# Latin American and European Spanish



## JLanguage

Just curious, what differences are there in speech and in writing?


----------



## Phryne

The differences are between *each country*, regardless if it is European or Latinamerican. And they are many, too many!!

Besides words, idioms and expressions, this is one example;

Spain uses "vosotros" for second person plural, which has its unique verb conjugation.
However, Latinamerica uses "ustedes", with a different  verb conjugation.

Most countries use "tú" for second person singular. Argentina uses "vos" with a different verb conjugation.

That's just the beginning!


----------



## JLanguage

Phryne said:
			
		

> The differences are between *each country*, regardless if it is European or Latinamerican. And they are many, too many!!
> 
> Besides words, idioms and expressions, this is one example;
> 
> Spain uses "vosotros" for second person plural, which has its unique verb conjugation.
> However, Latinamerica uses "ustedes", with a different verb conjugation.
> 
> Most countries use "tú" for second person singular. Argentina uses "vos" with a different verb conjugation.
> 
> That's just the beginning!


 
Ah, so you could tell what country a native Spanish speaker is from just by his language usage?

EX. Could someone in Mexico identify whether a person is from Argentina or Chile or Columbia, etc. just by their speech?

This is similar to English, it's pretty easy to tell whether some is British or Australian or American just by their accent and which slang they use. It gets harder for me, to distinguish between Irish, Scottish or British though, or between Australian and New Zealander mostly cause I don't hear their dialects all that often.


----------



## beatrizg

For me it's easy to identify: Spanish from Spain, from Argentina (mostly from Buenos Aires), from Chile, Mexico and Venezuela. 
Central America and the Andean region is not that clear for me.


----------



## Phryne

JLanguage said:
			
		

> Ah, so you could tell what country a native Spanish speaker is from just by his language usage?
> 
> EX. Could someone in Mexico identify whether a person is from Argentina or Chile or Columbia, etc. just by their speech?
> 
> This is similar to English, it's pretty easy to tell whether some is British or Australian or American just by their accent and which slang they use. It gets harder for me, to distinguish between Irish, Scottish or British though, or between Australian and New Zealander mostly cause I don't hear their dialects all that often.



It depends how used you are to listen to those accents and dialects. I recognize the Spaniard accent, the Andalusian (South of Spain), Río de la Plata accent (Litoral in Argentina and Uruguay, which is my accent ), some other Argentine accents, Chilean, Mexican, Cuban and Puertorican. The last three, I know them very well because I live in New York.  All other accents blend together. I can only tell that they are  from  Central America or South America.

Concerning your original question, certain  words from specific countries help us recognize where the speakers are from. However, since there are so many Spanish speaking countries, and most are next to each other, it's way harder to identify them than English speaking coutries.


----------



## sergio11

Are you talking about differentiating the accent and the colloquialisms, or differences in the language? 

If you are talking about accents, yes, you can tell sometimes where they are from, but not always (Buenos Aires you can tell right away, and Spain is easy to tell sometimes; the rest are not so easy). 

Now, if you are talking about cultured, educated, written language, I maintain that there is no difference, although many will not agree with me and we may have a deluge of postings arguing the opposite. I am telling you because this has happened before. They tell me that they have heard college educated professionals and writers in talk shows or TV shows debating ad nauseam how to say something in Spain, Argentina or Mexico. They may have been professionals or writers, but they were not really debating the main corpus of the language: if they had so many differences, they were debating only the colloquialisms of their local circles. 

Here I go on record again, saying that the language is the same everywhere where Spanish is spoken and taught in schools of every level, especially the higher levels. 

If you don't believe me, compare the postings of Belén, Leopold, LauraNazario, Artrella, Cuchuflete, Funnydeal and others: you will not find any difference, although they are from different countries.

Feel free to disagree and post your friendly or not-so-friendly attacks, which are the spice and flavor of this forum (but don't expect answers--my wife tells me I am already spending too much time with these discussions).


----------



## Outsider

Sergio, what about the different pronunciations for the _s_ and the _j_?
What about the use of "ustedes" vs. "vos"? 
These are not differences between cultured and popular speech...


----------



## garryknight

Then there are the different pronunciations of 'll' as in 'me llamo', which can be anything from an English 'y' sound, through the sound of 's' as in 'measure, to an English 'j' sound.


----------



## Artrella

Outsider said:
			
		

> Sergio, what about the different pronunciations for the _s_ and the _j_?
> What about the use of "ustedes" vs. "vos"?
> These are not differences between cultured and popular speech...




Exactly.  We use "vos" .  No matter your social status.  As regards the sounds of the "y" "ll" there is a difference according to the social level.
High-society people tend to exaggerate the /sh/ sound of the "y/ll".
People from the provinces usually pronounce them as an /i/ sound.

"Ustedes" vs "vosotros" >>> We use "ustedes" I cannot think of a Latinamerican country which uses "vosotros".

The opposition is between "tú" and "vos". There is a thread -of course I don't remember the name  - where this has been discussed, indicating which are the countries in Latinamerica that use the "vos".


----------



## cuchuflete

garryknight said:
			
		

> Then there are the different pronunciations of 'll' as in 'me llamo', which can be anything from an English 'y' sound, through the sound of 's' as in 'measure, to an English 'j' sound.



