Language practice thread

[vo1dwalk3r]

Ugh, gratiās agō prō audivandō.
Ugh, thanks for helping me.
I haven't learned gerunds yet - is this a correct use?

Putō mē linguam Anglicam nimis ūtor ubī Latīnā scrībō sed nesciō quōmodo mūtāre.
I think I generally stick too close to English when writing in Latin but I don't really know how to change that.
Can quōmodo be used as a relative pronoun like that?

[zyma]

Yo uso el subjuntivo pero, sí, menos de que lo uso aquí (quiero parecer inteligente/educado aquí).
I use the subjunctive but, yeah, less than I do here (I want to seem smart/educated here).

Sin embargo, loglorn tiene razón. En este caso es mejor usar el subjuntivo.
Nevertheless, loglorn is right. In this case it's better to use the subjunctive.

Hoffentlich werde ich bald lernen, wann man den Konjunktive auf Spanisch benutzen soll.
Hopefully I'll learn when you should use the subjunctive in Spanish soon.

¿Alguien sabe si existe una copypasta del gnaborretni (interrobang invertido) para el español?
Anybody kno if there's a copypasta of the 'gnaborretni' (inverted interrobang) for Spanish?

Sé el truco de variar una (¡) o (¿) con la opuesta:
I kno the trick about using the (¡) o (¿) with its opposite:

¡Qué quieres decir con ésto?

Pero quiero saber si el gnaborretni (suena muy vasco ¿no?) es copypastable o no -
Still I want to kno if the gnaborretni (sounds very Basque, innit?) is copypastable or not -

No estoy enteramente seguro sobre qué es una "copypasta", pero si te entiendo correctamente, encontré <⸘> en Wikipedia.
I'm not entirely sure what a "copypasta" is, but if I understand you correctly, I found <⸘> on Wikipedia.

A mí, una persona que no habla italiano, "gnaborretni" suena como una palabra italiana muy extraña. Creo que sonaría como una palabra italiana más "normal" si las letras <tn> estén reemplazadas.
To me, someone who doesn't speak Italian, "gnaborretni" sounds like a very strange Italian word. I think it would sound like a more "normal" Italian word if the letters <tn> were replaced.

[Lambuzhao]

Ugh, gratiās agō prō audivandō.
Ugh, thanks for helping me.

Spoiler:

ugh Vae! = 'Oy veh!', ' OMG!' ; Eheu! = 'oh!', 'oh no!" (out of sadness, remorse, pain, etc)

gratias ago/agimus propter auxillium tuum

Thank goodness I was at the Tridentine service today to hear this !

libenter hoc facio!

I haven't learned gerunds yet - is this a correct use?

It could be, but you could just use the noun.ABL:

gratias tibi ago pro auxillio tuo.


Putō mē linguam Anglicanam nimis ūtor ubī Latīnā scrībō sed nesciō quōmodo mūtāre.
I think I generally stick too close to English when writing in Latin but I don't really know how to change that.
Can quōmodo be used as a relative pronoun like that?

Spoiler:

Just a couple suggestions:

utor, uti is a kind of a pain in the gluteo maximo; it's mostly like "use", but then you have to make the direct object an ABL, and it's deponent. Long and short: if there's another way to say it w/o utor,uti , try and find that other way.

Quomodo can have a relative meaning but you may have to tweak the verb a little

...sed nescio quomodo immutabor.
CNJ NEG=know-PRS.1SG REL.ADV alter-PASS.FUT.1SG

Or mebbe Subjunctive

...sed nescio quomodo immuter
CNJ NEG=know-PRS.1SG REL.ADV alter-PASS.SBJV.PRS.1SG

or you could really cheat

...sed nescio quomodo immutandus sim
CNJ NEG=know-PRS.1SG REL.ADV alter-FUT.PASS.PTCP.M.NOM.SG be-SBJV.PRS.1SG

Future [Passive] Participle + Subjunctive of esse to equivalate a so-called "Future Subjunctive" This is more NT/Medieval Latin, not Classical, far as
I remember. But not impossible. 1,000 Pardons if this is very highfalutin, this is some arcane stuff.

---

Puto linguam anglicanam nimis contaminare(contingere) ubi (or ubiubi) latinā (or latine) scribo, nescio vero quid agam ut meliorem.
think-PRS.1SG tongue-ACC.SG English-F.ACC.SG ADV contaminate-PRS.INF REL.ADV Latin-F.ABL.SG write-PRS.1SG NEG=know-PRS.1SG CNJ INDIR.INTERR.INAN.ACC.SG do-SBJV.PRS.1SG ADV improve-SBJV.PRS.1SG
I think {my} English makes too much of a negative influence whenever I write Latin, but I don't know what I might do to fix/improve {it/myself}.

