Spanish word of the day
Now that you mention it, I do think they were reading from some kind of liturgy book, which I think was in English and Hebrew. However, I never knew what page to turn to. At times my friend turned it to the right page for me, but by the time he did, they were already on another page. How they knew what to do, I still don't understand. Maybe it was a common sequence they had memorized.
The curtain rings a faint bell. As I recall it was a box, about the size of a cathode-ray TV set. The service was held in a rented hall, because their permanent temple was under construction. I think they used masking tape on the carpet to separate the sexes.
Quote: WizardI was joking, of course, about dressing casually.
I don't joke about personal safety. :)
Quote:However, I never knew what page to turn to. At times my friend turned it to the right page for me, but by the time he did, they were already on another page. How they knew what to do, I still don't understand. Maybe it was a common sequence they had memorized.
Pretty much. I can keep track well enough just to see "just how much longer must I endure this drudgery?" Come to think of it, I never once thought to pray for a swift conclusion to the service. Hmm!
Quote:The curtain rings a faint bell. As I recall it was a box, about the size of a cathode-ray TV set. The service was held in a rented hall, because their permanent temple was under construction.
That's common. in theory you don't need it in order to hold services, but no place serving as a temple lacks one.
Quote:I think they used masking tape on the carpet to separate the sexes.
I seriously dislike that notion. In more extreme Orthodox places, women take a separate place in the back. At weddings, people are also segregated by sex for the reception. Which makes hiring a band and playing loud dance music all the more puzzling.
In Conservative temples, which should actually be called liberal, there is no segregation. Some even allow women to officiate.
So what were you doing at such a service? Usually outsiders go only for weddings and bar mitzvahs.
Quote: aluisioI dont think that two hours a week for three years will provide you fluency in any idiom, but this is enough study to make almost every teenager in Brazil - since early 90's - at least comfortable with Spanish and prepared to travel to Peru, Argentina, Chile, etc.
Luckly I went to a school where they had spanish and english, and later I had the opportunity to travel as in interchange student to the U.S, Argentina and Peru.
One of my early observations was in English that 40%-50% of the time we say a verb it is one of these five: (1)be, (2)have, (3)do, (4)get, and (5)make. The same range of meanings is more or less covered in Spanish by (1)Ser, (2)estar, (3)tener, (4)hacer, (5)haber, (6)obtener. The problem is that in English the words are so common that we rarely think about their meaning. In reality if we say "I am having toast for breakfast", it is very different than saying "I have run two miles before breakfast". And "I'll get the book" is different than saying "I need to get up". So the Romance languages have different range of meaning space for the verbs.
My perception is that the definitions of the words in Spanish and Portuguese more or less are one to one, and it's just a matter of learning a different pronunciation or spelling. I don't know if there are any differences in grammar. Is that naive? For instance, how do you refer to events in the future?
Also, it has occurred to me that "How do you do?" in English has no obvious meaning other than it is a formal greeting. While the phrase is no longer as widely used as it once was, I always wonder if it seems strange when you are studying English.
Quote: NareedSo what were you doing at such a service? Usually outsiders go only for weddings and bar mitzvahs.
One of my friends here is a non-practicing Jew. Once in a while he feels guilty about it and tags along to a service with one of his more devout Jewish friends. He knew I have a curiosity about religion, so I was invited and went.
Afterward we had an enormous kosher feast, that had all been prepared before. The wife of the devout friend slaved over that dinner all day.
Quote: WizardOne of my friends here is a non-practicing Jew. Once in a while he feels guilty about it and tags along to a service with one of his more devout Jewish friends.
Isn't that a little unusual for the Orthodox? It wouldn't seem strange of he went to conservative or reformed service, but I always pictured the Orthodox as "do or die". From what I read on a Jewish website, there are roughly 100K Jews in Vegas, but only 1% are orthodox.
Quote: pacomartinIsn't that a little unusual for the Orthodox?
Yes. This was my friend's first experience with an Orthodox service, so he was almost as lost as me. Normally he goes to, I guess, a conservative service. I guess he was just curious about it.
The next kind I'd like to try is one where the service is at least partially in English. Do you know anything about that really fancy temple on Hualapai that Sheldon Adelson is said to have contributed significantly too? It looks magnificent from the outside.
