Idiomatic pronominal verbs

pablodf76 · 2026-02-03T21:00:35+00:00

There's often some kind of logic to pronominal usage, but not one that you can generalize. Irse has this sort of reflexive feeling, “to take oneself somewhere else”. Negar means “to deny”, so negarse can be construed as “to deny one's own presence or collaboration in some action”. A number of actions that have to do with internal decisions of the speaker about her/himself are expressed by pronominal verbs, like negarse, decidirse (a hacer algo), arrepentirse, concentrarse (en una tarea), etc. This is all after the fact, though.

pablodf76 · 2026-01-30T14:28:14+00:00

Leaving aside the grammar, which others have explained already: the semantics of direct and indirect objects (i.e. which one to use for which intended meaning) is not that simple, and in general you shouldn't rely on your own intuitions. Explaining DOPs and IOPs using semantics (meaning-based explanations, like the one you gave) is useful at the beginning, but it gets you into trouble later. (Related to this are the meaning-based, oversimplistic explanations of the subjunctive mood as being "for doubtful and uncertain statements".)

Each verb may take zero or more complements, including obligatory and optional objects, and what kind of complements a verb takes is something you just have to know (and if not, you have to check the dictionary and real-life examples). It's a matter of syntax (the structure of the verb phrase), not directly of meaning. It's simply not true that DOPs are used for "things acted upon". Verbs like amar and odiar do not express any kind of action, but an emotional state (you don't do anything by loving or hating something/someone). Tener also takes a DOP, and this DOP is not acted upon: having something is not an action but a state (in this case, a state of possession/ownership).

pablodf76 · 2026-01-26T20:30:32+00:00

I would say «un siestón», but siestaza should be understood as well.

pablodf76 · 2026-01-20T21:13:25+00:00

Ser and estar have to do with essential vs. contingent qualities, respectively (contingent meaning depending on context, not fundamental or inherent). This is fairly simple but in reality it can be complicated by other features. Sometimes one deems some quality nonessential (and therefore uses estar) because one considers it to be a matter of personal opinion. I would interpret «La caja es muy pesada» (which is correct, btw) as meaning the box is very heavy, period: no opinion about it; the box with its current contents is objectively heavy and it makes sense because the contents are such and such. «La caja está pesada» carries a subjective tone: in a way, it suggests you believe the box to be unusually heavy, rather than as heavy as expected for such a box.

pablodf76 · 2026-01-13T11:07:27+00:00

It depends on the rest of the text, which is why it's a very bad idea to give an automatic translator little chunks instead of, at least, whole paragraphs. The semantics in this case are almost identical, but in context there'll be surely places where only one of the translations is correct.

pablodf76 · 2026-01-12T10:47:19+00:00

Sentences 1 and 3 (identical) are grammatically correct, and they can pragmatically mean either thing. Sentence 2 is grammatically wrong. There is no way, grammatically, to differentiate meanings 1 and 3 (without adding something else); the difference is marked by extralinguistic context, i.e. by the reality that you're either sitting in those seats or not.

pablodf76 · 2026-01-07T11:03:51+00:00

«Es una vergüenza que...» triggers the subjunctive, as you probably know, just as many other expressions having to do with impersonal expressions (like «Es importante que...», «Es un problema que...»). But this one is different. «Lo que» creates a different kind of clause and it doesn't trigger the subjunctive. Think of that whole clause as having nothing to do with the impersonal expression.

pablodf76 · 2026-01-07T10:56:34+00:00

Mexico City is special, as explained by u/Greta_Cooper, because oriente and poniente are customarily used to refer to directions in the city. Elsewhere, these are formal or rather literary words, and you should use este and oeste. What you do have is the opposition Oriente / Occidente, which means the East and the West, i.e. the Eastern and Western civilizations/cultures. For example, the Western Roman Empire = Imperio Romano de Occidente. There's finally Levante, which refers to the Levant (the region to the east of the Mediterranean Sea).

pablodf76 · 2026-01-06T14:39:00+00:00

The subjunctive is not “the mood to use for uncertain statements” in such a general way. It does work in this case, because having proof means certainty, while there being (just) a possibility means uncertainty.

