Spanish language Q&A Forum

From the above lesson it is not fully clear when one would use "no solo...sino" and when one would use "no solo...sino que". Is the rule similar to the one mentioned in this lesson: Difference between pero, sino and sino que in Spanish (but) whereby "If we need a different conjugated verb in the second clause after sino, then we need to add "que" after sino."?

So the difference between cuál/cuáles and el cual/la cual/los cuales/las cuales is that cuál and cuáles are not preceded by articles and will only be used in questions, whereas el cual/la cual/los cuales/las cuales are preceded by articles and will not be used in questions?

Usually the conditional tense adds "would" to the verb. E.g. comería, would eat; habría, would have; vendría, would come, etc. But "should" is not the same as "would". It implies a duty or obligation, whereas "would" does not.

So debería etc. seems to be an exception because it means "should" not "would"!

"Cuál es" works just fine in Mexico to ask "what is". Just because you haven't introduced it in the lesson yet shouldn't make it wrong. The problem with learning formal speech is that nobody talks like this in every day Life. People don't speak proper English in America, and they don't in Latin America either. The same with "me llamó" v "llamó" In Mexico they don't always say me llamó José, just llamó José. Both are right, they know what I'm saying. I want to learn both proper and common speech. Just learning the proper leads to a lot of confusion when you get to where you're going. Nobody talks completely proper, in fact English is so infused with Spanish, they have many made up spanglish words. When you go into a local neighborhood if you speak proper they don't know what you're saying. Really! No one says como se llama usted, me llamo José. They just stare at you like you're a snob. 

Lo siento por la novela

I don’t understand what the last mark over the a in haciá is, if not an accent. Apparently, it would be better for me not to add any accents, rather than adding one and getting it wrong.

I struggle with translating "the weather is very good." My inclination is to write "el tiempo está muy bueno," because it is acceptable to use está for some weather related expressions per your very helpful guidelines.

Is there any 100% reliable way that you can suggest for when to use hace vs está. Is it a matter of learning off these phrases / expressions and that they are invariable? Is anything to do with "temperature, cold, hot and weather" always expressed using hace?

Finally if I wanted to say "In Rome, there is good weather today." Could I say "En Roma hay buen tiempo hoy?" or  is this invariably expressed using hace?" Thanks John

He visto = present perfect that is not finish still in today continuing. Why in above translate do say to as mean  that saw that is v2?? 

Why is it “mucha” not “mucho”? Is it because it modifies Coca Cola?