![]() ![]() We can understand that, in these cases, we are eliding "to the place where I. Proof of this is that, in answer to the question ❺dónde vas? or ❽ónde vas?, we can say Voy a + infinitivo. Now, in Spanish the infinitive can indeed be used to refer indirectly to the place where you do an action. In English, "work" can be a noun or an infinitive in "I'm going to work" depending on whether you refer to the place where you work or to the action: Voy al trabajo / Voy a trabajar. MY ANSWER BEFORE ADDING THE REFERENCES ABOVE: (What the author says above is that, with "ir" in the past tense and an action verb like "trabajar" or "caminar", "ir" can ONLY be interpreted as a verb of movement.) Interpretación como verbo léxico de movimiento (21.c): También actividades, con las que ir solo puede recibir una Procesos delimitados, por lo que se excluyen estados (21.a–b), pero Significado de (20) está limitada a los verbos télicos, que expresan ![]() In this site the following can be read on page 1 of the pdf document:Ĭomo nota el Manual, la aparición de ir en pretérito perfecto con el (What the author says is that "ir a" + infinitive can have a lexical reading where there is movement or a modal reading expressing future intention.) Punto de vista temporal, se sitúa en el futuro: Here is another author who confirms the above: the verb phrase "ir a" + infinitive can have either of the two meanings mentioned above, modal or locative (see item 2.1 on page 2):Įn (5) se dan dos lecturas de ir a + INF: una léxica, de desplazamiento físico, y otra intencional, en cuyo caso el hablante conceptualiza la acción de comprar como un proyecto que, desde el (b) Iban a trabajar: se disponían a trabajar, comienzo de la acción trabajar. (a) Iban a trabajar: se desplazaban de un lugar hacia su trabajo. Se advierte que la construcción ‘iban a trabajar’ se puede tomar como una construcción perifrástica o como la aparición plena del verbo The usage described in the question is confirmed by this thesis I found on the Internet (page 95 of the pdf, page 87 of the paper), which states that the verb "ir" in constructions followed by "a" + infinitive can be interpreted as a periphrastic form (going to do sth) or as an occurrence of the verb "ir" with its full lexical force (where "ir" does not express willingness or proximity of the action but actual movement): REFERENCES ADDED TO SUPPORT MY ANSWER BELOW: Yo no tengo ningún transporte público que me pueda llevar al trabajo ( noun)īut I still don't understand why I keep seeing "a trabajar" used as a noun. The person answering, corrects all the examples that use "a trabajar" as a noun, and replaces with al trabajo, which makes sense. I don't have any public transportation that can take me to work ( noun). ![]() Yo no tengo ningún transporte público que me pueda llevar a trabajar ( inf verb). The person asking the question then goes on to mention examples from Google stating: They ask, why use "a trabajar" ( infinitive verb) here? I don't take the car to work ( noun) normally. Yo no llevo el coche a trabajar normalmente. I think this person had the same question I have: I found a similar question entitled "Usage of "llevar a trabajar" vs "llevar al trabajo" Usage of "llevar a trabajar" vs "llevar al trabajo" If both refer to a place (work) why does one use the infinitive of the verb? El trabajo (a noun) seems the better choice. In both sentences, trabajar and trabajo are used as nouns - the place that either the person is going, or is at. I am trying to understand the difference between: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |