Spanish 3 Quiz: Forming Commands Regular And Irregular
8 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Forming Commands Regular And IrregularQuestion 1 of 8

Un profesor de español quiere crear un mandato afirmativo de 'usted' para el verbo 'ir'. Un estudiante argumenta que la forma correcta es 'vaya' porque proviene del presente de subjuntivo de 'ir'. Otro estudiante dice que debe ser 'va' porque es simplemente la forma de tercera persona singular del presente de indicativo. ¿Cuál es la forma correcta y por qué?

'Vaya' es correcto porque los mandatos formales de usted se forman con el presente de subjuntivo, y 'ir' tiene una forma irregular en ese tiempo.
'Va' es correcto porque los mandatos de usted se derivan siempre de la tercera persona singular del presente de indicativo, sin excepción.
'Ve' es correcto porque los mandatos formales siguen el mismo patrón que los mandatos informales afirmativos, que usan la tercera persona del indicativo.
'Iba' es correcto porque los mandatos de usted para verbos irregulares se forman a partir del imperfecto de subjuntivo para evitar ambigüedad.
← Back to quizzes

Spanish 3 Quiz

Spanish 3 Quiz: Forming Commands Regular And Irregular

Practice Forming Commands Regular And Irregular in Spanish 3 with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Forming Commands Regular And Irregular, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Spanish 3.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Un profesor de español quiere crear un mandato afirmativo de 'usted' para el verbo 'ir'. Un estudiante argumenta que la forma correcta es 'vaya' porque proviene del presente de subjuntivo de 'ir'. Otro estudiante dice que debe ser 'va' porque es simplemente la forma de tercera persona singular del presente de indicativo. ¿Cuál es la forma correcta y por qué?

  1. 'Vaya' es correcto porque los mandatos formales de usted se forman con el presente de subjuntivo, y 'ir' tiene una forma irregular en ese tiempo. (correct answer)
  2. 'Va' es correcto porque los mandatos de usted se derivan siempre de la tercera persona singular del presente de indicativo, sin excepción.
  3. 'Ve' es correcto porque los mandatos formales siguen el mismo patrón que los mandatos informales afirmativos, que usan la tercera persona del indicativo.
  4. 'Iba' es correcto porque los mandatos de usted para verbos irregulares se forman a partir del imperfecto de subjuntivo para evitar ambigüedad.
Explanation: When forming formal commands (mandatos de usted) in Spanish, the key rule to remember is that they are built from the present subjunctive, not the present indicative. This is a foundational grammar concept that trips up many students because the present indicative feels more familiar. Here's how it works: to form a usted command, you take the yo form of the present indicative, drop the -o, and add the opposite vowel ending (-e for -ar verbs, -a for -er/-ir verbs). This process is exactly how the present subjunctive is formed. For ir, however, the verb is completely irregular — its present subjunctive form is vaya, not something derived from a predictable yo form. Therefore, the affirmative usted command for ir is vaya, making A the correct answer. Choice B is tempting but wrong. While va is the third-person singular present indicative of ir, usted commands do not come directly from the present indicative — they come from the subjunctive. This is a very common misconception. Choice C confuses formal commands with informal (tú) commands. Informal affirmative commands typically use the third-person singular indicative (e.g., habla, come), but formal commands follow an entirely different formation rule. Choice D is completely fabricated as a grammar rule. The imperfect subjunctive (iba is actually imperfect indicative, not even subjunctive) is never used to form commands. No such rule exists in Spanish grammar. Study tip: Memorize the irregular present subjunctive forms — DISHES (Dar, Ir, Ser, Haber, Estar, Saber) — since these verbs have unpredictable subjunctive forms that appear frequently in command questions.

Question 2

En español, los verbos 'ser', 'estar', 'ir', 'dar', 'saber' y 'haber' tienen formas irregulares en el presente de subjuntivo. Un estudiante necesita formular el mandato negativo de 'nosotros' para una de estas opciones. ¿Cuál de las siguientes es la forma INCORRECTA de un mandato negativo de nosotros?