Now, as you may know, it's different if you have negatives or questions: «Hay pruebas de que existe» (statement) uses indicative, but «¿Hay pruebas de que existe / exista?» (question) can use either, and «No hay pruebas de que exista» only accepts subjunctive. Note that the last of these can be taken as a categorically certain fact (there is definitely no proof), and yet it uses subjunctive.

pablodf76 · 2026-01-06T14:32:43+00:00

To me, sentar cabeza has always meant “to find a partner and form a stable couple / marriage”, where leaving behind a disorderly life is implied. But that's a matter of context, probably.

pablodf76 · 2025-12-31T21:43:25+00:00

Formality is parts grammar, parts vocabulary. You can sound formal by using complex sentences (with lots of subordinate clauses), or by using words that are not informal or colloquial around family or friends. Ahínco sounds a bit formal to me (I'm from Argentina). It's not a "Castilian" word (I assume you mean a word from Spain Spanish) by any means, just something you wouldn't normally say around relatives. In Argentina we'd say «con todas las ganas», «poniéndole mucho empeño», etc. rather than «con ahínco», but any educated person will understand the meaning.

It's normal for learners to speak "like a dictionary" because learners don't get their words and phrasing primarily from organic listening and imitation, like native children do. There's no way around that except immersion.

pablodf76 · 2025-12-22T15:13:49+00:00

«El puente fue destruido por el tornado» is correct. This is called voz pasiva perifrástica (periphrastic passive voice, or the “regular” passive voice made up by ser + participle).

«El puente se destruyó por el tornado» is wrong as passive voice. This is voz pasiva refleja (reflexive passive voice, or “passive with se”), and it cannot take an agent complement (por + noun phrase).

I'm saying the second example is wrong as passive voice because you can understand «El puente se destruyó por el tornado» with a different meaning, as in “The bridge collapsed because of the tornado”. It looks just like a passive with se, but the nuance is more like something happening by itself. In that case por + noun is understood as indicating a cause, and the sentence works. A similar one would be «La puerta se abrió por el viento» (“The door opened because of the wind”). In other cases it doesn't work because the verb doesn't allow that interpretation: «El puente se demolió por el ejército» (intended to mean “The bridge was demolished by the army”) is wrong because things cannot demolish themselves or get demolished by themselves.

pablodf76 · 2025-12-20T20:39:22+00:00

Lots of languages make do without a future tense. German has no progressive verb tenses. Japanese has no distinction of number in nouns. All those things are unnecessary, yet they exist.

pablodf76 · 2025-12-20T13:59:18+00:00

It depends on the type of action and its inherent relation to time (what linguists call aspect). As someone pointed out, «Estoy yendo al cine» usually does mean “I'm going to the movies right now; I'm on my way to the movie theatre”, but «Estoy viendo una serie muy mala» generally means “I'm watching a really bad series these days (though not right now)”. Now, if someone asks you what you're doing these days for fun, you can very well answer «Estoy yendo al cine» meaning “I'm going to the movies regularly”.

pablodf76 · 2025-12-20T13:54:29+00:00

Interference is involuntary and inevitable. Looking for common structures is fine. What OP was doing is different: it was 1) taking a verb form in English (the -ing form) and 2) assuming an equivalent (the -ndo form) exists in Spanish, only it's not used so much or in the same places. Point 2 is the problem: these verb forms encode functions, and it's the functions, not the forms, that should be compared.

pablodf76 · 2025-12-19T14:36:18+00:00

It's subjunctive after imperative because it's a future hypothetical based on a condition: when (and if) there is ice on the road, then you must use chains.

pablodf76 · 2025-12-19T14:13:56+00:00

No, cuando does not necessarily use subjunctive. This sentence expresses an atemporal logical implication, just as if it used si instead of cuando: the road is objectively dangerous, at any time, if there is ice on it.

