I entered this into Google translate:
the pope eats spuds*; is he a cannibal?
...and got:
el Papa come papas; es que un caníbal?
Is this right, "que"? Should it be, "es el un caníbal?" o algo distinto?
- If I enter "potatoes" I get "patatas"
asked Apr 8, 2016 at 15:33
B. Clay Shannon-B. Crow RavenB. Clay Shannon-B. Crow Raven
5,3066 gold badges45 silver badges68 bronze badges
-
It's an untranslatable joke: "El Papa come papas... ¿es él un caníbal?". Papas = patatas = potatoes.– RodrigoApr 8, 2016 at 15:50
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
No. You have 2 ways:
- ¿Es él un caníbal?
- ¿Es un caníbal?
Second option is preferred because you already know who you're referring to.
-
Could you say ¿Es caníbal? I feel sure I have heard similar usage but perhaps my memory is at fault here.– mdeweyApr 8, 2016 at 16:11
-
1
You could keep que que to introduce a subordinate sentence, but you need a verb for that subordinate sentence.
El Papa come papas. ¿Es que un caníbal? (wrong)
El Papa come papas; ¿es que (él) es un caníbal? (pronoun could go before or after the second "es")
This que could be switched for acaso or "por casualidad", and then you won't need the verb
el Papa come papas. ¿Es acaso un caníbal? (or "¿Acaso es un caníbal?")
el Papa come papas. ¿Es por casualidad un caníbal?
Because que can be used a conjunction to introduce subordinate sentences (see apt 2 here). Acaso works as a conjunction too. In this case you can have only one "es" and this will belong to the subordinate sentence. In the "que" case you need two, one for the subordinate and one for the main sentence.