Quote: pacomartinIsn't that a little unusual for the Orthodox?
No. Orthodox is just a sect. To most people it's just the flavor of synagogue. In Mexico I'd say the vast majority of synagogues are orthodox. For a fact I know of only one Conservative and one Reform. Anyway, most people go to synagogue only for the high holidays, weddings and bar mitzvahs. I know of only a handful of orthodox who even keep kosher.
Quote: pacomartinOne of my early observations was in English that 40%-50% of the time we say a verb it is one of these five: (1)be, (2)have, (3)do, (4)get, and (5)make. The same range of meanings is more or less covered in Spanish by (1)Ser, (2)estar, (3)tener, (4)hacer, (5)haber, (6)obtener.
My perception is that the definitions of the words in Spanish and Portuguese more or less are one to one, and it's just a matter of learning a different pronunciation or spelling. I don't know if there are any differences in grammar. Is that naive? For instance, how do you refer to events in the future?
Portuguese works as major neolatin languages, has the same verb predominance as spanish and thats quite different from English, which I may say that is a language much simpler to learn and use.
Spanish and portuguese are so close that sometimes it is tricky, specially with vocabulary. I say this because our grammar goes under the same rules. The future in Portuguese is mostly used as the simple future, so I will conjugate one verb as an example, first in the present and then in the future:
Estar present tense, which is the verb 'to be':
Eu estou
Tu estás
Ele está
Nós estamos
Vós estais
Eles estão
Future tense:
Eu estarei
Tu estarás
Ele estará
Nós estaremos
Vós estareis
Eles estarão
Quote: WizardThe next kind I'd like to try is one where the service is at least partially in English. Do you know anything about that really fancy temple on Hualapai that Sheldon Adelson is said to have contributed significantly too? It looks magnificent from the outside.
I thought he went to the reform synagogue, Temple Sinai on Hillpointe with the new Adelson Campus which he gave $25 million to fund.
I am not aware of a Synagogue on Hulapai.
That's not a pi symbol, as I'm sure you knew and were just joking. It's two Hebrew letters which together spell "Chai," which means life. The letters are Hof and Yod. It's a common necklace and kind of a lucky symbol. Other popular charms are the Star of David and something that looks like the palm of a hand.Quote: Wizardwear a pi symbol around their necks
Interestingly, in Hebrew numerology (a whole other subject all by itself), the values of the two letters of "chai" add up to 18, which is kind of like 8 for the Chinese -- a lucky number. Often people will give bar mitzvah gifts of cash in multiples of 18 -- 18, 36, 54, etc. Numerology (Gematria) is also what the movie, "Pi," was about, so you are at least on point on that one!
I can field most questions about Judaism, having been to Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform services often -- probably too often. Chanting in an obscure Afro-Asiatic tongue is an odd way to express one's faith. But Judaism is mostly about uniqueness.
Quote: aluisioPortuguese is mostly used as the simple future, so I will conjugate one verb as an example, first in the present and then in the future:
Estar present tense, which is the verb 'to be':
Eu estou
Tu estás
Ele está
Nós estamos
Vós estais
Eles estão
Future tense:
Eu estarei
Tu estarás
Ele estará
Nós estaremos
Vós estareis
Eles estarão
What I meant was that in English we form the future by saying simply "I will go read at the library". In Spanish you can say it in simple future as leeré but you can also say voy a leer (periphrastically). In Mexico there is a strong preference to do it the second way, while in Spain they tend to use the conjugation.
I was curious if you can say it both ways Portuguese. Also is there a difference between Brazilian and Portuguese in forming the future.
Thank you very much for your offer to field Judaism questions, and I do have lots. However, I'd prefer to make a separate thread for that. I certainly invite you to start a thread for that topic. However, if you prefer to keep it do it more privately, I can PM my questions. Still, I think the forum would enjoy a change from talking about Catholicism all the time. I'm sure FrG would be happy to take a break from it too. I don't want to name names, but I think we have a lot of Jewish members on the forum, but they tend to keep a low profile about it. Time to prod them out of closet while we all learn a thing or two about your faith. I, for one, promise to be polite and respectful about it.