Hola Garry,
Please don't forget the ll, pronounced as the English ll in William.  The friends in whose home I learned Spanish, in Santander, pronounced it that way.  I know it's not the most common way to pronounce it; nor was it rare in Cantabria.

saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## sergio11

Outsider said:
			
		

> Sergio, what about the different pronunciations for the _s_ and the _j_?
> What about the use of "ustedes" vs. "vos"?
> These are not differences between cultured and popular speech...


 


			
				garryknight said:
			
		

> Then there are the different pronunciations of 'll' as in 'me llamo', which can be anything from an English 'y' sound, through the sound of 's' as in 'measure, to an English 'j' sound.


 
Sure, but to me those are insignificant differences. You cannot even get a total agreement between people of different regions of the same country, but that does not interfere with the understanding and communication. It is not a different language. 

The grammar we learn in school is exactly the same. No one learns in school to conjugate " yo soy, vos sos, él es, nosotros somos, ustedes son, ellos son." Everyone in every country learns to conjugate "yo soy, tú eres, él es, nosotros somos, vosotros sois, ellos son." 

What I mean by cultured speech and popular speech is that, if 10 lecturers came from 10 different countries to lecture, you would not notice any differences at all in the language. You would notice differences in the accent, but that would not interfere with anyone's understanding the lecture and following every word to the last. 

Regarding accents, you would spot the one from Buenos Aires immediately, probably the one from Spain, depending on the region he is from, and everyone else will sound almost the same. Perhaps the guy from Cuba will talk faster, the one from Colombia will talk fast but not as fast as the Cuban, but, other than that, you will not be able to tell any differences. 

The reason the Buenos Aires accent is so different from all others is the Italian influence in Buenos Aires. Even in Argentina, the only cities that have the typical accent you identify as ours are the ones with a large Italian population. The others sound more like the majority of South American countries. 

I would like to see what other people think. I am neither a linguist nor an authority of any kind. I just expressed my opinion and I love to see an agile debate on issues like this one. If the moderators allow, I would say, don't be afraid of offending anyone. In this matter we are here just for the fun of agreeing with some and disagreeing with others.


----------



## sergio11

Another interesting little detail about all this, is that not only the conjugations of the verbs, as I said in my previous posting, but also the pronounciations that are taught in the schools as correct, such as the c and z, the ll, etc., are the ones of the Peninsula, that is, of Spain (at least in my days it was like that). Of course the teacher says this, but in the next sentence he or she uses the Argentinian pronounciation. At least in my days, everyone was taught that way. I graduated from elementary school in 1958. I don't know how it is now.


----------



## cuchuflete

Gracias Sergio,



> I just expressed my opinion and I love to see an agile debate on issues like this one. If the moderators allow, I would say, don't be afraid of offending anyone.



Of course, this is not only permitted, it is highly encouraged.  Civil debate is a wonderful way for us to learn from one another.  It may be agile, forceful, impassioned.  On those few occasions when it has acquired uncivil tones, moderator intervention has been needed, but I see no reason for that among mature adults.

saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## Javier-Vega

sergio11 said:
			
		

> The grammar we learn in school is exactly the same. No one learns in school to conjugate " yo soy, vos sos, él es, nosotros somos, ustedes son, ellos son." Everyone in every country learns to conjugate "yo soy, tú eres, él es, nosotros somos, vosotros sois, ellos son."



Actually, we mexicans DO learn in school to conjugate "ustedes son"


----------



## sergio11

Javier-Vega said:
			
		

> Actually, we mexicans DO learn in school to conjugate "ustedes son"


 
This is a first time for me to hear something like that.  Thank you for telling us. I didn't know.


----------



## Henrik Larsson

Hay muchísiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimas diferencias, y una es la influencia del inglés en el español latinoamericano. De hecho, casi todas las dudas acerca de palabras españolas que se preguntan por aqui, son de palabras que en el español de castilla suenan a chino.


----------



## sergio11

Henrik Larsson said:
			
		

> Hay muchísiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimas diferencias, y una es la influencia del inglés en el español latinoamericano. De hecho, casi todas las dudas acerca de palabras españolas que se preguntan por aqui, son de palabras que en el español de castilla suenan a chino.


 
Henrik, concuerdo contigo en que muchas de esas palabras suenan a chino, pero mi contienda es que esas palabras a las que tú te refieres suenan a chino no sólo en el español de castilla, sino también en el de cualquier país.  Que un grupo de adolescentes o un grupo de periodistas las hayan adoptado no significa que constituyan el idioma oficial o indiquen el uso correcto de ese país.


----------



## asm

Javier:

I am Mexican, I received my education in Mexico and I did learn "vosotros sois", never used, though; I do not know if this is true today with the next generations.


----------



## Javier-Vega

OK, let me clarify. 
I didn't say we don't learn "vosotros sois" but we learn "ustedes son" too. And the teachers never say this latter form is "wrong spanish" (neither they should say so).


----------



## beatrizg

sergio11 said:
			
		

> Another interesting little detail about all this, is that not only the conjugations of the verbs, as I said in my previous posting, but also the pronounciations that are taught in the schools as correct, such as the c and z, the ll, etc., are the ones of the Peninsula, that is, of Spain (at least in my days it was like that). Of course the teacher says this, but in the next sentence he or she uses the Argentinian pronounciation. At least in my days, everyone was taught that way. I graduated from elementary school in 1958. I don't know how it is now.



Regarding the conjugations of the verbs we, in Colombia at least, are taught "yo, tu, el, nosotros, vosotros, ellos". 
But only when the Spanish teacher is from Spain we are taught that the "c" and the "z" should be pronounced differently that the "s". Of course this can be mentioned, but not with the idea that one is correct and the other wrong. 

