Spanish language Q&A Forum
Questions answered by our learning community with help from expert Spanish teachers
6,015 questions • 9,829 answers • 1,013,739 learners
Clever stuff happening!
Questions answered by our learning community with help from expert Spanish teachers
6,015 questions • 9,829 answers • 1,013,739 learners
I thought that ' el billete de tren' had a determiner - 'el' as opposed to the general 'un billete de tren'. Please explain
I just reviewed the A1 lesson on veces/vez in which "sometimes" equals "algunas veces," but in examples above, "sometimes" equals "a veces." Is there a difference? Is "a veces" simply a more convenient way of saying "algunas veces?" Thank you.
In this lesson, peninsular Spanish is specified (however I am in the US and speak Spanish with Cubans, Mexicans, etc., so not only is this sort of new to me, it's not clear how useful it is). From what I've heard & read, there are many differences in the Americas in how the simple and compound past tenses are used (e.g., https://www.scribd.com/document/148697440/El-sistema-verbal-del-espanol-de-America-De-la-temporalidad-a-la-aspectualidad-Quesada-Pacheco-Espanol-actual-75-2001). If we include both peninsular and American (and other world) Spanish speakers, this is quite a range of variants. English speakers have a parallel set of past tenses in went/has gone. Obviously this is a false friend when compared to a specific dialect of Spanish such as the peninsular dialect (although I wonder how perfectly consistent this is across the peninsula). But is the English parallel any more “false” than the Ecuadorian, Peruvian, or Mexican one, relative to the peninsular one? How would a Spaniard respond if an American Spanish speaker consistently used the false English parallel to these tenses, compared to their response to an Ecuadorian, Peruvian, or Mexican speaker who consistently used their own native variant?
Thanks,
Greg Shenaut
One question was ____________ mucha niebla. Hay or esta. I used esta wrong. In fact mucha is never even translated. So why is it Hay, not esta and why isn’t mucha translated
Here are two phrases from the text, both giving advice.
1 Seguramente sabrás que en primavera deberías consumir espárragos trigueros, guisantes y habas. NO ARTICLE
2 Si fuera tú, pondría ingredientes como la lechuga, las endibias, las espinacas, etc. ARTICLES.
In answering a previous question about articles, Sylvia wrote:
In summary, the choice of using or not using the definite article depends on the linguistic function of the phrase within the sentence, whether it denotes a specific entity (requiring the article) or describes a general quality or manner (where the article may be omitted).
Am I correct that the use of 'como' in phrase 2 triggers a specific entity and thus the article?
Gracias
Si iba a la peluquería, me gastaba mucho dinero.
If I went to the hairdresser, I spent a lot of money.
Sorry but I can't make any sense out of the use of English in this example.
"When I went to the hairdresser, I spent a lot of money" No problem
"If I had been to the hairdresser, I would have spent a lort of money" OK
"If I were to go to the hairdresser, I would spend a lot of money"
"If I go to the hairdresser, I shall spend a lot of money"
The example: If I went to the hairdreser, I spent a lot of money" is not good English.
Hope this can be of help.
Ian B
The Larousse Spanish Dictionary shows: -3. (en frases) ¡a mí qué! so what?, why should I care?; para mí: (yo creo) as far as I'm concerned, in my opinion; por mí: as far as I'm concerned; por mí, no hay inconveniente it's fine by me
How do we get to the: para mí: I have a feeling that ?
Even after the lengthy explanation it's still unclear.
Por mí que cierren el cine. why should I care if the close down the cinema =Por mí si ellos cierren el cine?
No?
Find your Spanish level for FREE
And get your personalised Study Plan to improve it
Find your Spanish level