Discere faciendo!
learn-PRS.ACT.INF do-GER.ABL
Learning by doing!

[zyma]

Acabo de escuchar unos sonidos fuertes afuera de mi casa. No estoy seguro sobre si estuvieron truenos o si algunas personas estuvieron construyendo algo y destruyendo unas paredes de hormigón.
I just heard some loud noises outside my house. I'm not sure whether it was thunder or if some people were building something and destroying some walls of concrete.

[kilenc]

Acabo de escuchar unos sonidos fuertes afuera de mi casa. No estoy seguro de si estaban truenos o si algunas personas estuvieron construyendo algo y destruyendo unas muros de hormigón.

es posible que se ubique su casa en una zona de guerra?
maybe your house is in a war zone?

y puedo estar incorrecto, pero creo que no se usa "estar" en el preterito mucho; en este caso, se usa el imperfecto porque no hay un "timeline" especificado
and i could be wrong, but i think that "estar" isnt used in the preterite much; in this case, the imperfects used cus there isnt a specified "timeline" (ie, the action is ongoing to some extent; it could have ended, it could have not, i dunno, so imperfects used).

también, es posible que "sobre si" sea un modismo, pero usualmente se usa "seguro" con "de" o "de que"
also, its possible that "sobre si" is an idiom, but usually "seguro" is used with "de" or "de que"

y por fin, muros son "outside walls" and paredes son "inside walls" (posible que sepas esto, pero para mi casas no usan hormigón)
and finally, muros are "outside walls" and paredes are "inside walls" (you could know this, but to me houses dont use concrete)

[qwed117]

Acabo de escuchar unos sonidos fuertes afuera de mi casa. No estoy seguro de si estaban truenos o si algunas personas estuvieron construyendo algo y destruyendo unas muros de hormigón.

es posible que se ubique su casa en una zona de guerra?
maybe your house is in a war zone?

y puedo estar incorrecto, pero creo que no se usa "estar" en el preterito mucho; en este caso, se usa el imperfecto porque no hay un "timeline" especificado
and i could be wrong, but i think that "estar" isnt used in the preterite much; in this case, the imperfects used cus there isnt a specified "timeline" (ie, the action is ongoing to some extent; it could have ended, it could have not, i dunno, so imperfects used).

también, es posible que "sobre si" sea un modismo, pero usualmente se usa "seguro" con "de" o "de que"
also, its possible that "sobre si" is an idiom, but usually "seguro" is used with "de" or "de que"

y por fin, muros son "outside walls" and paredes son "inside walls" (posible que sepas esto, pero para mi casas no usan hormigón)
and finally, muros are "outside walls" and paredes are "inside walls" (you could know this, but to me houses dont use concrete)

Está en un estado morado, una zona de guerra politica.
It's in a purple state, a political war zone
Hay grupos activistas afuera de su casa?
Are there activists outside of your house?

[zyma]

es posible que se ubique su casa en una zona de guerra?
maybe your house is in a war zone?

Pues, no puedo ver ningunas nubes en el cielo, y no puedo ver ningunas personas afuera de mi casa tampoco…
Well, I can't see any clouds in the sky, and I can't see anyone outside my house either…

Diría que es posible.
I would say it's possible.

y puedo estar incorrecto, pero creo que no se usa "estar" en el preterito mucho; en este caso, se usa el imperfecto porque no hay un "timeline" especificado
and i could be wrong, but i think that "estar" isnt used in the preterite much; in this case, the imperfects used cus there isnt a specified "timeline" (ie, the action is ongoing to some extent; it could have ended, it could have not, i dunno, so imperfects used).

Ah, gracias. Aspecto gramatical es mi enemigo más grande… es posible que no voy a entenderlo nunca.
Ah, thanks. Grammatical aspect is my greatest foe… it's possible that I'll never understand it.

también, es posible que "sobre si" sea un modismo, pero usualmente se usa "seguro" con "de" o "de que"
also, its possible that "sobre si" is an idiom, but usually "seguro" is used with "de" or "de que"

y por fin, muros son "outside walls" and paredes son "inside walls" (posible que sepas esto, pero para mi casas no usan hormigón)
and finally, muros are "outside walls" and paredes are "inside walls" (you could know this, but to me houses dont use concrete)

Nunca estaba seguro de qué palabras deben inmediatamente seguir "seguro", y tuve que buscar una palabra para "wall" en español, y "pared" fue la palabra que encontré.
I was never sure about which words should come right after "seguro", and I had to search for a word for "wall" in Spanish, and "pared" was the word I found.

