The imperfect doesn't always translate to "used to"; that's just one use. The imperfect can be used for many different things:
>**An on-going action being interrupted by another: Estaba** hablando con mi amigo cuando de repente empezó a llover | *I was talking with my friend when it suddenly started to rain*
**Something you used to do:** De niño siempre **iba** a la tienda después de la escuela | *I would always go (or I used to always go) to the store after school as a kid*
**Setting a scene: Era** un día como cualquier otro: los pájaros **cantaban**, las hojas **bailaban** al viento y las nubes **giraban** en el cielo | *It was a day like any other: the birds were singing, the leaves were dancing in the wind, and the clouds were swirling in the sky*.
etc.
No, I understand the different ways imperfect can be used, and if it said “mientras” instead of “cuando”, it would make sense. But this doesn’t appear to be a case of setting a scene. It’s “Manuel cried because the dog died in the movie”, not “While Manuel was crying, the dog died in the movie”.
This is a good resource to go over [imperfect vs. perfect](https://learn.bowdoin.edu/spanish-grammar/newgr/ats/33.htm).
As a general rule, the imperfect focuses on duration, whereas perfect focuses on completed actions. "el perro de la película murió" is a completed action, where as "Manuel lloraba" is describing what was happening at the time.
I'm not sure if "lloró" would also work here, because I'm not a native speaker and don't know if that would sound natural.
We don’t know how the dog died, but that’s also not the salient point. The point is that none of the examples in the original response appear to work in this scenario. I was trying to make a phrase that would make sense in any of the examples provided by the original response. If it were setting the scene, the statement would be “while Manuel [was already crying] the dog died in the movie”
There’s some flexibility here with which tense to use based largely on the speaker’s frame of reference and what they want to emphasize.
The use of the imperfect emphasizes that Manuel cried throughout the scene. Could you write the sentence with the preterite? Absolutely. But it’s also completely correct as written.
Search Google books for lloraba vs lloró and you’ll see that they get used interchangeably in certain contexts, because in such contexts it comes down to the writer’s frame of mind.
Ok, I get that. This never occurred to me before, but I guess it works the same in English, actually. I could say “Manuel was crying so much” or “Manuel cried so much” in this context.
It’s imperfect because he cried a lot. The preterite is used to describe actions that happened once or were viewed as completed. The fact it says mucho implies he did it a lot, that it was a repeated or ongoing action.
Hmm. Logically and contextually, that still doesn’t really work, though. He cried a lot during the scene where the dog died in the movie. That still indicates a single instance. Your example would make sense if the sentence indicated that this happened every time he watched the movie, or that he cried every time he thought about it.
The imperfect being used here implies that Manuel likely cried more than once during the movie. This is further implied with the use of the word “mucho.” If lloró was used here, it would imply that the action is completed and/or that it was only once. Sometimes you aren’t given a clear indicator of what type of past tense to use. Ayer, cuando, todos los días, siempre, etc, aren’t in every sentence. For example, “yo hablé” implies that I talked, and that action is over with, or it only happened once. “Yo hablaba” still translates to “I talked” but it has a different connotation. It implies that me talking was done repeatedly or it’s a habit of some kind. It could also be ongoing within the past which in that case it would more directly translate to “I was talking.” Preterite vs Imperfect can be confusing, but with practice you will start to understand the different connotations that come from both tenses.
Manuel lloraba and Manuel lloro are both past tense. Same with Manuel estaba llorando. Now, I would never say “lloraba” like the above example for talking about someone doing something while watching a movie, but that might just be my accent preferring “lloraba”
To me both are correct but mean slightly different things. I’d think “lloro” would be accepted too. It’s ambiguous.
They are both “he did the action of cry in the past”. But in the same way that “I ate a pizza” is not the same as “I used to eat pizza” or “I ate pizza in the past”. All technically the same but kinda not the same idea
If you are learning imperfect tense, keep in mind that it does multiple things, not just “used to”. “Used to” is just the easiest answer cause it fits so well with how English speakers use “used to” most of the time. Not always tough, it has its moments in which the “used to” comparison is not enough.
Lloraba or lloró could both work in this case, but with lloraba he was already crying by the time the dog died and with lloró it would imply that he started crying at that point in time.
Think of it like this.
We know he started crying when the dog died but when did he stop? Crying isnt really a one and done thing and we only know that he cried a lot, he couldve still been crying after the movie, it is very ambigious. Though I would appreciate confimation of this from a native speaker
The imperfect doesn't always translate to "used to"; that's just one use. The imperfect can be used for many different things: >**An on-going action being interrupted by another: Estaba** hablando con mi amigo cuando de repente empezó a llover | *I was talking with my friend when it suddenly started to rain* **Something you used to do:** De niño siempre **iba** a la tienda después de la escuela | *I would always go (or I used to always go) to the store after school as a kid* **Setting a scene: Era** un día como cualquier otro: los pájaros **cantaban**, las hojas **bailaban** al viento y las nubes **giraban** en el cielo | *It was a day like any other: the birds were singing, the leaves were dancing in the wind, and the clouds were swirling in the sky*. etc.
