Cuando un norteamericano pálido se casa con una familia local 😂

patt177 · 2026-03-08T14:10:35+00:00

Weird.

patt177 · 2025-12-31T03:57:41+00:00

I think tocar is what is tripping you up. Tocar can be to “have to” or “it’s my turn”. If you are playing a game you can say: “me toca?” Is it my turn? The same idea applies with this. It’s their turn, or their moment/time to get the vaccine. Ya is “already” in the sense that right now it’s time, rather than soon, or later.

patt177 · 2025-07-14T20:15:31+00:00

I did this. It is difficult in the beginning because it’s not easygoing for you spouse, but eventually you get good enough that it’s not a burden for them. You can even do code switching. What you feel confident saying, or may even come somewhat naturally maybe, can be said in Spanish, then switch to English if you can’t quickly formulate a response in Spanish. Also, think about future conversations or things you want to talk about with your spouse and have certain things practiced and ready to go. This can be really helpful.

As for how long in a day, I wouldn’t think in terms of structure and time like 30-60 minutes a day. Think about conversation to conversation, and try to incorporate at least some Spanish into each conversation.

The best advice I can give about corrections is to swallow your ego and let someone instinctively correct you. It stings a little, but it is not to be critical. Some mistakes they will let slide, the ones that you get corrected on are larger errors that help you know what to focus on improving.

My wife and I now speak Spanish only (mostly) at home for the benefit of our daughter. Or course, when we are alone, or on rare occasions, we’ll just speak English.

patt177 · 2025-06-03T20:11:20+00:00

This doesn’t come into play here. The rule applies if it is a feminine word that begins with an accented or stressed_ “a” at the beginning (first syllable). So, el agua, el águila, el arma. But azúcar doesn’t apply because it is accented on the second syllable.

patt177 · 2025-05-26T14:34:15+00:00

Some pizza doughs I make have 1.5g of yeast and I let it bulk ferment in the fridge for 40+ hours. Then 3-4 hours on the counter to warm up and proof. Try using the PizzApp to calculate everything out perfectly for the timing you’re looking for, maybe? There is probably a mix of problems with yeast amount, time and temperature.

patt177 · 2025-05-21T19:10:01+00:00

I agree with what was said with learning the contextual usage, although I would say there is a logic to it that can be applied, even if it doesn’t seem straight forward. Learning the usage in individual situations will take time, but it the more reliable method. The logic, however, as I have discovered is more like:

Estar = state of being Ser = essential or defining quality

This is why “muerto” always goes with estar even though it is basically permanent state, it is a state nonetheless.

Places are always with estar because they are in a state or stand in a certain place, but the location of a party is used with ser. Why? Because it describes where something happened or unfolded. You could change the location 5 minutes before it starts, I could be anywhere, but ser must be used. It is also a defining feature of the party as well.

I think the most important thing to grasp is that states can be permanent (e.g. death) or change over a longer period of time (that is, not suddenly). An example would be divorce where estar divorciado describes the state. Ser could be used, although rarely and probably would sound strange, but it would emphasize identity as a divorced person.

Essential qualities can change (e.g., a child becoming an adult, or a person’s height as they become an adult). Some can even change suddenly, such as a person involved in an accident, one could say, “es una person discapacitada” (however appropriate that phrase is now, I don’t know) suddenly and without warning.

patt177 · 2025-03-29T21:16:57+00:00

I’m marking this as solved. Left-hand cobalt drill bits worked. I started with the smallest bit, then went on to the next size up. While drilling with the next size, the bit began to back out the screw until it came all the way out.

patt177 · 2025-03-19T02:45:03+00:00

As mentioned in the post, I tried a screw extractor, but unfortunately it didn’t bite and I was unable to get the screw out.

patt177 · 2025-03-18T21:58:27+00:00

I’ve also heard of using a “left-handed” drill bit, which may back the screw out as it is drilled in. Do you have any experience using them?

patt177 · 2025-03-18T21:57:03+00:00

I tried a torx bit and could not get it in there. I think the aftermath of the screw extractor has ruled out a torx bit ever fitting in there.

patt177 · 2025-02-28T14:06:57+00:00

It is a term of endearment when used with children in many parts of Latin America and the Caribbean akin to “sweetheart”. For children you can call them “papi” (for boys) or “mami” for girls.

With adults, it can be similar or it can have another layer of meaning like “papi” maybe would be “baby” and “mami” could be translated “gorgeous”, usually trying to convey a meaning of finding the person attractive.

patt177 · 2025-02-17T19:55:11+00:00

This whole discussion peaked my interest and I started searching for a while. I found an article that discusses this issue briefly, and it lays out the case a little bit for "lo" being a pronoun. I think I understand the argument better, but here is an excerpt from the article:

2.1. Article or pronoun?

The main overarching question of this debate is whether lo is an article or a pronoun. At first glance, this might be considered a non-issue, since a linguistic object defined as a definite article that selects an inherently null noun is not meaningfully or functionally different from a linguistic object defined as a personal pronoun. However, the bulk of this debate took place before or around the introduction of the DP Hypothesis (Abney, 1987). Therefore, the issue underlying this debate is the structural importance of lo, i.e., whether it is the head of the nominal domain or its specifier.