Quote: WizardOne my my favorite ways to annoy my Jewish friends is to ask why they wear necklaces with the pi symbol, and where can I buy one. I'll be sure to ask the tour guide that.
I like to annoy my Chilean coworkers by asking them why they're wearing a t-shirt with the Texas flag on it :P Ok, I exaggerate. I have two Chilean coworkers but only one of them ever wears the Lone Star flag, and only on days when the Chilean national team plays a big sucker game.
Anyway, I had a busy week and not much time for posting, so I missed this:
Quote:Se puede ver mucha estrellas en una noche clara. = One can see lots of stars on a clear night.
"Se puedeN ver muchaS estrellas en una noche clara." "Puede" y "mucha" are in singular while "estrellas" is plural.
Quote:Cuando estuve en Perú, vomitó luego de ver carne de coballo en la carta. = When I was in Peru, I vomited after I saw guinea pig meat on the menu.
"..vomitÉ..." But that was good work with the accent. See:
Vómito: vomit (as a noun)
Vomitó: he/she/it threw up
Vomité: I threw up
Quote: Nareed"Se puedeN ver muchaS estrellas en una noche clara." "Puede" y "mucha" are in singular while "estrellas" is plural.
But I was trying to say that one/you (formal) can see stars on a clear night. I would have used pueden if I was addressing two or more people, which I wasn't. Are you suggesting that poder is like gustar, and one conjugates it according to the the object, not the subject?
About my pi necklace idea, what do you think of this one. It slides open to reveal a total of 35 digits.
Quote: WizardBut I was trying to say that one/you (formal) can see stars on a clear night. I would have used pueden if I was addressing two or more people, which I wasn't.
It's not about the amount of people being addressed, but of the object being referred to. If it's plural, then it's "pueden."
Quote:Are you suggesting that poder is like gustar, and one conjugates it according to the the object, not the subject?
You're asking me? :)
Quote:About my pi necklace idea, what do you think of this one. It slides open to reveal a total of 35 digits.
The pendant is very nice. Setting it in a circle fits, too. But don't get that chain. Use a nice gold or silver one instead.
Quote: pacomartin
What I meant was that in English we form the future by saying simply "I will go read at the library". In Spanish you can say it in simple future as leeré but you can also say voy a leer (periphrastically). In Mexico there is a strong preference to do it the second way, while in Spain they tend to use the conjugation.
I was curious if you can say it both ways Portuguese. Also is there a difference between Brazilian and Portuguese in forming the future.
In portuguese you can say "Eu vou ler" instead of "Eu lerei" as you asked, but it is advisable not to write it. In other words it is acceptable in daily dialogue but not in the formal written.
Quote: WizardBut I was trying to say that one/you (formal) can see stars on a clear night. I would have used pueden if I was addressing two or more people, which I wasn't. Are you suggesting that poder is like gustar, and one conjugates it according to the the object, not the subject?
You are going to have to ask your tutor about this one because I can't explain it. I will try to express my questions, but it is beyond my comprehension of grammar.
I do know that the verb poder is not like gustar.
"Gustar" is almost always used in the third person, and it means "is pleasing to". You end up using the person and number of the subject.
"The stars are pleasing to me/us/him/her". You want to match the form of the verb "gustar" to "the stars" because that is the subject of the sentence. The indirect object is me/us/him/ or her. In English you say "I like the stars", so stars is clearly the direct object. We don't routinely say "stars are pleasing to me".
"Poder" is conjugated in all persons, singular and plural, in all tenses, and in all moods , and aspect just like any other verb. But sometimes it is used where in English we use the modal verb "can". A modal verb is a very limited auxiliary verb that mostly expresses mood or questions. For instance there is no future tense of "can". You don't say "will can" you say "will be able". Now "able" is an adjective, not a verb, but the phrase fills in for the future tense of "can". Also "can" does not put an "s" on the end in third person singular (you don't say "he cans"). You also don't have infinitive versions or present progressive forms of "can" (you don't say "caning" or "to can"). Once again you use the verbal phrase for some of the participles (He "is able to").
A defect of English is that it does not have a gender neutral singular pronoun beside "it". So we use the word "one" because it is cumbersome to say "On a clear night, a person is able to see many stars".
