# Si no es por el perro, se les ahoga el niño



## Magmod

¿Cuál frase es mejor de lo siguiente?:

Si no es por el perro, se les ahoga el niño
A no ser por el perro, se les ahoga el niño
De no ser por el perro, se les ahoga el niño
  ¿Cómo traducirías la frase al inlglés?


----------



## Ynez

En mi mundo se utiilzan las tres.

Al inglés mejor la traduces tú  La idea es siempre la misma.


----------



## sadlymistaken

No te puedo decir cual es la mejor, porque las tres están bien.
Pero la 2, es la que más rareza me provoca....
"A no ser..." Creo que lo usamos cuando Divagamos..., no cuendo exclamamos. 
Por ejemplo, un detective... que sigue las pistas del asesino, y va deduciendo en voz alta..


----------



## Ynez

_Creo que el asesino es Rodríguez...hmmm, a no ser que el que estuvo realmente en la casa aquel día no fuera él, sino Martínez..._


Creo que he entendido lo que dices, sadly, que "a no ser que" es más normal con el significado de "unless".


----------



## Bocha

Hola:

La uno y la tres son las que me gustan más, pero la dos también se usa.

una posibilidad

If it hadn't been for the dog the child would have drowned (on them)


----------



## scotu

If it were not for the dog, they would have let the boy drown.


----------



## Universo ameba

Me parece que estás diciendo que ellos querían ahogar al niño y el perro lo salvó


----------



## Dario de Kansas

I don't know the context, but I would say:

If not for the dog, the boy drowns.


----------



## honeydew

My interpretation:

If it wasn´t for the dog, the child would have drown.


----------



## Universo ameba

A mí me cuadra.


----------



## Dario de Kansas

honeydew said:


> My interpretation:
> 
> If it weren't for the dog, the child would have drowned.


 
Poquita corrección.


----------



## honeydew

Gracias, Dario.


----------



## flljob

honeydew said:


> My interpretation:
> 
> If it wasn´t for the dog, the child would have drown.


 ¿No sería mejor _If it hadn´t been for the dog the child would have drowned_?

Saludos


----------



## Dario de Kansas

flljob said:


> ¿No sería mejor _If it hadn´t been for the dog the child would have drowned_?
> 
> Saludos


 

Eso funciona también.


----------



## Milton Sand

Hi,
Could this also be said then, "*H**adn't it been* *for the dog...*"?
Regards


----------



## Magmod

Si no *es* por el perro, se les ahoga el niño
 Pero la frase es en el presente. En cambio vuestras traduciones no son en el presente salvo Dario 

¿Por qué necesitamos *les *en la frase?


----------



## flljob

Magmod said:


> Si no *es* por el perro, se les ahoga el niño
> Pero la frase es en el presente. En cambio vuestras traduciones no son en el presente salvo Dario
> 
> ¿Por qué necesitamos *les *en la frase?


 
Pero es un presente que se refiere al pasado. ¿En inglés también se entiende, usando If it weren't, que es una acción pasada?

Saludos


----------



## Dario de Kansas

Magmod said:


> Si no *es* por el perro, se les ahoga el niño
> Pero la frase es en el presente. En cambio vuestras traduciones no son en el presente salvo Dario
> 
> ¿Por qué necesitamos *les *en la frase?


 
You're right. I think the translations in the conditional are acceptable because they convey the same meaning. Mine was more literal.

Good point about the "les." I'd like to hear from the natives on that.


----------



## juandiego

Milton Sand said:


> Hi,
> Could this also be said then, "*H**adn't it been* *for the dog...*"?
> Regards


I thought something similar like:
_Were it not for the dog..._
But I also would like to know a native input for this translation suggestion.


----------



## Erkek

Estoy de acuerdo con juandiego, were it not for the dog suena mejor. ¿Ningún nativo propone alguna otra respuesta?


----------



## flljob

Dario de Kansas said:


> You're right. I think the translations in the conditional are acceptable because they convey the same meaning. Mine was more literal.
> 
> Good point about the "les." I'd like to hear from the natives on that.


 Me parece que es un caso de dativo ético. Ellos eran los padres del niño o estaban encargados de su cuidado.

Saludos


----------



## gotitadeleche

Were it not for the dog...
Had it not been for the dog...
If it hadn't been for the dog...
If it weren't for the dog...



"Hadn't it been for the dog..." sounds strange. I would not understand what was meant.


----------



## Magmod

Erkek said:


> Estoy de acuerdo con juandiego, were it not for the dog suena mejor. ¿Ningún nativo propone alguna otra respuesta?


It is difficult to translate this sentence by an English speaking person because of the les in the sentence. In my opinion, this les  can only be fully understood by Spanish speakers. 

