"You would never have opened the door for me."
Translation:Nunca habrías abierto la puerta por mí.
The «por» is the wrong preposition, unless you actually do mean that "I" cannot do it, so "you" will open the door for me.
I would agree. I thought "para" would be more correct, as the door was being opened as a kindness to me to help me get through it, rather than somebody opening it on my behalf when it was my job to open it.
Why does Nunca have to come before habrias? Does Habrias nunca abierto la puerta por mi? seem unnatural?
Yes, that seems unnatural. Adverbs generally are the most flexible in terms of word order, but they normally do come before the conjugated verb.
You are missing «abierto», and the adverb «nunca» should come before the conjugated verb.
Thank you. But if you use "no" before then "nunca has to go after. Unless a double negative is never used in this particular example.
Hi anlgza! I am a native Spanish speaker. Example: you can say: "No me habrías, nunca, abierto la puerta" continues the sentence with the motive, "cuando éramos niños porque eras mi hermano mayor y no eras gentil conmigo". Here "Never" emphasizes the phrase, why? Because you was my big brother and you were not polite with me. It is not very common. It can be too: "No me habrías abierto nunca la puerta", this is better the previous other one. You can use "no" and "never" togheter. Greetings:)
Yes, «no» is never used with «nunca». «Nunca» does not have to pair up with another negative word; I am sorry that I did not notice that before
Hi ZuMako! I am a native Spanish speaker. Example: you can say: "No me habrías, nunca, abierto la puerta" continues the sentence with the motive, "cuando éramos niños porque eras mi hermano mayor y no eras gentil conmigo". Here "Never" emphasizes the phrase, why? Because you was my big brother and you were not polite with me. It is not very common. It can be too: "No me habrías abierto nunca la puerta", this is better the previous other one. You can use "no" and "never" togheter. Greetings:)
as one struggling to learn direct and indirect objects, I wrote:
nunca me la habrias abierto la puerta.
I know it's not accepted, but is this something that would make sense?
Both por and para are accepted here, but is there a reason to choose one over the other?
As others have said "para" seems to have a 'destination' in mind and "por" more of 'left behind'
So if you do something for someone, it's intended for them, it's "para"; if you do it on their behalf it's "por"
Why is it not "Tú nunca no habrías abierto la puerta por mí." I thought in spanish double (or more) negatives was the grammatically correct way?
similarly to how: "Hay alguien en la sala" negates to... "No hay nadie en la sala"
Hi YAmr91! I speak Spanish. You can say: "Tú nunca habrías abierto la puerta...." or "Tú no habrías abierto la ...." or "Tú no habrías abierto la puerta nunca por mí" or "Tú no habrías abierto, nunca, la puerta por mí" (with emphasis) or "Tú no habrías, nunca, abierto la puerta por mí"( it is not very common, this seems forced). When you say "No hay nadie en la sala" you are denying "hay" and "nadie" this refers a person not a negation. There is or there is not a person. I hope you understand me. regards:)
Thanks for your explanation, I guess its something I have to pick up with time :s
I answered: "Nunca me hubieras abierto la puerta" but it was wrong according to duolingo. Why was it not accepted?
Hi Silk! I speak Spanish. your sentence is fine, maybe DL wanted a exactly translation. It is the same meaning. Regards:)
Hi Frank! I am a native Spanish speaker. Your answer is well too and meaning the same. Maybe Dl wanted some more literal or exactly translation. Saludos:)
Very weird did not let me use nunca at the beginning and said that was wrong and let me use para mi
Tener and Haber still confuse me a bit. Could you also say... Nunca tendrías abierto la puerta por mí... and if so does it carry a slightly different meaning or stress?
Tener is to possess, to own. Haber is more like "have happen to' or "exist". These are two ideas that Spanish distinguishes with different words, where English uses a catchall 'have'.
- I have a house in Valencia. = Tengo una casa en Valencia. (I own this)
- I have been to Valencia. = He sido en Valencia. (I had this experience)
You can see this best with the present tense of haber, where it just indicates the existence of something.
- Hay una casa en Valencia
Just as with ser/estar it is a question of essence, and there is no perfect rule for distinguishing between the two except grasping the intention of the verb: are you saying something exists or is it ownership?
FUN FACT: One place where they overlap in both languages is "having an obligation".
- Tenemos que ir a Valencia/Hay que ir a Valencia = We have to go to Valencia.