It seems that "En caso de que..." (In case that) triggers the subjunctive. This is all good, its and impersonal statement. I get this.

Though "En caso es que" (In case it is that) does not seem to trigger the subjunctive. For example:

"En caso es que no pude seguir mirándolo"

Why is this the case?

And I want to say thank you for reading this far and if you have any ideas thank you very much.

"El Espacio se queda!"

I am doing a sociology project and found this phrase on a banner on a building in Spain on google maps related to my project, im guessing its a protest against eviction because that makes sense in context. Google translate says "Space remains", is this a correct interpretation, guessing it's a bit off? Thanks :)

When saying "my favorite books are", it would be "mis libros favoritos son ..." but if it is for clothes, is "mi ropa favorita es" correct? I should keep using es instead of son when it is ropa, right?

No entiendo cómo funcionan nombres con dos apellidos. Trabajo en medicina, cuando tengo un paciente que se llama por ejemplo “ Maria Gutierrez Hernandez “, debo dirigirle con “sra Gutierrez” o “sra Hernandez” ??

I want to tell someone "i MISSED you", not "i miss you."

For example; they just came home and I tell them "I missed you."

Would I use eché or echo?

Consider the following sentence I just read: "Quien me va a limpiar mi casa?" What is the purpose of the word "me" in this sentence if the house is what needs to be cleaned and not the person speaking? What change in meaning is there if it were left out? Is it for stress?

Hey, I would need some help with that. It is vocabulary that we had to present it in a game. I need help with the spelling and I would appreciate help with the concept formulation of the rules of the game "memory"

I tried googling but I am to much of a beginner to be able to tell if Google is showing me the right things lmao

for non-spatial use. for example,

“I’m going to do it first” doesn’t actually refer to physically going to a place

would “voy a hacerlo primero” be a correct way to express that you will, in the future, do a certain thing?

Can someone please confirm if my understanding of this is correct, as it would help me crack and element of basic grammar that I'm not sure about.

Me veo bien - I look OK/good, as in physical appearance - "creo que me veo bien en este vestido"

Yo veo bien - I look/see good/well, as in I have good eyesight - "(yo) no necesito las gafas porque (yo) veo bien".

And so te ves bien would be you look good, and tu ves bien would be you have good eyesight?

In order to say something happened and I was happy, it doesn’t seem common to say estuve alegre or estaba alegre, but me alegré is often used. Are the “estar alegre” versions wrong? Are there specific contexts where either version of estar alegre might be better than me alegré? Is tener used instead of estar? If estar or tener can be used, does it indicate another meaning of alegre, like tipsy or more generally cheerful? Is alegre one of those words that is only used with ser, not estar?

The lyrics go “no pasa un día que no piense en ti”. Is ‘piense’ subjunctive instead of indicative, because the first part of the sentence is negative?

would it make sense for me to put 2 infinitives one after the other e.g. debería poder tener I learn Spanish in school but i’ve never come across it before

Sorry if youve seen questions like this on this subreddit before but this is my first time here. Ive been trying to understand spanish accents and got the basics, like if it ends in a consonant (not n or s) the word is stressed on the last syllable, and if the word ends in a vowel, and n or s, the stress is in the second to last syllable.

But, when do i know theres an exception, and when do i know the stress is before the antepenultimate syllable, to know when i need to put an accent or just generally know there is stress there. Sorry if i made this too confusing or if i wrote something wrong as this concept still confuses me

I can say for Japanese, never use Google Translate for it as it's bad! The reason is that the grammar functions differently from English (or Spanish) as Japanese is SOV while most Western languages are SVO. I won't even dive deep into honorific speech as that barely gets it right. I am not talking about travel-related or basic dialog, instead about having an actual conversation filled with street words or slang. In terms of sentence structure:

As you can see it's very different to Spanish.

They advertise GT for Spanish a lot, but they're only using it for basic dialog, that is not what I am discussing here. Instead mainly talking about dialog that has both puns or hyperbolic expressions that don't relate culturally towards Spanish speakers hence why they get lost in translation that even DeepL doesn't understand for instance: "The line at the store was a mile long*." (La cola en la tienda era de un kilómetro.) which is just garbage.

The term 'mile long' puts emphasis on exaggerating how long someone has to wait in the queue. How would you correctly convey that in Spanish keeping the hyperbole intact? The issue I have with the literal Spanish translation is that it's talking about actual distance, not capturing the exaggerated form of colloquial speech.

In terms of Spanish, since it's a Romance language (i.e. French) while English is Germanic (i.e. Dutch) does that play a role as to why translations suck for Spanish despite having similar words? Do you deem Google Translate crap for Spanish (non-basic or travel related dialog) when using it to have a spoken conversation filled with profanity, slang or hidden jokes that don't translate culturally?

Why is the "s" dropped?

I'm reading El problema de los tres cuerpos, and just want to clarify the following sentence:

Luego miró a Yang Weining, asintiendo con la cabeza, y entró en la base precediendo a los soldados que transportaban las cajas.

So they're entering the base, but who's following who? Is it the the soldiers who enter first, or the subject who "luego miró" and "entró" (it's another character Lei Zhicheng, I just decided to cut out some preceding text).

Is “de” used normally with cortésmente to show politeness to the recipient, rather than to mean that the recipients were polite?

Are there other phrases where the word “de” translates to English as “to” instead of “from”?

Here’s an example sentence from Spanish Dictionary.

El camarero se despidió cortésmente de sus clientes y les dijo que volvieran pronto. — The waiter said goodbye politely to his clients and told them to come back soon.

Does the “de” in this case belong to “se despidió de”, which I might translate as “took leave of his clients” (politely)?

Or does “cortèsmente de” itself mean courtesy to someone, rather than from someone?