  1. No seamos tan negativos en nuestras evaluaciones del proyecto grupal.
  2. No vayamos al centro comercial esta tarde si está lloviendo tan fuerte.
  3. No demos por sentado que todos entienden las instrucciones del examen.
  4. No sabemos la respuesta correcta antes de revisar el capítulo completo. (correct answer)
Explanation: When working with negative nosotros commands, remember that they follow the same pattern as all negative commands: use the present subjunctive form of the verb. For irregular verbs like ser, estar, ir, dar, saber, and haber, you must memorize their irregular subjunctive stems rather than applying standard rules. The question asks you to identify which option is NOT a correct negative nosotros command — meaning you're hunting for the odd one out. Option D, "No sabemos la respuesta correcta antes de revisar el capítulo completo," is the incorrect form because sabemos is the present indicative, not the subjunctive. The correct negative nosotros command would be "No sepamos..." using the irregular subjunctive stem sep-. As written, D reads as a simple statement of fact ("We don't know the answer"), not a command. Options A, B, and C are all correctly formed negative nosotros commands. Option A uses seamos (subjunctive of ser), which is correct for giving the command "let's not be." Option B uses vayamos (subjunctive of ir), properly formed from the irregular stem vay-. Option C uses demos (subjunctive of dar), another irregular but correctly applied form. A helpful study strategy: for these six irregular verbs in the present subjunctive, create a quick reference chart pairing each infinitive with its yo-form and its subjunctive stem (saber → sé → sep-, ir → voy → vay-, ser → soy → se-, etc.). On exam day, if a "command" uses a recognizable indicative form instead of subjunctive, that's your red flag — it's describing, not commanding.

Question 3

Una madre le da instrucciones a su hijo adolescente antes de salir de casa.

La madre quiere decirle a su hijo: 'No le digas la verdad a nadie sobre lo que pasó.' ¿Cuál de las siguientes opciones expresa correctamente este mandato negativo con el pronombre de objeto indirecto en la posición correcta?

  1. No le digas la verdad a nadie sobre lo que pasó. (correct answer)
  2. No digas la verdad a nadie sobre lo que pasó.
  3. No diles la verdad a nadie sobre lo que pasó.
  4. No te digas la verdad a nadie sobre lo que pasó.
Explanation: When forming negative tú commands with indirect object pronouns, you need to remember two rules working together: the verb takes its negative subjunctive form, and any object pronoun must be placed before the verb — not attached to it. The sentence requires the indirect object pronoun le, which refers to "a nadie" (to no one). In negative commands, pronouns always precede the conjugated verb. The correct negative tú command of decir is digas (subjunctive form), and placing le before it gives you "No le digas la verdad a nadie sobre lo que pasó" — exactly option A. The structure is: No + pronoun + verb (subjunctive). Option B drops the indirect object pronoun le entirely. While the sentence is grammatically passable, it loses the precision of specifying to whom you shouldn't say anything — which is the grammatical point being tested here. Option C uses diles, which attaches the pronoun directly to the verb as if it were an affirmative command (e.g., ¡Diles!). In negative commands, pronouns can never be attached to the verb — that rule only applies to affirmative commands and infinitives. Option D uses te, a reflexive/second-person pronoun, which makes no sense here since the mother isn't telling her son to say something to himself. A quick study tip: think of negative commands as having a "sandwich" structure — No + pronoun + verb. If you ever find yourself attaching a pronoun to a negative command form, that's your signal something is wrong.

Question 4

Situación: Una supervisora en una empresa española le da instrucciones al equipo durante una reunión. Utiliza la forma de 'ustedes' (dado que es Latinoamérica) para los mandatos formales e informales.

La supervisora quiere decir: 'No se vayan todavía; primero terminen el informe y luego entréguenmelo.' Identifique cuál de las siguientes versiones altera al menos una forma verbal de manera que produce un error morfológico o de colocación pronominal.

  1. No se vayan todavía; primero terminen el informe y luego entréguenmelo. (Todas las formas son correctas: vayan = subjuntivo de ir; terminen = subjuntivo de terminar; entréguenmelo = entreguen + me + lo con tilde)
  2. No se vayan todavía; primero terminen el informe y luego me lo entreguen. (La colocación proclítica en el mandato afirmativo de ustedes es válida en el español coloquial latinoamericano)
  3. No se vayan todavía; primero terminen el informe y luego entréguenlo me. (Los pronombres enclíticos se ordenan primero el de objeto directo y luego el de objeto indirecto cuando el verbo es de mandato afirmativo) (correct answer)
  4. No se vayan todavía; primero terminen el informe y luego entréguenmeselo. (El pronombre de objeto indirecto de primera persona plural se funde con el pronombre de objeto directo cuando ambos son de tercera persona)
Explanation: When working with affirmative commands and multiple object pronouns in Spanish, two rules are non-negotiable: pronouns must attach directly to the verb (enclitic position), and the indirect object pronoun always comes before the direct object pronoun. Option C violates both of these principles simultaneously. Writing entréguenlo me places the direct object pronoun (lo) before the indirect object pronoun (me), which is the reverse of the required order. Worse, me is left floating after a space rather than attached to the verb, making this doubly wrong — both a word-order error and a clitic-placement error. This is the altered form the question asks you to identify. Option A is entirely correct: vayan is the present subjunctive of ir (used for negative commands), terminen is the subjunctive of terminar, and entréguenmelo properly attaches me + lo to the verb with an accent mark to preserve the original stress. Option B is also acceptable — in colloquial Latin American Spanish, proclitic placement (me lo entreguen) is widely used in affirmative commands, even though the prescriptive norm prefers enclitic attachment. Option D is a tempting trap, but it's actually wrong for a different reason than C: entréguenmeselo would only be correct if the indirect object were third-person (se replacing le/les), but here the indirect object is first-person (me), so the correct form remains entréguenmelo. Your study tip: always remember IODO — Indirect before Direct Object pronoun — and that in affirmative commands, all pronouns attach to the verb as a single block, never separated or reversed.