¡Gracias otra vez!
Thanks again!

[loglorn]

Ah, gracias. Aspecto gramatical es mi enemigo más grande… es posible que no voy a entenderlo nunca.
Ah, thanks. Grammatical aspect is my greatest foe… it's possible that I'll never understand it.

Fastän är engelska mestadels aspekt inriktad...
Even though English is mostly aspect oriented...

The Swedish is probably as wrong as it gets, but well...

[zyma]

OK, und? Das meint überhaupt nicht, dass ich ihn verstehen soll. Die Methode, die amerikanische Schulen benutzen, Englisch als Muttersprache zu lehren, sind absolut furchtbar.
OK, and? That doesn't mean at all that I should understand it. The way American schools teach English as a first language is absolutely abysmal.

(Because of the way things work in English, and the way those things get taught, I have an extremely hard time separating aspect and tense, and thinking of aspect as something that's actually warranted by certain situations, and not just a stylistic choice of sorts as I was taught at school growing up.)

[qwed117]

Ah, gracias. Aspecto gramatical es mi enemigo más grande… es posible que no voy a entenderlo nunca.
Ah, thanks. Grammatical aspect is my greatest foe… it's possible that I'll never understand it.

Fastän är engelska mestadels aspekt inriktad...
Even though English is mostly aspect oriented...

The Swedish is probably as wrong as it gets, but well...

Pues... "had had "had had 'had had' had had''" todavía confunde los "tumblrinas"
But... "had had 'had had 'had had' had had'''" still confuses tumblrites

(I know that I probably severely messed up here. Could you guys help me?)

[kilenc]

@shimo: mi gusto, siempre me alegra ayudar!
my pleasure, im always happy to help!

y no te preocupes; el hablar idiomas es difícil!
and dont worry; speaking languages is tough!

pero... "had had "had had 'had had' had had''" todavía confunde a los "tumblrinas"

la frase estaba más o menos bien--sin embargo, pues significa "well...", "okay...", casi como un "filler", y también necesitas "personal a" porque "tumblrinas" son personas, no piedras.
the sentence was more or less good--however, pues means "well...", "okay...", sorta like a "filler", and also you need "personal a" cus "tumblrinas" are people, not rocks. (that last bit sounds better in spanish).

[loglorn]

@shimo: mi gusto, siempre me alegra ayudar!
my pleasure, im always happy to help!

y no te preocupes; el hablar idiomas es difícil!
and dont worry; speaking languages is tough!

pero... "had had "had had 'had had' had had''" todavía confunde a los "tumblrinas"

la frase estaba más o menos bien--sin embargo, pues significa "well...", "okay...", casi como un "filler", y también necesitas "personal a" porque "tumblrinas" son personas, no piedras.
the sentence was more or less good--however, pues means "well...", "okay...", sorta like a "filler", and also you need "personal a" cus "tumblrinas" are people, not rocks. (that last bit sounds better in spanish).

この文で"todavia"の使い方はいい? ポルトガル語は母語の耳には本当に悪く聞こえる。
Is the use of 'todavia' right in that phrase? To my native Portuguese ears it sounds really wrong.

[qwed117]

@shimo: mi gusto, siempre me alegra ayudar!
my pleasure, im always happy to help!

y no te preocupes; el hablar idiomas es difícil!
and dont worry; speaking languages is tough!

pero... "had had "had had 'had had' had had''" todavía confunde a los "tumblrinas"

la frase estaba más o menos bien--sin embargo, pues significa "well...", "okay...", casi como un "filler", y también necesitas "personal a" porque "tumblrinas" son personas, no piedras.
the sentence was more or less good--however, pues means "well...", "okay...", sorta like a "filler", and also you need "personal a" cus "tumblrinas" are people, not rocks. (that last bit sounds better in spanish).

Pero, necesito "les" enfrente de "confunde" ahora, ?no?
But, I need "les" in front of "confunde" now, right?

[zyma]

Pero, necesito "les" enfrente de "confunde" ahora, ?no?
But, I need "les" in front of "confunde" now, right?

Warum? Es gibt kein indirektes Objekt, nicht wahr?
Why? There's no indirect object, right?

"a las personas" kann entweder ein direktes Object oder ein indirektes Object auf Spanisch sein.
"a las personas" can either be a direct or indirect object in Spanish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Different ... ng#Spanish

Edit: And I'm not sure what Tumblr has to do with any of this, but that doesn't really matter, I'm sure.

