I just finished reading this BBC article about the presence of the Spanish language in the Philippines.

What bothers me is the way the verb arraigar is used here because supposedly, when it is transitive, it means "Hacer firme y duradera una cosa, como una costumbre, un sentimiento, un vicio, etc.":

"En el siglo XIX, era el idioma de la administración y el que arraigaba los estratos más altos de la población filipina, pero no era hablado mayoritariamente por toda la población", aclara Galván.

Also, the following sentence doesn't make much sense:

Cuando 4 años más tarde el general Douglas MacArthur llegó a liberar la capital filipina, pero la resistencia nipona logró frenarlo durante un mes en el que se desató el caos.

Do you agree with the way arraigar is used and do you think it's normal not to mention what happened "cuando 4 años más tarde el general Douglas MacArthur llegó a liberar la capital filipina..."?

  • 3
    Those are two completely separate questions about sentences separated by much text in the original. It would be better to ask them as two separate questions. – mdewey Jan 31 at 16:11
  • 4
    I think that they are both typos. In the first sentence the particle "en" is missing, it should be "y el que arraigaba EN los estratos". In the second sentence you can remove "cuando" and get a correct phrase. Or you can remove the particle "pero". The construction "cuando ... pero" in the original one is not idiomatic. – RubioRic Feb 1 at 7:59
  • 2
    The BBC must have fired all proofreaders. – aerobiomat Feb 2 at 10:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.