How To Use the Spanish Verb Perder

How To Use the Spanish Verb Perder The fairly common Spanish verb perder most often means to lose, but it has related meanings that go beyond mere loss. It can, for example, refer to the loss of something one never had, or to refer to emotional states as well as objects. Perder comes the Latin verb perdÄ•re, which had a similar meaning. The only common related English word is perdition, a state of moral ruin. Here are some of the common meanings of perder with examples of their usage: Perder for Loss of Things The most common meaning of perder is to lose something. As in English, the item lost is the direct object of the verb. Perdià ³ las llaves de su coche.  (He lost his car keys.)Perdà ­ el perro de mi amiga que ella me dio para que lo cuide.  (I lost my friends dog that she gave to me to take care of.) ¡No pierda los calcetines!  (Dont lose your socks!)My amigo perdià ³ el coraje y se puso a llorar.  (My friend lost his courage and began to cry.) Perder Meaning To Get Lost The reflexive form, perderse, is used to indicate that something is lost without specifically saying who lost it. The reflexive is also used to indicate that a person is lost. And as shown in the final example below, the reflexive form frequently is used figuratively. Me perdà ­ cuando salà ­ del hotel para ir al teatro. (I got lost when I left the hotel to go to the theater.)Se perdieron los datos.  (The data got lost.  Ã‚  You could also translate less literally: The data disappeared.)Espero que no se pierda el hbito de escribir cartas a mano.  (I hope the habit of writing letters by hand doesnt get lost.)El equipo perdià ³ la concentracià ³n en los primeros 20 minutos del juego.  (The team lost its concentration in the first 20 minutes of the game.)Se me perdià ³ el celular otra vez.  (My cell phone got lost again.)Me perdà ­ en el hechizo de tus lindos ojos.  (I got lost in the charm of your beautiful eyes. This could also be translated reflexively: I lost myself in the charm of your beautiful eyes.) Perder Meaning To Lose Competition Perder is commonly used in sports and other kinds of competition to indicate that a game, election, or similar event was lost. Los Jazz perdieron ante los Hornets.  (The Jazz lost to the Hornets.)El equipo perdià ³ la final contra el equipo de la Ciudad de Downey. (The team lost the final to the Downey City team.)El candidato joven perdià ³ la eleccià ³n primaria.  (The young candidate lost the primary election.) Perder Meaning To Miss Perder can be the synonym of to miss when miss indicates a loss of some sort, such as obtaining transportation or meeting a goal. Perdà ­ el bus de las 3.30.  (I missed the 3:30 bus.)Pedro perdià ³ la posibilidad de ser campeà ³n del mundo.  (Pedro missed the chance of becoming world champion.)Perdimos el avià ³n de vuelta y nos quedamos casi sin dinero.  (We missed the return plane flight and were left with hardly any money.)Perdà ­ la oportunidad de ser rico.  (I missed the opportunity to be rich.) Perder To Refer To Loss or Misuse of Resources When resources of various kinds are lost, perder can carry a stronger meaning than to lose, such as to waste or to squander. Pierdo tiempo pensando en ti.  (I am wasting time thinking about you.)El coche perdà ­a agua del radiador.  (The car was leaking water from the radiator.)El paà ­s perdià ³ $540 millones en inversià ³n extranjera directa.  (The country squandered $540 million in direct foreign investment.) Perder To Refer to Ruin Figuratively, as with the English lost, perder can be used to indicate that something is ruined or deteriorated, especially in a moral sense. Lo echà ³ todo a perder, incluso su vida.  (She let it all go to ruin, including her life.)Cuando la vida de la familia se desintegra, la nacià ³n est perdida.  (When family life disintegrates, the nation is ruined.)La sociedad piensa que esta generacià ³n est perdida. (Society thinks that this generation is lost.) Conjugation of Perder Like many other common verbs, perder is conjugated irregularly, following the pattern of  entender. It is a stem-changing verb: the -e- of the stem becomes -ie- when stressed. The change affects only the present tenses (imperative and subjunctive) and the imperative mood. Present indicative (I lose, you lose, etc.): yo pierdo, tà º pierdes, usted/el/ella pierde, nosotros/nosotras perdemos, vosotros/vosotras perdà ©is, ustedes/ellos/ellas pierden. Present subjunctive (that I lose, that you lose, etc.): que yo pierda, que tà º pierdas, que usted/el/ella pierda, que nosotros/nosotras perdamos, que vosotros/vosotras perdà ©is, que ustedes/ellos/ellas pierdan. Affirmative imperative (You lose! Lets lose! etc.):  ¡Pierde tà º!  ¡Pierda usted!  ¡Perdamos nosotros/nosotras!  ¡Perded vosotros/vosotros!  ¡Pierdan ustedes! Negative imperative (Dont you lose! Lets not lose! etc.):  ¡No pierdas tà º!  ¡No pierda usted!  ¡Nos perdamos nosotros/nosotras!  ¡No perdis vosotros/vosotros!  ¡No pierdan ustedes! Key Takeaways The most common meaning of perder is to lose, and it can be applied to objects, people, and situations.The reflexive form perderse is used to indicate that something or someone is lost without indicating directly who is responsible for the loss.Perder can also mean to lose in the sense of losing an election, game, or other competition.