In other sentences you would match the conjugation to the subject exactly like you proposed. I believe all these sentences are correct:
I can speak to girls
He can speak to girls
We can speak to girls
They can speak to girls
One can speak to girls , if you take my class
Yo puedo hablar con las chicas
Él puede hablar con las chicas
Podemos hablar con las chicas
Ellos pueden hablar con las chicas
Uno puede hablar con las chicas, si se toman mi clase
Nareed (and others) are translating your sentence as: "On a clear night, many stars can be seen". So Nareed corrected 'puede' to make it plural to agree with the subject "many stars".
Now your question is that how do I say "On a clear night, one is able to see many stars" which would make "many stars" the direct object and "one" the subject.
One can see many stars
Uno puede ver muchas estrellas
Perhaps if you just overtly use the word "uno" then you can use the singular. But Spanish doesn't revert to the word "one" for a "generic pronoun". In Spanish you simply revert to "he". So I am not sure if this translation is correct.
Quote: Mike's Spanish tutorEn USA la mejor traducción es probablemente la siguiente: Uno puede ver (observar) muchas estrellas en una noche clara.
En America, posiblemente esta es la más adecuada.
También: Se puede ver (observar) muchas estrellas en una noche clara.
I'll ask her why she didn't used pueden, because stars are plural, but I honestly don't see why you would, since we're not talking about "gustar," or one of its family of verbs that is conjugated based on the object: gustar, encantar, fascinar, chocar, molestar, fastidiar, parecer, and doler.
Quote: Mike's Spanish tutorEn USA la mejor traducción es probablemente la siguiente: Uno puede ver (observar) muchas estrellas en una noche clara. En America, posiblemente esta es la más adecuada.
That one's right.
Quote: Mike's Spanish tutorTambién: Se puede ver (observar) muchas estrellas en una noche clara.
That's wrong. My guess is she missed typing an N at the end of "puede."
Quote: NareedThat's wrong. My guess is she missed typing an N at the end of "puede."
I sent a follow-up question with your argument for the N in pueden. No response yet.
Quote: WizardI sent a follow-up question with your argument for the N in pueden. No response yet.
She'll be glad to know she's posted here without the formality of signing up :)
My understanding is that if the subject is plural, then the rest must be plural as well. You'd say "se puede ver la Luna," but "se puedeN ver las estrellas." But at this point we're just repeating assertions.
Quote: NareedShe'll be glad to know she's posted here without the formality of signing up :)
My understanding is that if the subject is plural, then the rest must be plural as well. You'd say "se puede ver la Luna," but "se puedeN ver las estrellas." But at this point we're just repeating assertions.
Maybe I can get her to post in person one of these days.
Yup, we're just repeating ourselves. I still say puede because the subject, the person looking at the stars, is singular, and your rule applies only to the gustar family of verbs.
Quote: WizardYup, we're just repeating ourselves. I still say puede because the subject, the person looking at the stars, is singular,
Ah, non-repetition now... The subject are the stars visible on a given night. If you said "Uno puede ver muchas estrellas..." then, yes, the subject would be an indeterminate person. See, the phrase "se pueden ver muchas estrellas..." translates as "many stars can be seen...." I say in both cases the subject are the stars.
Quote: NareedAh, non-repetition now... The subject are the stars visible on a given night. If you said "Uno puede ver muchas estrellas..." then, yes, the subject would be an indeterminate person. See, the phrase "se pueden ver muchas estrellas..." translates as "many stars can be seen...." I say in both cases the subject are the stars.
I still say se is the subject. In the English I would say "one" is the subject.
Even if the sentence were just "See the stars." I would say the subject is an implied "you," and I would translate it to Ve/ves las estrellas, depending on whether I wanted to go with the formal or informal you.
Paco, you've been rather quiet. Normally these fine points of grammar are your specialty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A t-shirt with the first 4,493 digits of pi in the shape of the pi character:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A t-shirt with the first 2,251 digits of e in the shape of an e:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A t-shirt with the first 2,298 digits of phi, in the shape of the phi character:
Quote: WizardI still say se is the subject. In the English I would say "one" is the subject.
