# Your're Gonna have to Explain to me your hoochiness, girl!



## silvicrima

He oido esta frase en una pelicula y no entiendo lo que HOOCHINESS significa.
Una hermana se lo dice a otra. Estan hablando de hombres.

Silvicrima


----------



## Flaco06

"Hoochiness" es como flirteando pero no de la manera de una dama. Es como una mujer presentandose a un hombre para nada pero actividades sexuales. Vestiendose en una camisa muy corta mostrando mucho piel. Corrige mi español por favor.

Being a "hoochie" is like being a woman that presents herself in a sexual manner. She may wear tight shirts and little shorts that show too much skin that give off a sexual connotation. 

I hope this helps.


----------



## Summer_rose

Flaco06:

Here is your text corrected, as I would say it:

"Hoochiness" es como *flirtear* pero no de la manera *en que lo haría *una dama. Como una mujer present*á*ndose a un hombre *con el único objetivo de mantener relaciones sexuales.* Vistiendo una camisa muy corta y enseñando mucha piel.

I have to say that your text is perfectly understandable, but take care with these things:

-When you use a verb as a name, in Spanish the correct form is always the infinitive (e.g. "Nadar es divertido" -Swimming is funny-)

-The word "dama" is pretty pretty formal (almost only used in literature). English "lady" is usually better translated as "señora". "Sexual intercourse" is always "relaciones sexuales" (un español nunca usaría "actividades"). "piel" is a feminine word (so you have to use a feminine adjective, "mucha")."Wearing a shirt"=Vistiendo una camisa.

-Be careful with the construction "for nothing but...", you can never translate it as "para nada pero". You must say "sólo para", "únicamente para", "con el único objetivo de",...or something like that.

  I hope I've helped. Cheers.


----------



## Katey

It was certainly helpful for me as a lurker.  I love to see corrected text.  It help me avoid potential pitfalls.

Katey


----------



## sunshine58

Summer_rose, espero que no te importe si corrijo su ingles--y, por favor, corrija mi espanol--pero hay unas pocas cosas raras en el texto que solo verian una persona que ha estudiado las dos lenguas--como nosotros. Son errores que resultan del sintaxis y vocabulario espanol impidiendo tu ingles.

-When you use a verb as a *noun*, in Spanish the correct form is always the infinitive (e.g. "Nadar es divertido" -Swimming is *fun*-)

 -The word "dama" is *pretty *formal (almost only used in literature). English "lady" is usually better translated as "señora". "Sexual intercourse" is always "relaciones sexuales" (un español nunca usaría "actividades"). "piel" is a feminine word (so you have to use a feminine adjective, "mucha")."Wearing a shirt"=Vistiendo una camisa.

 -Be careful with the construction "for nothing but...", you can never translate it as "para nada pero". You must say "sólo para", "únicamente para", "con el único objetivo de",...or something like that.

Y probablemente son errores tipograficos algunos.  Pero solo note aquellos tres o cuatro.

Ademas de eso, tu ingles suena exactamente parecido al ingles de un nativo--no se puede ver una diferencia.


----------



## Summer_rose

Thank you so much, sunshine! It's nice you told me, so I won't make the same mistakes in the future.

By the way, can anyone tell me what "as a lurker" exactly means?

Regards.

P.D: About your Spanish (which, I have to say, is really good too):

-You can say: "espero que no *le *importe si corrijo *su* inglés" o "espero que no *te *importe si corrijo *tu *inglés" (but you can't mix both! As you have used the "usted-form" in the rest of the message, you should use the first of them)

-This is a very common mistake, even between people having Spanish as their mother-tongue: "unas pocas cosas raras que sólo *vería *una persona ..." (because the subject is "una persona" and not "cosas"!)

The rest is absolutely correct, although some sentences make the reader think that the person who posted the message is not a native Spanish speaker (for instance, I would say "...*algunos* son errores tipográficos.." or "..*Aparte *de eso, tu inglés suena exactamente *igual *al de un inglés nativo...".

But don't worry too much about these things!, as I said, your sentences are completely correct.

Ty again.


----------



## Katey

In the context of the internet it can mean someone watching but not participating.  In other contexts it can be more sinister as in a criminal lurking in the shadows.