The SLOSS Debate in Conservation

The SLOSS Debate in Conservation One of the most heated controversies in conservation history is known as the SLOSS Debate. SLOSS stands for Single Large or Several Small and refers to two different approaches to land conservation in order to protect biodiversity in a given region. The single large approach favors one sizeable, contiguous land reserve. The several small approach favors multiple smaller reserves of land whose total areas equal that of a large reserve. Area determination of either is based on the type of habitat and species involved. New Concept Spurs Controversy In 1975, an American scientist named Jared Diamond proposed the landmark idea that a single large land reserve would be more beneficial in terms of species richness and diversity than several smaller reserves. His claim was based on his study of a book called The Theory of Island Biogeography by Robert MacArthur and E.O. Wilson. Diamonds assertion was challenged by ecologist Daniel Simberloff, a former student of E.O. Wilson, who noted that if several smaller reserves each contained unique species, then it would be possible for smaller reserves to harbor even more species than a single large reserve. Habitat Debate Heats Up Scientists Bruce A. Wilcox and Dennis L. Murphy responded to an article by Simberloff in The American Naturalist journal by arguing that habitat fragmentation (caused by human activity or environmental changes) poses the most critical threat to global biodiversity. Contiguous areas, the researchers asserted, are not only beneficial to communities of interdependent species, they are also more likely to support populations of species that occur at low population densities, particularly large vertebrates. Harmful Effects of Habitat Fragmentation According to the National Wildlife Federation, terrestrial or aquatic habitat fragmented by roads, logging, dams, and other human developments may not be large or connected enough to support species that need a large territory in which to find mates and food. The loss and fragmentation of habitat make it difficult for migratory species to find places to rest and feed along their migration routes. When habitat is fragmented, mobile species that retreat into smaller reserves of habitat can end up crowded, increasing competition for resources and disease transmission. The Edge Effect In addition to interrupting contiguity and decreasing the total area of available habitat, fragmentation also magnifies the edge effect, resulting from an increase in the edge-to-interior ratio. This effect negatively impacts species that are adapted to interior habitats because they become more vulnerable to predation and disturbance. No Simple Solution The SLOSS Debate spurred aggressive research into the effects of habitat fragmentation, leading to conclusions that the viability of either approach may depend on the circumstances. Several small reserves may, in some cases, be beneficial when indigenous species extinction risk is low. On the other hand, single large reserves may be preferable when extinction risk is high. In general, however, the uncertainty of extinction risk estimates leads scientists to prefer the established habitat integrity and security of a single larger reserve. Reality Check Kent Holsinger, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Connecticut, contends, This whole debate seems to have missed the point. After all, we put reserves where we find species or communities that we want to save. We make them as large as we can, or as large as we need to protect the elements of our concern. We are not usually faced with the optimization choice poised in the [SLOSS] debate. To the extent we have choices, the choices we face are more like †¦ how small an area can we get away with protecting and which are the most critical parcels?