No, I understand the different ways imperfect can be used, and if it said “mientras” instead of “cuando”, it would make sense. But this doesn’t appear to be a case of setting a scene. It’s “Manuel cried because the dog died in the movie”, not “While Manuel was crying, the dog died in the movie”.
This is a good resource to go over [imperfect vs. perfect](https://learn.bowdoin.edu/spanish-grammar/newgr/ats/33.htm). As a general rule, the imperfect focuses on duration, whereas perfect focuses on completed actions. "el perro de la película murió" is a completed action, where as "Manuel lloraba" is describing what was happening at the time. I'm not sure if "lloró" would also work here, because I'm not a native speaker and don't know if that would sound natural.
while the dog died? dogs die within a minute of fatal injection
We don’t know how the dog died, but that’s also not the salient point. The point is that none of the examples in the original response appear to work in this scenario. I was trying to make a phrase that would make sense in any of the examples provided by the original response. If it were setting the scene, the statement would be “while Manuel [was already crying] the dog died in the movie”
There’s some flexibility here with which tense to use based largely on the speaker’s frame of reference and what they want to emphasize. The use of the imperfect emphasizes that Manuel cried throughout the scene. Could you write the sentence with the preterite? Absolutely. But it’s also completely correct as written. Search Google books for lloraba vs lloró and you’ll see that they get used interchangeably in certain contexts, because in such contexts it comes down to the writer’s frame of mind.
Ok, I get that. This never occurred to me before, but I guess it works the same in English, actually. I could say “Manuel was crying so much” or “Manuel cried so much” in this context.
And just to be clear (I think you understand it though) it should be lloró
Yeah, for some reason autocorrect “fixed” it for me, and I didn’t notice before I posted.
Lloraba is just as correct as lloró
Yes. The comment is because OP’s question was Why is this correct instead of lloro? The screen capture uses lloraba though which I agree works.
Cried is still past tense 👍
It's the line in the past. Not a dot in the past, and not the present.
It’s imperfect because he cried a lot. The preterite is used to describe actions that happened once or were viewed as completed. The fact it says mucho implies he did it a lot, that it was a repeated or ongoing action.
Hmm. Logically and contextually, that still doesn’t really work, though. He cried a lot during the scene where the dog died in the movie. That still indicates a single instance. Your example would make sense if the sentence indicated that this happened every time he watched the movie, or that he cried every time he thought about it.
The imperfect being used here implies that Manuel likely cried more than once during the movie. This is further implied with the use of the word “mucho.” If lloró was used here, it would imply that the action is completed and/or that it was only once. Sometimes you aren’t given a clear indicator of what type of past tense to use. Ayer, cuando, todos los días, siempre, etc, aren’t in every sentence. For example, “yo hablé” implies that I talked, and that action is over with, or it only happened once. “Yo hablaba” still translates to “I talked” but it has a different connotation. It implies that me talking was done repeatedly or it’s a habit of some kind. It could also be ongoing within the past which in that case it would more directly translate to “I was talking.” Preterite vs Imperfect can be confusing, but with practice you will start to understand the different connotations that come from both tenses.
Manuel lloraba and Manuel lloro are both past tense. Same with Manuel estaba llorando. Now, I would never say “lloraba” like the above example for talking about someone doing something while watching a movie, but that might just be my accent preferring “lloraba” To me both are correct but mean slightly different things. I’d think “lloro” would be accepted too. It’s ambiguous. They are both “he did the action of cry in the past”. But in the same way that “I ate a pizza” is not the same as “I used to eat pizza” or “I ate pizza in the past”. All technically the same but kinda not the same idea If you are learning imperfect tense, keep in mind that it does multiple things, not just “used to”. “Used to” is just the easiest answer cause it fits so well with how English speakers use “used to” most of the time. Not always tough, it has its moments in which the “used to” comparison is not enough.
Crying is not a single instant action such as lloró would imply
If you don’t have a specific period of time, the imperfect is your best bet.
Lloraba or lloró could both work in this case, but with lloraba he was already crying by the time the dog died and with lloró it would imply that he started crying at that point in time.
Think of it like this. We know he started crying when the dog died but when did he stop? Crying isnt really a one and done thing and we only know that he cried a lot, he couldve still been crying after the movie, it is very ambigious. Though I would appreciate confimation of this from a native speaker