Does "sin que" require a negative?
I read the following sentence in a well known publication - but one in which I have found many typographical errors. Is there an error in this sentence? "En 1886 empezó un movimiento denominado Partido de Obreros, en el que aparece el Lic. Félix Arcadio Montero, como uno de sus gestores, sin que se hubiera desarrollado."
If "sin que" means "without that", or "without which", I think the above sentence does not make sense. I understand it to mean "In 1886 [there] started a movement known as the Workers' Party, in which appears Lic. Felix Arcadio Montero, as one of its managers, without which it would have developed".
To me there is missing a negative word, which would make the sentence say "....without which it would NOT have developed." Do I understand this correctly? Is it just a typo in the book?
2 Answers
“sin que se hubiera desarrollado.”
Remember that “que” can be: “who, that, which” I would have interjected sin que as “without whom”. Just a thought…your friend viejito
No it doesn't need a negative:
Here are some examples I found online for you:
l presidente debe dar explicaciones sin que se lo pidan. The president must give explanations without being asked.
El autobus sufrió un accidente sin que se produjera heridos. The bus suffered an accident without there being (producing) any injuries.
Traduce la frase sin que pierda el sentido. Translate the phrase without losing the sense.