  Therefore all credit to Bocha 

I don't know if les could refer to the parents?


----------



## Milton Sand

Yes, Magmod, "se les ahoga el niño" means "their kid will drowm". The present tense meaning inminency or sureness.


gotitadeleche said:


> Were it not for the dog...
> *Had it not been for the dog...*
> If it hadn't been for the dog...
> If it weren't for the dog...
> 
> _*"Hadn't it been for the dog..." sounds strange.*_ I would not understand what was meant.


Thanks, Gotita!


----------



## Ulises Belano

Magmod said:


> ¿Cuál frase es mejor de lo siguiente?:
> Si no es por el perro, se les ahoga el niño
> A no ser por el perro, se les ahoga el niño A no ser por=*If it were not for*
> De no ser por el perro, se les ahoga el niño
> ¿Cómo traducirías la frase al inlglés?


----------



## Milton Sand

We only use "a no ser por" to exclude a reason, like "unless; excep for; ".
A no ser por el perro, se les ahoga el niño. = Excepto por el perro, se les ahoga el niño. _<—That sounds unconsistent._

A no ser por el perro, nadie estuvo atento al niño en la piscina. _<—That does sound consistent._

Regards


----------



## juandiego

Magmod said:


> It is difficult to translate this sentence by an English speaking person because of the les in the sentence. In my opinion, this les  can only be fully understood by Spanish speakers.
> 
> Therefore all credit to Bocha
> 
> I don't know if les could refer to the parents?


Hello Magmod. Hello Dario.
Yes, _les_ refers probably to the parents or the people who were allegedly taking care of the child. It is pointing to who are going to suffer the pain of the lost in case it would have happened. As flljob has already pointed out, it is called _dativo ético o superfluo_ and it is not necessary and could be perfectly omitted without altering any other word in the sentence. It is used chiefly in colloquial contexts.

For further information, have a look here.


----------



## riscman

"were it not for the dog, the boy would have drowned" is grammatically correct and good written English. 

In speaking you would more likely hear it as  : "The boy would have drowned if it weren't for the dog".

john


----------



## Magmod

riscman said:


> "The boy would have drowned if it weren't for the dog".



Si no es por el perro, se les ahoga el niño
 Could you remind me why we need the conditional and the past subjunctive in English and yet it's all in the simple present in Spanish 

Good link Juandiego  here.


----------



## riscman

I cannot explain the theory, but if you put it into the present tense it sounds strange.

"If there is no dog, the boy drowns."  Although one can make sense of this, it is not how a native English speaker would say it. If you use the present tense to indicate a future action you will be understood but will show  that English is not your first language.

TS Eliot exploited this in "the Wasteland" when he had Madame Sosostris say:
"If you see dear Mrs. Equitone, Tell her I bring the horoscope myself"
The foreign name and use of present tense emphasises the exotic nature of the clairvoyant.
John


----------



## pausa

Alguien sabe de la expresión "but for"?
But for the dog, _the child would have drowned_

_que opinan?_


----------



## gotitadeleche

pausa said:


> Alguien sabe de la expresión "but for"?
> But for the dog, _the child would have drowned_
> 
> _que opinan?_



Yes, I am familiar with that. It is easily understandable, but to me it sounds  literary. I don't often hear it in everyday speech.


----------



## Milton Sand

Magmod said:


> Si no es por el perro, se les ahoga el niño.
> Could you remind me why we need the conditional and the past subjunctive in English and yet it's all in the simple present in Spanish


 
Because it is a condition indeed. Without that condition (_=si no es por el perro_) their kid would have drowned.

About the present tense, I'll try to explain a former post of mine (#24):





Milton Sand said:


> Yes, Magmod, "se les ahoga el niño" means "their kid will drowm". The present tense meaning inminency or sureness.


More standard ways are these ones, but the sense changes a bit:

1. Si no fuera por el perro, el niño se les ahogaría. _<—Maybe the kid is swimming and grabbing the dog, or usually rides the dog when swimming, etc._
2. Si no hubiera sido por el perro, el niño se les habría/hubiera ahogado. _<—That already happened, what a fright! With "hubiera" you might mean some worry (or past preference, which is not the case)._

Those lack the certainity (you can bet the boy would have drowned) and relevance (we still are worried) that is brought by simple present tense. The tense doesn't really tells us whether the event belongs to the past, present or future. Common sense or context is needed then. Look:

— ¿Por qué ponen al perro a nadar con el niño?
— Porque, si no es por el perro, el niño se les ahoga. _<—You can say "ahogará / ahogaría", but again a bit of certainity will be lost. You can also choose the previous example No.1. with the same loss of effect._

— ¿Por qué cuidan tanto a ese perro?
— Porque, alguna vez salieron de paseo y, si no es por el perro, el niño se les ahoga. _<—You can use the standard condition+conditional phrasing (No.2) and again you will lose the emphatic effect._

The 'effect' is similar to this about future: "No iré a tu fiesta el sábado: viajo el viernes y regreso el martes.". It's a future action but the present tense indicates it is for sure, determined decided or unavoidable.