Kate


----------



## GiggLiden

Summer_rose said:
			
		

> Flaco06:
> 
> Here is your text corrected, as I would say it:
> 
> "Hoochiness" es como *flirtear* pero no de la manera *en que lo haría *una dama. Como una mujer present*á*ndose a un hombre *con el único objetivo de mantener relaciones sexuales.* Vistiendo una camisa muy corta y enseñando mucha piel.
> 
> I have to say that your text is perfectly understandable, but take care with these things:
> 
> -When you use a verb as a name, in Spanish the correct form is always the infinitive (e.g. "Nadar es divertido" -Swimming is funny-)
> 
> -The word "dama" is pretty pretty formal (almost only used in literature). English "lady" is usually better translated as "señora". "Sexual intercourse" is always "relaciones sexuales" (un español nunca usaría "actividades"). "piel" is a feminine word (so you have to use a feminine adjective, "mucha")."Wearing a shirt"=Vistiendo una camisa.
> 
> -Be careful with the construction "for nothing but...", you can never translate it as "para nada pero". You must say "sólo para", "únicamente para", "con el único objetivo de",...or something like that.
> 
> I hope I've helped. Cheers.



I learned a LOT from your comments and corrections. And I didn't even MAKE those mistakes; so I get a free lesson. 

By way of returning the favor, may I point out that the part of speech that you called a name (nombre) is called, in English ... a "noun." And while we're at it ... all "proper nouns" (English, President, General Electric, Christian, Easter, Railroad Avenue, Chinese Hospital Annex) are all *C*apitalized.


----------



## cuchuflete

Katey said:
			
		

> In the context of the internet it can mean someone watching but not participating. In other contexts it can be more sinister as in a criminal lurking in the shadows.
> 
> Kate



Se podría traducir, más o menos, como acechar:

*acechar**.*
 (Del lat. _assectāri_, seguir, perseguir).
* 1.* tr. Observar, aguardar cautelosamente con algún propósito.  Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados

Pero, como ha dicho Katey, en este contexto no lleva ningún matiz negativo.  Es sólo observar sin participar.


----------



## GiggLiden

Summer_rose said:
			
		

> Thank you so much, sunshine! It's nice you told me, so I won't make the same mistakes in the future.
> 
> By the way, can anyone tell me what "as a lurker" exactly means?
> 
> Regards.
> 
> P.D: About your Spanish (which, I have to say, is really good too):
> 
> -You can say: "espero que no *le *importe si corrijo *su* inglés" o "espero que no *te *importe si corrijo *tu *inglés" (but you can't mix both! As you have used the "usted-form" in the rest of the message, you should use the first of them)
> 
> -This is a very common mistake, even between people having Spanish as their mother-tongue: "unas pocas cosas raras que sólo *vería *una persona ..." (because the subject is "una persona" and not "cosas"!)
> 
> The rest is absolutely correct, although some sentences make the reader think that the person who posted the message is not a native Spanish speaker (for instance, I would say "...*algunos* son errores tipográficos.." or "..*Aparte *de eso, tu inglés suena exactamente *igual *al de un inglés nativo...".
> 
> But don't worry too much about these things!, as I said, your sentences are completely correct.
> 
> Ty again.



I'm totally fascinated by your example ...

 -This is a very common mistake, even between people having Spanish as their mother-tongue: "unas pocas cosas raras que sólo *vería *una persona ..." (because the subject is "una persona" and not "cosas"!)

because I see myself as a very strict grammarian. But without the REST of the sentence I find it hard to be persuaded that "some rare things" are  NOT the subject. Wouldst care to elucidate?

In return, permit me to help you with the verb "to lurk."
If I'm hiding in the bushes, in order to watch you eat dinner (and other things you might be doing), I'm lurking.

The sharpshooter standing in a dark room, waiting for an innocent victim to shoot, is lurking.

The spider at the edge of his web ... is lurking for the silly fly.

If your car has faulty brakes, bald tires, and a shimmy in the steering gear, there's an accident lurking to happen.
Get it fixed, please, Summer_rose. We don't want anything bad to happen to our teacher!


