# are to visit



## yarka

Hello,

How could I translate the following  sentence?

_"Police officers *are to visit* every home in the area."_

My try, but I am not sure:

_"Los agentes de policía visitarán cada casa de la área."
_
What do you think?

Thank you very much!


----------



## rfgs89

Creo que esta bien pero sería

*del área* since it's a masculine word.


----------



## rfgs89

At least I thought it was but I think the DRAE says it's feminine...now I'm confused!  help anyone?


----------



## rfgs89

Sorry Yarka don't mean to pollute your post :s but I think I figured it out.  

It's a feminine word but you have to say *el área* because it's a feminine noun taking the masculine article in the singular.   
saludos


----------



## yarka

Thank you very much, rfgs89!!
Regards.


----------



## donbill

yarka said:


> Hello,
> 
> How could I translate the following  sentence?
> 
> _"Police officers *are to visit* every home in the area."_
> 
> My try, but I am not sure:
> 
> _"Los agentes de policía visitarán cada casa de la área."
> _
> What do you think?
> 
> Thank you very much!



_*Are to visit *_expresses futurity and obligation. (_*Los agentes han de visitar...* _es muy literal, pero expresa la idea.)


----------



## blasita

> Are to visit expresses futurity and obligation. (Los agentes han de visitar... es muy literal, pero expresa la idea.)



I´m not questioning at all your comment, donbill. But wouldn´t it be possible that in this case it´s just to talk about events that are likely to happen in the future, and not about obligation (like in news reports)?

Thanks.  Saludos.


----------



## donbill

blasita said:


> I´m not questioning at all your comment, donbill. But wouldn´t it be possible that in this case it´s just to talk about events that are likely to happen in the future, and not about obligation (like in news reports)?
> 
> Thanks.  Saludos.



I agree. _Events that are likely to happen _is good way to look at it.

When you think about how the future tense in Spanish evolved, maybe there's still an element of obligation and probability in it: visitar han > visitarán. It isn't far from_ han de visitar,_ is it?

Anyway, blasita, you're too nice. You should say, "Look here, donbill, I think you're completely wrong, and I intend to prove it!"


----------



## blasita

> I agree. Events that are likely to happen is good way to look at it.
> When you think about how the future tense in Spanish evolved, maybe there's still an element of obligation and probability in it: visitar han > visitarán. It isn't far from han de visitar, is it?
> Anyway, blasita, you're too nice. You should say, "Look here, donbill, I think you're completely wrong, and I intend to prove it!"



You´re dead right, donbill, but I´m not going to change!  Well, OK, let´s see ...

Anyway, in my opinion, the meaning of ´han de visitar/tienen que visitar´ is not clear to me here at all (obligation). I´m not good at translating, but I´d say: ´visitarán´ (?).

Un saludo cordial.


----------



## donbill

blasita said:


> You´re dead right, donbill, but I´m not going to change!  Well, OK, let´s see ...
> 
> Anyway, in my opinion, the meaning of ´han de visitar/tienen que visitar´ is not clear to me here at all (obligation). I´m not good at translating, but I´d say: ´visitarán´ (?).
> 
> Un saludo cordial.



Well, I wouldn't say it that way! If they _are to visit_, I see it as a *duty* or *obligation, *not as simple future. I may have a distorted view of what _han de visitar_ means, but I stand by my choice: _*Han de visitar*_! 

That was fun, blasita!

Saludos


----------



## blasita

> Well, I wouldn't say it that way! If they are to visit, I see it as a duty or obligation, not as simple future. I may have a distorted view of what han de visitar means, but I stand by my choice: Han de visitar!



And you may be right, my dear donbill!  But I just can´t see it clear: why should it be an obligation and not a plan/arrangement?

Yarka, ¿podrías darnos más contexto, por favor? Saludos.


----------



## duvija

I agree. _Events that are likely to happen _is * a* good way to look at it.

Just checking Tarzán's brain and language.


----------



## yarka

Hi Blasita, sorry, but I can't give more context about my sentence. It only appears alone in a text book.


----------



## blasita

OK, Yarka.  Then, Duvija, you know best how can we translate this, then?

Un saludo.


