Clarifying whether this lesson is for spoken or written SpanishI understand that dropping the ¨de¨ is something done sometimes in spoken Spanish in Mexico and elsewhere, but it would it be marked incorrect in written Spanish? It seems like there should be some discussion about how this differs from Castilian rules. ChatGPT says re Dropping the de
You may hear:
antes que
or
después que
especially in parts of Latin America.
For example:
Antes que llegues...
Después que terminó...
These forms occur in everyday speech in countries such as Mexico, parts of Central America, the Caribbean, Argentina, Uruguay, and elsewhere, though how common they are varies by region and speaker.
However:
They are considered regional rather than the neutral standard.
In formal writing, education, and when speaking to people from across the Spanish-speaking world, antes de que and después de que are the safer, more widely accepted choices.
If your goal is broadly natural, educated Spanish (which I know you've been working toward), I would recommend keeping the de.
I understand that dropping the ¨de¨ is something done sometimes in spoken Spanish in Mexico and elsewhere, but it would it be marked incorrect in written Spanish? It seems like there should be some discussion about how this differs from Castilian rules. ChatGPT says re Dropping the de
You may hear:
antes que
or
después que
especially in parts of Latin America.
For example:
Antes que llegues...
Después que terminó...
These forms occur in everyday speech in countries such as Mexico, parts of Central America, the Caribbean, Argentina, Uruguay, and elsewhere, though how common they are varies by region and speaker.
However:
They are considered regional rather than the neutral standard.
In formal writing, education, and when speaking to people from across the Spanish-speaking world, antes de que and después de que are the safer, more widely accepted choices.
If your goal is broadly natural, educated Spanish (which I know you've been working toward), I would recommend keeping the de.
A tan solo dos minutos de
Hola, why is con included in the above sentence ? Muchas gracias, Shirley.
Because I kept getting this wrong, I asked Chatgpt: Can one use deber conjugated in El Pretérito Perfecto, followed by an infinitive to express in Spanish that something must have happened, as when making an assumption or wondering what must have happened? The response was: No—not if your goal is to express an assumption ("must have happened").
The pretérito perfecto of deber (ha debido) normally means "has had to" (obligation), not "must have" (probability).
Are there certain countries (e.g. Costa Rica) in which "a" is not used for talking about certain parts of the day like morning, afternoon and evening but only por manana or en la manana would be used. Seethe example below?
A la mañana desayuno cereales.I have cereal for breakfast in the morning.
I appreciate the inclusion of this lesson as an effort to educate us in a nuance. My particular American English formed brain just can’t seem to grasp the subtle differences. I’m wondering if in conversation with a native speaker, it would be an issue if the non-native speaker didn’t differentiate between the two forms. I think if I were speaking in Spanish and trying to explain a situation about not being able to open a door last night, I would choose words that made it clear that number one: He just couldn’t open the door or 2, at first, he couldn’t open the door, but then someone came to help him. Well, now that I’ve written out these examples, I realize how far I am from understanding the nuance. I’m hoping you will say that in conversation with a native speaker it really doesn’t make a lot of difference. Verdad?
I can't get my translator DeepL to use pocos as 'a few' of something and I don't hear it used locally. It normally seems to be : unos cuantos amigos, unas cuantas manzanas. Is this a customary phrase in Spain, or perhaps is USA?
One of the difficulties in spanish is there are so many ways to same the same thing. These exercises don't allow for that. I don't know how this can be included....
What is the reason that "Me alegro DE que..." is constructed differently than "Me entristece que...."? Do other similar phrases tend to follow one of these two patterns?
The lesson says: Notice how, sometimes despite using the singular "lo + adjective" (lo menos caro), we conjugate the verb in the plural form (son). This is because, being a neutral idea, it can refer to a group of things, i.e "The least expensive things..."
This wording is not clear to me. Do you mean to say that the verb is single or plural depending on the object of the sentence? For example:
Lo más impresionante del viaje fue la cantidad de museos interesantes.
"la cantidad" is single, so "fue" (single) is used - is that correct?
Lo menos caro de esta tienda son los accesorios.
And here, "los accesorios" is plural, hence "son" (plural) - correct?
Both my native certified teacher from Madrid and ChatGTP agree that this translation is wrong. There's no "might" about it - the neighbors WILL call. There is no nuance here.
Un árbol se ha caído; los vecinos llamarán al ayuntamiento.A tree has fallen down; the neighbours might [sic] call the council.
Please consider these changes:
"El Futuro Simple, also known as El Futuro Imperfecto, is used when we want to express the probability of something happening in the PRESENT" -- i.e., not the future.
And replace bad (what you call "nuanced") examples with ones that make sense like:
Dónde está Ana?? [i.e., right now, in the present] --Estará en casa. (She's probably at home.)
Quién llama?? [i.e., right now, in the present] --Será Pablo. (It's probably Pablo.)
Find your Spanish level for FREE
And get your personalised Study Plan to improve it
Find your Spanish level