Question 5

Un médico le habla a un paciente durante una consulta y le da varias instrucciones usando mandatos formales (usted).

El médico quiere decirle al paciente: 'Siéntese aquí y cuénteme sus síntomas.' ¿Cuál de las siguientes versiones contiene un error que produce una forma verbal que no existe en el español estándar?

  1. Siéntese aquí y cuénteme sus síntomas. (Ambos mandatos son correctos: sentarse → siéntese; contar → cuénteme, con diptongo o→ue conservado)
  2. Siéntese aquí y conteme sus síntomas. (El segundo mandato pierde el diptongo obligatorio o→ue del verbo 'contar', produciendo una forma verbal inexistente en español estándar) (correct answer)
  3. Sientese aquí y cuénteme sus síntomas. (El primer mandato pierde la tilde sobre la 'é', lo cual constituye un error ortográfico normativo, aunque la pronunciación no cambia)
  4. Siéntese aquí y cuéntame sus síntomas. (El segundo mandato usa la forma de tú 'cuéntame' en lugar de 'cuénteme', mezclando registros formales e informales dentro de la misma instrucción)
Explanation: When working with formal commands (mandatos formales) in Spanish, you need to track two things simultaneously: stem changes and pronoun agreement. Losing either one produces a form that simply doesn't exist in standard Spanish. Take the verb contar (to tell/recount). It's an o→ue stem-changing verb, meaning whenever the stem is stressed, the o must become ue: cuento, cuentas, cuenta... This rule doesn't disappear in the imperative — it's obligatory. The formal command of contar must be cuente, and with the indirect object pronoun attached, cuénteme. Dropping that diphthong produces conteme — a form that does not exist in Spanish. That's exactly what option B does, making it the answer with the error. Option A is fully correct: siéntese comes from sentarse (also an e→ie stem-changer) and cuénteme preserves the required diphthong — no issues. Option C is tempting because sientese without the accent looks like an error, and it is an orthographic mistake — but the question asks for a form that doesn't exist, and sientese is still phonetically and grammatically recognizable as the intended form; the accent mark doesn't change pronunciation here. Option D uses cuéntame, which is grammatically valid Spanish — it's simply the tú form with an informal pronoun, making it a register mismatch, not a nonexistent form. Study tip: When conjugating stem-changing verbs in any mood or tense, always ask yourself: Is the stem syllable stressed? If yes, the vowel change is mandatory — skipping it produces a form Spanish simply rejects.

Question 6

Contexto gramatical: En español, cuando se forma el mandato afirmativo de 'tú', los pronombres de objeto se colocan después del verbo (enclíticos). Sin embargo, la colocación cambia en los mandatos negativos.

Un hablante quiere expresar: 'Tell it to her' usando un mandato de tú, primero en forma afirmativa y luego en forma negativa. Considerando que los pronombres de tercera persona de objeto indirecto y directo deben aparecer en la misma oración, ¿cuál par de oraciones refleja correctamente ambas formas?

  1. Afirmativo: Dile lo. / Negativo: No le digas lo. (Los pronombres siempre se escriben separados del verbo y entre sí en español moderno)
  2. Afirmativo: Díselo. / Negativo: No se lo digas. (Pronombres enclíticos en afirmativo; pronombres proclíticos en negativo; 'le' cambia a 'se' ante 'lo') (correct answer)
  3. Afirmativo: Díselo. / Negativo: No díselo. (Los pronombres permanecen enclíticos en ambos tipos de mandatos, ya sea afirmativo o negativo)
  4. Afirmativo: Di selo. / Negativo: No le lo digas. (El pronombre de objeto directo siempre precede al indirecto, y 'le' no cambia a 'se' en ningún contexto)
Explanation: When working with tú commands and double object pronouns, you need to track two separate rules: where pronouns attach (before or after the verb), and how pronouns change when placed together. In affirmative tú commands, object pronouns are enclitic — they attach directly to the end of the verb. When combining an indirect object pronoun (le/les) with a direct object pronoun (lo/la/los/las), the indirect always comes first. Crucially, le or les must change to se before any lo/la pronoun (to avoid the awkward clash le lo). This gives you dí + se + lo = díselo, with a written accent added to preserve the original stress. In negative commands, pronouns flip to proclitic — they appear before the conjugated verb, and the same le → se rule still applies: No se lo digas. This makes B correct: Díselo. / No se lo digas. captures both the affirmative enclitic placement and the negative proclitic placement, with the proper le → se substitution in both. A is wrong on multiple counts — le lo is never correct in Spanish, and pronouns cannot float separately between verb and each other in either command type. C correctly forms the affirmative but then attaches the pronouns to the negative command (No díselo), which violates the proclitic rule — pronouns must precede the verb in negative commands. D reverses the pronoun order (direct before indirect is incorrect) and falsely claims le never changes to se. Your memory trick: Negative = No + pronouns + verb. And always swap le/les → se when followed by lo/la/los/las, regardless of command type.