----------



## twinkiwonder

donbill said:


> Well, I wouldn't say it that way! If they _are to visit_, I see it as a *duty* or *obligation, *not as simple future. I may have a distorted view of what _han de visitar_ means, but I stand by my choice: _*Han de visitar*_!
> 
> That was fun, blasita!
> 
> Saludos



Hi guys, here is my try!!

I agree with donbill explanation since it's mandatory the action. 
From here, to say harán la visita or visitarán cada casa means something that will happen in the future but there is an order is implicit in the sentence. 

Other wise you will have to give more information. Es una obligación que visiten la casa.

Therefore...

Los agentes harán la visita and Los agentes visitarán cada casa, 
mean that one authority (it could be anyone -police, parents, teachers) is dictacting kind of veredicts, orders or rules. (will have to)

Example.
Los alumnos serán respetuosos con sus maestros.
Los alumnos respectarán a sus maestros.
Los alumnos han de respetar a sus alumnos.

All these mean the same.


----------



## donbill

blasita said:


> And you may be right, my dear donbill!  But I just can´t see it clear: why should it be an obligation and not a plan/arrangement?
> 
> Yarka, ¿podrías darnos más contexto, por favor? Saludos.





duvija said:


> I agree. _Events that are likely to happen _is * a* good way to look at it.
> 
> Just checking Tarzán's brain and language.



Tarzan speak: You got problem my language, Duvija? You check brain now? Forum fun, ¿no?

And another thing....the future certainly can have an obligatory meaning: _no matarás_, etc. (This observation does not support my theory about what the best translation should be, but it does indicate that I am extremely flexible and reasonable.)

Pero, hablando en serio, ¿no consideran ustedes _haber de + infinitivo_ una expresión de obligación? _To be to_ _(p.ej.You *are to do your homework* before you go out with your friends)_ is often a way to express obligation in English. 

Saludos


----------



## cbrena

donbill said:


> Pero, hablando en serio, ¿no consideran ustedes _haber de + infinitivo_ una expresión de obligación? _To be to_ _(p.ej.You *are to do your homework* before you go out with your friends)_ is often a way to express obligation in English.
> 
> Saludos


Yo sí lo considero tan obligación como _tener que + infinitivo_.


----------



## mirx

yarka said:


> Hello,
> _"Los agentes de policía visitarán cada casa del área."
> _



Stick to this version. The use of "han" sounds very formal and archaic, and it indeed has a very strong connotation of obligation, as in the verb "have" in English.

Strictly speaking, "han" is also correct but I would avoid it, or rather would choose other options first.


> *a) haber de *+ infinitivo*.* A veces expresa, simplemente, acción futura: _«¡No he de morir hasta enmendarlo!»_ (Cuzzani _Cortés_ [Arg. 1988]); _«Ni siquiera la guerra habría de aliviar el temor y el respeto que imponía aquel valle a trasmano»_ (Benet _Saúl_ [Esp. 1980]). Tampoco en el caso de esta perífrasis es admisible en la lengua culta el uso de la forma _habemos_ para la primera persona del plural del presente de indicativo:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _«Ahora los perdedores habemos de ahogar las penas en el vino y pensar en otras cosas»_ (RdgzMéndez _Bodas_ [Esp. 1976]); debió decirse _hemos de ahogar las penas_.


----------



## blasita

> Pero, hablando en serio, ¿no consideran ustedes haber de + infinitivo una expresión de obligación? *Yo no he dicho lo contrario, donbill. *To be to (p.ej.You are to do your homework before you go out with your friends) is often a way to express obligation in English.*Here, yes. And ´often´, not always.*



This structure ´to be+infinitive´ doesn´t have only this use: ´obligation´ but some others.  And no, _I_ can´t see it clear *here*:



> How could I translate the following sentence?
> "Police officers are to visit every home in the area."



PS A kind reminder to everyone: I´ve been talking about the sentence in this thread, and about the English sentence!
I meant to ask myself about ´Visitarán´/other options not with the meaning: ´Tienen que/Han de´, because I can´t see (I´m not saying I´m right and you aren´t) why it must be obligation here.


----------



## donbill

blasita said:


> I meant to ask myself about ´Visitarán´/other options not with the meaning: ´Tienen que/Han de´, because I can´t see (I´m not saying I´m right and you aren´t) why it must be obligation here.



Blasita, are you losing your patience with me?

