"Esto puede matar a un hombre."

Translation:This can kill a man.

November 5, 2013



at last, a useful sentence :-)

November 5, 2013


Remember, Strax. No grenades, laser guns, or acid. ;-)

September 4, 2015


You're no fun.

September 7, 2015


You say that now, but later on I'll be saying, "Sure would be nice if we had some grenades, doncha think?"

March 10, 2016


Shiny quote!

March 29, 2019


I got notified of this comment in my email, and I immediately thought, "I'll bet that was a comment for me. Gotta go look." lol

March 29, 2019


No disintegrations. -Vader

November 30, 2016



March 9, 2018


A doctor can't be an esto

March 9, 2018


¡Esto es un cuchillo!

May 12, 2017


Amor? ;-)

December 5, 2013



January 28, 2014


Keeping the tree golden

January 6, 2015



April 21, 2015


Imposible en mi opinion

May 29, 2015



May 13, 2015


"I killed a man with this thumb," Horst..

March 5, 2015


Exactly my thoughts Remy!

June 22, 2016


You win the animated movie side of the internet.

December 11, 2015


No, mujeres pueden matar un hombre. Sabemos eso. ;)

February 11, 2016


Why the a?

November 10, 2013


This is a prepositional a that is used with matar to indicate what is being killed, this is not a personal a.

February 22, 2015


I'm not following you. How does 'a' indicate what is being killed? Are you saying that 'a' is always to be used with the verb 'matar' (some verbs are just constructed so they are always used with 'a' or 'de')

February 22, 2015


This may be one of those distinctions of no difference, but technically (according to the RAE Grammar), the purpose of the a following matar is a preposition signalling the objective case (here is the thing being killed). Since matar is used with things that can be killed, in practice it behaves largely like a personal a and is generally explained as one.

The problem is that a phrase like para entrar en el club, tienes que matar una persona cualquiera is grammatically correct without the a, and cuando consiguen matar a un árbol is also acceptable for some with the a.

Most of this usage will depend upon the region and subject, but if you consider it like a personal a you will always be in the right.

If you are interested, there is a whole subfield of Spanish linguists who try to explain Differential Object Marking (why some things don't get the a) from whom I stole this explanation:


February 22, 2015


I have a somewhat different question, Alphonso, which you may be able to answer. I do understand the difference between esto and este/esta, but I have generally assumed that esto is basically used for a more abstract This. So my question is in real life with all its context, how likely would someone be to use the neutral form. Would it have to imply that the object was not recognized and therefore was not associated with a gendered noun or is a scenario not an object per se (like tripping and falling into something dangerous) or would just not having previously named the known object as la espada, la pistola, or el cuchillo be enough to allow the use of the neuter form.

October 3, 2017


There is no hard rule, instead deploying the neuter is a matter of usage. If the referent noun is not already in the sentence to lend its gender, or in such close proximity to the phrase that it is functionally a part of it, then that triggers the neuter. Mostly the neuter is the default for objects and abstractions: since they have no essential gender it is weird to refer to them as gender when they aren't in the sentence. Similarly it sounds weird to refer to something nominally gendered (el edificio) as neuter later in the same sentence, so it is gendered when in proximity (este).

October 3, 2017


If something can be killed, it is animate (animal, person, beast, or something in between like the Loch Ness monster), so I understand the argument that the A could be a "personal a". But jindr004's comments (above and below) are much more cogent that my silly opinion.

August 28, 2015


You are neither right nor wrong here. The reason I can't give you a straight answer is that there really is no such thing as the "personal a" in the sense that there are set grammatical rules for usage. I tried to suggest this with the mention of the RAE, but since we know each other and I know that you are working on the grammar rules, I will give it to you straight and it should clear up a lot of confusion.

There is no "personal a".

The "personal a" is an invention of Spanish teachers to help learners get past the apparent anomaly of a preposition in an unexpected location. Spanish speakers do not reference through English usage, and so that a after the noun just naturally directs the action as any preposition would. For that reason Spanish grammars never refer to anything like a "personal a" (or a personal), they do however have a class of "preposiciones sin significado léxico" that these apparent extra words fall under.

The "personal a" is just one of dozens of little rules that exist only to guide English speakers in Spanish grammar. The problem is that at some point everyone who gets more than a basic exposure quickly learns that these rules have exceptions and irregularities that are apparently arbitrary. These exceptions only exist because these rules encourage learners to continue filtering native Spanish grammar through English, which is like using a statistical program to write a novel: you can do it, but it takes a lot more effort.

Admittedly most of the rules are actually useful in a general sense (in the same way that the rule "i before e except after c" is kind of useful). They are, however, often misunderstood (the "abstract nouns get the definite article" rule is a classic), or are occasionally more complicated than just learning the usage (the personal a is very much one of those). The reaction of most learners is to shrug and just skip over the irregularities, learning to speak fluently by dropping the crutch when it fails them and ignoring the rule as they gain a sense of the real usage. That is the ideal path. Then there are those who try to make the rule work, despite the obvious problems. This explains maybe 90% of the "personal a" discussion here on duo.