If you said "One can see a lot of stars...." you'd be right. but if you said "A lot of stars can be seen..." then the subject is "stars."
The latter sentence (fragment) may imply a person being addressed, or it may not. You might be making a general statement about the visibility of stars under certain conditions
Quote:and I would translate it to Ve/vas las estrellas, depending on whether I wanted to go with the formal or informal you.
"ve/vas" means "go" :) "ve/veAs" means "see"
In English the sentence "One never knows when he will turn up" is an "impersonal expressions". In other words, we don't really have anyone specific in mind when we say "They say..." or "One" or " You". We mean people in general.
Spanish has a slightly different format {than English} for expressing the Impersonal voice. Spanish adds the pronoun se in front of verbs to make general statements. Impersonal voice using se will use a singular verb since the se can be replaced by uno.
Credentials of author:
University of Santa Barbara, California: MA Spanish Literature and Language
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Graduate studies in Spanish Literature & Language, Linguistics
North Carolina State University: BA Spanish Language & Literature
An interesting mood (or mode) in English is the subjunctive. While normal past tense of the verb "to be" is 'I was', 'you were', 'he was', 'we were','they were' in the subjunctive mood the different words 'was' and 'were' are often interchanged.
Subjunctive mood is for events that are hypothetical, that we are not certain if they will happen, or sometimes expressing wishes or dreams. The use of the mood is often associated with the words 'if', 'as if', 'wish', and 'suppose'.
To complicate matters further, sometimes in informal speech in English we mean to use the subjunctive mood, but we resort to the familiar tenses. For example in the following table:
| Formal | Informal |
|---|---|
| (The were form is correct at all times.) | (The was form is possible in informal, familiar conversation.) |
| If I were younger, I would go. | If I was younger, I would go. |
| If he weren't so mean, he would buy one for me. | If he wasn't so mean, he would buy one for me. |
| I wish I weren't so slow! | I wish I wasn't so slow! |
| I wish it were longer. | I wish it was longer. |
| It's not as if I were ugly. | It's not as if I was ugly. |
| She acts as if she were Queen. | She acts as if she was Queen. |
| If I were you, I should tell her. | Note: We do not normally say "if I was you", even in familiar conversation. |
In English, to quote Webster's: The historical grammarians show that it {the subjunctive mood} has, in fact, been in decline since Old English, when the modal auxiliaries began to take over some of its functions. So when we do use it in English, it often sounds kind of old fashioned.
Spanish (or the other Romance languages) uses the subjunctive mood much more frequently, and it is much more clearly highlighted than it is in English. The mood has it's own set of inflections which are completely independent of the inflections in the other tenses.
Si yo fuera tú is the Spanish equivalent to "If I were you". The duo is from Argentina.
First thing to notice is that fuera is a conjugation of the verb ser which is the permanent essential equivalent of the English verb "to be". I know that puzzled me when I learned it because it struck me as a hypothetical change of state, rather than a change of essence. Also unlike English you don't use variations of the past tense ('era' or 'fui'). Instead you use an entirely different tense 'imperfecto de subjuntivo' or fuera.
As if this wasn't complicated enough there are more than possible set of inflections for this 'imperfecto de subjuntivo' tense (and mood). It is also possible to spell the same verb as fuese. For instance the same song title is used by this Cuban singer, but now it is spelled Si yo fuese tú.
The reason there are two different verbs that essentially mean the same thing is very complicated, and has to do with the evolution of Spanish from Latin over the middle ages. Today they mean basically the same thing, but there is a preference for one over the other in different countries. I am told that both forms are understood in all countries, but the -ra form is more popular, and often the -se form is seen as more formal.
I have no idea why the Cuban singer would use one form, and the Argentine singer would use the other. As I am clearly not a native speaker, I am hoping that some people will bring more enlightenment to this subject.
Quote: pacomartinWe haven't had a comment in a while, so I am going to introduce a new subject. I hope it doesn't get too confusing.
I've been actually working at work. It's most distressing.
Quote:An interesting mood (or mode) in English is the subjunctive. While normal past tense of the verb "to be" is 'I was', 'you were', 'he was', 'we were','they were' in the subjunctive mood the different words 'was' and 'were' are often interchanged.
