Breakdown of El fuego es peligroso; nunca lo dejes sin supervisión.
ser
to be
sin
without
lo
it
nunca
never
dejar
to leave
peligroso
dangerous
el fuego
the fire
la supervisión
the supervision
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Spanish grammar and vocabulary.
Questions & Answers about El fuego es peligroso; nunca lo dejes sin supervisión.
Why is a semicolon (;) used between peligroso and nunca instead of a period or comma?
A semicolon in Spanish (just like in English) links two closely related independent clauses without the full stop of a period, but with a stronger separation than a comma. Here:
- “El fuego es peligroso” is a complete thought.
- “Nunca lo dejes sin supervisión” is another.
Using a semicolon emphasizes their connection (cause and effect) without breaking the flow too abruptly.
What does lo refer to in nunca lo dejes?
The pronoun lo is a masculine singular direct‐object pronoun that replaces el fuego. Instead of saying “nunca dejes el fuego”, the sentence uses “lo” to avoid repetition:
- “El fuego” → “lo”
Why is there no no in “nunca lo dejes”? Isn’t the negative imperative supposed to start with no?
In Spanish you can form negative commands either by:
- Placing no before the verb: No lo dejes sin supervisión.
- Using a negative adverb like nunca or jamás at the front: Nunca lo dejes sin supervisión.
Both are correct. Here the speaker chose nunca to mean “never,” which already conveys the negative, so no is omitted.
Why is dejes in the present‐subjunctive form rather than the indicative or the infinitive?
Spanish negative tú commands use the present‐subjunctive. For the verb dejar:
- Affirmative tú imperative: deja
- Negative tú imperative: no dejes or nunca dejes
Since this is a negative command (“never leave it”), dejes is the correct subjunctive form.
Why is ser used in El fuego es peligroso instead of estar?
Ser is used for inherent, permanent or defining characteristics, whereas estar is for temporary states or locations. Fire’s dangerousness is a permanent quality of fire, so you say es peligroso (“it is dangerous”), not está peligroso.
Why is there no article before supervisión? Why not “sin la supervisión”?
After sin, Spanish generally drops the definite article if you mean supervision in an abstract or general sense:
- Correct: sin supervisión (“without supervision” in general)
- With la supervisión would sound like you refer to a specific supervision you’ve already mentioned.
Could you rephrase “nunca lo dejes sin supervisión” in another way?
Yes. Some natural alternatives:
- No dejes el fuego desatendido.
- Jamás lo dejes sin atención.
- Nunca dejes el fuego sin vigilancia.
All convey the same “never leave the fire unsupervised” warning.