No, your ears are perfectly fine. In fact, it is notable that you have noticed the difference between the two different forms of the imperative tense.
There are indeed some differences between the verbs forms among countries. As an example, you can check the conjugation for imperative tense of the verb tomar in the Diccionario de la Lengua Española (follow ...
The "problem" is so extended that RAE finally decided to consider that that's actually the way people speak, making it a valid version for the imperative.
To update this question, even if at the moment of writing these lines the form iros might be not officially accepted yet, the RAE has informally announced that it will do so.
The problem is that gustar is an inverted verb, compared to English.
I like the food.
Me gusta la comida.
In Spanish the subject is "comida", while "me" is the indirect complement, while in English, "I" is the subject and "food" is the complement.
So you have to use the third person imperative, and that ...
The text is mistaken. The pronoun should be les.
In the text, the dative pronoun le is the indirect object, and anticipates the full indirect object, a los niños. This (showing the IO through a pronoun and then a full nominal phrase) is extremely common, and it's grammatically correct. What is not correct is, as you've guessed, that le is singular but the ...
(Trying to keep things very generic and spoiler free-ish).
The person that says "Hable con ella" is a caregiver hired by one of the characters. It's a professional relationship, and usted is the proper treatment in such a context.
In Spanish, a verb with "se" can be used as a more natural form of passive, called "pasiva refleja" (reflexive passive?).
That is the case here "véase" is a form of "verse", that is the "pasiva refleja" equivalent to "ser visto".
According to the conjugation, it is the third person, singular of the ...
Gustar can be used in the imperative, but will normally be understand as to try / taste something (its transitive meaning is experimentar, percibir el sabor, etc). For example, the Argentinian Alfonsina Storni once wrote
Corre, camina, gira, sube y vuela: Gústalo todo porque todo es bello
However, because the literal meaning of intransitive gustar is ...
Though I agree with the answer given by Carlos Alejo, in general I'd say you should stick to one form, unless you're confident with the language, and especially avoid mixing pronouns from one with verb forms from the other. That is, you should use vos tomás or tú tomas, etc.: if the pronoun is vos the verb will have the accent on the last syllable; if it's ...
This construction is usual in other Spanish countries, too. Que se vayan is just a subordinate where the main clause is elided. It could be He dicho que se vayan, Quiero que se vayan...
But, as I say, the construction is pretty usual, even if it looks weird that you omit the main clause and leave just the subordinate.
You can use it in a somewhat different ...
En su análisis de las distintas funciones del pronombre “se” (que puede hacerse extensivo a los pronombres átonos “me”, “te”, “nos”, “os”), el DPD dice:
b) Pronombre personal de tercera persona con valor reflexivo (el sujeto realiza la acción, o la manda realizar, sobre sí mismo) o recíproco (la acción la realizan varios individuos, los unos sobre los ...
This passage from DPD explains why "vamos" is used as an alternative of "vayamos" for imperative, first person plural:
La forma vamos es hoy la primera persona del plural del presente de indicativo: «Laureano y yo nos vamos al jardín» (Gallego Adelaida [Esp. 1990]); pero en el español medieval y clásico era, alternando con vayamos, forma de primera ...
First of all, it appears as if the RAE does not include first person plural in the conjugation of the imperative (see conjugation of ir, click on the blue button "conjugar"), so when we are using vamos it is not actually an imperative form, but the subjunctive used with an exhortative value.
So the question is, why use the imperative form vamos instead of ...
As @user0721090601 said in the comment above, the infinitive can be freely used instead of the imperative when an impersonal form of addressing people is allowed, i.e. not in a conversation. Signage is the typical case where the infinitive will be allowed and usually used. Instructions is another case.
The imperative is always personal and can be singular or ...
Calla and cállate, as well as (estate) callado will work, meaning exactly shut up and be quiet.
Also silencio, and the shush shhh. And maybe chitón.
Any of these will work for adult the same as for children. I don't know of any words specifically for children.
La forma más correcta es la segunda.
"Dite a ti misma·.
