Talk:Spanish grammar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 To-do list for Spanish grammar: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
I've blanked this list because I wrote it for the article before I separated it out into different articles. Feel free to add new to-do items. — Chameleon 13:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
See history before 4 July 2004 at Spanish language
Talk up to 14 June 2005: archived at /Archive1.
Contents |
[edit] Rules of the RAE, and cleft sentences
User:Hdezela mentioned "unused rules" of the RAE regarding inverted question and exclamation marks and accents on uppercase letters. I've reverted those edits since I think they were not accurate and would anyway need some source (besides anecdotic personal experience).
- It is true that many people today leave out the so-called inverted marks, but that's mostly in email and cell phone text messages; nobody's leaving them out in other forms of writing (newspapers, TV news, TV ads, CVs, books, pamphlets, etc.). When children leave them out, they're still corrected by the teachers, so the rule is not "unused".
- It is also true that many people leave out the accents on uppercase letters (and not only in all-uppercase words). In my experience, people often claim they thought it was correct to do so or even that there was a rule dictating it. But that again is my personal experience.
The other thing is the form of the cleft construction. In my dialect at least, nobody uses quien as a relative pronoun except in formal speech, and then they consistently use quien instead of el/la que regardless of the purpose of the sentence (informative or responsive). The only thing that may change is the order of the clauses: "Fue Juan el que perdió las llaves" vs. "El que perdió las llaves fue Juan", also vs. simply "Las llaves las perdió Juan". --Pablo D. Flores 15:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] La que lo se...
Examples La que lo sé soy yo and Yo fui el que me lo bebí seam to be terribly wrong to me, I've never heard it before. I believe that in singular the subordinate clause never matches the person (second examples).
Also, Es por eso por lo que lo hice is labeled among correct expresion, which might be, but Es por eso que lo hice as uneducated speech; call me uneducated, by I would defenitelly never use the first, and always use the second! Mariano(t/c) 07:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- The first examples do look rather wrong, but I have heard them. I'm not sure if they're prescriptively wrong. As for the others, Es por eso por lo que lo hice is correct but awfully long and affected; I've never heard it, or even seen it in print. Es por eso que lo hice is definitely not uneducated; que has been long used as an all-purpose relative pronoun. In any case, most people I know would use Por eso lo hice, with emphasis on por eso, to convey the same idea. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Realise that you are talking about spoken language where sentences tend to be longer and more redundant. Short and precise sentences are not unneducated as Mariano suggests. What make the speech sound 'educated' is the consistency in style, and the good use of the grammar. I would say the first sentence is wrong because "La que sabe" is actually in third person (singular), and the verb was conjugated in the first person "(yo) sé". The second sentence is wrong for similar reasons, confusion of first and third person. I would re-write those sentences as follows:
- La que lo sabe soy yo
- You fui el que se lo bebió
- --tequendamia 12:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Realise that you are talking about spoken language where sentences tend to be longer and more redundant. Short and precise sentences are not unneducated as Mariano suggests. What make the speech sound 'educated' is the consistency in style, and the good use of the grammar. I would say the first sentence is wrong because "La que sabe" is actually in third person (singular), and the verb was conjugated in the first person "(yo) sé". The second sentence is wrong for similar reasons, confusion of first and third person. I would re-write those sentences as follows:
[edit] Conjunctions
Could someone please add a section or paragraphs about conjunctions? I know there are at least a couple forms of y, depending on what follows, though I don't speak Spanish. --LakeHMM 04:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll add it in when I have the time. Jorge Padrón 03:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- I added a small subsection in the "Miscellaneous" section concerning just y and o. I figure that for the moment only those idiosyncratic conjuctions need be mentioned. Unless I am missing something, I believe those are the only ones that actually change forms; and I am a native speaker (though I can be wrong). If anything, a short list can be added later of other generally-used conjunctions, like the preposition section.
Jorge Padrón 04:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
There are only two conjunctions in Spanish: a + el -> al; de + el -> del. Diego Argueta 9:24, 15 Octiber 2007 (UTC)
- Those are contractions, not conjunctions. Spanish has a number of conjunctions, including y , o , pero, sino, que, como, pues, among others. Only y and o have alternate forms. Nohat 22:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External Links Consistency
hey guys, I tried adding a site a while back and it kept on getting deleted. I was told by the remover that I should bring it up here. So I have. I think there are sites that are less useful to users than the one I added, so if you want to remove it (www.jiffyspanish.com) please take it up with me here first, so I don't just re-add it again. Cheers, Lumpeseckel 01:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- The link is http://www.jiffyspanish.com/grammar. Please don't add it until it's decide on its usefulness.--Mariano(t/c) 17:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, but I still don't understand who decides? If I think it's useful and you don't how do we decide whether it stays or goes? And what about the other links, if I think they aren't useful, should I just go and delete them? Some consistency is needed here. Lumpeseckel 03:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I personally think the proposed link doesn't provide any encyclopedic information to the reader other than the already present in Wikipedia, and thus would say not to include it. After all, Wikipedia is not a link source to tutorials. Even if the site contains valid information on the subject, it is still a commercial site, trying to sell you its product.
- Who decides? I was expecting more feedback from the people attending this article. --Mariano(t/c) 12:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
That's fine Mariano, but even looking at some of the other sites linked to in Spanish Grammar, they often have products for sale. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I am still confused about who has the right to do this or that. I would appreciate if you could just leave my links until a consensus is reached. Cheers Lumpeseckel 04:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I was expecting comments from other users as well. You may add the link if you wish. --Mariano(t/c) 11:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Verifying coger
I've found coger in the REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA dictionary [1]. It verifies that the vulgar use of coger but says its use is just American. But I'm unable to link to it. The site seems as reliable as online sources can be. --41.245.12.244 21:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Coger
I don't think that it is the best to have the word "fuck" on this page. Imagine if a person wanted to look up Spanish on wikipedia and saw "fuck", not so good huh? I suggest moving the part about coger to a Spanish vulgarity page if it does mean "to fuck". GlassDesk (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dialect variations
The dialect variations section, while interesting, is a bit... sparse. Might someone who is an expert on the subject go a little more in depth on the grammatical gender section and beyond? Thanks! 66.68.154.201 (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
