/spanishclass/ - Clase de Español

>>293

'fin de semana' is a compound (it means weekend); you can't break it into parts.

If you removed the 'el', it would sound like you're ordering food for some guy named 'fin de semana'.

Order food for this weekend = Pedir comida para este fin de semana

>>296

I mean, if you said "Pedir comida para fin de semana", it would be plain wrong.

Así que si le pido "mesa para dos", ¿es correcto?

So if I ask "table for two", is that correct?

>>300

>mesa para dos

Yes, this phrase is correct.

>Así que si le pido "mesa para dos", ¿es correcto?

Así que si pido "mesa para dos", ¿es correcto?

We don't know who the "le" is referring to (a waiter, perhaps? Or maybe it's in 2nd person formal?), so we have to drop it.

I mean, the 'le' would make sense if we could infer who it's referring to.

The mistake becomes apparent when we look at the English.

If I ask => Si pido

If I ask him => Si le pido

If I ask him "table for two" => Si le pido mesa para dos

If I ask "table for two" => Si pido mesa para dos

>>304

oh ok, gracias.

The waiter came out with my food and said to me mucho trabajo(?)which took me a few seconds to remember the word trabajo but the sentence threw me off. Much work? He said it is a phrase used but I soon forgot his explanation. Can anyone help why this was said out of the blue?

El mesero venir con mi comida y habla por mi "mucho trabajo(?)" que confundir (confundo?) mi. Por que se utiliza? Tambien, 'por que' significado because y why, esta correcto?

>>325

>por qué = why

¿Por qué está triste María? -> Why is Maria sad?

>porque = because

María está triste porque no tiene amigos. -> Maria is sad because she doesn't have friends.

>¿mucho trabajo?

Literally "lots of work?"

She was asking whether you had to work a lot. As in, "Are you buried in work?", or "Lots of things to do?".

Finding equivalents for those kinds of phrases can get a bit tough sometimes.

>El mesero venir con mi comida y habla por mi "mucho trabajo(?)" que confundir (confundo?) mi. Por que se utiliza?

El meseromozo also works vino con mi comida y me dijo "¿mucho trabajo?", lo cual me confundió. Para qué se utiliza?

¿Para qué se utiliza? -> What is it used for?

>>327

Vino is the indicative preterite conjugation of venir which I'm assuming is similar to 'brought' in english. My question is (which I'm sure as I write this is probably due to the way it is used in the sentence) how to tell if it is referring to the verb 'bring' or 'wine'.

So it is similar to saying something like the phrase "pretty busy? Or you been busy?

>>327

>>329

Brought -> trajo

He brought my food -> (Él) Trajo mi comida.

Vino -> came

Fulano vino cansado del trabajo -> Fulano came tired from work

Fulano is a generic placeholder name in Spanish

>discerning wine from came

Fulano vino con vino -> Fulano came with wine (con vino -> with wine. The with makes it a dead giveaway, as you can't use 'with' with a verb)

You could also say "Fulano brought some wine", but the meaning differs a little. I would say "Fulano trajo vino" in that case.

>>330

>So it is similar to saying something like the phrase "pretty busy? Or you been busy?

I'm failing to find much of a difference between those two phrases. I assume the waiter saw you were a bit tired and asked "lots of work, huh?", or something to that end.

>>331

ah, gracias amigo.

>>331

can you use an example of 'trae' in a sentence please? And also translate what I just said?

>>333

>can you use an example of 'trae' in a sentence please?

¿Puedes darme un ejemplo de 'trae' en una oración, por favor?

I used the verb 'dar' (give) because 'usar' (use) sounds iffy here

>And also translate what I just said?

¿Y también traducir lo que acabo de decir?

>Examples of 'traer' in a sentence

1.Tráeme una gaseosa -> Bring me a soda

gaseosa = soda(English)

soda(Spanish) = carbonated water

Yes, I know that agua carbonatada = carbonated water, but saying 'agua carbonatada' is gonna get you weird looks around here, so we just call it 'soda' (or 'agua con gas' when it's bottled)

2. Pepito va a traer a su hermana de España -> Pepito is going to bring her sister from Spain

Situatcíon: Ordeno dos tacos del camarón pero mucha crema, queso, tomates y quiero tres mas tacos del carne but made the same as the taco above. Le(I don't understand when to use le o seyet) pregunte ¿como se dice the same order as above . El mozo me dijo para usara: that was probably fucking horrible, but I'm trying

the same

la misma

orden- order

gimmie- oguaal (he spelled it this way as well- jyual)

So jyual(sp) la misima orden la intención (gimmie the same order, but my intention is that I want the tacos to be fixed like the shrimp tacos).

