Learning Spanish

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

es la misma palabra ;)Eres frances?


No me importan accentos ....

accion /accíon ....a quien le importa

Una lengua es para comunicacion.


No escribo perfectamente en ingles!

For anyone reading this, the poster is now saying that they don't care about grammatical accuracy and that 'language is just for communication'.

The problem is, you have spent the past few pages trying to suggest that my grammar is flawed when it absolutely is not.

Keep going though, I'm loving this.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

No podrias.

Fue un accion completa.


no fue una accion incompleta.Si fue una accion incomplete ...entonces ...seria habia!

If you're going to use the wrong article, could you not at least ensure that the gender of your adjective agrees with the gender of your article?

mistersifter wrote: »

For anyone reading this, the poster is now saying that they don't care about grammatical accuracy and that 'language is just for communication'.

The problem is, you have spent the past few pages trying to suggest that my grammar is flawed when it absolutely is not.

Keep going though, I'm loving this.

Hablar en espanol conmigo ...por favor? :P

Es mas agradable.

Quieres que mostro un foto de el libro?

Puedes esperar un minuto?
Yo te mostrare

mistersifter wrote: »

It's acento. Not accento.

there's only one 'C' . Clearly, then, you are mispronouncing the word too. Two 'c' letters together will make a 'k' sound (hard 'C') .. One 'c' makes an "S" sound.

You should be paying me at this rate.

Por que piensas que no puedo lo pronunciar?

-_-

Estas siendo pequeno

Pero te amo

Mira

Estas equivocado.



Te mostre un sitio antes donde usan 'soy una mesera'.

Lo siento que las fotos no sean mas mejores.


Espero que puedes leerlo.

No estaba tratando de ser dificil.

Pero eres incorrecto.



Soy incorrecta a veces tambien.

La puerta fue abierta...not abiertO

This is a passive use of 'ser' and the example is misleading in the context of our previous discussion, which was dealing with a fundamental explanation of ser/estar (mostly used in an active sense).

Passive use is not something you would explain to students early on, unless you wanted to confuse the shít out of them.

However, if you do want to go down this route , you should explain the passive voice more clearly.

"La puerta fue abierta" sounds deliberately confusing.

This example would be a clearer explanation of what's happening.


1. "Mi hermano abrió la puerta" = my brother opened the door.

2. "La puerta fue abierta por mi hermano" = the door was opened by my brother. (passive)

mistersifter wrote: »

La puerta fue abierta...not abiertO

This is a passive use of 'ser' and the example is misleading in the context of our previous discussion, which was dealing with a fundamental explanation of ser/estar (mostly used in an active sense).

Passive use is not something you would explain to students early on, unless you wanted to confuse the shít out of them.

However, if you do want to go down this route , you should explain the passive voice more clearly.

"La puerta fue abierta" sounds deliberately confusing.

This example would be a clearer explanation of what's happening.

1. "Mi hermano abrió la puerta" = my brother opened the door.

2. "La puerta fue abierta por mi hermano" = the door was opened by my brother.

Also saying i am a doctor.

Is differnt to .. i have been /had been a doctor. You DO use the article then.

Also when the profession begins with certain letters you use it.


Soy una profesora de espanol muy buena. Is correct. Soy profesora de espanol muy buena is not.


And its not really a rule ...just something you hear frequently.

I had said twice before about the passive voice.

And as a teacher you should know it.


Why would it take you so long to recognize la puerta fue abierta?

Suddenly i post you a picture and you get it?

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Also saying i am a doctor.

Is differnt to .. i have been /had been a doctor. You DO use the article then.

Also when the profession begins with certain letters you use it.


Soy una profesora de espanol muy buena. Is correct. Soy profesora de espanol muy buena is not.

Using the article in front of a profession may not be technically incorrect. But it sounds very strange and is not how native speakers talk most of the time. This is what I said in my original point.

To be honest, I think you are trying your best to be pedantic.

This would be fine if you had a decent level of Spanish, but literally every sentence you have written here has very basic errors in it.

So rather than deliberately being a smartass and trying to pick technical holes in explanations that most learners find very useful, you should focus on improving your own basic command of the language. Especially if you want to advise people on how to learn it.

