# me estafaron por $6000



## Gamen

Buenos días.
Siempre tengo dificultades para traducir el verbo "estafar" en español.

En inglés ¿es siempre necesario agregar "out of" a los verbos que significan "estafar"?

La frase en español:

Compré una cámara de video a través de Internet y *me estafaron por $6000. (O me hicieron pagar $6000 por algo que nunca recibí) *Hice el depósito bancario por el 75 por ciento del valor total pero nunca recibí el producto. Caí en la trampa.

Mi intento en inglés:

I bought a video camera through the Internet and* they did / fooled / tricked / swindled / cooned / beated / fiddled / diddled / beguiled out of $6000*. I made the bank deposit by the 75 per cent of the total amount but I've never received the product. I fell into the trap.

I bought a video camera through the Internet and* they did / fooled / tricked / swindled / cooned / beated / fiddled / diddled
into paying $ 6000 for something I never received. *I made the bank deposit by the 75 per cent of the total amount but I've never received the product. I fell into the trap.

¿Cuál es la mejor traducción?
Gracias.


----------



## aztlaniano

En ambos casos te falta el "me" delante de "out of".
No todos los verbos te sirven en ambas oraciones. Es "conned" y no "cooned". "Beated" no existe.
Six mil lleva coma: $6,000.

Con "diddled", yo diría "they diddled me for (o "to the tune of") $6,000."
"Beguiled me out of ..." no me suena., Quizás "They beguiled me into paying/sending them $6,000".


----------



## Translator33

Hello Gamen, 

No es siempre necesario "out of" con estos verbos. Pero, cuando refiere a dinero o algo especifico que te costó cuando te estafaron, sí, es necesario. 

Por ejemplo :

He tricked me into giving him everything I had. Me estafó en darle todo que tenía. 

I was conned out of twenty bucks by my little brother yesterday. Ayer, mi hermanito me estafó por veinte dolares. 

También en inglés tenemos un dicho "to be taken for" lo que significa que una persona está engañado por otra y pierde algo en el proceso. Este dicho cabe bien aquí. 

"I bought a video camera off the Internet and _*they took me for*_ $6000. They tricked me into paying $6000 for a product I never received. I fell into the trap/_*I got conned/I fell for the scam. 
*_
It is also correct to say:

...through the Internet and I was _*swindled out of $6000/I was conned out of $6000/they fooled me into paying*_ $6000....

pero esas formas de hablar no son tan común hoy. 

Espero que ayudé


----------



## jedi5384

De acuerdo con los demás. Pero "diddled" nunca he oído antes, supongo que debe de ser un uso regional.

Lo que suena más natural (en mi opinión) sería "I bought a video camera off the internet and was conned out of $6,000. I paid a 75% deposit but never received the product. I got scammed."


----------



## Translator33

De acuerdo con jedi5384, "diddled" no se usa ahora. Es un termino muy, pero muy antiguo de ingleterra, y si se usa hoy, de lo que tengo entendido, tendrá connotaciones sexuales. 

Tambien sirve

..."and I _*got conned out of *_$6000. I paid a 75% deposit but never received the product. I got scammed." porque "scam" tambien funciona como verbo.


----------



## Gamen

Muchas gracias a todos.

Me ayudaron muchísimo.

El problema que tenía era que me costaba traducir esas expresiones con "out of" e "into + gerundio" porque en español se formulan de manera muy diferente.
NO se dice:
Me estafó afuera de $6000 o me estafó en pagarle la suma de $6000.


Hay que decirlo de una manera diferente para que sea correcto y tenga sentido.
Por ejemplo:

Me estafó por $6000.
Me estafó haciéndome pagar una suma exorbitante de dinero.
Sufrí / fui víctima de una estafa por $6000.
Fui estafado al tener que pagar una suma de dinero mayor a la que habíamos acordado.


----------



## Gamen

Gracias por el dato de que "diddle" no se usa y tiene connotaciones de otro tipo.

Entonces, la estructura que se mantiene para estos verbos es casi siempre la misma y podría decir:

I got/was conned out of $6000
I got/was scammed out of $6000
I got/was fooled out of $6000
I got/was swindled out of $6000
I got/was tricked out of $6000
I got/was deceived out of $6000
I got/was fiddled out of $6000
I got/was done out of $6000
I was taken in for $6000
I was taken for $6000



They conned me into paying $6000
They scammed me into paying $6000
They fooled me into paying $6000
They swindled me into paying $6000
They beguiled me into paying $6000
They tricked me into paying $6000
They deceived me into paying $6000
They fiddled me into paying $6000
They did me out into paying $6000
They took me in for $6000
They took me for $6000


¿Son todos correctos?