I agree with you: it doesn't have to express obligation. If I say _"the guests are to arrive tomorrow"_ there may not be obligation implied; it may be just a statement about what is probably going to happen. Nevertheless, I do see a difference between _"the guests are to arrive tomorrow" _and_ "the guests will arrive tomorrow"._ The first is a statement of probability (near certainty) or obligation, and the second is simply a statement of futurity. The first is_ matizado_; the second is not.

My interpretation of the statement, _"The agents are to visit the area"_ has to do their duty or responsibility. That's why I suggested the somewhat formal _"han de visitar"_. It could be interpreted, however, as simply a statement of what is going to occur.

So I'll stop being obnoxious--for the moment, at least--and concede that your view is as logical as mine. Thanks to you and to the other foreros who have contributed to the thread for making me think so much about the question!

Saludos a todos


----------



## k-in-sc

It means "*the plan is that* they will," which isn't exactly the same as either "they will" or "they have to."


----------



## blasita

> Blasita, are you losing your patience with me?


  Well ... Yes, of course!
Seriously, it´s impossible to run out of patience with you, Donbill.  I wish we could disagree more often, but we end up agreeing or you´re always right.  



> I agree with you: it doesn't have to express obligation. If I say "the guests are to arrive tomorrow" there may not be obligation implied; it may be just a statement about what is probably going to happen.


 This is my interpretation in this case, yes.



> Nevertheless, I do see a difference between "the guests are to arrive tomorrow" and "the guests will arrive tomorrow". The first is a statement of probability (near certainty) or obligation, and the second is simply a statement of futurity. The first is matizado; the second is not.


  I completely agree; tried to say it myself in my first post.



> My interpretation of the statement, "The agents are to visit the area" has to do their duty or responsibility. That's why I suggested the somewhat formal "han de visitar". It could be interpreted, however, as simply a statement of what is going to occur.


Donbill, you´re right; ´han de visitar´ is correct itself, and can be used both for obligation and just future.  However, it sounds quite formal and it´s not used much nowadays (as Mirx has already pointed out) -at least in Spain.

So, Yarka, I know you said you had no context, and I said it was fine, but at this point it´d be great if you could tell us something about it (eg if it´s a grammar book, the section; if any other book, what´s around it).  This way we could be 100% sure.

Un saludo a todos.


----------



## blasita

> It means "the plan is that they will," which isn't exactly the same as either "they will" or "they have to."



Sorry, K, I didn´t see your post before writing mine. So, how would you translate it: ´visitarán/van a visitar/probablemente visitarán´??

Un saludo.


----------



## Lavernock

Hi Yarka

We often use the form "are to visit" when we talk about formal plan for the future, especially where some sort of public authority is concerned. A possible Spanish form could be "ha de visitar" or simply  "va a visitar"


----------



## donbill

blasita said:


> Well ... Yes, of course!
> Seriously, it´s impossible to run out of patience with you, Donbill.  I wish we could disagree more often, but we end up agreeing or you´re always right.



You're wrong again! I'm not always right! (You see, we can disagree.)

Anyway, as usual, a seemingly innocent question has yielded tons of debate. We didn't solve anything, but I think we actually learned a few things in the process.

Saludos


----------



## capitas

k-in-sc said:


> It means "*the plan is that* they will," which isn't exactly the same as either "they will" or "they have to."


 


Lavernock said:


> Hi Yarka
> 
> We often use the form "are to visit" when we talk about formal plan for the future, especially where some sort of public authority is concerned. A possible Spanish form could be "ha de visitar" or simply "va a visitar"


 
Don Bill and Blasita did all the work, K In SC and Lavernock guided the thread, and I'm just stating what all of you have in mind:
Está previsto que los agentes visiten todas las casas de la zona.
Futurity, obligation? and an almost confirmed plan of public authorities.
A very enjoyable thread indeed.


----------



## donbill

capitas said:


> *Está previsto que los agentes visiten todas las casas de la zona.*


----------



## blasita

I was obviously unable to put my point of view across, but you were. You even got donbill to change his mind and forget about the meaning of duty/obligation. So, good for you, foreros!

But, Yarka, even though it´s been clear to me all the time, there are some foreros that thought (and may still think) it could be obligation, so I´d appreciate it if you could tell us what you can about the context.  Thanks.  Good night.


----------



## yarka

Sorry, Blasita, but I can't say anything about the context because it is only a simple clause which  doesn't belong to a text.