>>338

>tacos del camarón pero mucha crema

I don't understand what you tried to say here. Maybe "tacos de camarón, pero con mucha crema"? shrimp tacos, (but) with a lot of cream

>y quiero tres mas tacos del carne but made the same as the taco above

Y quiero tres tacos de carne, pero con lo mismo que el otro taco

And I want three meat tacos, but with the same stuff as the other taco

I'm no good at ordering food, so my English translations may be a bit clunky

>I don't understand when to use le o se

Le pregunté [algo] -> I asked him [sth]

Se pregunté doesn't make any sense. It's so wrong I can't even think of an engrishy translation to illustrate why it's wrong.

¿Cómo se dice…? -> How do you say…?

I know 'se' is very tough to get down. My advice would be to study its use cases (e.g. passive voice, reflexive verbs, when it means 'each other')

>¿como se dice "the same order as above"?

La misma orden que la anterior.

Or maybe

Otra orden igual (que la anterior).

Above (it would translate to 'la de arriba' in this case) sounds out of place in Spanish.

>gimmie the same order, but my intention is that I want the tacos to be fixed like the shrimp tacos

In that case, I'd say "Agrégale (al pedido) X tacos de carne con lo mismo que los de camarónes"

Also, add X meat tacos with the same as the shrimp ones

Or maybe

"Quiero hacer otro pedido igual que el anterior, pero con tacos carne"

Roughly, I want to place an order identical to the above one, but with meat tacos instead

Sometimes translations will differ drastically because what sounds natural in one language sounds completely awkward in the other.

>>339

>tacos del camarón pero mucha crema

I should have used con instead of pero.

Also I noticed when I started eating my tacos that I accidently ordered the beef instead of the steak. But I thought taco de carne was steak tacos. Now I know.

Tambien, I thought it was weird(help) cuando dije "con crema agría" y me dijo to use (para usar?) palabra 'crema' y no 'crema agría'.

Also, I thought it was weird when I said "with sour cream" and he told me to use 'crema' and not 'crema agría'.

>>340

I don't know the first thing about tacos, but generally beef means "carne (de vaca)". Steak means filete or bistec (or costeleta in my region).

Since I don't know much about tacos, I don't think I can help you much on that one.

>crema agria

Perhaps 'crema agria' is not in widespread use, hence why he told you to just use crema.

Crema is a very unspecific term by itself. It may mean pretty much any kind of cream, though you can often make out the meaning from the context.

>y me dijo to use

y me dijo que use

No other tense fits here.

>>340

carne=beef

carne asada=steak

Acciughe Con Salsa Verde (italian)= Anchovies in Green Sauce. Is that similar to the espanol translation?

>>354

I've also noticed that a lot of Italiano words are similar to Espanol.

>>354

Anchovies -> Anchoas

Anchovies in green sauce -> Anchoas con salsa verde

>a lot of Italian words are similar to Spanish ones

Indeed. Happens in French too:

échelon -> escalón -> step (on a ladder), or echelon; depends on the meaning you want.

English uses French words too:

Entrepreneur(French) -> Entrepreneur(English) -> Empresario(Spanish)

Orange(French) -> Orange(English) -> Naranja(Spanish; both the fruit and the color)

Ya se me hizo/hace aguar la boca.

'Ya se me"? No entiendo.

>>397

>Ya se me hizo agua la boca

Se me hace agua la boca -> My mouth is watering

i.e., there is food nearby and the speaker is expressing that they find it appetizing.

If we break it down in parts, we get:

>Ya

It's hard to explain, but In this case, 'ya' translates to already.

>se

This means (in this case) that the sentence is reflexive.

If you omitted 'se' in this case, you'd be saying something or someone made your mouth water, which would alter the meaning (and you'd have to include a subject).

>me

This expresses whose mouth is watering.

>hizo agua la boca

Doesn't mean much by itself. There's some stuff you have to consider as an inseparable block. Analyzing every word separately doesn't always make sense. It's just another tool you can use to further your understanding.

If we look at the whole sentence, we get something akin to "my mouth is watering already".

It's situations like this that illustrate why literal translations are not always the best approach

Preterite conjugation of 'to be' (was) l, like, I was going to…

Would I use estar or ser?

>>412

>I was going to…

The tense would be pretérito imperfecto.

>Would I use estar or ser?

It can't be determined from the fragment you posted. It depends on how the sentence goes:

>was going to + verb

I was going to call you -> [Yo] Te iba a llamar

>was going to + place

I was going to the mall -> [Yo] Estaba yendo al centro comercial

>>413

gracias

>>255

Lo necesito pedir un ordenar para llevarse, por favor.

I need to place a to-go order, please.

Es correcto?

>>436

It's

> Necesito pedir una orden para llevar, porfavor.

Lit. "I need to ask-for a to-go order, please"

>>437

MInd you, you can use "Quiero" or "Voy a" instead of "Necesito" as well.

>>438

So "voy a" is similar to "I'm going to"?

>>439

That is correct.