Source
r/Spanish•
futuremo

"No la he matado" vs. "No la maté"

Currently watching La casa de papel (Money Heist) on Netflix and this was part of a conversation.

Moscow - Déjame salir.

Denver - No la he matado.

Obviously he's saying "I didn't kill her", but when I threw it in Google Translate it cam out to "No la maté".

I see from SpanishDict that both forms aretpreterite with one form using the past participle. But is there any difference to which form you would usually use in speech?

Thanks a lot!

Posted Mar 13, 2018, 10:38 PM UTC

1115
thenerd245Learner - C1•

In Spain (where I believe that show is set) the present perfect is loads more common in casual speech.

Most people say "he hablado", "han comido", etc. more often than "hablé" and "comieron" in everyday language.

21
Alber81•

You are correct.

The show is set in Spain (Madrid) and in Spain is rare to hear anyone using the past tense instead of the present perfect

8
ZanderGarner•

I speak Castilian Spanish. Can confirm, I use haber much more often than other Spanish speakers in my region.

5
nmarks99Learner•

No la he matado = I have not killed her

No la maté = I did not kill her

They mean slightly different things but not really. I believe that frequency of use would depend on context, and the person saying it and where they are from

14
futuremoOPLearner•

Yeah I understand that much, what I wanted was what that context would be if a native/close to it had any insight.

3
shikitohnoLearner•

Like u/thenerd245 said, it's more a regional preference than any significant change in meaning. Haber+participle is preferred in Spain, while it would probably be "No la maté" were the show set in Latin America where the simple past is preferred. You see this a lot in shows in Netflix from Spain where you'll constantly hear "¿Qué has hecho/dicho?" when in other countries you would hear that quite rarely in favor of "¿Qué hiciste/dijiste?"

8
ultimomonoFilóloga-Doctoranda•

In (most of) Spain: No la he matado implies that the person is speaking about a time in the past that feels recent or ongoing to him (this week, this month, this year, today...). No la maté would refer to a time in the past that is distant or closed (last year, a week ago, etc.)

11
guirigallEspaña•

This is the reason to use one or the other

1
futuremoOPLearner•

Makes sense, appreciate it!

1
nandocovaNative•

In Mexico the difference would be, in "no la maté" (I didn't kill her) the window of opportunity for killing her has closed. While in "no la he matado" (I haven't killed her) the opportunity isn't gone yet.

2
futuremoOPLearner•

That would make sense in the context of the show, thanks! Out of curiosity how did you you go about learning English, or did you grow up Bilingual?

1
nandocovaNative•

I used to live in a border city (Tijuana) and also have family in California. So, I learned mostly by being constantly exposed to the language.

1
theaselliottNative(Spain)•

Most people here are saying that it is a regional preference. And while it's true that in South America you'll mostly hear "No la maté" the real difference is that "No la maté" feels more past than "No la he matado" which does reffer to the past, but maybe within the present day or week. While "No la maté" feels like talking about a strong past. Last week, month, year...

1
futuremoOPLearner•

Thanks man

1
ThePizzaMonsterRepública Dominicana•

At least here (in the Dominican Republic) how far it is in the past doesn't matter at all, so I'd say it is regional. Here it would be like nandocova said. "No la maté" would be "I didn't kill her" while "no la he matado" would be more like "I haven't killed her (yet)" but I still may.

1