How do I add "ing" to spanish words? example: swimming, talking, walking PLEASE HELP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!!!!
I Heard that if it's a -ir/-er verb you remove the -ir/-er and add "iendo" (example: comiendo 'eating') And for -ar verbs you remove the -ar and add "ando" (example: trabajando) But if that's so, why doesn't "parado" or "sentado" follow these rules''''
28 Answers
Incidentally, I see my comments are marked by an X and don't know why or what it means. Can you illuminate me on that as well'
It allows you to delete your post, but that should only be done in exceptional situations.
James Santiago. Thanks for the clarifications. I had begun to think that the choice of "ser" or "estar" would govern the meanings of at those participles (adjectives) in such contexts - but had not found anything close to the clear explanation for them in my sources. You seem to have a good knowledge of Spanish grammar.
Hope you'll continue to contribute to my needy education. (Incidentally, I see my comments are marked by an X and don't know why or what it means. Can you illuminate me on that as well')
Ken Smith wrote:
at least one grammar text-book which I have says that Spanish uses the past participle translated with "ing: endings for these: parado = standing, sentado = sitting, acostado = lying down, aburrido = boring, divertido = amusing, and entretenido = entertaining. Unfortunately it doesn't elaborate any further. Could it be that it is the form of "Estar" which govern the translation. Perhaps "Estoy aburrido" is correct, if one wishes to say "I am boring." But if so,how would he say "I am bored."'
OK, now I see where you got that. Shelly had originally asked about "estoy sentado," and the discussion moved from that point, using these past participles with "estoy," but your textbook (no hyphen) is using them as adjectives, not as participles. Adjectives use the verb ser, not estar. So "Este programa es muy aburrido" means "This show is really boring." "Estoy aburrido" means "I am bored," while "Soy aburrido" means "I am boring" (that is, being boring is a personal characteristic). To use aburrir transitively, we would say "Te estoy aburriendo," or "I am boring you." The same applies to entretenido.
Jay the Magnificent said:
ÿsta es mi hija hermosa jugando en la arena. or
ÿsta es mi hija hermosa que juega en la arena.
I got both from online translators - why is "que" in the second choice?
These sentences can be translated (back) into English to show the difference.
1) This is my beautiful daughter playing in the sand.
2) This is my beautiful daughter who is playing in the sand.
In the first you have a participle used as a simple adjective. (in English as in Spanish)
In the second you have a subordinate clause (with its own conjugated verb) that is functioning as an adjective. (in English as in Spanish)
"que" introduces the subordinate clause (and ties it back to "hija").
I think, the first one is; this is my lovely daughter playing in the sand.
and the second is ; this is my lovely daughter that plays in the sand.
lazarus1907 said:
Ken Smith said:
I like your viewpoints. But it is nevertheless a fact that at least one grammar text-book which I have says that Spanish uses the past participle translated with "ing: endings for these: parado = standing, sentado = sitting, acostado = lying down, aburrido = boring, divertido = amusing, and entretenido = entertaining. Unfortunately it doesn't elaborate any further. Could it be that it is the form of "Estar" which govern the translation. Perhaps "Estoy aburrido" is correct, if one wishes to say "I am boring." But if so,how would he say "I am bored."? Exceptions? Mmmm, think twice. In English, "to sit" means to stay in a position where you are resting onto something, but in Spanish "sentar(se)" means to move your body to reach that position. Once you've reached that position, you are no longer "sentándote": you are already "sentado". The same goes for "acostar(se)": it is the act of moving towards such position, and not to remain in that position. The present participle indicates movement, and the past participle, with a static verb, such as "estar", indicates state reached after culminating the action. In Spanish, "estoy sentándome" is an action that cannot last more than a few seconds, even with acute arthritis, because most people achieve the "sitting position" within a fraction of a second.Those verbs have other meanings in English. There is no exceptions here, but a fallacy: believing that what is true in one language, must also be on another.
>
Ken Smith said:
Nevertheless, there are at least those few words (past participles) which I mentioned that are translated into English with "ing" endings, which usually, with a form of "estar" indicate a progressive construction. Further, they all seem to be related to physical posture or condition. I see - or think I see - a reflexive connotation - though they are not constructed according to those rules of grammar.
Wrong! They are not constructed according to English rules, but they are according to Spanish rules. Please read my post above. To sit and to lie ARE NOT translated as sentar(se) and acostar(se), which is why you can't used them like in English. There are no exceptions - grammatical rules are used in each language according to the meaning of the verbs.
Ken Smith wrote:
I found that Spanish uses some past participles - translated into English with the "ing" ending which is common to present participles - as adjectives with forms of "estar." Some of these are "sentado", "parado", "divertido", "acostado", "aburrido", and "entretenido."
But estoy aburrido does not translate to a present participle in English. "I'm bored" uses the past participle, just like the Spanish. The same applies to estoy entretenido; "I am entertained." As for the others, they are NOT exceptions to any rule, they are just different from English, as is to be expected in foreign languages. That is, "estoy acostado" may be "I am lying down" in English, but it is more like "I am reclined" in Spanish. We just say these things differently. That doesn't make them exceptions in Spanish.