Regarding the "ll", in Colombia itself there are different ways of pronouncing it.
Llave: yave, liave


----------



## Phryne

sergio11 said:
			
		

> Henrik, concuerdo contigo en que muchas de esas palabras suenan a chino, pero mi contienda es que esas palabras a las que tú te refieres suenan a chino no sólo en el español de castilla, sino también en el de cualquier país. Que un grupo de adolescentes o un grupo de periodistas las hayan adoptado no significa que constituyan el idioma oficial o indiquen el uso correcto de ese país.



Sergio, las diferencias van mucho más allá de lo que grupitos de adolescentes puedan decir. Además, la lingüística acepta como parte de la lengua cualquier palabra que sea compartida por gran parte de una población. Así nacen los nuevos idiomas,  como dirías vos, " porque la gente habla mal". Sin embargo, han cambiado los valores que se usan para definir lo que es "buen catellano" y lo que no lo es. Hoy por hoy, se permiten decir cosas que a algunos "cultos' del habla les suenan horribles. 

Además en Argentina se enseñan el vos y el ustedes hace ya un par de décadas, creo que desde la vuelta de la democracia.


----------



## Antartic

Diria que basicamente las diferencias estructurales con España son muy pocas, como ya se ha dicho, esta el uso de vosotros, la preferencia por las formas reflexivas de algunos verbos y el uso de una que otra preposicion, por ej. ellos dicen _voy a por ellos_ y nosotros decimos solo _voy por ellos_.
En cuanto a acentos, me es facil distinguir algunos muy caracteristicos de Argentina-Uruguay, Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela y España, del resto podría aventurar solamente su procedencia ya que para mi no son tan marcados. No se distinguir por ej entre un peruano y un boliviano, y no tengo idea de como hablan en Panamá y algunos paises de Centro America.


----------



## Noel Acevedo

Jlanguage

  The differences are huge, just look at a map the Americas from the Rio Grande South and that should give you an idea of the immense diversity between each region to another.  The interreaction between the original colonial Spaniards with the local cultures developed words and phrases absent in Spain, which gives the language of each country a richness that distinguishes it from that Spanish of another country and the "mother country".  The same thing happened in Spain, dominated by Moors for over five centuries, the Castillian spoken their was enriched with thousands of arab word, which we in Spanish America inherited.  Each country will be different, but then, wouldn't you consider it booring if we all spoke, pronounced and understood ourselves becuase of an ingrained unflexible uniformity.

Noel


----------



## sergio11

I posted this in another thread in Spanish, but it may be useful to repeat it in English.

It seems to me that our disagreement stems from our divergent definitions of "different." 

One group considers "different" everything we cannot understand. In a way, this may seem logical, but it does not satisfy me, because it "sanctifies" my ignorance by calling everything I don't know "different" and closes the doors to any further learning. Please, don't take this as an insult. I am not trying to offend anyone: I am just talking about myself, what would happen if I had that point of view. It may not apply to others, so don't get offended.

The other way of defining "different" in matters of language is that, a formal language, that is, excluding slang and vernacular dialects (and of course, the "lunfardo" of Buenos Aires), fulfills at least one of the following conditions:

1. It uses words that are not found in a dictionary of the language (Spanish in this case) and have to be searched in a dictionary of regionalisms.

2. It uses idioms, expressions and inflections that are not found in a grammar of the language (Spanish in this case) and have to be searched in a dictionary of local idioms and speech patterns. 

My opinion is that very few cases of the Spanish so called "differences" fulfill either one of these conditions. 

As an example of languages where these differences do happen I can cite the Armenian language, which has an Eastern variant and a Western variant. The two variants have different verb conjugations, different declensions of nouns, different idioms, relatively different grammar, and a number of words that are in one variant's dictionary but not in the other's. In that case, even though it is the same language and most of the time we can understand each other without great difficulty, I justify calling it "different." However, I don't think we can find this in Spanish, at least not yet.


----------



## Outsider

sergio11 said:
			
		

> I posted this in another thread in Spanish, but it may be useful to repeat it in English.
> 
> It seems to me that our disagreement stems from our divergent definitions of "different."
> 
> One group considers "different" everything we cannot understand. In a way, this may seem logical, but it does not satisfy me, because it "sanctifies" my ignorance by calling everything I don't know "different" and closes the doors to any further learning. Please, don't take this as an insult. I am not trying to offend anyone: I am just talking about myself, what would happen if I had that point of view. It may not apply to others, so don't get offended.
> 
> The other way of defining "different" in matters of language is that, a formal language, that is, excluding slang and vernacular dialects (and of course, the "lunfardo" of Buenos Aires), fulfills at least one of the following conditions:
> 
> 1. It uses words that are not found in a dictionary of the language (Spanish in this case) and have to be searched in a dictionary of regionalisms.
> 
> 2. It uses idioms, expressions and inflections that are not found in a grammar of the language (Spanish in this case) and have to be searched in a dictionary of local idioms and speech patterns.
> 
> My opinion is that very few cases of the Spanish so called "differences" fulfill either one of these conditions.


My concept of different, in the present context, is "anything I take notice of"--regardless of whether or not it prevents my understanding. 
E.g., I can notice a Brazilian accent immediately--it's different. But that does not mean I can't understand what Brazilians say.