----------



## Translator33

Gamen said:


> Gracias por el dato de que "diddle" no se usa y tiene connotaciones de otro tipo.
> 
> Entonces, podría decir.
> I got/was conned out of $6000
> I got/was scammed out of $6000
> I got/was fooled out of $6000     (menos común)
> I got/was swindled out of $6000  (menos común)
> I got/was beguiled out of $6000       (menos comùn)
> I got/was tricked out of $6000
> I got/was deceived out of $6000  - No se usa "deceived" así. "Deceived" refiere a que la persona estaba engañado, no estafado.
> I got/was fiddled out of $6000     -  No se usa "fiddled" de esta manera, nunca lo he lido, puede ser que es muy antiguo, pero no se usa ahora.
> I got/was taken in for $6000       - En esta frase no es necesario el "in" . Se dice "to get taken for" cuando refiere a dinero o cosas o "got taken in by" cuando quiere decir que la forma de ser o de hablar de una persona te engaño.
> 
> 
> ¿Son todos correctos?



Gamen, marque las correcciones arriba. Lo importante entender es que, aunque la frase esta gramáticamente correcta, cada palabra tiene un sentido un poco distinto y entonces cambia un poco el sentido de la frase. La palabra que buscas siempre está determinada por la énfasis y el sentido que necesitas en la frase, por si quieres que la énfasis está en las personas que están compitiendo la crimen o si está en la persona que estaban estafada. ¿Estaba la persona un víctima, muy estúpido por no saber que estaban falsas o que? ¿Perdió algo físico, mental, emocional o espiritual? ¿Que métodos emplearon los criminales para realizar la crimen, complicados, digitales, mentales, sensuales o sencillos? 

Todo esto determina que palabra debe escoger. 

Saludos


----------



## Translator33

Tambien:

They took me for $6000 / I was taken for $6000  - Correcto
They conned me into paying $6000   - Correcto
They scammed me into paying $6000  
They fooled me into paying $6000  
They swindled me into paying $6000  
They beguiled into paying $6000  
They tricked me into paying $6000  
They deceived me into paying $6000  
They fiddled me into paying$6000   
They took me in for $6000     No necesita "in" .


----------



## Gamen

Muchas gracias Translator!


QUOTE=Translator33;13780867]Gamen, marqu*é* las correcciones arriba. Lo importante (es) entender es que, aunque la frase est*á *gramáticaLmente correcta, cada palabra tiene un sentido un poco distinto y entonces cambia un poco el sentido de la frase. La palabra que buscas siempre está determinada por la (el) énfasis y el sentido que necesitas en la frase, por si  ¿quieres que la (el) énfasis está (esté puesto) en las personas que están compitiendo la (participando) (en) (el) crimen o si está en la persona que estaban (siendo) estafada? ¿Estaba (Era) la persona unA víctima?, ¿(Fui) muy estúpido por no saber que estaban (eran) falsas o qué? ¿Perdió algo físico, mental, emocional o espiritual? ¿Que métodos emplearon los criminales para realizar la (el) crimen, complicados, digitales, mentales, sensuales o sencillos? 

Todo esto determina qué palabra debe escoger. 

Saludos[/QUOTE]


----------



## Bevj

'They did me out of ....'/'I was done out of....'  is another option in BrE


----------



## JennyTW

Translator33 said:


> Tambien:
> 
> They took me for $6000 / I was taken for $6000  - Correcto
> They conned me into paying $6000   - Correcto
> They scammed me into paying $6000
> They fooled me into paying $6000
> They swindled me into paying $6000
> They beguiled into paying $6000
> They tricked me into paying $6000
> They deceived me into paying $6000
> They fiddled me into paying$6000
> They took me in for $6000     No necesita "in" .


"Beguile" aquí no me suena nada tampoco.


----------



## Translator33

¡Mil y Mil gracias, Gamen, para la corrección! Cuando escribo rápido, no presto tanta atención en la gramática que debo. Perdón y gracias, porque correcciones como tal me ayuden demasiado. 