You lost me already....
Seriously, I slept all of three hours and 22 minutes last night. But I'll rant about it elsewhere (If I do rant about it).
Quote: NareedYou lost me already....
Which way are you most likely to say the phrase:
Si yo fuera tú
Si yo fuese tú
Se pagan las multas los lunes. = The fines are paid on Mondays.
It would seem that when I translated my original sentence it changed to the passive voice. That web site says that sentences in the passive voice in Spanish don't have a subject. This is rather abhorant to me, because in English EVERY sentence has a subject. The entire language is very subject oriented. In the example above, I would prefer to think of the fines as the subject, even if I'm wrong.
Still unconvined, I wrote to the author of that site, who was kind enough to reply. Here is how it went:
Quote: wizardHello:
Sorry to bother you but there is a big dispute on my web site forum about how to translate the following sentence into Spanish.
"One can see lots of stars on a clear night."
The point of contention is whether to use puede or pueden in the following translation:
Se puede/pueden ver muchas estrellas en una noche clara.
I read over your page on se and the passive voice, but couldn't find an example quite like this, with a singular subject and plural object. The confussion seems to be over the subject, whether it is the singular "se," or the plural "estrellas."
Your help would be very appreciated.
Saludos,
Mike
Answer
Quote: Deborah LemonHola!
Well that is an interesting question!
Although it appears to be Impersonal Se, it is really a Passive voice construction. What is making the sentence seem fuzzy is the addition of the auxiliary verb "Poder."
If you wrote "Se ven muchas estrellas en una noche clara." the plural "ven" is perfectly fine.
Adding a form of poder adds distance between the verb and the passive subject (retained as object) - so it sounds weird.
It is sort of like saying:
The group is leaving Friday.
The group of students is leaving Friday.
The group of French students is leaving Friday.
The group of hilarious French students who are wearing gloves is leaving Friday.
As the original subject gets farther from its verb, the verb struggles to keep its relationship going.
The same happens with your example, to a lesser degree.
So in the end, "Se pueden ver muchas estrellas en una noche clara."
:-)
Hasta!
Nevertheless, my tutor still said "puede," but I think I'll have to wait until next week for an explanation why. This still isn't over. My thanks to Deborah for her reply.
Quote: pacomartinWhich way are you most likely to say the phrase:
Si yo fuera tú
Si yo fuese tú
Neither. I'd say "Si fuera tú." The "yo" is superflous since it's clearly I who's talking. I know in English the pronoun is almost never ommited, but that's not the case in Spanish. Ejemplo "Voy al banco." = "I'm going to the bank."
But what you want to know is whether I'd use "fuera" or "fuese." as far as I know there's no difference save personal stylistic preferences. Except, perhaps, that "fuese" will be chosen more by people trying to put on airs of erudition.
In the Wizard's example, he meant to say "One can see many stars". So using the rule above, since the subject is a person, the sentence must be translated as "Uno puede ver muchas estrelles' and you can't use the pronoun se.
Quote: WizardStill unconvined, I wrote to the author of that site, who was kind enough to reply. Here is how it went:
I feel vindicated.
Credentials of author: an unspecified number of years speaking Spanish all day, every day, at a middle class and higher level :P
Quote: NareedI feel vindicated. Credentials of author: an unspecified number of years speaking Spanish all day, every day, at a middle class and higher level :P
We know you are articulate, and your grammar is correct, but sometimes we simply don't recognize a construct that doesn't exist in English.
For instance we know about active and passive voice in English:
Example:
John sees the stars.{active voice}
The stars were seen by John.{passive voice}
Form:
subject+verb+direct object {active voice}
subject+congugation of "to be"+past pariticple of verb+'by'+agent or doer {passive voice}.
So when you have the same form in Spanish, it is easy to recognize.
Forma
sustantivo + verbo + Objeto Directo {La voz activa }
sustantivo + conjugación de ser + participio de pretérito + por + agente {la voz pasiva}.
Ejemplo:
Juan ve a las estrellas. { La voz activa }
Las estrellas fueron vistas por Juan. { La voz pasiva}
But this La voz de pasiva refleja doesn't exist in English. We only have passive voice with auxiliary verbs like "be" or "get". So it is natural for an English speaker when they look at the sentence to see a grammatical form that that is familiar (like the impersonal pronoun).