[kilenc]

この文で"todavia"の使い方はいい? ポルトガル語は母語の耳には本当に悪く聞こえる。
Is the use of 'todavia' right in that phrase? To my native Portuguese ears it sounds really wrong.

a mi me parece bien; pero español no es mi lengua materna.
it sounds good to me; but spanish aint my mother language.

Pero, necesito "les" enfrente de "confunde" ahora, ?no?

shimobaatar tiene razón. no lo necesitas porque no es un objeto indirecto--a funciona de una forma similar a un "honorific"
shimobaatars right. you dont need it cus its not an indirect object--a acts like an "honorific".

[Znex]

He, dadlau am ramadeg yw hwyl da! (O leiaf gwylio fe yw hwyl da.)
[hɛ, 'dadlɛ ɐ̃m rɐ̃'madɛk ɪu̯ hʊɪ̯l daː | ɔ 'ləɪ̯ɐ 'gwəljɔ vɛ ɪu̯ hʊɪ̯l daː]
Heh, arguing about grammar is good fun! (At least watching it is.)

Mae'n ddiflas iawn tu allan heddi. Cymylog a dywyll. Yw hyn yn beth mae'n fel yn Lloegr?
[mãn 'ðɪvlɐs jaũ̯n tʰiː 'aɬãːn 'hɛðɪ | kʰə̃'məlɔk a 'dəwɪɬ | ɪu̯ hɪ̃n ə̃n bɛθ mãn vɛl ə̃n 'ɬɔːgər]
It's right miserable outside today. Cloudy and gloomy. Is this what it's like in England?

[zyma]

Ich glaube, dass ich nicht sagen würde, dass es ein Streit war, sondern eine Diskussion, aber es ist mir eigentlich egal, weil ich über der Semantik nicht streiten will.
I don't think I'd say it was an argument, but rather a discussion, but I really don't care, since I don't want to fight about semantics.

Ahora voy a almorzar, porque tengo hambre.
Now I'm going to eat lunch, because I'm hungry.

[Dormouse559]

S'il y a une chose que j'adore plus qu'un débat au sujet de la grammaire, c'est une discussion animée au sujet de la grammaire et de la sémantique.
If there's one thing I love more than an argument about grammar, it's a spirited discussion about grammar and semantics.

[Lambuzhao]

pero... "had had "had had 'had had' had had''" todavía confunde a los "tumblrinas"

Yo diría -
I would say

Pero... "had had "had had 'had had' had had''" todavía les confunde a las "tumblrinas"

Creo que me caiga en el lado leísta en cuanto a "confundir".
I think I'd side with the leists concerning "confundir".

Sin embargo, no lo diría con "conocer"
Still, I wouldn't say it with "conocer"
e.g.

No la conozco a ella.

Averíguense:
Check out:

http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/ ... s.2569842/

http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/ ... e.1103109/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C3%ADsmo

---

¿ los tumblrinas ?

la {gente} tumblrina, las {personas} tumblrinas

O

los tumblrinos

la regla es género masculino para los sustantivos de origen griego /ma ta pa/ final, no /ma ta pa na/ .

[kilenc]

Creo que me caiga en el lado leísta en cuanto a "confundir".
I think I'd side with the leists concerning "confundir".

por qué piensas que se debe usar leísmo? estoy curioso. para mi, sólo se usa leísmo en casos de "elision," por ejemplo (del artículo de Wikipedia que diste):
why do ya think that leísmo should be used? im curious. for me, leísmos only used in cases of "elision", for example (from the wikipedia article you gave):

Code: Select all

Veo al chico ("I see the boy") → Lo veo (standard Spanish, with lo)
Veo al chico ("I see the boy") → Le veo (leísmo, common in Spain; other regions prefer lo veo)

pero en este caso no hay "elision", porque el objeto (las tumblrinas, debo confesar que no fue correcto "los") es dado.
but in this case there aint "elision", cus the object (las tumblrinas, i should admit that los wasnt correct) is given.

es posible que creas que "confundir" es un verbo que usa un "dative experiencer" (como llavate los manos, "wash ya hands"), pero mis libros no lo apoyan.
its possible that you believe "confundir" is a verb that uses a "dative experiencer" (like llavate los manos, "wash ya hands"), but my books dont support that.

no quiero discutir contigo; estoy simplemente curioso por qué leísmo importa en este caso. añadí a porque es un "personal a", no porque es un objeto indirecto.
i dont wanna argue with ya; im simply curious why leísmo is relevant here. i added a cus its a "personal a", not cus its an indirect object.