"Era Para"

[silopanna]

People,

Can "era para" mean "was supposed to"?

For example: "Era para yo llegar a las cinco, pero el transito me retuvo."
I was supposed to get here by five o'clock, but the traffic held me up.

Or perhaps: "Habia que llegar a las cinco", or "Tenia que llegar a las cinco".

Any tips or advice?

Silopanna Dean

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

I find "era para" a bit difficult to explain, but I usually understand it's used to express there were favourable conditions for doing something, but in the end there was an obstacle.

Era para que llegara a las cinco, pero el tráfico me retuvo. (Salí temprano de casa)
I could have arrived at five, but the traffic held me up. (I left the house early)

Siempre le corrijo sus errores, ya era para que escribiera mejor.
I always correct his/her mistakes, he/she should write better by now.

Ya tienes un trabajo nuevo, era para que pudieras pagar tus deudas.
You already have a new job, you should already be able to pay your debts.

[chileno]

Escrito originalmente por silopanna

People,

Can "era para" mean "was supposed to"?

For example: "Era para yo llegar a las cinco, pero el transito me retuvo."
I was supposed to get here by five o'clock, but the traffic held me up.

Or perhaps: "Habia que llegar a las cinco", or "Tenia que llegar a las cinco".

Any tips or advice?

Silopanna Dean

Like Angelica said, it is a bit difficult to explain.

For me it is also like you surmise. The situation lends itself for something to happen in a certain way.

Consider:

Everything was running as scheduled but something happened along de way. So instead of you getting home at five you came late because an accident had jammed the freeway.

Era/estaba para que llegaras a las cinco (pero ese accidente te retrasó)


Same difference?

[silopanna]

Escrito originalmente por chileno

Like Angelica said, it is a bit difficult to explain.

For me it is also like you surmise. The situation lends itself for something to happen in a certain way.

Consider:

Everything was running as scheduled but something happened along de way. So instead of you getting home at five you came late because an accident had jammed the freeway.

Era/estaba para que llegaras a las cinco (pero ese accidente te retrasó)


Same difference?

Chileno,

Well, what you are describing in Spanish is basically the same as "I was supposed to arrive by five o'clock, but ..."

So I think that "era para" usually corresponds well to "supposed to".

Angelica introduced something with a slightly different flavor, she used "ya", in other words, "Ya era para". But I will commment on that in the posting which she sent.

Thanks you, you have given me some assurance and your example cemented my understanding.

Silopanna Dean

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

Don't worry much about "ya" in the example, Silopanna. In this case is only used to make an emphasis.

[silopanna]

Escrito originalmente por AngelicaDeAlquezar

I find "era para" a bit difficult to explain, but I usually understand it's used to express there were favourable conditions for doing something, but in the end there was an obstacle.

Era para que llegara a las cinco, pero el tráfico me retuvo. (Salí temprano de casa)
I could have arrived at five, but the traffic held me up. (I left the house early)

Siempre le corrijo sus errores, ya era para que escribiera mejor.
I always correct his/her mistakes, he/she should write better by now.

Ya tienes un trabajo nuevo, era para que pudieras pagar tus deudas.
You already have a new job, you should already be able to pay your debts.

Angelica,

Thank you for your reply.

When you gave that sentence that had "ja era para", I think that it is the same idea as "supposed to," but we would say it differently in that case.

Siempre le corrijo sus errores, ya era para que escribiera mejor.

"I always correct your mistakes, you should be able to write better by now."

But it is like saying "...you are supposed to be able to write better by now."

I think that when you say "ya era para ...", it is like saying that things were set up for something to happen, that an arrangement was made for something to happen and that it really should have. So your comments have helped me with certain nuances.

But now let me ask you another question. About the sentence "...era para que llegaras a las cinco", which Chileno gave me as an example. Is this the same as "... habia que llegar a las cinco"? Can I say "habia que llegar a las cinco"? Is this correct?

Thanks again to you and Chileno.

Silopanna Dean

[chileno]

In the case of "Había que llegar a las cinco" you have to use haber:

We had to arrive at five...

[Tomisimo]

Escrito originalmente por AngelicaDeAlquezar

...

I'd like to throw in my and offer my English translation for the following phrases that Malila posted.

Era para que llegara a las cinco, pero el tráfico me retuvo. (Salí temprano de casa)
I should have been able to get there by five, but the traffic held me up.
You would have thought I'd be able to be there by five, but the traffic held me up.

Siempre le corrijo sus errores, ya era para que escribiera mejor.
I'm always correcting his/her mistakes. I would have thought she/he would be able to write better by now.
I'm always correcting his/her mistakes. You'd (you would) have thought she/he would be able to write better by now.

Ya tienes un trabajo nuevo, era para que pudieras pagar tus deudas.
Now that you have a new job, I would have thought you would be able to pay your debts.

So, to derive some sort of pattern from this, a pretty good translation is this:

Era para	que	+	imperfect subjuntive
I would have thought You would have thought I'd have thought You'd have thought	that (optional*)	+	could have ... would have been able to ...

* As in many sentences, the conjunction that introduces the dependent clause in English is optional.

[CrOtALiTo]

I have some examples only theses ones are as practice.

This money I would that have though to pay the rent of the department.

I know that the (THAT). It's optional.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

Thank you, David, I think that clarifies much of it.