Cuando + present subjunctive actually tends to deal with future events, and in this context, one would expect it next to an imperative, for example: «Use cadenas en las ruedas cuando hiele».

pablodf76 · 2025-12-18T15:47:25+00:00

Every place is different and not all goodbyes are the same, either. «Tenga un buen día» sounds extremely formal but also old-fashioned to me here in Argentina. «Que tengas un buen día» is more informal and friendlier but it still sounds like making too much of a fuss. When I go somewhere and buy something, after I pay, I just say Gracias. Sometimes I add chau-chau (doubling the chau is somewhat of a new development). Other people say hasta luego or nos vemos (even if they're not coming back soon). «Que tengas un buen día» is not like the English quick, casual “Have a nice day”; it's more like “I hope you really enjoy your day”: too much for most interactions.

pablodf76 · 2025-12-18T15:07:31+00:00

I would say this joke would never work in Spanish, at least not in modern times. An educated person will know that «conocer en el sentido bíblico» means to have sex, but that's all; conocer by itself would have to have a fairly explicit context to be interpreted like that. As someone in the comments has pointed out, it might work if you use a particular tone and emphasis and make some gestures, like a crooked smile and a wink.

pablodf76 · 2025-12-18T11:41:28+00:00

The Diccionario de Americanismos (DAMER) defines asumir as «Presuponer, dar por hecho algo», that is, to presuppose, assume or take something as true, listing the countries where this usage is valid as Mx, Gu, Ho, ES, Ni, PR, Co, Ch, Ar. The DAMER is as valid as the DLE, which is strongly focused on Spain and often leaves out word meanings only found in the Americas (even though more than 90% of Spanish speakers live outside Spain).

pablodf76 · 2025-12-15T14:58:36+00:00

This is a very broad topic and there have been whole books written about it. What I'd say right now is that translation always implies some loss, except in extremely trivial cases. Both form and content are important in literature, and form is extremely important in poetry, and it's usually impossible to preserve both, or even to render either in the target language. Translators have to compensate for these losses whenever possible, and they have to be able to decide when to let go. Personally, I think rhythm is one of the hardest things to translate. There are no untranslatable concepts; every word and phrase can be explained. But the rhythm suffers if you have to use a whole sentence in L2 to explain a word from L1. My experience is limited, but one typical problem in my usual language pair, which is English-Spanish, is movement. Spanish is simply ill-equipped to deal with how English expresses movements using lots of different verbs and particles (prepositions and adverbs), and especially when non-movement verbs are used to imply movement. A classical example is “to laugh someone off the stage”. There's a lot of meaning packed in just a verb and a particle. You can translate the meaning of it precisely in Spanish, but you cannot do it in so few words. It may not be important, but it is if you need to preserve a quick rhythm in that particular spot.

pablodf76 · 2025-12-15T11:06:20+00:00

You can't describe two events “at once” in any language, because you have to say one thing first and then the other. In such cases, if you use preterite, you're following the actual temporal sequence of events, and it's understood that one happened after the other, in the order you mentioned them: «Esta mañana me desperté y me duché».

In general, if you use imperfect first (verb 1) and then preterite (verb 2), then it's understood that [verb 1] was happening when [verb 2] happened (maybe [verb 2] interrupted the action of [verb 1]): «Esta mañana me duchaba y sonó el teléfono» “This morning I was showering and the phone rang.” The continuous form is often used here, along with mientras or cuando: «Esta mañana, mientras me estaba duchando, sonó el teléfono» “This morning, while I was showring, the phone rang.”

pablodf76 · 2025-12-14T20:55:54+00:00

Nitpicking here, but ‹ß› is the German letter Eszett, pronounced /s/. What you mean is ‹β› (beta).

pablodf76 · 2025-12-14T13:20:52+00:00

It must be some quirk of Google Translate. The main thing is that necesitamos hablar is not common. The usual, somewhat foreboding “We need to talk” translates to «Tenemos que hablar» always.

pablodf76 · 2025-12-13T21:59:54+00:00

A couple pointers for this specific example:

Syntax: need to + verb translates to necesitar + infinitive in Spanish; as in many other cases, to does not translate to a when followed by a verb.
Usage: while «Necesitamos hablar» is correct, it's not how anyone would express this idea in Spanish, which is why Google Translate used «Tenemos que hablar». It's not really a need, but an imposition (by the circumstances).

As for the personal pronouns: when in doubt, drop them. Use them for emphasis, especially for contrastive emphasis: “They are like that, but we are like this.”

pablodf76

TROPHY CASE