----------



## look

GiggLiden said:
			
		

> I'm totally fascinated by your example ...
> 
> -This is a very common mistake, even between people having Spanish as their mother-tongue: "unas pocas cosas raras que sólo *vería *una persona ..." (because the subject is "una persona" and not "cosas"!)
> 
> because I see myself as a very strict grammarian. But without the REST of the sentence I find it hard to be persuaded that "some rare things" are NOT the subject. Wouldst care to elucidate?


Hi Giggliden:

_"pero hay unas pocas cosas raras en el texto que solo verian una persona que ha estudiado las dos lenguas"_

_"but there are a few strange things in the text that only a person who has studied both languages would see"_

As you can see, the "few strange things" are definitely not the subject in that sentence.

Okay, now back to lurking.


----------



## Summer_rose

Ha, ha...ty for your comments _GiggLiden_.

Although _look _already answered, I'm gonna try to clarify the "vería/verían" stuff a little more:

Let's focus on "que sólo vería una persona"

Here "*una persona*" is the subject and "*que*" is a relative pronoun standing for "unas pocas cosas raras", and acting as a direct object.

To see that even clearer,let's make something: replace "una persona" with "dos personas" , then the sentence turns into:

"Unas pocas cosas raras que sólo *verían* dos personas" (the verb has changed its person)

But if we replace "Unas pocas cosas raras" with "una cosa", we have:

"Una cosa rara que sólo *vería* una persona"(the verb hasn't changed its person!)

This is a simple proof that always stands in Spanish: if we want to identify the subject, we change its person; if the verb changes too, then it's the subject. If the verb remains the same, then it's not the subject.

Here's another example (another very common mistake). Many people say "habrán muchas oportunidades" (there will be many chances) instead of the correct sentence "habrá muchas oportunidades". The key is that "muchas oportunidades" is not the subject but the direct object, so the verb shouldn't be plural ("haber" -*when not an auxiliar*- is an impersonal verb, always conjugated in the third person singular -hay, habrá, hubo...- and never in the third person plural -...,habrán, hubieron,...-). 

Anyway, these things are complicated even for native Spanish speakers, as I said.

I don't know if it's clearer or darker than before!!

Anyway, best regards to you all.


----------



## sunshine58

Summer_rose said:
			
		

> ("hay" is an impersonal verb, always conjugated in the third person _*of*_ singular).
> 
> Anyway, these things are complicated even for native Spanish speakers, as I said.
> 
> I don't know if it's clearer or darker than before!!
> 
> Anyway, best regards to you all.


Muchas gracias por la explicacion--yo personalmente no me habia dado cuenta de que "haber" sea un verbo impersonal. Pero


----------



## GiggLiden

look said:
			
		

> Hi Giggliden:
> 
> _"pero hay unas pocas cosas raras en el texto que solo verian una persona que ha estudiado las dos lenguas"_
> 
> _"but there are a few strange things in the text that only a person who has studied both languages would see"_
> 
> As you can see, the "few strange things" are definitely not the subject in that sentence.
> 
> Okay, now back to lurking.



I just LOVE the way you make your point, look. My wife always uses that technique, so I suspect you went to the same school together? 

Her classic proof goes like this: *"It's so because I just said so."* End of discussion.   

For additional explication, see reply to my fellow-jouster, Summer_rose.
[grinning]


----------



## GiggLiden

Summer_rose said:
			
		

> Ha, ha...ty for your comments _GiggLiden_.
> 
> Although _look _already answered, I'm gonna try to clarify the "vería/verían" stuff a little more:
> 
> Let's focus on "que sólo vería una persona"
> 
> Here "*una persona*" is the subject and "*que*" is a relative pronoun standing for "unas pocas cosas raras", and acting as a direct object.
> 
> To see that even clearer,let's make something: replace "una persona" with "dos personas" , then the sentence turns into:
> 
> "Unas pocas cosas raras que sólo *verían* dos personas" (the verb has changed its person)
> 
> But if we replace "Unas pocas cosas raras" with "una cosa", we have:
> 
> "Una cosa rara que sólo *vería* una persona"(the verb hasn't changed its person!)
> 
> This is a simple proof that always stands in Spanish: if we want to identify the subject, we change its person; if the verb changes too, then it's the subject. If the verb remains the same, then it's not the subject.
> 
> Here's another example (another very common mistake). Many people say "habrán muchas oportunidades" (there will be many chances) instead of the correct sentence "habrá muchas oportunidades". The key is that "muchas oportunidades" is not the subject but the direct object, so the verb shouldn't be plural ("haber" -*when not an auxiliar*- is an impersonal verb, always conjugated in the third person singular -hay, habrá, hubo...- and never in the third person plural -...,habrán, hubieron,...-).
> 
> Anyway, these things are complicated even for native Spanish speakers, as I said.
> 
> I don't know if it's clearer or darker than before!!
> 
> Anyway, best regards to you all.