El complemento indirecto puedes especificarlo o no, pero el pronombre siempre debe aparecer. Ocurre lo mismo con "Me dijo a mí". Puedes decir simplemente "Me dijo" o "dite", puedes especificar más, pero el pronombre es necesario.
Aquí la página de la RAE donde se explica:
Duplicación de ...
As Charlie says, the difference between parar and pararse in this context are slim, but also (again as Charlie says) consider that there are regional variations. If I had to translate I'd say No pares means "Don't stop doing whatever you're doing", while No te pares means "Don't stop moving", and these meanings might coincide.
There's one important ...
The translation for
"no se toca"
"is not for touching"
as "no se toca" leans more towards the idea that something specific should not be touched. Also, it is a Declarative, not an Imperative, making "don't touch" invalid.
"Don't touch" should be just translated as "no tocar",
but it ...
He encontrado información al respecto en la Enciclopedia dell'Italiano Treccani, ya que compara cómo han evolucionado a partir del latín diferentes lenguas románicas en relación a la manera de expresar el imperativo negativo.
Según esta fuente, en el latín clásico existían cuatro maneras diferentes de construir un imperativo negativo:
la negación ne + el ...
I could not find any official sources for this, so this answer is about the way I am used to hearing it in Spain.
The use of "a+infinitive" as an imperative transmits a sense of urgency, as in "do it now". The typical example "¡A comer!" means that the food is ready and it is time to eat. Therefore, this construction is seldom used in negative, as negative ...
This is a partial answer, to supplement the answer by @wimi.
Your options for the duchar example are
with the latter preferred. You wouldn't say "A ducharte" because in this construction the verb is expressed for a general person, not for a particular person. (Note this is consistent with what wimi said about Neruda's work.)
I would ...
El año pasado estuve en Bolivia de visita a un amigo que trabaja allí desde hace 6 años. Le he preguntado a él porque tiene más experiencia que yo y me ha confirmado lo siguiente.
En la zona de Santa Cruz de la Sierra (que es donde él trabaja) se utiliza "vení" como indicativo del plural de forma generalizadas. Mi amigo afirma que en algunas personas dicen ...
As it is supposed in the question, there is no imperative for third persons since you can not give orders to someone that you are not talking to directly (those others).
So in such cases you use the subjunctive:
Quiero que (ellos) hagan su trabajo
Here you express the wish, maybe to someone that may accomplish it for you.
The yell "no hables!" (or "no ...
Your problem is not with verb tenses, rather with which person you are addressing the reader, tú or usted.
Deja (tú) que el pato se enfríe
Deje (usted) que el pato se enfríe
Both are imperative, just different persons
You have inconsistencies in the previous steps too:
Consiga = usted
Frota = tú
Cocine = usted
Retira = tú
Even if both of the following two negative sentences are correct, the imperative:
No deje basura en la playa.
and the infinitival:
No dejar basura en la playa.
the imperative sounds more natural as well as more personal, as it addresses any potential infringers more directly. With the infinitive, “Prohibido” sounds much better:
Prohibido dejar ...
In older forms of Iberian languages, the norm was to employ enclitic pronouns with all verb forms, but with an exception: certain classes of words would draw the pronoun(s) to the front causing proclisis (these are called attractors, to borrow the Portuguese terminology)
While the classes varied from language to language, one universal was negative adverbs. ...
The imperative mood (commands) works the same: the object pronoun (for example lo, as you say) goes after the verb and joined to it. But the verb conjugation is not the same. You already know the form for tú. I will exemplify it with a direct object pronoun lo and three regular verbs, one for each verb ending:
This is a question that will depend on the individual application / environment. In the case of Google's system, the norm is to use refer to the user informally. That means using tú but ojo, not all users use tú when talking informally. I doubt that Argentinian users (normally use vos) or Costa Rican users (probably use usted) would feel comfortable ...
The conjugation of dar with vos is in fact regular:
present indicative: (vos) das
present subjunctive: (vos) des
imperative: (vos) da
It's only because the root of dar is nonsyllabic (a mere d-) that you find it curious. Bear in mind that the spelling is in principle meant to reproduce the speech. The accute accent mark that one must use with most verbs ...