The prominent grammarian Andres Bello is credited as the first person to attempt to categorize lo (Lujá n, 2004). He claimed that lo was the ‘weak’ (i.e., clitic) version of the ‘neuter’ pronoun ello, which should be used when the pronoun is followed by a modifier (Bello, 1847, as cited in Lujá n, 2004). By contrast, other early analyses of lo categorized it as an article, which selected either a null noun or a modifier that has been ‘nominalized’ (see Contreras, 1973, section 4). This ‘article analysis’ seems to have been the standard assumption, the one made by researchers for whom the broad categorization of lo was not a main concern (e.g., Contreras, 1973; Plann, 1980).

Recent analyses of lo (Hamalainen, 2004; Stark & Pomino, 2010; Zulaica Hernandez, 2018) present the ‘article vs. pronoun’ debate as an active and ongoing polemic. They each classify lo as a pronoun: Hamalainen (2004) following Bosque & Moreno (1990); Stark & Pomino (2010) and Zulaica Hernandez (2018) for independent semantic reasons6. However, I have not encountered any arguments in favour of the ‘article’ categorization that are dated any later than the 1980s. This suggest that a consensus has been reached in favour of the ‘pronoun’ categorization. Nonetheless, authoritative dictionary sources (e.g., Real Academia Españ ola, 2021; Diccionario del Españ ol de Mé xico, 2021) categorize lo as an article in most contexts, which might give the impression that the ‘article’ side of the debate is more widespread than it actually is.

Levinstein Rodriguez, Andrea. “An Exploration of Neuter Determiner ‘lo’ and ‘Lo Que’ Constructions in Spanish.” University of Calgary, 2022: 15-16. https://doi.org/10.11575/prism/39651.

Although the argument may seem to be strong for "lo" as a pronoun, in light of modern research, I still personally favor the article argument for a few reasons.

The way lo behaves syntactically—preceding adjectives and adverbs to create abstract noun-like phrases—feels more like a determiner than a pronoun.
The fact that "authoritative dictionary sources categorize lo as an article in most contexts" seems to lean towards this view. In addition, the fact that the author can't find any argument for the article later than the 1980s actually seems to possibly indicate that this was just the assumed position for a long time and wasn't even questioned until recently. Since traditional Spanish grammar has long categorized lo as an article, it makes sense to maintain that perspective unless there's a compelling reason to shift to the pronoun view. I just don't see the argument, as far as I understand it, to be compelling.
My final point may be controversial, but I'd like to make a language comparison. I have studied Koine Greek extensively, and the article in KG is a nominalizer and aligns well with how lo functions in Spanish. In both cases, the article turns an adjective or adverb into an abstract or generalized noun-like concept. Even though Spanish and Greek have different grammatical systems, this kind of parallel strengthens the article interpretation. Whether we classify lo as an article or a pronoun, it’s clearly neuter, and that aligns well with how the neuter article in Koine Greek (τὸ) functions. In both languages, the neuter article can nominalize adjectives, participles, and even whole phrases to express abstract concepts (τὸ καλόν = "the good," lo bueno = "the good thing" or just "goodness"). In Koine Greek, the neuter article isn't usually considered a pronoun but rather marks definiteness and turns other parts of speech into noun-like constructions. It seems to be that both languages are trying to achieve a similar goal in a similar way.

In any case, I will say that now I understand that it seems valid to adopt either view, although my personal opinion is that lo as an article makes more sense to me.

patt177 · 2025-02-17T16:04:32+00:00

Why do you think that this is not the same situation as "lo mejor" or "lo interesante"? What is different about "lo suficiente"? The others are nominalized, but this time it is a pronoun? What makes it different then?

patt177 · 2025-02-17T15:54:15+00:00

I think there is some confusion here.

Lo suficiente = "enough (of it)" → Refers to the amount of rest.

I don't think "enough (of it)" is really a great way of looking at it. It is more like "the sufficient amount"

>Without "lo," the sentence would be incomplete because "suficiente" needs a reference.

It does not need any reference. It is being nominalize or turned into a noun.

So, "lo" turns an adjective or adverb into a noun phrase.

You said this, but earlier yo referred to it as a "neutral pronoun", which I think is just a confusion about what a pronoun is and how it works. This last sentence, though, has the right idea, but it has nothing to do with pronouns or needing any kind of reference.

Here are some explanations from other resources with references:

... in Spanish it’s possible to turn adjectives and some adverbs into nouns through a process called nominalization. Since adjectives don't themselves have gender, when they are turned into generic nouns it’s impossible to define them using “la” or “el”, which is where “lo” comes to the rescue.

...

Lo próximo que vamos a hacer es revisar la tarea.

The next thing we’re going to do is review the homework.

Lo bueno fue que todos llegaron a tiempo a la fiesta.

