Talk:se supone
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Froaringus
@Froaringus Can you check the first example? It looks weird to me. Ultimateria (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, yes, almost correct but nor totally so... --Froaringus (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- And then again, actually is not correct at all: the first meaning is incorrect, "se supone" means exactly "it is supposed"; the "allowed/not allowed" is somewhow implicit in the subjunctive, but the sentence is not grammatically sound. So, I would rewrote it as "Oficialmente, se supone que no podemos aparcar aquí, pero en la práctica da igual.", which is, as long as I know, grammatically correct; but the proposed meaning it is permitted, allowed makes no sense to me.--Froaringus (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Froaringus: On this page you wrote "se supone que no", but on the other page it's still "no se supone que". Is that correct? It sounds very English -- "I don't suppose"/"I don't guess" Ultimateria (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. It still sounds artificial. Let me try again...--Froaringus (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Froaringus: On this page you wrote "se supone que no", but on the other page it's still "no se supone que". Is that correct? It sounds very English -- "I don't suppose"/"I don't guess" Ultimateria (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- And then again, actually is not correct at all: the first meaning is incorrect, "se supone" means exactly "it is supposed"; the "allowed/not allowed" is somewhow implicit in the subjunctive, but the sentence is not grammatically sound. So, I would rewrote it as "Oficialmente, se supone que no podemos aparcar aquí, pero en la práctica da igual.", which is, as long as I know, grammatically correct; but the proposed meaning it is permitted, allowed makes no sense to me.--Froaringus (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)