Spanish Language Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, teachers, students and Spanish language enthusiasts in general wanting to discuss the finer points of the language. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
The sentence: He never eats bread for lunch
I translate it two ways:
El no come nunca pan para el almuerzo
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 ?
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.