You have been on this thread for a while singing your own praises about your level of Spanish, but you have a lower intermediate level (at best) given the frequent errors with gender and your lack of command of the present subjunctive.

Anything you say about learning the language needs to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

.

Soy una profesora de español muy buena....They do if the job has an adjective added on to it.

This was one of the points I made to you earlier.

I wasn't originally trying to be pedantic. I may have gotten sucked in to that now.

You came out with some childish nonsense like "sorry but my spanish is better than yours" . I had no choice but to subsequently point out your many, many basic errors.

Having Spanish conversations is against charter AFAIK. I would offer to PM you via Spanish if you like but you seem a bit loca.

I am totally comfortable with the present subjunctive. I can always improve

You're not comfortable with it. You misused it in a very basic way earlier when you failed to realise that "querer que" triggers the subjunctive. You also misunderstand the meaning of the verb 'significar'.

You have got to be literally the WORST pettiest teacher i have come across

From the word go, you were trying to poke holes in what were merely general (and very commonly used) explanations of certain grammatical concepts. And you were emphasising exceptions to rules with a smart-ass tone to big yourself up. So of course I called you out on your mistakes.

Please don't tell me you did spanish in ucd i was thinking of going there

You sound like a bit of a head the ball here to be honest. I have never set foot in UCD, thank god.

Do you get students into your class with this attitude? Bullying

You're resorting to desperate measures now with the bullying accusations, so I'll leave it at this.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

mistersifter wrote: »

This is fair.


I deserve this. I shouldn't have said that.

Sorry i didn't realize spanish was against the charter. I started a whole practise your spanish thread and no one said anything.


Friends?

Im sorry.

Oh and yes i would LOVE to prove i am not loca and message you in spanish

I would be honored.


Sorry no more spanish in here then ..i didn't know.

Sorry mods.

I'm happy to speak about Spanish to anyone and I'm not averse to learning myself.

Send a PM if you like.

by the way, I wasn't being serious with the loca bit

Despite our disagreement yesterday, Vibes did make an interesting point regarding the passive use of ser. Unfortunately, an interesting conversation got lost in a silly back and forth between us. But we're friends now, so let's look at it logically without egos (my own included)

I imagine not many people are particularly interested in the differences between ser and estar, but for any potential Spanish grammar nerds out there, here is what I hope is a clearer explanation of some of the topics discussed yesterday.

The passive use of ser does not contradict the common explanation that 'ser' (verb meaning 'to be') is used to express permanent qualities, while 'estar' (to be) is used to express more temporary qualities. There are exceptions to this rule, but I believe that the passive 'ser' is not one such exception.

The best way I can explain this is with examples:

1. La empresa fue fundada por John Doe [The company was founded by John Doe].

- Firstly, this sentence is passive because we're not saying "John Doe founded the company", we're saying "the company was founded by John Doe".

- Most importantly, we are expressing a permanent characteristic here. In other words, the company will ALWAYS have been founded by John Doe. This is not going to change. It's a fact. The company in a permanent state of HAVING BEEN FOUNDED by John Doe.


Now, apply this logic to the more confusing passive phrase in the book posted by Vibes.

2. La puerta fue abierta por John Doe. (I'm adding 'por John Doe' for clarity)

- This sentence is also passive because we are saying "the door was opened by John Doe" as opposed to "John Doe opened the door".

- In the same vein as the first example above, we are expressing a permanent state. In other words, 'the door having been opened by John Doe' is never going to change. It was opened by him. It will always have been opened by him. You cannot change history.

- This is not the same as using estar to say "la puerta estaba abierta" [the door was open]. In this case, the door was in a temporarily open state which was liable to change quite easily and presumably was closed at some point in time. It is a volatile characteristic we're expressing here, so this use of 'estar' fits in with the common explanation mentioned earlier.

This is a very interesting example and a riddle of sorts. The reason it is confusing is because 'abierta' can mean either 'open' or 'opened'. And when we think of doors being open, we naturally assume temporariness.

It is an interesting observation and I enjoyed thinking about it (sad, I know).

