Spanish language Q&A Forum

I see oenegés as the original transcript - but wouldn't it be O.N.G. like the acronym in English?

"quien había fallecido"

Just wondering, why is it que in the first example and quien in the second?

why is tenido sometimes with an accent on the nand sometimes without. The correct answer for this question was with an accent wheras another question using tenido was without. My collins dictionary says without. 

I thought that porque explained the cause of something whereas como presented a fact that the listener needed to know to understand what followed (but was not the cause).   It I’m not sure if that rule works with the examples here?  Am I missing something?

The kwiziq page "Ser vs Estar in Spanish: Using ser in Spanish (not estar) to talk about time, days, dates and seasons" (Ser vs Estar in Spanish: Using ser in Spanish (not estar) to talk about time, days, dates and seasons) says

   Hoy es lunes.  =  Today is Monday.  ("Today" is singular.)

but

   Son las tres de la tarde.  =  It's three o'clock in the afternoon.  ("It" is plural.)

Why are these different?

There's a question about how we went to an Indian restaurant and ate everything because it was very rich. The thing they're eating is "food," but the answer wanted you to use "todo." They had it agree with the adjective of rich, but there's nothing that indicates a masculine noun.

Is "ll" pronounced "ya?"

The phrase "not be much for" is more idiomatic and translates to "not enjoy" or "not be in the habit of". I have never heard it used in the positive, however. You might say "He's not much for taking walks" to mean "He doesn't enjoy taking walks".  However, I have never heard something like "He's much for taking walks". There's a positive version that's a bit more enthusiastic: "to be a great one for".  For example, "He's a great one for playing practical jokes".