Regards


----------



## riscman

Here is an example in English that uses the present tense to imply future action. 

"give me the money, or the kid gets it". 
As the kid is in good-health at the time of speaking, the gangster should have said "the kid will get it" 

However, before it became a cliché this threat was uttered by a US gangster of Italiian origin. 
And I believe Italian is similar to Spanish in that it is correct to refer to a future action using the present tense.

John


----------



## Magmod

Hi MS: Your answer is very, very good 
Yes your context clarifies 

Riscman: "If *there is* no dog, the boy drowns." > but the sentence had *es*



So literally: 

Si no *es *por el perro, se les ahoga el niño
If *it's not* for the dog, their boy drowns
How is itisnt spelt?
 I think sometimes English uses possesive whereas Spanish uses indirect object ie les > their.



 I forgot how to translate:

Your coffee is getting cold. But one could use indirect object for your : your > te.
So literally: (The coffee is getting cold on you) = El café se te enfria


----------



## Milton Sand

Magmod said:


> Si no *es *por el perro, se les ahoga el niño
> If *it's not* for the dog, their boy drowns
> How is itisnt spelt? _<—_
> I think sometimes English uses possesive whereas Spanish uses indirect object ie les > their.  _<—Much more often than sometimes! Mostly all direct objects that are possesed by (or directly related to) the indirect object drop the possessive adjective to be replaced dy the dative and a article._
> 
> I forgot how to translate:
> 
> Your coffee is getting cold. But one could use indirect object for your : your > te.
> So literally: (The coffee is getting cold on you) = El café se te enfr*í*a  _<—No possessive "tu"; dative "te" and an apropriate article: "el". Only in this case of external possission I dare to call "dative" the IO pronoun._


"Tu café se enfría" would sound almost unnatural. It reminds me a dubbed TV movie.

Back to our main subject, I have a question: I've known you use the English present continous to mean an action is predefined, planed or unavoidable (_They are keeping the dog because they say their boy is not drowning_)... Is there a way of using this style to translate your original Spanish example into English?


----------



## Universo ameba

_Se les ahoga el niño,_  a diferencia de _se ahoga el niño:_
En este caso se utiliza _les_ como complemento indirecto "a ellos", "a ellas", se refiere a alguien que tenía responsabilidad sobre el niño o algún tipo de relacón, p.ej. los padres o monitores.


----------



## Mirlo

Universo ameba said:


> _Se les ahoga el niño,_ a diferencia de _se ahoga el niño:_
> En este caso se utiliza _les_ como complemento indirecto "a ellos", "a ellas", se refiere a alguien que tenía responsabilidad sobre el niño o algún tipo de relacón, p.ej. los padres o monitores.


 
De acuerdo,


----------



## Milton Sand

Universo ameba said:


> _Se les ahoga el niño,_ a diferencia de _se ahoga el niño:_
> En este caso se utiliza _les_ como complemento indirecto "a ellos", "a ellas", se refiere a alguien que tenía responsabilidad sobre el niño o algún tipo de relación, p.ej. los padres o monitores.


Yes, that is another option. Maybe he wasn't their kid, just any kid under their responsibility. Like in "Se les quemó el arroz (_The rice they were cooking got burned_)".


----------



## bondia

flljob said:


> ¿No sería mejor _If it hadn´t been for the dog the child would have drowned_?
> 
> Saludos


 
Otra posibilidad: "_But for the dog, the child would have drowned_" Depende del contexto (si es contemporáneo o más antiguo) Mi sugerencia no se usaría, probablemente, en lenguaje actual.


----------



## Pilarcita

Les es un pronombre que se refiere a ellos o ellas, a quienes tenían a su cuidado el niño.


----------



## bondia

pausa said:


> Alguien sabe de la expresión "but for"?
> But for the dog, _the child would have drowned_
> 
> _que opinan?_


 
Concuerdo contigo, pausa. La expresión es correcta. No había leído tu post cuando envié el mío, unas horas más tarde. Saludos


----------



## Ynez

If not for the dog, they'd have the child drown.


¿Es posible eso en inglés? Intentaba incluir la idea de "les" de alguna manera.


----------



## Milton Sand

Pilarcita said:


> Les es un pronombre que se refiere a ellos o ellas, a quienes tenían a su cuidado el niño.


Exacto, Pili. Es una opción. Pero también existe la de indicar al "poseedor", (en sentido gramatical, claro): "A los Martínez, si no es por el perro, el niño/hijo se les ahoga en un paseo escolar."

