I can’t tell if these sentences from an Infobae article are confusing me because I’m a non-native speaker, because they are sloppily written, or both.
1. ​
>Con vencimientos cada vez más grandes, los inversores temen que un cambio de administración decida cambiar las reglas de juego y prefiere tomar letras y bonos de muy corto plazo, con lo cual los vencimientos se acumulan y generan el riesgo de una corrida contra los papeles de deuda en moneda local como la que estalló en junio y terminó con la salida de **Martín Guzmán** del ministerio de Economía.
I’m confused by what’s going on with “prefiere” and why it’s third person singular indicative. This sentence would make the most sense to me if it were “prefieren” and it’s “los inversores” doing the preferring. Can someone explain what’s happening here?
2.
>Y el riesgo es que al llegar los vencimientos de los papeles ya emitidos las licitaciones queden desiertas y todas esas inversiones vuelvan a manos de sus dueños en busca de algún destino genere saltos en el dólar y los precios.
If I try to translate this part ” todas esas inversiones vuelvan a manos de sus dueños en busca de algún destino genere saltos en el dólar y los precios” directly to English I don’t get to something grammatical. This would make more sense to me as: “y todas esas inversiones vuelvan a manos de sus dueños en busca de algún destino, lo cual genere saltos en el dólar y los precios.” Similarly, can someone explain the grammatical structure of this sentence?
3.
>En lo que se piensa es en un “bono de crédito fiscal” que, si bien todavía no tiene mucha forma, en principio el sentido es que quede atado a la recaudación futura de la AFIP.
Leaving aside that starting the sentence “en lo que se piensa” sounds weird to me — at least I understand it — what’s happening after the second “que”? This seems to me like it should be rewritten: “Se piensa en un “bono de crédito fiscal” que, si bien todavía no tiene mucha forma, en principio quede atado a la recaudación futura de la AFIP.” Is there something I’m not understanding?
If I kept reading this article I’d probably find more, but this post is already super long.
prefieren
de algún destino que genere / de que algún destino genere
un bono de crédito fiscal que, … , en principio quede atado
Most newspapers in Argentina are very badly written in terms of presentation, style, proper usage of words, and even spelling.
Exhibit no. 1 is just a typo, or maybe the writer had written *el mercado* first and then changed it to *los inversores* but forgot to adjust the verb.
Exhibit no. 2 looks like it’s missing a subordinating conjunction. *“Lo cual genere”* would not work; it should be *“lo cual generaría”*. There should be commas around *“al llegar los vencimientos de los papeles ya emitidos”*, since it’s a long chunk inserted before the subject of the subordinate, *las licitaciones*.
Exhibit no. 3 is a mess. It begins with a pseudo-cleft sentence, but it’s a cleft headed by a preposition, which is a generally a very bad idea since it gets tangled very easily. You’re right that it should be written as a plain sentence: “Se piensa en…”. The rest goes smoothly until *forma* and then loses its way. The writer becomes mired in uncertainty because this thing, in fact, doesn’t exist yet and nobody knows whether it will or has time to go and ask a quotable source, so he just mumbles “although it’s still undefined… in principle it’s supposed to…” in a sloppy, agrammatical way. There’s no way to rescue this sentence except by chopping off those qualifications and leaving the verb in the conditional tense, which is common journalistic practice for hearsay: *«En lo que se piensa es en un “bono de crédito fiscal” que, en principio, quedaría atado a la recaudación futura de la AFIP»*.
1 typo 100% sure
2 another typo, your version is correct too and there is a qué missing in the original one. It should Say: “vuelvan a manos de sus dueños en busca d eun destino que genere saltos en el dólar y sus precios”
3 this one is hard… Gramatically your version is perfect and if this was a 10 or 20 years algo note, You wouldnt have this questions (I think journalists in general were better writters, or, that are worst now). What sounds odd to You is a sentence that is written as the guy speaks and now as how a journalist should write. I understand it, but is not in a formal structure