JennyTW, 

"beguile" is technically and grammatically correct. But like I explained, whether or not it should be used depends on the implications and need in the sentence. The verb "Beguile" means to "trick or deceive, to lead by deception, or to attract someone´s interest". Usually, in this century anyway, beguile has the connotation that someone used their personality, tone of voice, mannerisms, looks or other personal attributes to lead another person into doing something that they may not have otherwise. The connotation is slightly negative but can also be used to tease, joke or complement, again, depending on context. 

i.e. "Your small size and bright smile *beguiled* me into thinking you´d be easy to convince." 

"His calming tone and the cadence of his voice *beguiled* his listeners into sitting still for the whole story". 

" They employed a beautiful women at the front desk to *beguile* their clients into talking more and staying longer than they should." 

It would work in this instance if the situation was something like:

"The low price and fancy packaging *beguiled me into paying $6000* for a product I never got."

Saludos


----------



## JennyTW

Translator33 said:


> ¡Mil y Mil gracias, Gamen, para la corrección! Cuando escribo rápido, no presto tanta atención en la gramática que debo. Perdón y gracias, porque correcciones como tal me ayuden demasiado.
> 
> JennyTW,
> 
> "beguile" is technically and grammatically correct. But like I explained, whether or not it should be used depends on the implications and need in the sentence. The verb "Beguile" means to "trick or deceive, to lead by deception, or to attract someone´s interest". Usually, in this century anyway, beguile has the connotation that someone used their personality, tone of voice, mannerisms, looks or other personal attributes to lead another person into doing something that they may not have otherwise. The connotation is slightly negative but can also be used to tease, joke or complement, again, depending on context.
> 
> i.e. "Your small size and bright smile *beguiled* me into thinking you´d be easy to convince."
> 
> "His calming tone and the cadence of his voice *beguiled* his listeners into sitting still for the whole story".
> 
> " They employed a beautiful women at the front desk to *beguile* their clients into talking more and staying longer than they should."
> 
> It would work in this instance if the situation was something like:
> 
> "The low price and fancy packaging *beguiled me into paying $6000* for a product I never got."
> 
> Saludos



OK, this last example is fine (and the rest above). But what is not correct is; "He beguiled into paying $6000" in post #12.


----------



## Translator33

Right, it´s just a typo though. Gamen meant to write "They beguiled me into paying..." and that would be correct grammatically.


----------



## JennyTW

Translator33 said:


> Right, it´s just a typo though. Gamen meant to write "They beguiled me into paying..." and that would be correct grammatically.


Actually, looking back, Gamen DID write "beguiled me", it was just yours that had the typo.


----------



## aztlaniano

Translator33 said:


> De acuerdo con jedi5384, "diddled" no se usa ahora. Es un término muy, pero muy antiguo de Inglaterra, y si se usa hoy, de lo que tengo entendido, tendrá connotaciones sexuales.


This is just a few months ago, and from a U.S. source:
*Wednesday, June 05, 2013Last Update: 9:15 AM PT*​



*Samaritan Says Nonprofit Diddled Him for $1 Million in Search for Amelia Earhart's Plane*
By JONNY BONNER 




(CN) - A nonprofit that claims to have found the wreck of Amelia Earhart's final flight took $1 million from a Wyoming man to look for it, without telling him it already had found it, the man claims in court.


http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/06/05/58237.htm

It is quite true that "to diddle" can mean to have sex, as well as to cheat someone out of something. That is equally true of "to fuck" or "to screw" (someone out of $6,000).

Apparently it is also British:


*diddle - Cambridge Dictionary - Cambridge University Press




*

dictionary.cambridge.org/es/diccionario/ingles-espanol/diddle‎
They *diddled him* out of £300. Le timaron trescientas libras. □ constr. to diddle sb out of stg. (Definition of diddle v from the Diccionario Cambridge Compact  *...*


----------



## Gamen

Translator33 said:


> ¡Mil y Mil gracias, Gamen, para (por) la corrección! Cuando escribo rápido, no presto tanta atención en la gramática que debo(como debería) . Perdón y gracias, porque correcciones como tal tales correcciones me ayudAn (mucho) demasiado.
> 
> De nada.


----------



## JennyTW

Phew, that's a relief! Thanks Aztlaniano! The other comments about "diddle" made me feel as if I were an ancient, ancient Briton!