Muchas gracias, amiga muy amable, por su ayuda y paciencia, explicando un problema con tan consequencias internacionales. Voy a responder un poco mas mas tarde, pero ahora es la magico hora de le cena.

And eating ........... beats ANY other commitment.
Will bore you later, with a bit more detail. Hasta luego.

Salud
[gig]


----------



## sunshine58

I'm kinda sorry I made that mistake now...

By the way, look, how do you say 1) "by the way" and 2) "now back to..." in Espanish? (just in case you didn't get that, that's the way native Spanish speakers pronounce the word in their valiant attempts to say "Spanish" in English--reminds me of all Mexican friends...")


----------



## sunshine58

> Muchas gracias, amiga muy amable, por su ayuda y paciencia, explicando un problema con tan conse*c*uencias internacionales. Voy a responder un poco mas mas tarde, pero ahora es la m*a*gica hora de l*a* cena.



Spelling errors, hmm? You really must be excited about dinner...


----------



## ampurdan

"Hay algunas cosas raras que sólo vería una persona lista"
"There are some strange things that only a clever person would see".

The person is the one who should see the things, not the other way round. So, in this sentence, at least, semantics help us identify the subject.

Main sentence:

Subject: none (third person impersonal)
verb: hay
direct object: algunas cosas raras que sólo vería una persona lista.
         where:  algunas: determiner
                    cosas: noun
                    raras: adjective
                    que sólo vería una persona lista: relative clause (adj.)

Subordinate relative clause:

direct object: que (relative pronoun, antecedent: algunas cosas raras)
predicate: sólo (adverb)
verb: vería
Subject: una (det) persona (noun) lista (adj).

Subordinate relative clause changed into main sentence:

Sólo una persona lista vería las cosas raras.


----------



## Katey

You mean you're not going to diagram the sentence for us?  

Katey

You're actually even getting the idea into my foggy brain.


----------



## ampurdan

Well, Katey, I think it's the same in English:

Some things that he sees.
Some things that they see.
A thing that he sees.
A thing that they see.


----------



## GiggLiden

Muchas gracias, amiga muy amable, por su ayuda y paciencia, explicando un problema con tan conse*c*uencias internacionales. Voy a responder un poco mas mas tarde, pero ahora es la m*a*gica hora de l*a* cena.

 And eating ........... beats ANY other commitment.
 Will bore you later, with a bit more detail. Hasta luego.



			
				sunshine58 said:
			
		

> Spelling errors, hmm? You really must be excited about dinner...


THIRTY SEVEN WORDS, and you're complaining about three measly errores de dedos ?!?!?! You have NO idea how WELL you made out!    [grinnnnnnnnn]

Anyway, as they say in the theatah ... _same day, same place, several hours later;__ Gig comfortably ensconced on a red couch, stage left_ ... we pick up where we left off.

I read your masterful tutorial on separating subject from non-subject, sunshine 58, and have the greatest admiration for your talents because I've never successfully parsed a sentence in my LIFE! But I do know how to dig for "the subject" of the sentence ... so here's MY sieve:

1) Separate the sentence into its component parts, i.e. put (paren) around each phrase/piece/wordgroup that contributes to the basic, primary thought.

_"(there are a few strange things) (in the text) (that only a person) (who has studied both languages) (would see")_
_
_2) Excise all of them from the sentence, one at time - order not important - until you have only ONE FRAGMENT left that is *still a complete sentence all by itself!!!*

_"(there are a few strange things) (in the text) (that only a person) (who has studied both languages) (would see")_
Things are getting tight, but we still have a sentence! 

Keep going ... until you have only a complete sentence: subject, verb ...

