# los zapatos estan alrevez [al revés]



## lauraamador177

Hi everybody, y need you to tell me how can i say: Sara, te pusiste los zapatos alrevez. I have no idea how to say that. Please help me.!


----------



## Masood

Sara, you put your shoes on the wrong way round.


----------



## Arrius

*al revés*
*You've got/You're wearing your shoes on the wrong feet.*


----------



## lauraamador177

Masood said:


> Sara, you put your shoes on the wrong way round.


 Hey thank you soo much. Have a good day!


----------



## lauraamador177

Arrius said:


> *al revés*
> *You've got/You're wearing your shoes on the wrong feet.*


 Thank's a lot Arrius!


----------



## DavidIsWorking

Creo que es "My/His/Her shoes are on the wrong feet."

David


----------



## bilingualt

Creo que lo correcto seria decir: The shoes are on the wrong foot (not feet)

saludos, espero que mi observacion te sirva.


----------



## Arrius

DavidIsWorking said:


> Creo que es "My/His/Her shoes are on the wrong feet."
> David


 
i wrote the same thing here 15 minutes ago with the remark that *al revés* is spelt wrong, but somehow it didn't get posted.
*turissa*'s suggestion "*The shoes are the other way round*" should surely read *Your shoes should be the other way round*.


----------



## turi

Hola bilingualt y bienvenido a los foros.

Siento no estar de acuerdo contigo. Se trata de dos zapatos que están en pies equivocados, consecuentemente lo que dice DavidIsWorking es correcto.

Saludos, t.


----------



## Arrius

Con todo respeto, *turissa, si *lees mi mensaje otra vez verás que estoy también de acuerdo con *DavidIsWorking*. Tu frase no tiene en inglés el sentido que pienses: _other_ no significa _wrong_. Hace falta *should be* u *ought to be* en tu frase para ofrecer una solución a la equivocación.


----------



## Arrius

bilingualt said:


> Creo que lo correcto seria decir: The shoes are on the wrong foot (not feet)
> 
> saludos, espero que mi observacion te sirva.


 
two shoes, two feet. *On the wrong feet* es correcto.


----------



## Manuel G. Rey

Arrius said:


> Con todo respeto, *turissa, si *lees mi mensaje otra vez verás que estoy también de acuerdo con *DavidIsWorking*. Tu frase no tiene en inglés el sentido que pienses: _other_ no significa _wrong_. Hace falta *should be* u *ought to be* en tu frase para ofrecer una solución de la equivocación.



Lauramador177 no pregunta sobre una solución al error, sino sobre como se afirma el error. 
Con esto no entro ni salgo en la traducción.


----------



## Masood

Arrius said:


> i wrote the same thing here 15 minutes ago with the remark that *al revés* is spelt wrong, but somehow it didn't get posted.


It was a duplicate post.
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1492501


----------



## Arrius

Manuel G. Rey said:


> Lauramador177 no pregunta sobre una solución al error, sino sobre como se afirma el error.
> Con esto no entro ni salgo en la traducción.


Oh, dear! 
Cuando se commenta una tal equivocación se explica inevitablemente la naturaleza de esa, lo que implica una solución.
Por ejemplo: _Your shirt is hanging out (so you must tuck it in)_
_Your flies are/Your fly is undone (zip it/them up) _
_Your shoes are on the wrong feet (change them over)._


----------



## aztlaniano

Diría: 
_The shoes are the wrong way 'round,_ ya que eso sería la forma más general. (Vale incluso si los zapatos no están puestos.)
Para usar "other" (y dar así un consejo a alguien), hace falta otro verbo, ej: "the shoes go the other way 'round", y para hacerlo más explícito se debe añadir "should" or "ought", como señala Arrius, y entonces sí se podría usar "to be":
_The shoes should/ought to go/be the other way 'round._


----------



## Dario de Kansas

DavidIsWorking said:


> Creo que es "My/His/Her shoes are on the wrong feet."
> 
> David


 



Arrius said:


> i wrote the same thing here 15 minutes ago with the remark that *al revés* is spelt wrong, but somehow it didn't get posted.
> *turissa*'s suggestion "*The shoes are the other way round*" should surely read *Your shoes should be the other way round*.


 

Or in the U.S.: "Your shoes should be the other way *a*round."


----------



## Arrius

Gracias por tu ayuda, *aztlaniano*. A friend in need is a friend indeed. (Y un saludo a *Dario de Kansas* también).


----------



## aztlaniano

Dario de Kansas said:


> "Your shoes should be the other way *a*round."


Of course you're right about *a*round, Dario, but the "a" tends to get lost in conversational speech (I did put an apostrophe before 'round').
By itself, the Spanish "al revés" is ambiguous; depending on the circunstances, it could also be _back to front, inside out _or _upside down_.
Imagine the employee of a bowling alley putting shoes on the shelves with the toes facing out, instead of the heels, which display a number indicating the size. The boss could tell this employee, who has placed the shoes back to front, that "los zapatos están al revés".


