Spanish language Q&A Forum

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".

why are "they are always eating chocolate" "Ellos siempre están comiendo chocolato", and not "Ellos siempre está comiendo chocolato"?

I was doing one of the writing exercises and the sentence given was, "I decided to wait and see if a car passed by to call for help." I figured the translation of "passed by" would be "pasera" (past subjunctive), but the answer given was "pasaba." Why wouldn't we need to use subjunctive here since it's uncertain whether a car will actually pass by?

¿Ambas son correctas?

1. Solo escuche como toco.

2. Solo escuche cómo toco.

 Gracias de antemano

Is this use of ~Lo + Possessive Pronoun~ "To talk about minding one's own business," more akin  to entrometido o  metiche instead of "talking about one's own interests (which seems more relevant to the section antecedent: la pintura no es lo mio)?  Thank you.

Are there 2 adverbs cuándo and cuando? WordReference.com has both listed. I need an explanation on this for A1 beginner (me).

In There Will Be Blood:

Yo me bebo tu batido.  ¡Me lo bebo entero!

The examples all list a couple actions that are being requested or suggested.  Would it be just as normal to use it when there is just a single action being requested?  Like "Pones los papeles sobre la mesa" would sound as normal as a command as "Pon los papeles sobre la mesa"?  As a non-native speaker, if I talked that way would people think I don't know the imperative?