From Wikipedia Pasiva refleja. Además de la pasiva analítica ser + participio, existe en español otra forma de expresar la voz pasiva: la pasiva con se o pasiva refleja. Esta construcción está mucho más generalizada que la anterior, que apenas se usa en el lenguaje oral. La pasiva refleja solo es posible en 3ª persona; se no tiene aquí función nominal: es una marca o morfema de pasividad. El sujeto gramatical normalmente aparece pospuesto, y debe concordar en número y persona con el verbo:
Se vende un perro
Se venden perros
Quote: pacomartinWe know you are articulate, and your grammar is correct, but sometimes we simply don't recognize a construct that doesn't exist in English.
Something like that happened to me whan I was learning English. You just learn it and move on.
Quote:For instance we know about active and passive voice in English:
I hate the term pasive voice. People use it as if it were some sort of literary disease. Tell me if you see anything wrong with this sentence: "It was but the sound of a small motor boat that shattered John's solitude." I got scolded at a writer's group for saying it like that. "Passive voice! Passive voice!" Argh!
Quote:Se vende un perro
Se venden perros
try this one: "Rayo Vende"
Quote: Nareedtry this one: "Rayo Vende"
Rayo Vende looks like it is literally "ray sales". It seems like a common phrase, but I can't associate it with any one kind of product. Is it an idiom for "internet sales"?
Quote: pacomartinRayo Vende looks like it is literally "ray sales".
Not bad. "Rayo" means either beam, lightning or ray.
Quote:It seems like a common phrase, but I can't associate it with any one kind of product. Is it an idiom for "internet sales"?
Yes and no. Another simialr one is "Mattar Vende," like that with two t's.
In this case "rayo" and "Mattar" are names, and in the sentence the're the subject. In other words "Rayo sells." The object is implied because you'll find signs saying "Rayo vende" on houses for sale. This means Rayo is the realtor involved.
I remembered it because back in high school a candidate running for class president (sort of) was a girls known as "Rayo" I never found it whether it was a nickname, family anme, or even aprt of her name. She had a well-developed sense of self-promotion, though, and hung lot sof signs, hand made, with the name "Rayo" emphasised. It was a memorable campaign for really nothing at all.
This happened at the Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Suepriores de Monterrey Campus Estado de México. More popularly known, understandbly so, as "El Tec," ro sometimes "El Tec de Monterrey."
Palabra: Aguantar
Today's word, aguantar means to hold. It can also mean to stand or bear something.
Ejemplo time.
Fue aguantando la bolsa cuando la policia me agarraron. = I was holding the bag when the police caught me.
Quote: WizardToday's word, aguantar means to hold.
Not quite.
Quote:It can also mean to stand or bear something.
That's more right, if I may incur the wrath of Sheldon Cooper ;)
See, in English, "to hold" applies to vary different actions such as holding someone's hand, and a beam holding up a roof. It doesn't work that way in Spanish. Aguantar means more holding up something, or the ability to carry something heavy. So:
Quote:Fue aguantando la bolsa cuando la policia me agarraron. = I was holding the bag when the police caught me.
Side comment: "fuÍ," not "fuÉ" and "la policia me agarrÓ"
You need another word "Estaba sosteniendo la bolsa cuando..." works better, but ti sounds stilted and wordy. A more natural way would be tos ay "cargaba la bolsa cuando..." even though that emans "I was carrying the bag when..."
As to the word of the day, it's used more for stand or bear, as in "No aguanto más este trabajo" = "I can't stand this job any more." Used in a way that's related to holding: "¿Aguantas la caja?" = "Can you carry the box?" with the implication that the box is ehavy and you may drop it.
Quote: WizardToday's word, aguantar means to hold.
"To grab" is probably closer. It is related to the Italian words "agguantare" and "guantelete" (gauntlet in English). A gauntlet in it's original sense was an armored glove.
The DRAE also offers a definition of resistir pesos or "resisting weight" so it doesn't mean holding a light bag.
Quote: NareedA more natural way would be tos ay "cargaba la bolsa cuando..." even though that emans "I was carrying the bag when...".
