Tag Info

New answers tagged

1

Some people, even in high Academic areas around hispanic america, hate "presidenta" with passion, they believe La presidente is more politically correct. But due to the fact that there's so many women president, the media has been using largely the term presidenta for over 15 years, there's really no point in using presidente anymore except for a few ...


5

There are different cases: Not in all cases you have to put que. Pienso + infinitive is used to express an activity you want to do. For example, Pienso ir a la playa este fin de semana In another cases you have to put it, and in these cases you are expressing an opinion: Pienso que + infinitive For example, Pienso que ir a la playa este fin de ...


1

It will not be grammatically incorrect if you remove the "que", but it will have a slightly different meaning. "Pienso que" translates to "I think that", you could similarly say, for example, "Pienso comerme ese pollo.", which translates to "I think (of) eating that chicken.", in this case, the "of" is omitted in Spanish.


0

I'm not sure I fully understood your question, but there is absolutely no difference in the definite / indefinite distinction between English and Spanish. A policeman = Un policía The policeman = El policía


2

The Diccionario panhispánico de dudas (DPD) has two entries to explain this: The feminine of presidente The formation of the feminine in professions ending in -e (see 3c) Basically, the idea is that profession nouns ending in -e can be considered as having ambiguous gender, but, in some cases, they have developed a femenine ending in -a. In those cases, ...


5

In spite of the rules to form the feminine form of some professions some of these nouns are developing their own feminine forms. Recommendation about their usage is to use only the accepted or established forms, although the RAE may not yet have caught up with all the forms that are currently accepted for the day-to-day spoken Spanish. "Presidenta" is ...


2

I am spanish and I should use: "Nuestro amor arderá eternamente" or "Nuestro amor arderá para/por siempre". Using "arde" instead of "arderá" is really strange for me. It sounds really bad. Sorry for my bad english.


1

"Arde" is the absolutely right verb form for "burns" (and I assume that you want to stick with "burns" and not "will burn" [arderá] or other verb forms). Your sentence is grammatically correct. I would favor (and might be a personal preference) a translation like: Nuestro amor arde eternamente But "para siempre" is OK. You could even go with "por ...


0

Nope, they're exactly the same. In regard to your second question: an action that started in the past and continues in the present: Llevo corriendo 5 años / Te he estado esperando dos horas. an action that is expected to continue in the future?: Seguiré corriendo 5 años más


4

Apóstol designa a evangelizadores/propagadores de doctrinas de ambos sexos. De acuerdo a las reglas de formación del femenino en profesiones, cargos, títulos o actividades humanas: Los sustantivos terminados en –l o –z funcionan para ambos géneros. Por lo tanto apóstol como "profesión" funcionaría para ambos géneros. "Apóstola" sería incorrecto. ...


0

el comaBeware some cases where the article is necessary to change the meaning.. for example la policía (the police - police department) el policía (the policeman) el guía (the guide) la guía (the driver) el cólera (the cholera) la cólera (the anger) el capital (the capital/money) la capital (the capital/city) el orden (things in order) la orden ...


1

When you use a definite article (the), you are doing exactly what the article is described to do; DEFINE. I look at the chair / Miro la silla vs I look at a chair / Miro una silla The second sentence suggests that there is more than one chair, while the first sentence defines a particular chair. Typically, when you use a definite article you will also ...


5

Some situations in which you need to use the definite article include: The article precedes the noun, even if there is an adjetive in between. El coche. La raqueta. El asombroso trapecista. El milagroso elixir But never when it precedes the names of people or places It can precede the name of people or places when (and only when) it is used to ...


-1

There are many uses for definite article so please read this link. One of the most important rule is that you can use definite articles when referring to objects, people, and places. Here are some examples: La comida de México es deliciosa. (Mexican food is delicious.) Las películas de Almodóvar son interesantes. (Almodóvar´s movies are ...