I really appreciate all your answers. Thanks a lot!


----------



## gringuitoloco

This is a form of the English subjunctive. the conjugated verb to be + infinitive.
I would go with donbill. He seems to be the only one using subjunctive here.


----------



## k-in-sc

gringitoloco said:


> This is a form of the English subjunctive. the conjugated verb to be + infinitive.


No, it's not subjunctive.


----------



## gringuitoloco

yarka said:


> Hello,
> 
> How could I translate the following  sentence?
> 
> _"Police officers *are to visit* every home in the area."_
> 
> My try, but I am not sure:
> 
> _"Los agentes de policía visitarán cada casa de la área."
> _
> What do you think?
> 
> Thank you very much!



It is not a fact. 
It could be phrased "it is necessary that they visit every home in the area."
Putting it in the past would make it "They were to visit," which is past subjunctive....
Donbill translated it subjunctively...

How is it not subjunctive?


----------



## k-in-sc

"Are to visit" is an infinitive construction. It's not subjunctive.
I think people have already decided it doesn't mean "must visit" here.


----------



## gringuitoloco

What is the difference between an "impersonal infinitive construction" and subjunctive?


----------



## blasita

> What is the difference between an "impersonal infinitive construction" and subjunctive?



As far as I know, a subjunctive is the base form of the verb (and the special forms of ´be´(eg ´he were´), not an infinitive like this idiomatic verb phrase: _be + *to* + bare infinitive_. So, ´be+to´  is not a subjunctive.

Saludos.


----------



## SevenDays

I think it's just a matter of perspective, one of _mood_ vs. _modality_. Mood is marked by verb inflection, where the subjunctive is largely restricted to the third person singular *were*. "Are to visit" therefore isn't the _inflected _representation of the subjunctive. Modality, however, has a broader semantic scope, which, stated simply, relates to _factuality_ (based upon the speaker's attitude). In _*you visit*_ and _*you are visiting*_, the act of "visiting" is presented as factual, or "actualized." In _*you are to visit*_, "visiting" is presented as a possibility, something to be realized in the coming future. Because it hasn't happened, the future can't be factual. It is the infinitive "to visit," with its projection toward the future, that puts the sentence in the realm of the _semanti_c subjunctive. It makes sense, for modals + infinitive serve the same purpose. That is, _*you are to visit*_ resembles _*you should visit.*_
Cheers


----------



## blasita

I agree that the subjunctive form _were to_  can be used to refer to a hypothetical future.  As to _are to_, I don´t think we can call it subjunctive anyway, but this idea that _are to_ can be a ´semantic subjunctive´ is very interesting, SevenDays.  Could you tell us where these ideas are taking from, please?

Thanks.


----------



## SevenDays

blasita said:


> I agree that the subjunctive form _were to_  can be used to refer to a hypothetical future.  As to _are to_, I don´t think we can call it subjunctive anyway, but this idea that _are to_ can be a ´semantic subjunctive´ is very interesting, SevenDays.  Could you tell us where these ideas are taking from, please?
> 
> Thanks.



Semantic subjunctive refers to meaning, mood, the attitude of the speaker towards what's stated; syntactic subjunctive is the grammatical representation of that meaning. As I've gathered from this thread, _*you are to visit*_ does not mean _*you must visit*_. It makes sense; the possibility exists that "you" decides not to visit. It is that *uncertainty* which relates to the subjunctive mood. Of course, that subjunctive mood has to be represented syntactically. You could use a modal verb (*you should visit*) or, as in this example, are + infinitive: _*you are to visit*_. "Should" and "are to" refer to the future; they both carry the semantic subjunctive (the uncertainty of his coming) towards a point forward in time. 

Cheers


----------



## blasita

> Semantic subjunctive refers to meaning, mood, the attitude of the speaker towards what's stated; syntactic subjunctive is the grammatical representation of that meaning. As I've gathered from this thread, you are to visit does not mean you must visit. It makes sense; the possibility exists that "you" decides not to visit. It is that uncertainty which relates to the subjunctive mood. Of course, that subjunctive mood has to be represented syntactically. You could use a modal verb (you should visit) or, as in this example, are + infinitive: you are to visit. "Should" and "are to" refer to the future; they both carry the semantic subjunctive (the uncertainty of his coming) towards a point forward in time.