Ah, y también me gustaría saber si funciona el intento de Ynez.


----------



## Ynez

A ver si tenemos suerte


----------



## pismo

Ynez said:


> If not for the dog, they'd have the child drown.
> 
> 
> ¿Es posible eso en inglés? Intentaba incluir la idea de "les" de alguna manera.



No, it's not quite right, and that makes it sound like they wanted the child to drown!

I think the nearest English expression for les here, could be "on them."

If not for the dog, the child would have drowned on them.

As another example of that usage, "I was driving when the car broke down on me."


----------



## Ynez

I see, I understand now why it sounds like they ordered it. 

I was also interested in the first part, and that I see it fits because you could keep it.

In Spanish we'd need to say "si no hubiera sido" or "si no es", and I was seeing "if it weren't". The literal translation of the English one we'd never use in this case (si no fuera... )

I think with your sentence we've reached the final translation.


----------



## bondia

Ynez said:


> If not for the dog, they'd have the child drown.
> 
> 
> ¿Es posible eso en inglés? Intentaba incluir la idea de "les" de alguna manera.


 
En inglés "they'd have the child drown" vendría a ser: Harían que el niño se ahogue (they'd have, they would have) Entonces no vale en este contexto


----------



## bondia

Ynez said:


> I see, I understand now why it sounds like they ordered it.
> 
> I was also interested in the first part, and that I see it fits because you could keep it.
> 
> In Spanish we'd need to say "si no hubiera sido" or "si no es", and I was seeing "if it weren't". The literal translation of the English one we'd never use in this case (si no fuera... )
> 
> I think with your sentence we've reached the final translation.


 
No estoy tan segura Creo que en este contexto "se les ahoga el niño" se debería traducir como: _their child would have drowned_.

Had it not been for the dog, their child would have drowned
But for the dog, their child would have drowned
If it hadn't been for the dog, their child would have drowned


----------



## unspecified

Milton Sand said:


> Hi,
> Could this also be said then, "*H**adn't it been* *for the dog...*"?
> Regards


If it hadn't been for the dog... = Had it not been for the dog...

When you invert the auxiliary verb with the subject so you no longer need "if", you can't use contractions since the "not" goes between the subject and the participle.  "Hadn't it been for the dog..." sounds like a question.


----------



## Pilarcita

Oops! It seems that the one who posted this is no longer interested in it.


----------



## Ynez

bondia said:


> No estoy tan segura Creo que en este contexto "se les ahoga el niño" se debería traducir como: _their child would have drowned_.
> 
> Had it not been for the dog, their child would have drowned
> But for the dog, their child would have drowned
> If it hadn't been for the dog, their child would have drowned



Why not the "on them" part?

And don't you think your translations are better for:

_Si no hubiera sido por el perro, el niño se ahoga._


Which, of course, means exactly the same as the original sentence, but loses its informal flavour.


----------



## scotu

At the risk of straying form the seriousness of this thread, I offer the following context:

Visitor: Why does your dog only have three legs?

Owner: If it were not for the dog the child would have drown.

Visitor: But why does it only have three legs?

Owner: You fool, you can't eat a good dog like that, all at once.


----------



## Milton Sand

unspecified said:


> If it hadn't been for the dog... = Had it not been for the dog...
> 
> When you invert the auxiliary verb with the subject so you no longer need "if", you can't use contractions since the "not" goes between the subject and the participle. "Hadn't it been for the dog..." sounds like a question.


I really like this kind of anwers. Thanks!


----------



## Magmod

Milton Sand said:


> "Tu café se enfría" would sound almost unnatural._ *I know you're right but remind me why?*_


 

Therefore this sentence would sound unnatural:

"Si no es por el perro, tu niño se ahoga" 



Milton Sand said:


> I have a question: I've known you use the English present continous to mean an action is predefined, planed or unavoidable (_They are keeping the dog because they say their boy is not drowning_)... Is there a way of using this style to translate your original Spanish example into English?


 
 Hi MS


I don't follow your reasoning.

Are you saying they are like God and can see the future?
 Can you give an example of this use of present continuous?


----------



## Milton Sand

Magmod said:


> "Tu café se enfría" would sound almost unnatural._ *I know you're right but remind me why?*_
> Therefore this sentence would sound unnatural:
> • "Si no es por el perro, tu niño se ahoga"


Remember I said "almost". It seems just a preference: the more close/intimate the relation between subject and direct object is, the more we prefer not to use the possessive adjective but the indirect object formula.


Magmod said:


> I don't follow your reasoning.
> • Are you saying they are like God and can see the future? Can you give an example of this use of present continuous?


Don't worry, your question (in brown) was a good answer . Now I got it.
Regards


----------

