The rules for determining when to use the preterit (simple past) and the imperfect (continuous past) are fairly clear, though it takes time to master them:
The imperfect describes a past action without clear temporal boundaries, an unfinished or ongoing action: estaba leyendo el libro cuando mi hermano entr? la sala.
The imperfect also describes customary or habitual actions: en mi juventud me levantaba de madrugada para ir a la escuela. "in my youth I used to - -"
The imperfect is also used in certain specific cases:
Viv?amos en Italia hac?a dos a?os (where English would use the pluperfect)
The simple past is used to describe definite, circumscribed actions in the past:
me despert? y salt? de la cama. Two semelfactive actions.
But I get confused when it comes to using three verbs. First of all, saber. I am probably just dense, because I suspect that the same rules apply, but I tend to hear "sabia" more often than "supe" or "supo" and when one replies to a question with the simple phrase, "I didnt know," one always says "yo no sabia." Is there some rule or logic here I am missing? Or is it just the nature of knowing that it is not limited by time unless we speak of very specific instances?
Second verb: haber. I simply cannot figure out whether to use "hubo" or "habia" when saying things like "there were three guys in the park." Somehow the logic is not sinking in. For example, in the foregoing sentence it is not really clear if this is a semelfactive action or a continuous action. Is it up to the speaker to decide which?
Third and final verb: estar. But not on its own; it gives me trouble when it is used in conjunction with a participle . normally when one says something like "I was thinking about going to the campo" one would say in Spanish "estaba pensando en ir al campo." But let us take another example from a wonderful song sung by Hector Lavoe, So?ando Despierto: "estuve so?ando que ya tu habias vuelto, que me perdonabas, ?que dulce el momento! Pero al despertarme, vi que no era cierto, estaba so?ando, so?ando despierto." I understand the reason for the imperfect in the second line, but the first line throws me. The main clause uses preterit and the relative clause uses the imperfect (which throws me too) -- but regardless of the relative clause I still dont see why the main clause uses the preterit: the act of daydreaming is not a closed, definitive action. Explanations anyone?
Btw, I am not looking for free grammar lessons, but i figure that this is exactly the kind of thing that gives students of Spanish significant trouble, so it might be useful to have a discussion of it here.
The imperfect describes a past action without clear temporal boundaries, an unfinished or ongoing action: estaba leyendo el libro cuando mi hermano entr? la sala.
The imperfect also describes customary or habitual actions: en mi juventud me levantaba de madrugada para ir a la escuela. "in my youth I used to - -"
The imperfect is also used in certain specific cases:
Viv?amos en Italia hac?a dos a?os (where English would use the pluperfect)
The simple past is used to describe definite, circumscribed actions in the past:
me despert? y salt? de la cama. Two semelfactive actions.
But I get confused when it comes to using three verbs. First of all, saber. I am probably just dense, because I suspect that the same rules apply, but I tend to hear "sabia" more often than "supe" or "supo" and when one replies to a question with the simple phrase, "I didnt know," one always says "yo no sabia." Is there some rule or logic here I am missing? Or is it just the nature of knowing that it is not limited by time unless we speak of very specific instances?
Second verb: haber. I simply cannot figure out whether to use "hubo" or "habia" when saying things like "there were three guys in the park." Somehow the logic is not sinking in. For example, in the foregoing sentence it is not really clear if this is a semelfactive action or a continuous action. Is it up to the speaker to decide which?
Third and final verb: estar. But not on its own; it gives me trouble when it is used in conjunction with a participle . normally when one says something like "I was thinking about going to the campo" one would say in Spanish "estaba pensando en ir al campo." But let us take another example from a wonderful song sung by Hector Lavoe, So?ando Despierto: "estuve so?ando que ya tu habias vuelto, que me perdonabas, ?que dulce el momento! Pero al despertarme, vi que no era cierto, estaba so?ando, so?ando despierto." I understand the reason for the imperfect in the second line, but the first line throws me. The main clause uses preterit and the relative clause uses the imperfect (which throws me too) -- but regardless of the relative clause I still dont see why the main clause uses the preterit: the act of daydreaming is not a closed, definitive action. Explanations anyone?
Btw, I am not looking for free grammar lessons, but i figure that this is exactly the kind of thing that gives students of Spanish significant trouble, so it might be useful to have a discussion of it here.