Ken Smith said:
Some of these are "sentado", "parado", "divertido", "acostado", "aburrido", and "entretenido." All have a meaning related to posture or some other condition. I think these are legitimate grammatical exceptions which apply in a relatively small number of contexts.
Exceptions? Mmmm, think twice. In English, "to sit" means to stay in a position where you are resting onto something, but in Spanish "sentar(se)" means to move your body to reach that position. Once you've reached that position, you are no longer "sentándote": you are already "sentado". The same goes for "acostar(se)": it is the act of moving towards such position, and not to remain in that position. The present participle indicates movement, and the past participle, with a static verb, such as "estar", indicates state reached after culminating the action. In Spanish, "estoy sentándome" is an action that cannot last more than a few seconds, even with acute arthritis, because most people achieve the "sitting position" within a fraction of a second.
Those verbs have other meanings in English. There is no exceptions here, but a fallacy: believing that what is true in one language, must also be on another.
Use these translations, and everything will make sense to you:
Sentar(se) = To move your body to eventually end up on a seat.
Acostar(se) = To move your body to eventually end up lying.
It is not about using the verb, but about the syntactic function of "palomitas". If you are talking about "palomitas" in general, you don't normally use the article, but if "palomitas" is a grammatical subject, the article is compulsory.
Ah, that has shaken the cobwebs from my brain, and it makes sense now. If only I could claim that I, too, had been drinking...
Thank you for all your help in 2008, and I hope not to impose on you so much in 2009.
. I've also had the same question and had not yet found a definitive answer. Your question prompted me to again look for an explanation - a thorough one. I found that Spanish uses some past participles - translated into English with the "ing" ending which is common to present participles - as adjectives with forms of "estar." Some of these are "sentado", "parado", "divertido", "acostado", "aburrido", and "entretenido." All have a meaning related to posture or some other condition. I think these are legitimate grammatical exceptions which apply in a relatively small number of contexts. They are not constructed according to the general rules governing the simple present progressive, but I think they function and should be translated as if they were.
James Santiago said:
If the article specifies the palomitas when the verb is used, why does it not do the same thing when the verb is omitted?
It is not about using the verb, but about the syntactic function of "palomitas". If you are talking about "palomitas" in general, you don't normally use the article, but if "palomitas" is a grammatical subject, the article is compulsory.
In "Me gustan las palomitas", "palomitas" is the subject, and therefore, it demands the article regardless.
In "Me gusta comer palomitas", "palomitas" is not a grammatical subject, but the direct object of "comer", and therefore, it doesn't take the article for non-specific references. This time, "comer palomitas", as a whole clause, is the subject, but not "palomitas" on its own.
Notice that in:
Me gusta una palomita
Me gustan dos palomitas
The agreement is compulsory, for "una/dos palomita(s)" is the subject. If there is such agreement, the article (or other quantifiers, such as "uno") must be there. You can't say "Me gusta palomita", unless Palomita is a person. But in:
Me gusta comer una palomita
Me gusta comer dos palomitas
"una/dos palomita(s)" doesn't agree with anything, because it is a direct object, and objects don't agree with the verb. No agreement, no need to use article, unless you are talking about specific "palomitas".
You can say "Me gusta comer palomitas" in general perfectly, and "Me gusta comer las palomitas de mi abuela", for specific references.
Of course, these examples don't use "la/las", but the mechanism is the same.
I don't think I can't put it clearer right now. Still doesn't make sense? Please, feel free to ask.
I must have woken up on the dense side of the bed this morning, but I still don't understand. If the article specifies the palomitas when the verb is used, why does it not do the same thing when the verb is omitted?
Obviously, I'll never master Spanish.
James Santiago said:
I never did see that post, but he wrote to me privately (although I still didn't understand what he meant). I guess I was absent the day this rule was covered, because I've never heard it. Could someone explain it to me? Why does the presence of the verb comer obviate the need for the article?
As usual, I just sent you the explanation while you asked. I'll post it here:
Me gustan las palomitas
Here, las palomitas is the subject, and as I said before, the article for generic or non-specific subjects is required.
Me gusta comer palomitas.
Me gusta eso
Here, "eso" or "comer palomitas" are the subject of the sentence, and syntactically equivalent. Substantive subordinate clauses are, by default, singular, which is why "me gusta" is singular too. In this case, "las palomitas" is the direct object of "comer" (and the subject "yo", omitted), and if you use the definite article (las), it must be some specific "palomitas" that you have mentioned before. Here, you cannot use the article for non-specific palomitas, for they are the direct object of "comer", and not a subject, like before.
Am I making any sense?
P.S. Even after this, some people don't believe that an infinitive can have subject or complements. Don't know why.
I think maybe Lazarus was referring to the post where you wrote, "Me gusta comer las palomitas de maíz." In this sentence, it seems to me that the article is superfluous. However, if you say, "Me gustan las palomitas de maíz," then it would be appropriate. Then again, I can't be sure because I don't see his post anymore.
I never did see that post, but he wrote to me privately (although I still didn't understand what he meant). I guess I was absent the day this rule was covered, because I've never heard it. Could someone explain it to me? Why does the presence of the verb comer obviate the need for the article'