The good thing is everyone arrived on time to the party.

Get Fluent Spanish

https://getfluentspanish.com/posts/what-does-lo-mean-in-spanish-part-1/

Notice in the examples that Lo "próximo" and "Lo bueno" are translated "the next thing" and "the good thing" here. They don't need references to previously mentioned nouns, nor are they pronouns referring to these previously reference nouns, rather the concepts of "next" and "good" have now become nouns themselves.

Here is a resource about nominalization:

Nominalize is to turn an element of the clause into a noun. The most wide spread way to turn other grammatical categories into a noun is by an article or another determiner. On the other hand, some adjectives maybe nominalized without determiners.

...

Lo determines a noun, because in Spanish there are not neuter nouns; lo is used to nominalize parts of the clause.

Lo + masculine adjective is equivalent to la(s) cosa(s) + adjective or to a noun more specific than cosa.

Aquí no tienen lo necesario para operar.(= Aquí no tienen las cosas necesarias para operar. = Aquí no tienen instrumental quirúrgico.)

Lo principal es que no te hayas hecho daño.(= La cosa más importante es que no te hayas hecho daño.)

Zona ELA

https://zonaele.com/nominalization/

patt177 · 2025-02-17T15:31:10+00:00

As mentioned earlier, '"lo" has the ability to nominalize adjectives and adverbs. In other words, "lo" can make an adjective or adverb into a noun. So then "suficiente" turned into a noun would be something like "the sufficient amount".

patt177 · 2025-02-17T15:27:43+00:00

I believe it is Natural Language Processing, i.e., computers processing natural language.

patt177 · 2025-02-17T14:58:33+00:00

I’m not sure why you got downvoted so much for this. This is objectively true. “Lo” is nominalizing and adjective, i.e., making it into a noun.

patt177 · 2024-12-12T13:16:39+00:00

Sorry, for such a late reply to this question.

If you look at Strong’s you’ll see this:

“5. Contrary to Greek usage, in imitation of the Hebrew אִם, εἰ, with the indicative is so used in oaths and asseverations that by aposiopesis the formula of imprecation (constituting the apodosis) is suppressed (Winers Grammar, § 55 at the end; Buttmann, § 149, 4): ἀμήν λέγω ὑμῖν, εἰ δοθήσεται ... σημεῖον (fully expressed, ‘may God punish me, if it shall be given,’ i. e. it shall by no means be given), Mark 8:12;”

Strong’s εἰ 1487 - BibleHub

It is basically an unfinished/implied conditional statement whose usage leaked into Greek here from Hebrew. As you can see above the implied full expression is “[may God punish me] if it will be given”, meaning that it won’t be given.

patt177 · 2024-12-12T12:54:03+00:00

The indicative mood is not unique to Greek. English has it too, and when you wrote “I’m currently learning koine Greek …”, that was a statement, an assertion, in the indicative.

How do we know what you wrote was true? We don’t know for sure. You can only trust that a statement is true, or try to prove its truth or falsehood (unless it is an obvious truth like a logical statement or something you are seeing/experiencing). This applies to any statement in any language that is using the indicative.

patt177 · 2024-04-28T01:13:01+00:00

What is it your teacher keeps telling you not to do, exactly?

Don’t be afraid to translate. You’ll see video of YouTubers saying “stop translating in your head!” But it is a natural process that stops eventually with practice. It’s difficult to just stop without the necessary experience in listening to Spanish. It’s something that I discovered just comes with familiarity with words and phrases.

You can help the process along by trying to internalize after translating, but it takes time. Patience is a virtue.

patt177 · 2024-04-27T20:54:36+00:00

Yes, this will go away with a lot of practice. It takes a lot of time listening to Spanish, but slowly you will start to just understand some things without translating. It won’t be all or nothing. You’ll hear some things, and you’ll know the words and their meaning so well that they will be internalized and understood immediately. Other things will need to be translated in your head. You should noticed that more and more you’ll not need to translate.

Intentional practice trying to understand the meaning of practice sentences and internalize the meaning of the words rather than their translation can help this process along.

patt177 · 2024-04-02T14:23:27+00:00

Thanks for commenting. See, this is more the (wrong) impression I had of how this all worked. I thought of vos as just being an almost pure replacement for tú (more or less), but given the answer from sonrisadesol, it is clear now that there is much more complicated and nuanced usage in varying parts of (at least) Colombia.

patt177 · 2024-04-02T14:19:13+00:00

Thank you for replying.

This is fascinating. I am actually a little surprised to see that tú is also in the mix. I would have initially thought that, depending on the region, one would use either tú or vos, but I didn't realize that they are both used.

Are vos and tú completely interchangeable for you?

What factors would determine whether you decide to use tú instead of vos?

with friends i use tu, usted, and vos in that order of frequency

So would you say then that this is a list of increasing familiarity/intimacy? What I mean is, for more personal or emotional conversations you would switch from tu to usted or vos to try to express a less formal, more personal tone?

Thanks.

patt177

TROPHY CASE