----------



## Gamen

Jenny / Translator:
Importante aclaración.
Yo había escrito erróneamente "They beguiled into paying $6000" en el post 7 e inmediatamente después lo edité agregando el "me". Lo que ocurrió es que Translator tomó mi post antes de que yo llegara a editarlo.


----------



## Translator33

My bad! 

Must´ve lost it when I copied and pasted Gamen´s text to avoid having to retype everything. Sorry!


----------



## JennyTW

Translator33 said:


> My bad!
> 
> Must´ve lost it when I copied and pasted Gamen´s text to avoid having to retype everything. Sorry!


No, sorry, it wasn't you.  Gamen's just cleared up the issue.


----------



## Translator33

As regards "diddle", what I was attempting to say was not that it is never used, but that it is a word that has Old English origins and is rarely used, especially here in the US, virtually never in the younger generation. And, like "to screw" or "to f***", it is not the most polite way to say that you or someone was scammed or conned and might be misunderstood, especially coming from a non-native speaker. I'm well into my 3rd decade  and have never heard the word spoken, I've only ever read it and that was in literature relating to or written in the UK. 

Just FYI, I guess


----------



## Translator33

JennyTW, No worries, it's clear now.


----------



## Gamen

Muchas gracias a todos los que participaron en este foro y me ayudaron!

Entonces, para resumir y para que sea claro a quienes toman estos foros para aprender, la frase "me estafaron por $6000" / "fui estafado por $6000" puede traducirse de las siguintes formas: 
(Sacando los verbos que no se usan en la actualidad, teniendo en cuenta también la sugerencia de Bevj y las estructuras gramaticales más usuales)

I got/was conned out of $6000 / They conned me out of $6000
I got/was scammed out of $6000 / They scammed me out of $6000
I got/was fooled out of $6000 / They fooled me out of $6000
I got/was swindled out of $6000 / They swindled me out of $6000
I got/was tricked out of $6000 / They tricked me out of $6000
I got/was done out of $6000 / They done me out of $6000
I was taken for $6000 / They took for me out of $6000

They conned me into paying $6000
They scammed me into paying $6000
They fooled me into paying $6000
They swindled me into paying $6000
They beguiled me into paying $6000
They tricked me into paying $6000
They did me out into paying $6000
They took me for $6000

Si hay algún error, por favor háganmelo saber.
Muchas gracias!


----------



## Translator33

Gamen said:


> Muchas gracias a todos los que participaron en este foro y me ayudaron!
> 
> Entonces, para resumir y para que sea claro a quienes toman estos foros para aprender, la frase "me estafaron por $6000" / "fui estafado por $6000" puede traducirse de las siguintes formas:
> (Sacando los verbos que no se usan en la actualidad, teniendo en cuenta también la sugerencia de Bevj y las estructuras gramaticales más usuales)
> 
> I got/was conned out of $6000 / They conned me out of $6000
> I got/was scammed out of $6000 / They scammed me out of $6000
> I got/was fooled out of $6000 / They fooled me out of $6000
> I got/was swindled out of $6000 / They swindled me out of $6000
> I got/was tricked out of $6000 / They tricked me out of $6000
> I got/was done out of $6000 / They done me out of $6000- Esta no es correcto gramáticamente, es como slang. Hay personas que hablan así pero están consideradas como maleducadas.
> I was taken for $6000 / They took for me out of $6000 - Incorrecta. Se dice "They took me for $6000."
> 
> They conned me into paying $6000
> They scammed me into paying $6000
> They fooled me into paying $6000
> They swindled me into paying $6000
> They beguiled me into paying $6000
> They tricked me into paying $6000
> They did me out into paying $6000  Esta es la que no funciona. Technicamente, se puede decir "They did me out of $6000." pero no se usa y no está muy clara.
> They took me for $6000
> 
> Si hay algún error, por favor háganmelo saber.
> Muchas gracias!



Allí, Gamen, con estas pequeñas correcciones, me parecen bien tus frase.

Saludos


----------



## PichaPuerto

With reference to "diddle" I have heard it here and there but not recently. To me it sounds informal and slightly humorous. Even perhaps implying less money or whatever has been lost.


----------



## Gamen

Muchas gracias Translator.
Por lo visto en British English sí se puede usal la expresión "to do out of", pero es cierto no es muy clara. Es muy inespecífica, ¿no es cierto?