----------



## Manuel G. Rey

Arrius said:


> Oh, dear!
> Cuando se commenta una tal equivocación se explica inevitablemente la naturaleza de esa, lo que implica una solución.
> Por ejemplo: _Your shirt is hanging out (so you must tuck it in)_
> _Your flies are/Your fly is undone (zip it/them up) _
> _Your shoes are on the wrong feet (change them over)._



Esos ejemplos son soluciones a los errores materiales, no explicaciones de errores de lenguaje. 
El que ha explicado el error, si efectivamente lo ha habido, ha sido Aztlaniano.


----------



## dexterciyo

aztlaniano said:


> Of course you're right about *a*round, Dario, but the "a" tends to get lost in conversational speech (I did put an apostrophe before 'round').
> Because we have no context, the ambiguity of the Spanish "al revés" troubles me, because, depending on the circunstances, it could also be _back to front, inside out _or _upside down_.
> Imagine the employee of a bowling alley putting shoes on the shelves with the toes facing out, instead of the heels, which display a number indicating the size. The boss could tell this employee, who has placed the shoes back to front, that "los zapatos están al revés".



Madre mía, menuda imaginación la tuya. ¡Muy bien explicado!

¿En ese mismo contexto no cabría «those shoes should be the other way around»? Dando por entendido que el empleado sabe que tienen que estar «back to front».


----------



## Dario de Kansas

turissa said:


> I don't see "should be" anywhere in the original, It literally says "are". If it does, would you kindly point it out to me??
> 
> Or am I reading things wrong?


 
Turi, what they're saying is that if someone's shoes are on the wrong feet, you wouldn't say "They're the other way around." The only time that expression would sound correct would be to say, "They *should be* the other way around."

The original phrase should be translated as, "His/Her shoes are on the wrong feet," as David said in the second post.

Espero que te haya ayudado. Saludos.


----------



## Dario de Kansas

dexterciyo said:


> Madre mía, menuda imaginación la tuya. ¡Muy bien explicado!
> 
> ¿En ese mismo contexto no cabría «those shoes should be the other way around»? Dando por entendido que el empleado sabe que tienen que estar «back to front».


 
Yes, except that the bowling shoes would be "backwards," and in the case of the original post, it would be almost impossible to put one's shoes on backwards.


----------



## dexterciyo

turissa said:


> I don't see "should be" anywhere in the original, It literally says "are". If it does, would you kindly point it out to me??
> 
> Or am I reading things wrong?



Lo que yo entiendo es que, al decir "other", pones de manifiesto que existe otra forma (una solución) que contraria a la primera. En español al decir «están al revés», el contrario es «están al derecho». En inglés «they are the other way around»... No tendría mucho sentido ahí, sino «they are the wrong way around» frente a «they are the right way» (no estoy muy seguro de esto último). En otro contexto quizá:

— My car is blue and my motorcycle yellow.
— No, they are the other way 'round: your car is yellow and your bike's blue


----------



## speedier

Dario de Kansas said:


> Turi, what they're saying is that if someone's shoes are on the wrong feet, you wouldn't say "They're the other way around." The only time that expression would sound correct would be to say, "They *should be* the other way around."
> 
> The original phrase should be translated as, "His/Her shoes are on the wrong feet," as David said in the second post.
> 
> Espero que te haya ayudado. Saludos.


 
Are you and Arrius saying then that "your shoes are the wrong way around" is incorrect, and should be written "your shoes should be the other way around"? 

If so, I have to strongly disagree. It is the same as saying that:

"your shoes are on the wrong feet" is incorrect, and should read "your shoes should be on the correct feet".


----------



## dexterciyo

Dario de Kansas said:


> Yes, except that the bowling shoes would be "backwards," and in the case of the original post, it would be almost impossible to put one's shoes on backwards.



I know, I know. I wasn't talking about the original post. Sorry if I got misunderstood.


----------



## aztlaniano

dexterciyo said:


> .¿En ese mismo contexto no cabría «those shoes should be the other way around»? Dando por entendido que el empleado sabe que tienen que estar «back to front».


 
Sí, pero más normal sería en el recinto de bowling, quizá: You put those shoes (on the shelf) backward/facing the wrong way.
Lo que no cabría en este caso sería "wrong feet".


----------



## Dario de Kansas

speedier said:


> Are you and Arrius saying then that "your shoes are the wrong way around" is incorrect, and should be written "your shoes should be the other way around"?
> 
> If so, I have to strongly disagree. It is the same as saying that:
> 
> "your shoes are on the wrong feet" is incorrect, and should read "your shoes should be on the right feet".


 
Nope, not at all. As I said a few posts ago, I was just agreeing with David's translation (in Post #2) and agreeing with Arrius that Turi's "the shoes are the other way around" didn't sound natural to me in the present tense. Sorry if I have confused everyone. 

The bottom line is that David's translation, to my ear, is clearly the most correct.