----------



## sergio11

Outsider said:
			
		

> My concept of different, in the present context, is "anything I take notice of"--regardless of whether or not it prevents my understanding.
> E.g., I can notice a Brazilian accent immediately--it's different. But that does not mean I can't understand what Brazilians say.


 
Well, yes, you are right. I have to agree completely with you in that point. That I understand English and Spanish doesn't make me think they are the same language.  I am sorry for not having expressed it accurately.


----------



## Outsider

sergio11 said:
			
		

> That I understand English and Spanish doesn't make me think they are the same language.


And that you can spot a couple of differences between American English and British English doesn't make you think they are different languages--or does it?


----------



## Phryne

The problem here is that there's not such a thing as formal language vs. slang. There much more differences between dialects in Spanish than just slang. For instance, _plomero _is not a slang term and it is not necessarily academic either. However, _plomero _, which means _plumber _in certain countries, it is called _fontanero_ in others. I have the knowledge of this word, as many many others, not because I was taught at home or school, but because of TV, books, or people I happen to know. It is very hard to assess what we should define as "words we cannot understand", since we may have the knowledge of them only because of some sort of education. 



> The other way of defining "different" in matters of language is that, a formal language, that is, excluding slang and vernacular dialects (and of course, the "lunfardo" of Buenos Aires), fulfills at least one of the following conditions:
> 
> 1. It uses words that are not found in a dictionary of the language (Spanish in this case) and have to be searched in a dictionary of regionalisms.
> 
> 2. It uses idioms, expressions and inflections that are not found in a grammar of the language (Spanish in this case) and have to be searched in a dictionary of local idioms and speech patterns.


 
I don't understand why we have to use these conditions as a rule. I've never heard of a linguistic theory to assess _objectively _whether it is a language, a dialect or none. 
I also believe that this rules are not correct. Firstly, most complete dictionaries of the Spanish language account for all differences of spoken/written language, including slang. That includes words I have never heard of, and usages that might even sound wrong to me. It also includes the usage of "vosotros" and "tú" which are not part of my speech, formal, slang or colloquial.
Secondly, dictionaries only describe what's being used. First comes the spoken language, then come all rules, grammatical, lexical, phonological, etc, etc. Grammar does not tell people how to speak. It is the other way around. It accounts for what people speak.


----------



## sergio11

Phryne said:
			
		

> I don't understand why we have to use these conditions as a rule. I've never heard of a linguistic theory to assess _objectively _whether it is a language, a dialect or none.
> I also believe that this rules are not correct.


 
I don't know whether there are any such rules or not, but we have to have some criteria to define whether something is significantly different form something else or not, so I made my own guidelines.  I cannot say whether they are correct or not, because I have never read anything about it. Most probably you are right in that they are not correct, because I am not a linguist and I just made them up in a way that looked somewhat logical to me.  I may be very wrong.



			
				Phryne said:
			
		

> ...dictionaries only describe what's being used. First comes the spoken language, then come all rules, grammatical, lexical, phonological, etc, etc. Grammar does not tell people how to speak. It is the other way around. It accounts for what people speak.


 
Yes, I know about this "activist" approach to language.  And by the way you express all these concepts with knowledge and fluency, I can tell you have studied the matter in university, which I have not. I am not saying this to justify my ignorance, but only to give you a perspective of where I am coming form.   

We have had discussions about it in many cases, not only about Spanish, but also other languages, where people think that only the language spoken in the streets of their little neighborhood is correct, that all grammar texts have to be burned in a public pyre in the street, and that the language has to evolve as they speak it in their own little circles. 

In a way, you are right.  Grammar and dictionaries describe the language. But in a certain measure they give it stability, too.  Otherwise one generation would not be able to communicate with the next. Taking the descriptive-only approach to its logical consequences, we would stop teaching grammar and language and leave it to its free evolution in the streets.  As I said above, I am only speaking out of my ignorance, without any formal preparation in the matter.  Feel free to disagree. 


_(As I said in my posting in the Spanish thread, I am going to get ready to go to work, so that I will not be able to check responses until much later.)_


----------



## garryknight

There's a book/CD called _Spanish without the fuss_ by Pilar Munday (published by Random House as part of their _Living Language_ series, ISBN 0-609-81063-4) which is, in my opinion, not only an excellent resource for those starting to learn Spanish, but also for those who want to learn some of the differences between _el castellano_ as spoken in Spain and in South and Central America. As well as teaching an everyday version of the language, it contains just under an hour's worth of interesting, amusing and downright useful dialogues. The reason I mention it in this thread is that they illustrate differences such as voseo, seseo/ceceo, the different pronunciation of 'elle', and colloquialisms (as well as dishes!) from various countries.

It's cheap for a full beginners' course at 14.95 UK pounds, and the usual rider applies: I have nothing to do with the company or the author. I'm just a satisfied (and impressed) customer.


----------



## clcrhiggaeeermo

sergio11 said:
			
		

> Another interesting little detail about all this, is that not only the conjugations of the verbs, as I said in my previous posting, but also the pronounciations that are taught in the schools as correct, such as the c and z, the ll, etc., are the ones of the Peninsula, that is, of Spain (at least in my days it was like that). Of course the teacher says this, but in the next sentence he or she uses the Argentinian pronounciation. At least in my days, everyone was taught that way. I graduated from elementary school in 1958. I don't know how it is now.