Bevj said:


> 'They did me out of ....'/'I was done out of....' is another option in BrE


----------



## aztlaniano

Gamen said:


> Por lo visto en British English sí se puede usal la expresión "to do out of", pero es cierto no es muy clara. Es muy inespecífica, ¿no es cierto?


No lo veo más inespecífico que los demás, como ejemplo, que "They cheated me out of $6,000" o "I was cheated out of $6,000".


----------



## onbalance

Aunque la mayoría de estas opciones son correctas, tengo entendido que "They defrauded me out of $6000" es la opción más corriente. "They cheated me out of, "They scammed me out of" y "They duped me out of" también me parecen muy corrientes. También: "They ripped me off for $6000."


----------



## Gamen

Muchas gracias onbalance.
¡Cuántas opciones hay en inglés para expresar la idea de "estafar"!

Entonces, todas estas sería correctas:
*A) Significado: Fui estafado en/por $6000 / Me estafaron en/por $6000

*I got/was conned out of $6000 / They conned me out of $6000
I got/was scammed out of $6000 / They scammed me out of $6000
I got/was fooled out of $6000 / They fooled me out of $6000
I got/was swindled out of $6000 / They swindled me out of $6000
I got/was tricked out of $6000 / They tricked me out of $6000
I got/was cheated out of $6000 / They cheated me out of $6000
I got/was defrauded out of $6000 / They defrauded me out of $6000
I got/was duped out of $6000/ They duped me out for $6000
I got/was ripped off for $ 6000 / They ripped me off for $6000
I was taken for $6000 / They took me for $6000


Frase dudosa (correcta para algunos; incorrecta para otros)
*I was done out of $6000 / They did me out of $6000 *(¿Entonces ésta sirve? Algunos como Translator piensan que no)


*B) Significado: Me estafaron para que pagara $6000 
*They conned me into paying $6000
They scammed me into paying $6000
They fooled me into paying $6000
They swindled me into paying $6000
They beguiled me into paying $6000
They tricked me into paying $6000
They cheated me into paying $6000
They defrauded me into paying $6000
They duped me into paying $6000


----------



## onbalance

*They conned me into paying $6000
 They scammed me into paying $6000
 They fooled me into paying $6000
 They swindled me into paying $6000
 They beguiled me into paying $6000
 They tricked me into paying $6000
 They took me for $6000 *

Las frases en esta categoría no tienen el mismo significado de las de la primera categoría. 

*I was done out of $6000 / They did me out of $6000*

Para mí, esto no es correcto.


----------



## aztlaniano

onbalance said:


> *I was done out of $6,000 / They did me out of $6,000*
> Para mí, esto no es correcto.


??
*Ex-Celtic star Andreas Hinkel insists Rangers did him out of (Scottish League championship) medal...*

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/.../ex-celtic-star-andreas-hinkel-insists-1166964‎



Jul 17, 2012 - ANDREAS HINKEL is well aware Rangers haven't been found guilty of cheating – but that doesn't stop the former Celtic full-back feeling *..

*

*Artist claims he was Done out of $53m - National - theage.com.au*

www.theage.com.au › National‎





Mar 20, 2008 - Artist Ken Done may have to return to painting Sydney Harbour and cuddly koalas after losing three-quarters of his personal fortune due to *...*


----------



## Translator33

Entonces parece que para el UK, Australia y tal vez Scotland y Wales tambien, la frase se usa. Pero aqui en los EEUU casi nunca la escuchamos. O si la escuchamos, nos  parece como "slang" o incorrecto. A menos para mi ;-).


----------



## onbalance

*Entonces parece que para el UK, Australia y tal vez Scotland y Wales tambien, la frase se usa. Pero aqui en los EEUU casi nunca la escuchamos. O si la escuchamos, nos parece como "slang" o incorrecto. A menos para mi ;-). *'

De acuerdo. Constituría, en el mejor de los casos, un uso coloquial. 

***

Gamen: Se me olvidó mencionar que "bilk"  también es bien corriente "They bilked me out of $6000" es una de las mejores opciones.


----------



## JennyTW

La primera vez que oigo "bilk". En BrE no se usa ( que yo sepa). Por lo tanto, no creo que sea la mejor opción, habiendo verbos que se entienden bien en todos sitios.


----------