----------



## aztlaniano

speedier said:


> Are you and Arrius saying then that "your shoes are the wrong way around" is incorrect, and should be written "your shoes should be the other way around"?


No, Arrius said (and I agree) that both the versions you cite are correct. He just said that if you use "other" instead of "wrong", you should also use "should" or "ought" in the sentence to make it clear. (posts #5 and #7)


----------



## speedier

aztlaniano said:


> No, Arrius said (and I agree) that both the versions you cite are correct. He just said that if you use "other" instead of "wrong", you should also use "should" or "ought" in the sentence to make it clear. (posts #5 and #7)


 
I see where you're coming from Aztla, but wouldn't you think that "other" *implies* "wrong"?  There would be no point in saying it otherwise.


----------



## gengo

Dario de Kansas said:


> Yes, except that the bowling shoes would be "backwards," and in the case of the original post, it would be almost impossible to put one's shoes on backwards.



Hmmm, "backwards" is exactly the word I use in this context.  With two small boys, I have countless times had to point out that "You have your shoes on backwards."

Most of the other suggestions so far sound either British or somehow unnatural to me.


----------



## turi

How can you put shoes on backwards?


----------



## speedier

gengo said:


> Hmmm, "backwards" is exactly the word I use in this context. With two small boys, I have countless times had to point out that "You have your shoes on backwards."
> 
> Most of the other suggestions so far sound either British or somehow unnatural to me.


 
Hi gengo,

Backwards sounds OK to me too, though "back to front" is another thing.


----------



## gengo

turissa said:


> How can you put shoes on backwards?



Backwards is just a general word that means the two members of a pair are reversed from their proper positions.  It has no intrinsic orientation.  As Dario said, it is impossible to put the right shoe on the right foot backwards (front to back), so the meaning is obvious:  left and right shoes on right and left feet, respectively.


----------



## turi

Sorry, that's "the other way round to me".

Thank you for your explanation gengo!


----------



## aztlaniano

speedier said:


> I see where you're coming from Aztla, but wouldn't you think that "other" *implies* "wrong"? There would be no point in saying it otherwise.


I suppose I would get it if I looked down and found I had the wrong shoe on each foot, but my first thought would be "other than what"? 
"Wrong", in contrast, is immediately clear.
But "other" does fit perfectly as a recommendation: The shoes should (be put/go) the other way around.
_The right way around_ could be said -"put the shoes the right way around"- and would be understood (at least by me ).
There's consensus on one point, however:


Dario de Kansas said:


> David's translation (in Post #2) ... to my ear, is clearly the most correct.


The shoes are on the wrong feet.


----------



## speedier

Firstly, I agree that to me the most natural translation is “the shoes are on the wrong feet“, but I have to point out, as has already been said by others in this thread, that in the original Spanish there is no recommendation involving “should“ or “ought“, and it seems futile to even suggest that these words should form part of the translation or that they should even be considered for serious discussion in this thread. 

Second, you can’t have it both ways Aztla. The meaning of the phrase "the other way around", doesn't somehow magically change by the inclusion of the word "should".

If I were to say to you, “the shoes should (be put/go) the other way around", don't you suppose that your first thought would be "other than what" (before looking down to find that you had the wrong shoe on each foot)?


----------



## aztlaniano

speedier said:


> . ... in the original Spanish there is no recommendation involving “should“ or “ought“, and it seems futile to even suggest that these words should form part of the translation or that they should even be considered for serious discussion in this thread.
> ...
> The meaning of the phrase "the other way around", doesn't somehow magically change by the inclusion of the word "should".
> If I were to say to you, “the shoes should (be put/go) the other way around", don't you suppose that your first thought would be "other than what" (before looking down to find that you had the wrong shoe on each foot)?


In order to say exactly what lauraamador177 wants to say -"Sara, te pusiste los zapatos al revés"- I would not use "other" at all, full stop. 
I would use "wrong".
In making a suggestion, "other" is fine. "Your shoes should be the other way around" = they should be (worn) differently from_ the way they are (being worn) now._


----------



## speedier

aztlaniano said:


> In order to say exactly what lauraamador177 wants to say -"Sara, te pusiste los zapatos al revés"- I would not use "other" at all, full stop.
> I would use "wrong". Me too.
> In making a suggestion, "other" is fine. "Your shoes should be the other way around" = they should be (worn) differently from_ the way they are (being worn) now._


 
But the point I am trying to make, is that, as I said in my last post, you are trying to have it both ways. It could be equally argued that:

"Your shoes are the other way around" = they are being worn differently (to the accepted method / the way you usually wear them, or whatever).

Anyway, I for one think that enough has been said on this point.


----------



## bilingualt

Arrius said:


> two shoes, two feet. *On the wrong feet* es correcto.



I suppose you are right, but the way I see it is that if you have on only one shoe, but it  is on the wrong foot, it would be obvious that if you put on the other shoe, it would also be on the wrong foot.  A little complicated maybe, but that was what I had in mind when I posted.


----------