I am an 8th grader taking Spanish 1 in an extremely diverse school. (in case this post is long-lived, I'm posting in 2005) My teacher is originally from Spain but is very Americanized and she pronounces ll as an english 'j'. Some of the other students in the class (who pretended to be terrible on the advanced Spanish entrance exam in order to get an easy A) pronounce it as a 'y' and some as a 'j'. However, I don't see how that affects the conjugation in any way and everyone understands the language either way it is pronounced. But I'm still confused as to which countries pronounce it which way.


----------



## cuchuflete

Welcome 8th grader of the unpronounceable name

It's more complex than just countries.  There are regions in Spain where you will hear an "ll" spoken so that it sounds like the double el in the English name William.  In other places it sounds closer to the Argentine dzhay sound, and in still others its more like the y sound heard in much of the Americas.

Let me stress that no one of these is more 'correct' than the others.  Think of it as you think of the differences between speech patterns in West Texas and in Rhode Island.

Looking forward to seeing you in the forums,
Cuchuflete


----------



## Fonεtiks

Artrella said:
			
		

> I cannot think of a Latinamerican country which uses "vosotros".


 
It's used in the Andean part of Latinamerica. However, teachers in the Coast and Jungle teach "ustedes son".

In my opinion, the differences in accents among latinos from Buenos Aires, Venezuela, Cuba and PR is easy to recognize because those countries have cities that were (and are) important trading and cultural exchange spots with Spain and other countries. Language tends to be more "colorful", distinguishable and non-standardized there. But in the interior of Argentina, andean parts of Peru, Colombia, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador and provinces of Mexico, language is a little "behind" time, where the "correct" usage prevailed. Some people dare say Colombian, Peruvian and Mexican are the "best Spanishes" because they are pronounced neutrally, not as fast, more phonetically and respectful of grammatical points. In general, more like a standard Spanish. However, if you compare the accent of a person from Lima and a person from Cuzco, it's easy to tell. Mexicans would say people from Lima speak like those from Argentina, but people from Cuzco speak like their fellows from Oaxaca.

In the highlands of Peru, people have kept some archaisms like pronouncing the c as in Spain in "doce". But they pronounce the c as /s/ in "cinco".

I'd like to ask my Colombian fellows, if it's true that in Antioquía the s is pronounced more like the peninsular version, very close to /sh/, aka apical.


----------



## sergio11

I agree with both Cuchuflete and Fonεtiks in their latest posts. Regarding *grammar and pronounciation*, don't get very hung up with the small regional differences. No matter what regional variety you learn, you will be understood perfectly everywhere and nobody is going to say you are wrong, unless you make a gross mistake of grammar, which is the same everywhere. 

Regarding regional differences of *vocabulary*, not even we, the native Spanish-speaking folks, know what everyone uses in every region of the globe, so don't feel bad about it. 

Saludos


----------



## clcrhiggaeeermo

I definitely understand. It's the same as the differences in accent between NYC and Texas. However, I'm still hung up as to which pronunciation to actually use, for the same reason an English as a Second Language learner in my school would want to know what English dialect or accent to adopt. The teaching videos (Standard Deviants) all alternate between the pronunciation differences when speaking in Spanish. Being an upper-middle-class white boy in southern New York (state) who loves to speak Spanish but is not Hispanic, I'd like to know which accent would be the best for me to pick up.


----------



## clcrhiggaeeermo

Also, the name is pronounced cull curr higg uh ear moh. There's a long story behind how it came to be.


----------



## gisele73

I don't think there are many major differences in writing, except for the slang, of course, that can be very diffferent.

The biggest difference between Spanish speaking countries is the accent. I guess in English is the same thing.

Of course that is my personal opinion, and I came to think that since I moved to Norway, because here you can most certainly find HUGE differences in writing and pronounciation from one city to another, there are many different dialects here, so it's really hard for someone who's learning the language to understand it.


----------



## jmx

Fonεtiks said:
			
		

> In the highlands of Peru, people have kept some archaisms like pronouncing the c as in Spain in "doce". But they pronounce the c as /s/ in "cinco".


Funny. But the people you mention, do they speak only Spanish, or rather they are bilingual with Quechua, Aymara, etc. ?


----------



## Fonεtiks

They are from all kinds of backgrounds and mono, bi and even trilingual


----------



## sergio11

clcrhiggaeeermo said:
			
		

> Being an upper-middle-class white boy in southern New York (state) who loves to speak Spanish but is not Hispanic, I'd like to know which accent would be the best for me to pick up.


Which one to pick up? The main dilemma is choosing between the pronounciations of Spain or Latin America. I would not think the differences between pronounciations of Latin American countries are significant enough to have to "learn" them. 

The main considerations are the following: 

1) The pronounciation of Spain is the original one.
2) The pronounciation of Spain helps you a little more in figuring out the correct spelling of certain words if you don't know them.
3) The pronounciation of Latin America is used by more people all over the world.
4) In Spain our pronounciation is considered somewhat aberrant, or atypical, or unconventional, but here, out in the Americas, both are considered correct. 

So, the issue boils down to your personal choice.  Listen to some radio stations in the different countries and see which one you like best.

I know I didn't help, but, that is the way things are.  We cannot say one is better than the other.

Saludos.


----------



## eudie13

just to let y'all know, that when was learning the verb tenses when i was a kid up here in the U.S., we were only taught uds., never vosotros.  The teachers taught us that it was unnecessary, and that it was only used in spain.  I think I only actually learned the vosotros form in its entirety (imperfect subjuctive, etc) when I was in the 10th grade; just to give you an idea, i started learning spanish in the 1st grade in an immersion program.


