"It was. . ."?

"It was. . ."?
 

How would you said "It was. . ." in Spanish when "it" refers to a thing without repeating what that thing is? For example, "The chair was bad. It was old." >> Would you say it "La silla fue mala. Usted fue viaja." or "La silla fue mala. Fue viaja."?

Se me rompió la silla. Fue vieja.

Se me rompió la silla. Estaba/Era vieja.

My :twocents:

Buys, I've a doubt above your answers, I already read the post of Determinadoaprender, and She never said broken chair, then Why you two have said the broken chair.? in your answer.

She only said the chair was bad.

La silla fue mala, I know that the sentence does make sense but she never said the opposed.

What is wrong with

La silla fue mala. La fue vieja.

The chair was bad. It was old.
La silla era mala. (Ella) era vieja.

It, when it's a subject pronoun, is always el or ella in Spanish. This is because all objects have grammatical gender. So it's like saying "The chair was bad, she was old". Where she refers to the chair, because it has the grammatical gender of feminine. The other thing is you would normally leave out the ella (that's why it's in parenthesis), because it is usually only specified for added emphasis or disambiguation when necessary.

Oops, I should have used era vieja. :sad:
I wasn't correcting the sentence. I only chose to use an action verb in the opening sentence because I thought it fit the second sentence better. The chair wasn't bad just because it was old.
Being old isn't bad. ;)

Sorry, the most coloquial and effective way I may think of is merging sentences, definitely.

:twocents:La silla no era ni buena ni nueva

Maybe in a more proper way:

:twocents:La silla no era buena. Nueva, (no era) tampoco

buena and nueva are a cacophonic combination. It sounds better for an english speaker than for an for an spanish one.

May I parse as:?

:twocents:Aquella silla era vieja y mala.

I think what you wrote shows the dexterity of the language. There are a lot of routes to take to get to the same destination

Hi Poli,

I believe your impression about my first sentence is partly false. It is cacophonic, but the negations do not imply anger at least here, maybe irony. Double negation is one of those thingies looking emphatical but so present in usage that it lost emphasis. Double negation is now similar to the French 'Ne me quitez pas', mostly grammatical.

Your reaction to the second, well, it is a matter of opinion, I live in a region where language is felt as lively, also my ideas go on the communicative side. It is conversational, but it may be said with anger, too.

I issued the first two because I wanted to keep the original choice of adjectives to stick as much as possible to the original post, but the last one is far the more frequent here as well.

The most negative in the lot is the first one, yes, because you can see the three at once. Taken in a conversation line it may not be negative at all.

Dexterous it is. And interesting :)

Ok I think I am understanding it. So it is only ella because it is a subject pronoun referring to the subject.

So if I said
"El hombre crea que la silla es mala."
The man believes that the chair is bad.

I could also say
"Él la crea que es mala."
He believes that it is bad.

Because the man is the subject in this sentence, and the chair is now the direct object?


But when I say
"La silla era mala. Era vieja."
The chair was bad. It was old.

Ella must be used as the subject pronoun because the chair is the subject, and not the direct object, ¿verdad?



"El cuaderno de notas era malo. (Él) era viejo."

pero,
"El hombre le da el cuaderno de notas a ella."
The man gives the notebook to her.

can be stated as
"Él se lo da a ella."
He gives it to her.

Where now el hombre is the subject and the chair can be stated as the direct object.



I hope I am not confusing myself even more, thank you for the help.

"El hombre cree que la silla es mala."
The man believes that the chair is bad.

"Él cree que (ella) es mala."
He believes that it is bad.

In the second example, both the the man and the chair are subjects of their respective clauses.

Yep, I think you've got it.