You may have noticed that when I am feeling particularly optimistic about someone's response (or especially Quixotic) I will try and explain why this dogmatism about these "rules" is a problem. I have become pretty good at explaining away the "abstract noun" issue, but I fear the slap fight that will follow in the wake of exposing the personal a as a fraud. For some people, the rules are the language (to see this in action see my comments to hennievk1 on this thread).

I really hope this helps you, and sorry about tus vacaciones matando a tu racha de duolingo :)

August 29, 2015


It's called the 'personal a'. You use it when you're talking about a person or a personalized animal.

November 12, 2013


But isn't it supposed to be for people or animals that are 'close' to you? That is, are related or have an emotional connection?

November 13, 2013


I do think that should be the case but apparently humans are infinitely important, no matter what their relation to you. :P That's just the way it is, really. So, even if you're talking about your sister's dog-carer's second cousin's pen pal's pet chicken's gravestone creator's mother's physiotherapist's friend's uncle... the personal a is still there ;)

November 13, 2013


I get that, but... this seems to me like it's not talking about a specific man. This sounds like it means THIS (whatever it is) is capable of killing someone (an unspecified person) so wouldn't you be able to leave out the "personal a"?

October 22, 2014


That's not what I read here: http://www.studyspanish.com/lessons/persa.htm This site says that if it is an indefinite person rather than a specific one then you don't use 'a'.

November 26, 2014


Okay! Thanks.

November 13, 2013


think of it as a "directional" "a", so there is no ambiguity about who is killing and what is being killed

January 3, 2016


I'm so glad i learned "tengo un abogado" in a previous module

March 2, 2015



June 1, 2015


That's awesome

June 1, 2015


Llamas with hats!!!!!!!! YAAAASSSSS

June 22, 2016


You know whats cool? the fact that words across many languages have such similarities such as with this verd: [Matar]

The verb [Matar] has such a phonetic similarity to the English word [Martyr] and basically has the same definition

July 6, 2014


I have a really hard time hearing some words in speech like "a un" here, anyone have tips of picking them out? All I hear is bleh hombre

September 19, 2014


I think it's talking about a McDonald's large meal.

October 6, 2016


Here is something I don't understand...

March 28, 2019


What is it that you don't understand? Perhaps I can help.

March 28, 2019


It's another one of them ol' funky Cypress Hill things You know what I'm sayin?

March 29, 2019


This could kill a man?

September 8, 2014


That would be "esto podía matar a un hombre". Can ≠ could (in English or Spanish)

May 21, 2015


Great point. In English, we use "can" and "could" casually in conversation. For example, Can you go to the store for me? Could you go to the store for me? They strictly mean different things.

August 28, 2015


"Aquí hay algo que no puede entender, cómo podría apenas matar a un hombre."

December 13, 2014


Actuando tipo de loco yo soy otro local

Niños de la calle me pagaran por mi voz....?

February 22, 2015



July 28, 2015


This Spanish course?

August 25, 2015


Why not "murder"?

March 24, 2016


...yes because this sentence will come up in everyday conversation casually which is why i need to know this... (i'm just bitter cause i got this wrong)

May 20, 2016


"I once killed a man in his sleep with his moustache and a grape" Who remembers this?

July 9, 2016


The slow version of this audio sounds like "makar" but sounds fine at normal speed

September 13, 2016


So can I.

January 16, 2017


But not a woman?

April 24, 2017


And now this is my other arm...

January 9, 2018

[deactivated user]

    holds up my mixtape

    May 13, 2018


    I've had a bad tequila experience before too.

    June 7, 2018


    Esto puede matar a un hombre Esto puede matar una araña I understand from the discussion it's best just to learn all exceptions instead of trying to formulate a rule for the use of "a"

    June 21, 2018


    The personal a may be hard for students to remember to use, but it is not something that has a complex rule or a lot of exceptions. Basically if the direct object of a sentence is a person you always use the personal a. This particular sentence might appear to belong to the category of an indefinite person which does not require the personal a, but this sentence does create some sort of personal connection with the unknown man. It doesn't take long to get an understanding of the difference once you examine the use. As for the spider, the personal a is always used for one's own pets and generally used for dogs and cats in general because we recognize them as part of our community in some way. But people seldom have such feelings toward spiders. I haven't seen many children's shows in Spanish, but I would assume that if Esto puede matar una araña were part of a Spanish language presentation of a story like Charlotte's Web said by one of the fsrm animals, that it would be phrased as Esto puede matar a una araña, just as they surely would say Esto puede matar a Charlotte.


    June 21, 2018


    Ill buy two.

    February 18, 2019


    But: " Esto puede matar una araña." Shouldn't it be : " Esto puede matar a una arańa?" A spider is a living being, and "a" should apply to it. Is it merely a typo, or is there some rule behind this?

    March 8, 2019


    The personal a is not for all living beings. It is for people or pets. So if this sentence were a line from the Spanish version of Charlotte's Web, you might see matar a una araña, but that's because Charlotte is a personified spider who you use the personal a. But most animals, and certainly those that can be considered pests and not pets, do not use a personal a.


    March 8, 2019
    Learn Spanish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.