I first want to thank this group for it's help. You lot are amazing.

I just don't understand why sea is used here. Very happy to google away a certain phrase or type of trigger this is. I wouldn’t have though "Resulta que" would trigger the subjunctive. I just can't work out why, or what rule, leads to it being subjunctive. The sentence -

"Resulta que ese tío dicho sea sin desprecio."

"It turns out that the aforementioned guy is without contempt" - Google translate.

Or perhaps more useful

Turns out that what that uncle said is without contempt? - Or am I wrong here?

So in some cases sea (is) is used without any kind of trigger? A bit like hubiera (would have). Is this correct?

A friend of mine tells me there's not really a direct way to express the sentiment in English.

I guess the idea is that it's a polite way to dismiss someone, to call them a zero or a contemptible person -- you feel ashamed on their behalf, or pity them.

That's just one person's take, but I'm wondering if others feel that way. I think it's funny. You can say "what a pity" in English and kind of sort of express the same idea but it probably doesn't carry the same punch?

Hello!

I’m really trying to understand the nuance between these verbs. I’m working through some exercises where I have to pick estar or ser and I can’t figure the reasoning for the following ones:

1. La verbena de San Juan del año pasado fue/estuvo al aire libre. I picked estuvo because it relates to the location of the event. But I think I read an exception that when you’re talking about the location of a specific event you use ser. Is that right?

2. Amelia está/es de profesora en un instituto desde que acabó la carrera de Químicas. I put es because it’s her profession but does the de after the verb make it estar?

3. La dificultad de aprender bien un idioma está/es la pronunciación. Why is it está? I don’t know the reasoning here.

Thank you!

I'm struggling to understand how the imperfect subjective, with the hubieran, happened. No si, que, como si. I'm not sure how this was "triggered". Thanks

"Nuestra envidia o nuestras señales hubieran servido de poco.

Buenas. I want to thank the people in this sub for being helpful with my questions. You all are great.

This is what I wrote: Cambia el idioma de móvil y de los medios sociales de Ingles a Español. Ayuda con familiarizarse con Español. Porque cambia tu idioma en los medios sociales, empieza conseguir videos y post en Español.

For the first sentence, I´m getting confused with the articles. Is it right to say el idioma de móvil or el idioma del móvil? same with de los medios sociales, is it right to put los in this sentence? Second sentence, is that too many cons? I´m not sure if it´s correct.

I'm making a timeline of when you might use the conditional, the future and the subjunctive.

The simple, imperfect subjunctive can be used to refer to any time frame, really... right?

I'm aware that, to talk about right now, you would say "si tengo (suficiente) dinero... " or "si tuviera dinero..." depending on how hopeful you are about your current bank balance. Quizás ya tengas el dinero. Quizás no.

But what about in the past or in the future.

I know that, "si hubiera tenido dinero, lo habría comprado" is perfectly gramatical. But what about:

Si tuviera dinero ese día, lo habría comprado

Is that common?

And what about the future?

Si algún día tuviera dinero... Si la semana que viene tuviera dinero...

How odd or not does that sound?

Also, sorry if tener dinero sounds daft. I'm not sure how odd it sounds with or without an article or a word like suficiente or mucho.

I have two sets that I can think of off the top of my head. Share your own, please, because I need to get these sorted out in my head!

[1]

empañar >!- to get misty!<

empeñar >!- to pawn, sell to a pawn shop!<

empeñarse >!- to persist, make an effort!<

desempeñar - >!to do, carry out!<

desempeñarse - >!to work as!<

apañar >!- to rig; to steal!<

apañarse >!- to manage!<

empanar >!- to bread!<

[2]

destellar >!- to sparkle!<

estallar >!- to explode!<

estrellar >!- to crash!<

i have noticed 'de' used in other prepositions like 'detras de' and 'cerca de'. Now I understand 'de' is used to describe relation of one noun to another. so I understood it as 'el es detras de ti' is because his position is behind in relation to you. but then my logic fails with prepositions like 'bajo' or 'sombre'. basically I want to understand is there a reason why some use de and some don't.

Just starting to learn. Is the meaning just contextual? Sometimes I see "how" as cómo but isn't that pronounced the same?

Would anyone be able to explain why this is the correct answer to this question?

¿Conoces a alguna persona famosa? No conozco a ninguna persona famosa.

In English, I feel like I would use "any" in both the answer and the question, as in "I don't know any famous people" not "I don't know none famous people"

I think I'm missing somehting. Thank you!

hi everyone, so i was thinking about how i would ask the question “when did you move here?”, like asking someone when they moved from one place to the current place we’re in, in the context of their residence, address, where they live etc… i came up with ¿cuando mudaste aquí?

upon checking behind myself with a translator, i got ¿cuando te mudaste aquí? now, if i were to come across this question while simply reading something, i would still completely understand it. but i see it’s treating the verb mudar as reflexive. is mudar one of those verbs where in a specific context it’s always treated as a reflexive?? which means the infinitive is mudarse in this case??? or is there a specific sentence structure here that i’m missing??

i hope this makes sense haha, thanks for all your help!

My teacher really struggled to explain this.

How do I know when to put the tilde (or on what syllable). She kind of implied it just goes on the antepenultimate syllable like dámelo, but I found examples where it goes on some other syllable (or not at all). Can someone give me a run down on how to know where to put it?

Edit: i didnt make it clear, but I mean when you add indirect and direct pronouns to an imperative construction like “despiertate” or “diselo” - I don’t know where to put the tilde without just guessing.

Thank you guys and girls :)))

can i only use one instead of to many to become

TO BECOME : PONERSE , VOLVERSE , HACERSE , CONVERTIRSE , TRANSFORMARSE

i want to only use " volverse" everytime i use to become. - is it posible?