So, thanks to Vibes for bringing it up.

mistersifter wrote: »

Despite our disagreement yesterday, Vibes did make an interesting point regarding the passive use of ser. Unfortunately, an interesting conversation got lost in a silly back and forth between us. But we're friends now, so let's look at it logically without egos (my own included)

I imagine not many people are particularly interested in the differences between ser and estar, but for any potential Spanish grammar nerds out there, here is what I hope is a clearer explanation of some of the topics discussed yesterday.

The passive use of ser does not contradict the common explanation that 'ser' (verb meaning 'to be') is used to express permanent qualities, while 'estar' (to be) is used to express more temporary qualities. There are exceptions to this rule, but I believe that the passive 'ser' is not one such exception.

The best way I can explain this is with examples:

1. La empresa fue fundada por John Doe [The company was founded by John Doe].

- Firstly, this sentence is passive because we're not saying "John Doe founded the company", we're saying "the company was founded by John Doe".

- Most importantly, we are expressing a permanent characteristic here. In other words, the company will ALWAYS have been founded by John Doe. This is not going to change. It's a fact. The company in a permanent state of HAVING BEEN FOUNDED by John Doe.


Now, apply this logic to the more confusing passive phrase in the book posted by Vibes.

2. La puerta fue abierta por John Doe. (I'm adding 'por John Doe' for clarity)

- This sentence is also passive because we are saying "the door was opened by John Doe" as opposed to "John Doe opened the door".

- In the same vein as the first example above, we are expressing a permanent state. In other words, 'the door having been opened by John Doe' is never going to change. It was opened by him. It will always have been opened by him. You cannot change history.

- This is not the same as using estar to say "la puerta estaba abierta" [the door was open]. In this case, the door was in a temporarily open state which was liable to change quite easily and presumably was closed at some point in time. It is a volatile characteristic we're expressing here, so this use of 'estar' fits in with the common explanation mentioned earlier.

This is a very interesting example and a riddle of sorts. The reason it is confusing is because 'abierta' can mean either 'open' or 'opened'. And when we think of doors being open, we naturally assume temporariness.

It is an interesting observation and I enjoyed thinking about it (sad, I know).

So, thanks to Vibes for bringing it up.

Hi misters sifter Very interesting!


I think of ser for qualities about a person ....soy rubia

But estar for things about them that are not apart of them ...esta muerto...he is dead ....but he is not death.

Era hecho de oro. It was made of gold. Es un silla. Es de madera.


BUT and you can correct me if i am wrong.

https://www.spanishdict.com/translate/it%20is%20made%20of

Shows
Está hecho de madera ..
Este es un buen cuchillo está hecho de acero. This is a good knife it is made of steel.

Está preperado con ingrediantes exclusivamente ecológicos.

Está hecho de y está preparado con seem to be exceptions....but it could be a mistake...maybe the concept is being made of something ...an action ..even if its done ..dunno ..

Está comes from the verb estar ...BUT ...unless they have just mistakenly put the accent there on the site and they mean esta ..
But i think they use native speakers.

Have i misunderstood something??

But deffo ser vrs estar is the hardest thing for me

I am reading a book by laura gallego right now ..keeps throwing me for a loop ...but she could be making it a dialect ..

Mister sifter you and me good we besties

besos!

Eager beaver ..we good too ..its good to have these convos ..it means we can learn. I make mistakes ALL the time. Its fun to make mistakes even more fun than getting it right

Bob Harris wrote: »

The accent should be there, it's correct. In any case if it was 'esta' the sentence wouldn't make much sense. There's an awful lot of overthinking going on in here!

I agree. We are over thinking. actually i am just over thinking I DO THIS TOO MUCH.

We need our own thread guys SER vrs ESTAR!

You are all invited.

I promise to be more humble and not so insufferable in the SER vrs Estar thread.

Also think a thread on interwebs terms in spanish would be useful for me right now. I am sure they don't call a thread un hilo??

I am ordering stuff from spanish websites so it would be useful!

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I agree. We are over thinking. actually i am just over thinking I DO THIS TOO MUCH.

We need our own thread guys SER vrs ESTAR!

You are all invited.

Un nuevo tema para discutir las diferencias entre ser v estar? Va a ser que no!