2

The sentence: He never eats bread for lunch

I translate it two ways:

  1. El no come nunca pan para el almuerzo

  2. El nunca come pan para el almuerzo

Do both these translations convey the same meaning?

Also, if the sentence were "He doesn't ever eat bread for lunch," would the two translations suffice ?

5

Do both these translations convey the same meaning?

Both convey the same meaning. When placed after the verb, nunca requires a no before the verb. When placed before the verb, nunca is used alone. The same applies to nadie, ninguno, etc. This isn't specific to European Spanish.

Also, if the sentence were "He doesn't ever eat bread for lunch," would the two translations suffice?

Yes, they would.

By the way, él is a pronoun there, so it should be stressed. Also I'd say con el almuerzo, meaning that he doesn't eat bread as part of his lunch. You can "cocinar para el almuerzo" or "comprar comida para el almuerzo", but "comer [something] para el almuerzo" sounds weird. "Comer pan para almorzar" sounds better, but it means that the only thing you are eating for lunch is bread. Therefore, con would be better in this context.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Does usage differ here between Spain and the Americas, as the OP's question implied that it might, or is it simply that the OP was unaware whether it differed but was interested in Iberian usage? – rjpond Aug 19 at 7:55

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.