----------



## oso

garryknight said:
			
		

> There's a book/CD called _Spanish without the fuss_ by Pilar Munday (published by Random House as part of their _Living Language_ series, ISBN 0-609-81063-4) which is, in my opinion, not only an excellent resource for those starting to learn Spanish, but also for those who want to ......).



I bought this one. The CD is defective. Tracks are missing and don't match with the book...


----------



## oso

JLanguage said:
			
		

> Just curious, what differences are there in speech and in writing?



After note:  This person, Sergio, who wrote the message above, is very wrong. I think he misinterpreted me on purpose. I am just comparing what the average citizen of Mexico City would say with what the average citizen of Alcalá, where I was for a summer, would to say. Regarding "salir para afuera", "subir para arriba", in Spain a lot people use them and it seems that they are considered correct in that country. I am not judging. In Mexico, people don't use them; those sentences stand out immediatly to a Mexican visitor in Spain, but this has nothing to do with "educated" or "uneducated."  I am not saying they are correct or incorrect nor am I ANYWHERE saying people in Spain is uneducated or people in Mexico is educated, or what we use in Mexico is correct. In addition to being Mexican, I also proudly hold a Spanish passport myself. I am sorry this person read something I did not write. It is all just in his head. Careful please. It's almost 11:00PM, on December 31, 2005. I'd better try to get a little closer to Times Square. Have a happy new year all. Thanks.
======================================END OF NOTE=========

There are many differences between the Spanish in Mexico and Spanish in Spain:

 They say:

Por la tarde. Por la mañana.

 We say:

 En la tarde.  En la mañana.

They say:

Cuanto más me llames, menos te contestaré.

We say:
1) Cuanto más me llames, menos te voy a contestar
2) Mientras más me llames, menos te voy a contestar.
3) Entre más me llames, menos te voy a contestar.


They say:

  Voy a salir para afuera.  

 We say:

  Voy a salir.



They say:

  Voy a subir para arriba.

 We say.

 Voy a subir.



They say

  Voy a bajar para abajo.

We say:

  Voy a bajar.



They say:

  Voy a entrar para adentro.

We say:

 Voy a entrar.


They say:

  Mucho gusto/encantado de conocerle.

We say:

  Mucho gusto/encantado de conocerlo.


They say:

  Voy al cole. Vi una peli.  Boli.

We say:

  Voy al colegio.  Vi una película.   Pluma.  _(bueno, esto es vocabulario, no gramática)._

They say:

   Hoy he hablado con mi padre.

We say:

  Hoy hablé con mi papá.  (even adults say this)


They say:

  ¿Qué hora es? ¿Tiene hora?

We say:

  ¿Qué hora es?  ¿Qué horas son?


They say:

   Son las 10 menos 5.

We say:

   Son 5 para las 10.



They say:

   Ahora mismo.

We say:

  Ahora mismo.  Ahorita. Ahorita mismo. Ahorititita mismo.




There are many differences.....


----------



## sergio11

oso said:
			
		

> With Mexico there are many.
> 
> They say: ...
> 
> We say: ...
> 
> There are many differences...


 
Come on, Oso, you are comparing colloquial, defective, street language of one location with equally colloquial street language of the other location. 

In both places, educated people who speak correctly, would speak the same way. 

Who would say "salir para afuera", or "entrar para adentro", or "subir arriba", etc.?  You just met some people that are careless with their language.  I have heard the same things said by people from every country, who didn't know and didn't care, but not from people who use the language correctly.  

And what about "son 5 para las 10" and "10 menos 5"? Both ways are used and accepted everywhere, but "10 menos 5" is considered the standard, more correct way of expressing it in Spanish.

You are giving the impression that all Spaniards are hillbillies who don't know how to talk, while the opposite is true: there are more educated people who speak correctly in Spain than anywhere else.  

Saludos


----------



## oso

sergio11 said:
			
		

> Come on, Oso, you are comparing colloquial, defective, street language of one location with equally colloquial street language of the other location.



Sorry. I don't agree. These are sentences commonly used by people at a University in Madrid. That's where I was for a summer. I think it is not right to call them "uneducated".  It is just not right.  I hope you have a nice new year.


----------



## el_empollon

I'd say I don't think saying "salir para afuera", "bajar para abajo", and "entrar para adentro" is necessarily correct, but I also don't feel it represents a lack of education. It's just redundant, and English speakers too do the same thing.

It's basically the same as if one said in Spanish:

*"Las hierbas marinas son plantas angiospermas."*

Las hierbas son plantas. No hace falta repetirlo.
 
Or perhaps if someone said in English:
 
*This work should resolve this unresolved problem.*
** 
It's not necessary to mention that the problem is unresolved. That's what we do with problems that are unresolved... we resolve them.


----------



## gisele73

oso said:
			
		

> Sorry. I don't agree. These are sentences commonly used by people at a University in Madrid. That's where I was for a summer. I think it is not right to call them "uneducated". It is just not right. I hope you have a nice new year.


 
I am with you on this, and I don't agree with what Sergio said that educated people in Spain speak better Spanish that in other places, that is simply not true.

Everywhere you go you will find people who speak correctly and people who don't, and even educated people can sometimes make mistakes, we all do.

In Spain there are people who say "más mayor" or "más menor", even on TV, in the news program, which is wrong.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

gisele73 said:
			
		

> Everywhere you go you will find people who speak correctly and people who don't, and even educated people can sometimes make mistakes, we all do.
> 
> In Spain there are people who say "más mayor" or "más menor", even on TV, in the news program, which is wrong.