The verb form cargaba is 'past imperfect' tense, which is the correct tense to use when you are talking about an action that was going on in the past when another action occurred.
As Nareed pointed out estaba sosteniendo or estaba cargando is basically the way you would say it in English, but it isn't necessary to use progressive tense in Spanish.
"cuando la policia me agarrÓ" - The interrupting action verb uses the past preterite tense.
Quote: pacomartin"To grab" is probably closer. It is related to the Italian words "agguantare" and "guantelete" (gauntlet in English). A gauntlet in it's original sense was an armored glove.
I thought coger meant "to grab." Speaking of coger, my tutor made it very clear to not say that word in Argentina, as it is a strong way of saying the F word. I asked someone down there about it and he said she was right. Meanwhile, it is all over the children's book I'm working my way through.
Quote:As Nareed pointed out estaba sosteniendo or estaba cargando is basically the way you would say it in English, but it isn't necessary to use progressive tense in Spanish.
On my Argentina trip I started reading a pretty good book titled Breaking out of Beginner's Spanish by Joseph J. Keenan. It covered a lot of interesting and difficult topics that beginners tend to have a hard time with, but in a fun way. It devoted a few pages to the difference between the preterit and imperfect past tenses. What I took away from it is that the preterit is a softer form for something that happened once and was over. Like:
El perro ladró ayer. = The dog barked yesterday. It implies the dog did it once and it was over, as if the barking was not itself important.
The imperfect is a stronger form, for something that usually happens but this time got interrupted somehow. When using the imperfect it leads to the question, "what happened next?" For example,
El perro ladaba ayer. also means "The dog barked yesterday." However, it implies the dog usually barks, but yesterday there was something different about it. Perhaps something caused the dog to suddenly not bark, but what?
Hopefully I'm not entirely wrong in my explanation of this.
Quote: WizardWhat I took away from it is that the preterit is a softer form for something that happened once and was over. Like:
El perro ladró ayer. = The dog barked yesterday. It implies the dog did it once and it was over, as if the barking was not itself important.
The imperfect is a stronger form, for something that usually happens but this time got interrupted somehow. When using the imperfect it leads to the question, "what happened next?" For example,
El perro ladaba ayer. also means "The dog barked yesterday." However, it implies the dog usually barks, but yesterday there was something different about it. Perhaps something caused the dog to suddenly not bark, but what?
Hopefully I'm not entirely wrong in my explanation of this.
I have never heard them described as soft or hard, but you are basically correct.
In English we often convey the "imperfect past" with either the qualifier "used to" + "present tense" (I used to eat) or we use the "past progressive" (I was eating). That conveys that it is the habitual, or it changed somehow.
In English we often convey the "preterite past" with the qualifier "did"+"present tense" (I did eat) which conveys that it was a once and done event in the past. "I did eat in breakfast this morning".
The simple past tense in English "I ate" conveys very little specific information.
----------------------
The imperfect past is for the case of something that got interrupted, but it is also for other cases such as:
(1) "The dog was barking, and my sister was shouting". Two actions going on at the same time in the past.
(2) "The dog was barking, and the door slammed". An action going on in the past, when another action occurred.
(3) "The dog used to bark every day when my sister came home". Habitual action in the past. Notice how English uses present tense.
(4) "I wanted to kill myself ...". Emotional states in the past.
(5) "It was 4:00 o'clock ...". Time of day in the past.
(6) "The dog was barking for three hours, when my sister went outside and played with him". Action in the past that lasts for specific length of time, interrupted by an event.
(7) "My sister said the dog needed to come inside". An indirect quotation in the past.
----------------------
You can imagine how difficult it is for many Spanish speakers who say "coger" as often as English speakers say "get". Spanish speaking girls visiting Argentina find that they are practically soliciting men just in the natural course of speech.
Although the verb "get" can have a sexual innuendo in English as in "I am going get some of that", it is not really vulgar. But try to avoid the verb entirely, and see how hard it is.
The six most common verbs in English are conjugations of be, have, do, say, get, & make (according to Oxford English Dictionary research).
Quote: FrGambleFeliz Navidad y Feliz Hanukkah!
Olvidaste Kwanza.