Question 7

Un profesor corrige los errores de sus estudiantes en un ejercicio de mandatos. A continuación aparecen cuatro oraciones producidas por estudiantes.

¿Cuál de las siguientes oraciones producidas por los estudiantes contiene un error que refleja la confusión entre el mandato afirmativo irregular de tú y la primera persona del singular del presente de indicativo?

  1. "¡Salgo de aquí ahora mismo!" — intentando expresar el mandato 'sal de aquí ahora mismo'.
  2. "Sé honesto con tus compañeros siempre." — intentando expresar el mandato 'sé honesto con tus compañeros siempre'.
  3. "Vete de aquí antes de que llegue mamá." — intentando expresar el mandato 'vete de aquí antes de que llegue mamá'.
  4. "Tengo más cuidado al cruzar la calle." — intentando expresar el mandato 'ten más cuidado al cruzar la calle'. (correct answer)
Explanation: When studying irregular tú commands, you need to know two separate lists: the command form itself, and the yo-form of the present indicative. The trap this question tests is whether a student accidentally used the yo-form (first person singular, present indicative) instead of the correct irregular command form. Here's the key reference: several verbs have irregular tú commands — sal, sé, ve, ten, pon, haz, di, ven — and many of these verbs happen to have a different but similar-looking yo-form in the present indicative (salgo, soy, voy, tengo, pongo, hago, digo, vengo). Option D is the answer that contains this exact error. The intended command is ten (from tener), but the student wrote "Tengo más cuidado..." — using the yo-form of the present indicative (tengo) instead of the irregular command ten. This is precisely the confusion the question describes. Option A is a distractor that also uses a yo-form (salgo), and the correct command would be sal — so structurally it looks like the same error. However, read carefully: the student in A says "¡Salgo de aquí ahora mismo!" — this sentence is not framed as an attempted command at all; it reads as a natural first-person statement. Option D, by contrast, is clearly attempting a command and substituting the wrong form. Options B and C are correctly formed: sé and vete are both legitimate irregular tú command forms, so no confusion has occurred there. Your study tip: memorize the "Dirty Eight" irregular tú commands (di, haz, ve, pon, sal, sé, ten, ven) alongside their yo-forms, since exams frequently exploit that pairing as a distractor.

Question 8

¿Cuál de las siguientes oraciones contiene un error en la formación del mandato negativo de 'tú' para un verbo con cambio ortográfico?

  1. No toques la pantalla con los dedos sucios. (tocar → subjuntivo: toques)
  2. No cruces la calle sin mirar a ambos lados primero. (cruzar → subjuntivo: cruces)
  3. No recoges los papeles del suelo hasta que yo te lo diga. (recoger → subjuntivo: recojas) (correct answer)
  4. No llegues tarde a la reunión de mañana por la mañana. (llegar → subjuntivo: llegues)
Explanation: When forming negative tú commands, you must use the present subjunctive form of the verb — this is non-negotiable. For verbs with spelling changes (cambios ortográficos), the subjunctive stem follows specific rules to preserve the original pronunciation of the infinitive. The error appears in C. The sentence uses recoges, which is simply the present indicative form of recoger — not a command at all. The correct negative tú command requires the present subjunctive: No recojas los papeles... The verb recoger undergoes a spelling change (g → j before -a and -o) to preserve the soft "g" sound, giving you recoja/recojas in the subjunctive. Using the indicative recoges here is a grammatical error — it sounds like a statement ("you don't pick up"), not a command ("don't pick up"). The other choices are all correctly formed. A correctly transforms tocar (c → qu before -e) into toques to maintain the hard /k/ sound. B correctly transforms cruzar (z → c before -e) into cruces, following the z→c rule. D correctly transforms llegar (g → gu before -e) into llegues to keep the hard /g/ sound. A useful strategy: whenever you see a negative tú command, immediately check whether the verb is in the present subjunctive, not the present indicative. A common trap is leaving the verb in indicative form, which is exactly what C does. Remember the formula: No + [present subjunctive] = negative tú command, always.