0

One thing you need to take into account is that "el" plus infinitive in Spanish is often the same as a gerund used as a noun in English. Thus, el no acatar might be translated as not complying with Seen in this light, "al" plus infinitive could be seen as "a" plus "el" plus infinitive, although Spanish grammar texts will generally not exlain it ...


1

Yes, it's correct. “Al + infinive” can have a temporal or causal meaning. With negated verbs, as in this case, the causal meaning is preferred. De la Nueva gramática de la lengua española - Manual de la R.A.E. (Espasa): 26.5.4a La partícula al en la pauta «al + infinitivo» (al leer el libro) procede de la primitiva unión de preposición y artículo. ...


0

Tu traducción está bastante bien, se entiende, pero esta construcción gramatical -"al"+inf.- tiene un matiz bastante diferente al de una relación causal. Si quisiéramos expresar 100% causalidad, en lugar de "al" usaríamos "por", que no siempre es intercambiable por "al". (En cualquier caso, siempre se cambian matices.) La oración: Artur Mas pudo ...


3

Un breve resumen de los usos de la partícula se cortesía de esta web. 1- Se sustituto de le/les. Función: Complemento Indirecto Le di el libro / Se lo di. 2- Se reflexivo: Función: Complemento Directo/Indirecto La niña se peina (a sí misma) 3- Se dativo o intensificador del verbo. Comió tres platos. / Se comió tres platos. 4- Se ...


4

My vote is for "plain wrong". I don't think is a colloquialism, nor that a Spanish dialect would admit it, much less as a preferred version. It is just that some people, even native speakers, make some mistakes when speaking. My 5 year old nephew for example used to say "more good" and "more bad", and the adults would teach the proper ways ("better" and ...


2

The phrase con yo AFAIK is incorrect, there's no use really in the Spanish language. However, I heard some expressions like this example: A yo me gustaría viajar por el mundo. Translation: I would like to travel around the world. Here, a yo is an informal and regional way of referring to the first person I / me (I heard these kind of ...


3

It is just a way of joking around. It is wrong and people knows that but you say it to your friends to sound funny or closer and make emphasis in what you want to say. You can say it in relaxed moments, or whenever you want, but if the situation gets serious you may sound out of context bby saying it. It's common to say wrong things in these cases.


2

La respuesta de Diego es correcta. Añado que la ambigüedad del "se" en este caso implica que la primera frase no es incorrecta, aunque la segunda sea (marginalmente) preferible. Que no es incorrecta se puede comprobar cambiando de lugar el "lo": Si el repollo es demasiado duro, se puede colocarlo incluso antes de las papas. Si el repollo es ...


5

El problema con la primera frase no es que sobre el lo, si no el uso redundante del pronombre "lo" y el "se", que puede ser entendido también como pronombre. En la segunda frase Si el repollo es demasiado duro, se puede colocar incluso antes de de las papas. Has eliminado el pronombre "lo" que se refiere al repollo, por el "se", que en este caso es un ...


0

Tu problema es el sujeto de la oración. en el segundo y tercer caso: (Tú) puedes colorcalo... (Nosotros) podemos colocarlo.... El sujeto es la persona y se usa el objeto directo "lo" para identificar que lo que podemos colocar es el repollo. Por el contrario en la primer oración el sujeto es el repollo: (El repollo) se puede colocar... por lo tanto no es ...


2

In the RAE's entry for usted is stated that Como pronombres de tercera persona gramatical a usted y ustedes les corresponden las formas átonas lo(s), la(s) para el complemento directo y le(s) para el indirecto compare their example: A ustedes les gusta ir a ese baile? with yours (A usted) le quedan entradas? The tricky thing is that ...


0

We are not doing it. To answer the question we have to understand the real meaning rather that just look word by word. I see it as a bunch of people and the speaker resisting to do something. No lo hacemos. No la hacemos. This means "We don't do that". Which is not quite the same message you want in the original sentence.lo/la has been explained ...



Top 50 recent answers are included