Question 1

Why do we use the imperfect iba here instead of the preterite fue?

Accepted Answer

Using the imperfect of ir (which is iba) plus a plus an infinitive is the standard way to express what was going to happen in the past. It sets the scene of a developing expectation, which perfectly fits an unfulfilled outcome or an avoided disaster. If we used the preterite fue, it would imply a completed, factual event rather than a past expectation of the future.

Question 2

Why is it lo trágico que instead of something like cómo trágico to say "how tragic"?

Accepted Answer

In Spanish, you cannot use cómo directly before an adjective to measure its intensity. Instead, you use the formula lo plus the adjective plus que. So "how tragic" translates to lo trágico que, which literally functions a bit like saying "the tragic that it was going to be".

Question 3

Could I use the conditional sería instead of iba a ser?

Accepted Answer

You could, as both can translate closely in English depending on the context, but there is a slight difference in nuance. iba a ser emphasizes the actual expectation in that past moment ("was going to be"), while sería sounds more hypothetical ("would be"). For expressing unfulfilled past intentions or expectations, Latin American speakers heavily prefer the iba a plus infinitive structure used here.

Question 4

If we were talking about multiple disasters, would lo trágico change to match?

Accepted Answer

Yes, the adjective must always agree with the noun it describes. If you were talking about los desastres, the adjective becomes plural but the neuter article lo stays exactly the same. The sentence would become: No puedes imaginar lo trágicos que iban a ser los desastres.

No puedes imaginar lo trágico que iba a ser el desastre.

Breakdown of No puedes imaginar lo trágico que iba a ser el desastre.

Questions & Answers about No puedes imaginar lo trágico que iba a ser el desastre.

Learn No puedes imaginar lo trágico que iba a ser el desastre and more in Spanish