Same goes in English.  There are plenty of university-educated people who are quite sloppy with their language (also many who are unable to write a coherent letter, essay, etc.).  

There are many reasons for this:


over the years the curriculum standards for English have been lowered and lowered again; we're only now trying to regain the ground we lost
English may not be their first language
lack of interest in language conventions or expanding their knowledge thereof

It's important not to assume that regionalisms or dialects are "mistakes".  These are valid ways of speaking and communicating.  Our languages grow and adapt, and no language is static except a dead one.

However, I get really annoyed when I see very basic grammatical errors in writing by professionals (especially teachers - if they don't understand and aren't interested in learning fundamental grammer, how can they teach my children how to use it?)  Far too many people whose expertise in language is a major resource in their profession apparently rely on their spellcheck to do the work, and can't even distinguish when to use _its/it's/its'_, let alone navigate the position of conjuctions or infinitives.

What I've seen of professional writing in French and Spanish seems to point out at least instances of the same problem.  That said, the standard of journalistic writing seems to be far higher in Latin America (at least in Mexico's DF and Buenos Aires) than in Canada.

Happy New Year!


----------



## Fonεtiks

oso said:
			
		

> They say:
> Cuanto más me llames, menos te contestaré.
> We say:
> 1) Cuanto más me llames, menos te voy a contestar
> 2) Mientras más me llames, menos te voy a contestar.
> 3) Entre más me llames, menos te voy a contestar.


Cuanto = mientras, entre
Te contestaré = Te voy a contestar, no substantial difference, only a diversification in the use of synonyms and tenses that are equivalent



			
				oso said:
			
		

> They say:
> Voy a salir para afuera.
> We say:
> Voy a salir.


That's like saying "Me cai para abajo" instead of "me cai", I don't think this is a valid comparison, since people who are aware that we all fall downward, will never make this mistake, no matter what their type of Spanish is.


----------



## oso

Fonεtiks said:
			
		

> Cuanto = mientras, entre



  Hi. I see you are from Perú. That's perhaps the reason why they sound good to you. In Mexico they sound correct also. In Spain "mientras" and "entre" in sentences like these do not sound correct. Not only that, many people don't even know what you mean when you use "mientras" and "entre" instead of "cuanto."  Some people in Spain even say the only correct one is "cuanto."

 I think when people in other country don't understand what you mean when you use a different structure, the difference might be "substantial."

  In Mexico we use the periphrasis "ir a" much more than in Spain -in spoken form-, where future is used more.

 It is good to know that "mientras" and "entre" are valid also in Perú.  Maybe these sentences are valid in more countries than I originally thought.
Thanks!

I hope somebody from Spain could help with this.


----------



## oso

el_empollon[FONT=Arial said:
			
		

> It's not necessary to mention that the problem is unresolved. That's what we do with problems that are unresolved... we resolve them. [/FONT]



 This reminds me of the expression "New Year's resolutions". (propósitos de año nuevo).  Would you believe people in Spanish in the U.S. are now saying "resoluciones de año nuevo"?  This sounds horrible to me. But this is another topic.


----------



## diegodbs

oso said:
			
		

> Hi. I see you are from Perú. That's perhaps the reason why they sound good to you. In Mexico they sound correct also. In Spain "mientras" and "entre" in sentences like these do not sound correct. Not only that, many people don't even know what you mean when you use "mientras" and "entre" instead of "cuanto." Some people in Spain even say the only correct one is "cuanto."
> 
> I think when people in other country don't understand what you mean when you use a different structure, the difference might be "substantial."
> 
> In Mexico we use the periphrasis "ir a" much more than in Spain -in spoken form-, where future is used more.
> 
> It is good to know that "mientras" and "entre" are valid also in Perú. Maybe these sentences are valid in more countries than I originally thought.
> Thanks!
> 
> I hope somebody from Spain could help with this.


 
En España, la manera correcta de decirlo es "cuanto". En el idioma hablado, es posible escuchar alguna vez "mientras", pero nunca se usaría a la hora de escribir. "Entre" es completamente incomprensible, y creo que ni siquiera es correcto gramaticalmente.


----------



## oso

diegodbs said:
			
		

> En España, la manera correcta de decirlo es "cuanto". En el idioma hablado, es posible escuchar alguna vez "mientras", pero nunca se usaría a la hora de escribir. "Entre" es completamente incomprensible, y creo que ni siquiera es correcto gramaticalmente.



Gracias. Sí. De eso me di cuenta cuando no me podían entender con mientras y entre. Por eso noté muchísimas diferencias que tenemos.

Nosotros usamos cuanto, mientras, y entre, pero son frases hechas.  Todos las entienden y usan, y nadie diría nada si se usan en forma escrita.

Otra palabra que nunca me entendían es el famoso "ahorita".  Lo voy a agregar a la lista.

Gracias
(¿Se supone que en este hilo se debe escribir en español o inglés?)


----------



## oso

diegodbs said:
			
		

> En España, la manera correcta de decirlo es "cuanto". En el idioma hablado, es posible escuchar alguna vez "mientras", pero nunca se usaría a la hora de escribir. "Entre" es completamente incomprensible, y creo que ni siquiera es correcto gramaticalmente.



Mira, encontré esto.

Entre en este caso es un mexicanismo. Probablemente también se usa en otros países.

