matter if opinion or preferernce or whatever one might like to believe about what seems to oneself to be "obvious."
It is the way it is. Like or not, accept it or not. It is reality.
If you translated el niño as the child, then no. Not romantic at all, but if you translated it as the boy, then it could depending on context. Boy does suggest youth, but not necessarily so much youth that a sexual context is inappropriate. So "She takes the boy to bed," can certainly be read as being a bit racy. At least in English.
We. Are. Not. Learning. English. I'm sorry, but it is kind of frustrating for me to constantly read "In English we say this..." We are learning Spanish - not as a translation of English, but as it's own language.
That being said, I took/carried my children to bed every night until they outgrew it. <shrug>
I think the idea is to learn how to use "llevar" in Spanish, with it's objects. Aside from that, yes, that's the meaning of the sentence after all. Although there are many expressions similar to this one, the right idiom you are looking for there is "Ella acuesta al niño". That's the equivalent to "She puts the child to bed".
Acostar is a verb that means "the process to lay". You can say "acostado = laying (in bed)" as in: -Would you come and play paintball with us in the living room? -No, I'm in bed already = No, ya estoy acostado. This verb is mainly used with people, although can be used some times with animals. However the correct use for animals and things is "tumbar(se)". In Spain is rather common to use "tumbar" for people too, so do not be offended if you ever hear it, but you can remark the right use ;)
Funny enough, it can also mean that in Spanish. Though acostarse con [somebody] would mean that (among the long list of verbs for this purpose, this is no vulgarism), llevar a [someody] a la cama can also be used. I do believe is perhaps linked with a translation from English.... but really I have no idea of the background.
Just as fun fact, Yacer (to lay) can be used as synonym of acostarse, although is "old" Spanish. You will find it in old texts and poetry though. The use is not exactly the same, as nobody would say "voy a yacer". It was used as acostarse con = yacer con. Nevertheless it is still used sometimes as "to lay" in a broader context.
i read somewhere that when you use a verb that refers to a person (i am not sure that i said this right), you always use A in front of that person.
Exemple> yo apoyo A mi padre; ella lee un livro a su hijo; veo a tu maestre entre los estudiantes...
i think that is the reason for AL (a+el)
Yes, when a person or personified object (like your pet) is the direct object, you use the personal 'a'. The direct object is the noun that is receiving the action of the transitive verb. "I kissed the king." The king is being kissed, so he is the direct object and would require the 'a' in Spanish.
You are correct about al=a+el too. In Spanish, a el becomes al.
For those of us confused by the «al» in this sentence, it is a contraction using the personal a and el. Those are a couple of grammer topics that are ignored in most immersion courses. Duo covered contractions in the prepositions tips but I haven't seen anything about personal a. Here is a good link: http://www.studyspanish.com/lessons/persa.htm I hope this helps!
Daniel - because whenever you have an action verb (take/lleva) + a masculine person (boy/ el niño) you have to have this "a" before the "el, and then the "a and the "el" become contracted to al. So, "take the boy/lleva el niño" becomes "lleva al niño". When it is a feminine person (like "niñA") it is "a la niña" [not contracted].
This is also done not just to persons but also to animals when you have personal relationship with one, like when it's your pet , for example, or your neighbor's.
Llevar is take, not bring. Traer is bring. Here are some examples for the differences between tomar and llevar. They aren't absolute definitive rules, rather they are descriptions of how the verbs are usually used.
Tomar is to take (for your personal use). So tomar for taking pills (as in you swallow them), taking taxis, taking a picture, take the train. Llevar is take as in you transport something. Take dish to a dinner. Take groceries to your mother. Take a tent when you camp. Take pills to somebody else.
This breaks down when the words aren't specifically meant as 'to take'. Llevar is used for clothes which are being worn, despite them being for personal use. As I noted, this isn't a foolproof method of determining which verb to use. It would be much easier if multiple words didn't have an exponential amount of meanings.
al is a contraction of a el. When referring to a person, as opposed to an object, you normally put a "personal a" before the noun. So, because a boy is a person, "el niño" becomes "al niño".
The rules for the Personal a are a bit complicated, but you can read more about it here: http://www.studyspanish.com/lessons/persa.htm
Daniel, I've replied to your comment (above), but let me just add here, if I may. The Spanish "a" before "el niño" (al niño) and "la niña" (a la niña) has no English equivalent. It is called "the personal 'a'. This only occurs in Spanish but not in English.
But the "a" in "a la cama" translates to the English preposition "to".
"... to (the) school" = "a la escuela"
"... to (the) school" = "al colegio"
"... to the house" = "a la casa"
"... to the building" = "al edificio"
"... to (the) bed" = "a la cama"
So in other words, what you have here are two different "A's" which perform different functions in a sentence. Hope this helps.
Spanish differentiates between llevar and traer/take and bring. Let's think in first person present tense. Llevar is to take something to a place the speaker is not standing at the moment she is speaking. Traer is to bring an object to the location the speaker is currently at. So you can traer the child to bed if you are standing at the bed when you say it. You would use the verb llevar if you are going to take the child to bed and you are not currently in the bedroom when you describe your action.
I know that it gets murky in English for some speakers. We say we are bringing food to a dinner. In Spanish, you would have to use llevar unless you are already present at the dinner when you describe the action. Then you will have brought the food and therefore you would use traer. If you're going to the store to get food, again use traer because you are bringing it back home to where you are. Unless of course, you are taking it to somewhere you are not presently. Then you are llevando!
Of course, llevar as 'carry' confuses this a little. Just remember that if you were already at the place you were carrying it to, you would have put it down already! If you are carrying it, you haven't yet arrived at the place it is going. This doesn't have to be true. You may just be showing your strength off. It's just a way to remember it and still have it make sense.
For this sentence, might "put" be a better translation for "lleva?" To say "takes," in English, ever so slightly implies a sexual connotation, which context would clarify, however... You might be told to "take" the boy to his room, but it will be, "put" him to bed. Probably omit "the" before bed too.
This is definitely unusual. The previous sentence was about a wife wearing a blue dress, then they use the same word for what a person is doing with/to a child, and I did initially think that it meant she wears the child to the bed...? When that didn't make sense I came here. So technically, because she is holding the child/has a child on her shoulder or in her arms, would carrying, taking, and holding also be lleva?