Spanish language Q&A Forum

When is one preferred over the other?

I know the -- if after a noun is doesn't make since with " which or that,"  then use " de que" if you intend it to be " that"

But like what about the other times?

I swear it almost seems like other than what I said above, it's interchangeable.

Thanks.

Why does one sentence use con terminación en., And the next sentence use  que acaban en for the same English construction? 

I would've said estos without it, but it made me second guess myself and put este. What is this hint trying to say? I'm not understanding how I misinterpreted it. 

I was just watching "¿Quién mato a Sara?"  (takes place in Mexico) where a security guard in a parking lot tells a character waiting in his car to meet with someone  "Estamos por cerrar". The English subtitles render it as something like "We're about to close."

Would saying "estamos para cerrar" also make sense in this context? Would the meaning be different, and if so how? Is it a regional/dialect thing? Does the nuance have to do with the implication of intent, as was generalized in another post, or is it more complex...?

I'm confused by this pair of expressions... they seem like they want to be different and yet the meanings seem confusingly close... I know language isn't always logical, but I'm just trying to get a feel for it. Thank you in advance...

y eso estaba bastante triste.

Isn't being sad a feeling, so why not "estar" instead of "ser"? Thanks.

How does one use porcentajes with this?

Cuando un hotel de cinco estrellas se te quede demasiado pequeño

I don't understand the function of 'se' in this phrase. Is it really incorrect to omit it?

I've checked the lesson on quedar(se) but don't see the rule here.

Gracias

Would it be correct to use the word “solo” like this:  

No me queda mucho dinero; solo tengo para dos cervezas más. 

It’s just that we might say it this way in English.

Also in general can the word “solo” be used with clauses of limitation?