Thanks, I´d understood it. I may not have explained myself, but my question was about the source/s.

And I think ´you are to visit´ can be obligation too; it´s just I (and other foreros) don´t see it like this here.

Saludos.


----------



## donbill

SevenDays said:


> Semantic subjunctive refers to meaning, mood, the attitude of the speaker towards what's stated; syntactic subjunctive is the grammatical representation of that meaning. As I've gathered from this thread, _*you are to visit*_ does not mean _*you must visit*_. It makes sense; the possibility exists that "you" decides not to visit. It is that *uncertainty* which relates to the subjunctive mood. Of course, that subjunctive mood has to be represented syntactically. You could use a modal verb (*you should visit*) or, as in this example, are + infinitive: _*you are to visit*_. "Should" and "are to" refer to the future; they both carry the semantic subjunctive (the uncertainty of his coming) towards a point forward in time.
> 
> Cheers



This thread may go on forever! In some contexts, I think _you are to visit_ could be close to 100% synonymous with _you must visit_. But I stress *in* *certain contexts*!

Not synonymous: (future? vague probability?)

_"When are they to visit you?"
"I don't know exactly, but I think they're to visit us in July."_

Synonymous: (obligation--pure and simple, in my opinion)

_"You must visit your grandfather next week. You have no option! You must do it."
"You are to visit your grandfather next week. I will not take no for an answer!"_

SevenDays, I am a strong believer in a semantic basis for most subjunctive use--realizing, of course, that certain syntactic constraints must also be met. I must confess, however, that I have never heard of the 'semantic subjunctive' that you have alluded to in your post. I don't doubt that it exists, but I confess that the idea mystifies me. 

Having read your previous threads, I am fully aware that your theoretical knowledge far surpasses mine. I hope you'll tell us more about this issue.

Saludos


----------



## SevenDays

I don't have at hand a source (book, article, etc.) that speaks directly to semantic subjunctive. If I find one, I'll share it. It's a complicated topic, and it's best to think about such things while staring out the window for a long while. I'll try to flesh it out some.

First, a working definition. From _A glossary of English Grammar_, by Geoffrey Leech, p. 65: mood: A verb category which is not so useful in the grammar of English as it is for some other languages and has to do with the degree of reality attributed to the happening described by the verb. The indicative mood (that of normal finite forms of the verb) contrasts with the "unreality" of the subjunctive mood. The imperative, infinitive and interrogative are also sometimes considered to be moods of the verb. 

What catches my eye is "that of normal finite forms of the verb." In _*you visit next week*_, "visit" is finite (conjugated). In *you are to visit next week*, "are" is finite too. So we may argue that both sentences are indicative. But "visit" and "are" are not on equal footing. "Visit" has lexical (inherent) meaning; "are" does not. It is the infinitive "to visit" that adds meaning to "are." In return, "are" places "to visit" in future time. The question then becomes, is the lexical meaning of "visit" in _*you visit *_similar to the combined meaning of "are to visit" (auxiliary + infinitive) in_* you are to visit*_? "Visit" presents the act of visiting, in the mind of the speaker, as something _realized_, _actualized_, *real*, even though it happens in the future; "are to visit" presents the act of visiting, in certain contexts, as a _possibility_, an event still conceived as "unreal," and "unreality" is a representation of the subjunctive. Is the mood of _*you are to visit*_, then, indicative or subjunctive? As I said earlier, it is indicative syntactically, and subjunctive semantically, but that may be highly subjective on my part.

It is also common to say that in English modals (_can_, _may_, _might_, _should_, etc.) express the subjunctive. From _A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics_, p. 312:
mood:... Mood refers to a set of syntactic and semantic contrasts signalled by alternative paradigms of the verb, e.g. indicative, subjunctive and imperative. Semantically, a wide range of meaning is involved, especially attitudes on the part of the speaker towards the factual content of the utterance, e.g. uncertainty, definiteness,vagueness, possibility. Syntactically, these contrasts may be signalled by alternative inflectional forms of the verb or by using auxiliaries. English mainly uses auxiliaries...The semantic analysis of modal verbs has attracted a great deal of attention in linguistics.