_"(there are a few strange things) (in the text) (that only a person) (who has studied both languages) (would see")_

And if THAT is the basic thought of a complete sentence, the kernel of it ... what would you say is "the subject"?

_"(there are a few strange things) (in the text) (that only a person) (who has studied both languages) (would see")

_The red part is the core. It is a complete sentence as it stands. The BLUE part is all qualifying material that can be left OUT without harm; no matter how you slice it, it will not survive on its own. And if it's not a sentence, it cannot be harboring the subject.

Conclusion: "things" is the subject.

Q E D

PS: and YOU buy the lunch !!!
  
 _
_


----------



## ampurdan

I fancy you are kidding, Gigg...


----------



## GiggLiden

sunshine58 said:
			
		

> I'm kinda sorry I made that mistake now...
> 
> By the way, look, how do you say 1) "by the way" and 2) "now back to..." in Espanish? (just in case you didn't get that, that's the way native Spanish speakers pronounce the word in their valiant attempts to say "Spanish" in English--reminds me of all Mexican friends...")



Funny you should mention that. It took me a LONG time to figure OUT why they append that errant "e" to almost ANY English word that starts with "sp" or "st" ... just look at a Spanish-English dictionary for a host of examples.

I once even got into a long argument with a fellow ESL teacher (adult ed), a Latino who INSISTED that "school" was a two-syllable word !!! Essss-coool .......... like in ... essss cue la !!!

I also discovered that when you can't think of the Spanish word for an English one, add an "e" in front, and an "o" at the end, chances are 50:50 you got it right ! Close enough for government work.


----------



## GiggLiden

ampurdan said:
			
		

> I fancy you are kidding, Gigg...



Well, yes, I was. Actually, I was hoping YOU would offer to take BOTH of us to lunch, for all the esoteric educational exorbitance you were inhaling!


----------



## Katey

So everyone's in agreement that 'things' cannot be the subject?

Katey


----------



## ampurdan

Or, does everybody agree that "person" is the subject of "would see" and that "things" is the object of "there are"?


----------



## Katey

I hope so.  Because if that's wrong, I'm going to have to stop sending money to the old nuns who beat grammar into my head.

Kate


----------



## ampurdan

GiggLiden said:
			
		

> Well, yes, I was. Actually, I was hoping YOU would offer to take BOTH of us to lunch, for all the esoteric educational exorbitance you were inhaling!


 
So esoteric was it that I didn't even noticed it... I'll fetch something more nourishing for you guys...


----------



## Afrodeeziak

hoochieness = puteza

to have hoochiness is to have hoochie qualities


----------



## GiggLiden

Katey said:
			
		

> So everyone's in agreement that 'things' cannot be the subject?
> 
> Katey



Nope! NOT "everyone" is in agreement that 'things' cannot be the subject.

Scroll back a few messages to see my long, detailed, reasoned, grammatically correct, step-by-step proof that things ARE the subject.

Why do I bother; nobody reads this stuff and I didn't even get a free lunch out of Amp for my wasted efforts.


----------



## ampurdan

Sorry Gigg, but I thought that your explanation was a joke... Subject has nothing to do with what can be suppressed or not in a sentence... The subject is the person or thing that does the action of the verb and, so, agrees in the number with the verb.

I would also like a free lunch for my cellophane efforts.


----------



## GiggLiden

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Sorry Gigg, but I thought that your explanation was a joke... Subject has nothing to do with what can be suppressed or not in a sentence... The subject is the person or thing that does the action of the verb and, so, agrees in the number with the verb.
> 
> I would also like a free lunch for my cellophane efforts.



I really have/had NO intention of making this my Life's Work, or what I'll be remembered for on my tombstone. But you're such a decent chap, I'll take just ONE more stab at  it and then quietly fade back into the woodwork.

_"(there are a few strange things) (in the text) (that only a person) (who has studied both languages) (would see")

_May I tweak the red part just a leeeetle bit and perhaps all will come clear. Wouldst agree to ... "There exist a few strange things in the text." Yes? Okay to proceed?

Does it have a noun? (actually it has two) Does it have a verb? Is that a complete sentence? 

The next word is .......... "that."
Critical ... because it shows us that all the verbiage that FOLLOWS is merely explanatory, expository, and provides descriptive material for .......... guess what ........ THE SUBJECT !