In an earlier post, I equated "are to" with the modal "should." The following uses as an example "is (the one) to," and it may be of interest. From_ The Cambridge Grammar of the English language_, p. 172-174:
9 Mood and Modality
...mood is a category of grammar, modality a category of meaning. Mood is the grammaticalisation of modality within the verb system...
The linguistic expression of modality
(c) Other verb inflection
... the plain form of the verb is commonly used with a modal sense....In non-finite clauses, the plain form is used in the infinitival construction, where it is often associated with non-actuality in contrast with the gerund-participial construction. Compare:
(ia) _*He's the one to do the job*_
(ib) _*He's the one doing the job*_
In (ib) the doing is actual, whereas in (ia) it is not: the meaning is comparable to that of _*the one who should do the job*_ or _*the one whom we should get to do the job*_, with modal _should_.

This book equates "to be + to" with "should." If modals, including "should," express the subjunctive both semantically and syntactically, then it follows that "is to" (_*he is to do the job*_) and "are to" (_*you are to visit next week*_) do the same.

I realize it's a long reply, and I hope it makes sense.
(This would make a good thesis topic, if any linguistics PhD candidate happens to be lurking here)
Cheers


----------



## gringuitoloco

You, my friend, are amazing. And although it was long, it explains it perfectly and is absolutely fascinating to me =)
thank you very very very much.


----------



## SevenDays

gringitoloco said:


> You, my friend, are amazing. And although it was long, it explains it perfectly and is absolutely fascinating to me =)
> thank you very very very much.



Oh, _de nada_. It's not always easy to differentiate syntax from semantics; they are often so intertwined that it's hard to see daylight between them. Once you do, however, a whole new world opens up. Of course I'm mindful that in linguistics, opinions abound.

Cheers


----------



## blasita

Thank you, SevenDays, very interesting, as usual.

I don´t want to be a killjoy here, but I´m not so sure about comparing modality, subjunctive, hypothetical forms, equating ´be to´ with ´should´ and subjunctive and so on, in such a way, and I think this is not seen this way by all grammarians. I don´t know much about English semantics, that´s why I asked about the sources because I´d like to learn more about it.

This is fascinating, so I´ve asked a British colleague about this (she´s actually written some ESL books), and she agreed that this can be more complicated than it seems and that there may be some different views on this.

Esto no significa que cuestione tu teoría, pero que, como tú mismo creo que has dicho, hay otros puntos de vista y opiniones sobre ello. Personalmente, en cuanto tenga tiempo, me pongo manos a la obra y me intento ´empollar´ unos textos que me ha recomendado esta compañera.

Un saludo a todos.


----------



## donbill

Very interesting, SevenDays! I suppose the obstacle for me is that, as you state in your post, we're dealing with something that is "indicative syntactically, and subjunctive semantically." There are definitely issues to consider! If, for example, I give someone a direct command, that command can be carried out only after I give it. I suppose, then, that we could argue that semantically the following sentences are essentially the same.

"Visit your grandfather!" 
"I want you to visit your grandfather."
"You are to visit your grandfather."

As I gaze out my window today, I'll think more about it!

Cheers


----------



## duvija

I'm sure I've missed a lot, but did anyone compare haber vs. tener. And the historical remains?


----------



## k-in-sc

That should be a different thread. God forbid anybody should have to go back and reread this one


----------



## cbrena

duvija said:


> I'm sure I've missed a lot, but did anyone compare haber vs. tener. And the historical remains?


Sí, en el post 17# yo comparé "han de visitar" con "tienen que visitar".
Pero eso fue cuando aún se buscaba una traducción a español.


----------



## duvija

cbrena said:


> Sí, en el post 17# yo comparé "han de visitar" con "tienen que visitar".
> Pero eso fue cuando aún se buscaba una traducción a español.


 

Ah, sí, ahora lo volví a ver. Y está bien la comparación, porque esos verbos andan de la mano desde el latín (y para comprobarlo, ver el francés).
No soy muy fanática de encontrar el significado de hoy en la historia de la palabra, pero a veces es bueno revolver y ver qué pasa. En este caso, creo que tenemos algo.


----------



## blasita

> That should be a different thread. God forbid anybody should have to go back and reread this one



Dear K, Cbrena and Duvija.  OK, let´s go back and start it off again! I´m ready (and sure Donbill will join us). A ver, yo he intentado que prevalecieran todos los puntos de vista.  Pero si me sacáis de la tumba, ateneos a las consecuencias.


----------