Q E D.

Wife just said if I don't come to lunch ......... RIGHT NOW .... she'll yank the plug, and neither ONE of us will get lunch !!!!

Honest injun ....... I'm done with this. I'll agree with whatever turns your windmill.


----------



## ampurdan

Well, now I've realized that English works different that Spanish as for "there is/there are"

There is a car
There are two cars
There are things.

So, you are right, things is in English the subject of the main sentence; but not in Spanish.

Hay cosas. Subject is impersonal and "cosas" is the direct object.


ANYWAY, we were discussing the subject of "vería" ("would see"), the subject of the relative clause. And here it is "una persona". The relative pronoun "que" ("that") acts as the direct object (meaning "things") both in English and in Spanish.


----------



## sunshine58

Lets just parse the sentence and get it over with...

The sentence: "There are a few strange things in the text that only a person who has studied both languages would see."

Subject of the sentence? "things"
Verb? "are"--a linking verb, third p. pl. of "to be"
What's "there"? An adverb of location which is somehow necessary to 
   indicate the existance of a certain thing
Strange? Adjective describing thigns
"in the text" obviously a prepositional phrase. We have no trouble with that,
   I assume?


 Now we get to the fun part.

"that only a person who has studied both languages would see."
'That' is an objective-case *relative pronoun* linking the subject to a relative phrase. This subordinate phrase--"that only a person...would see"--acts as one huge adjective describing "things."

Let's examine it. Take the pronoun "that", change it into a 3d p. pl. pronoun "them", stick it at the end of the sentence, and we have a sentence which acts completely independently of the sentence of the sentence it is in (in the form of a subordinate clause introduced by a relative pronoun): "Only a person who has studied both languages would see them." With this it becomes clear that the subject of "see" is "person", a singular noun. 

Interestingly enough, "who" is another relative pronoun which allows to describe person: "a person who has studied both languages". We seem to have a relative phrase describing "person" inside another relative phrase describing "things". This relative phrase, as a sentence, would be "He has studied both languages."

Anyway, it becomes extremely obvious that "see" needs to be in the singular, since its subject is clearly person.

By the way--I'm only a freshman in highschool--all you adults should be ashamed... Just kidding!

(By the way--if I made a mistake, I would love it if one of you more qualified grammarians would correct me.)


----------



## ampurdan

Well, that's just my point, thank you Sunshine58. However, notive that if the subject was "persons" the verb would still be "would see" in English.


----------



## sunshine58

Right. And what does "notive" mean? Hmm?


----------



## ampurdan

Ooops! I meant "notice", just a typo.


----------



## ampurdan

silvicrima said:
			
		

> He oido esta frase en una pelicula y no entiendo lo que HOOCHINESS significa.
> Una hermana se lo dice a otra. Estan hablando de hombres.
> 
> Silvicrima


 
Volviendo al tema del thread. Quizá una traducción idiomática sería:

"Vas a tener que explicarme tu puterío".

O

"Vas a tener que explicarme por qué eres tan puta".


----------



## GiggLiden

sunshine58 said:
			
		

> Lets just parse the sentence and get it over with...
> 
> The sentence: "There are a few strange things in the text that only a person who has studied both languages would see."
> 
> Subject of the sentence? "things"
> Verb? "are"--a linking verb, third p. pl. of "to be"
> What's "there"? An adverb of location which is somehow necessary to indicate the existance of a certain thing
> 
> By the way--I'm only a freshman in highschool--all you adults should be ashamed... Just kidding!



¡Caramba! ¡Fabuloso! ¡Impresionante! ¡Wau! ....... I shudder to think what a powerhouse you'll be after you graduate from Oxford !!!!

But since you are obviously a whiz-kid on things grammatical, may I try you out on THIS little enigma:

What is the subject of ...
 "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow creeps in this petty pace from day to day ..."
?
------------
(Don't blame ME; Shakespeare wrote it ... "Macbeth")

And if anyone knows where I might read this famous soliloquy in Spanish, I'd be ever so grateful for a hint. 

Si hay alguién que conozca donde pudiere encontrar esa cita en español, me gustaria mucho oír de Ud. Muchas gracias por vuestra ayuda en antemano.


----------