Esto es del Breve Diccionario de Mexicanismos en la internet:

entre. adv. Mientras. Ejemplo: entre menos burros, más olotes. || entre más. adv. Mientras más. Ejemplo: entre más burros, menos olotes. 

  Lo cual quiere decir que la preposición (en este caso adverbio) *entre* en México tiene otros significados que no existen en España.


----------



## gisele73

oso said:
			
		

> Mira, encontré esto.
> 
> Entre en este caso es un mexicanismo. Probablemente también se usa en otros países.
> 
> Esto es del Breve Diccionario de Mexicanismos en la internet:
> 
> entre. adv. Mientras. Ejemplo: entre menos burros, más olotes. || entre más. adv. Mientras más. Ejemplo: entre más burros, menos olotes.
> 
> Lo cual quiere decir que la preposición (en este caso adverbio) *entre* en México tiene otros significados que no existen en España.


 
Y por lo tanto "entre" sería correcto...por lo que entiendo.

Fonetiks dice que en el Perú se usa "entre" en ese sentido, pero la verdad no creo que sea muy común en el Perú. Lo que sí decimos frecuentemente es "mientras", y también "cuanto", claro...creo que "mientras" es lo que más usamos.

Lo que me pareció raro es que en España no entendieran cuando decías "ahorita"  .

Saludos


----------



## oso

gisele73 said:
			
		

> Y por lo tanto "entre" sería correcto...por lo que entiendo.
> 
> Fonetiks dice que en el Perú se usa "entre" en ese sentido, pero la verdad no creo que sea muy común en el Perú. Lo que sí decimos frecuentemente es "mientras", y también "cuanto", claro...creo que "mientras" es lo que más usamos.
> 
> Lo que me pareció raro es que en España no entendieran cuando decías "ahorita"  .
> 
> Saludos



Bueno, déjame decirte que eso fue en Barcelona. Yo decía "ahorita" y ellos se me quedaban viendo como a un bicho raro. Y trataban de adivinar y me decían, "Ah!  Ahora mismo", sí, eso, les decía yo.

 Tampoco me entendían, "les pago todo de una vez".  ¿De una vez?  ¿Qué es eso?,  me decían.

  No sabía qué decirles.


----------



## gisele73

oso said:
			
		

> Bueno, déjame decirte que eso fue en Barcelona. Yo decía "ahorita" y ellos se me quedaban viendo como a un bicho raro. Y trataban de adivinar y me decían, "Ah! Ahora mismo", sí, eso, les decía yo.
> 
> Tampoco me entendían, "les pago todo de una vez". ¿De una vez? ¿Qué es eso?, me decían.
> 
> No sabía qué decirles.


 
¿Y cómo dicen entonces "pagar de una vez"?, para mí eso es normal.

Otra cosa que decimos en el Perú es "cancelar" con el mismo significado de "pagar"...no sé si en México también lo usen o no.

Por ejemplo si uno compra un televisor, al recibir el comprobante o factura, la palabra "cancelado" está estampada ahí (en el recibo)

Y, bueno, "ahorita" es algo que decimos todo el tiempo, yo casi nunca igo "ahora".


----------



## diegodbs

oso said:
			
		

> Bueno, déjame decirte que eso fue en Barcelona. Yo decía "ahorita" y ellos se me quedaban viendo como a un bicho raro. Y trataban de adivinar y me decían, "Ah! Ahora mismo", sí, eso, les decía yo.
> 
> Tampoco me entendían, "les pago todo de una vez". ¿De una vez? ¿Qué es eso?, me decían.
> 
> No sabía qué decirles.


 
"Ahorita" lo entiendo, pero ningún español dice eso. Si alguien lo dice, suponemos que es mexicano.
"Les pago todo de una vez" = es lo normal, ¿no?, pagar todo de una vez, no en varias veces. ¿O no significa eso? Si una cerveza cuesta 1 euro, se paga un euro, y no 50 cts. ahora  y otros 50 cts luego. ¿O en México significa algo completamente distinto?


----------



## Laia

oso said:
			
		

> Bueno, déjame decirte que eso fue en Barcelona. Yo decía "ahorita" y ellos se me quedaban viendo como a un bicho raro. Y trataban de adivinar y me decían, "Ah! Ahora mismo", sí, eso, les decía yo.
> 
> Tampoco me entendían, "les pago todo de una vez". ¿De una vez? ¿Qué es eso?, me decían.
> 
> No sabía qué decirles.


 
Hola, aquí está una servidora barcelonesa para intentar aclarar un poco esto...

"ahorita" sí corroboro que me suena muy exótico... 

"pagar todo de una vez" es perfectamente entendible por cualquier catalán. Significaría lo que dice diegodbs. 


saludos


----------



## Laia

Respecto al "vosotros" y "ustedes"... váis a reir con mi confesión...

Antes de empezar a visitar este foro, no sabía que en América no se usaba el "vosotros" y claro, cuando oía el "ustedes" me parecía pedante, como queriendo hacerse "el educado"... jeje


----------



## belén

diegodbs said:
			
		

> "Ahorita" lo entiendo, pero ningún español dice eso. Si alguien lo dice, suponemos que es mexicano.
> "Les pago todo de una vez" = es lo normal, ¿no?, pagar todo de una vez, no en varias veces. ¿O no significa eso? Si una cerveza cuesta 1 euro, se paga un euro, y no 50 cts. ahora y otros 50 cts luego. ¿O en México significa algo completamente distinto?


 
¿Les pago todo de una vez? = ¿Les parece bien si pago ahora? o de cierta manera, se podría comparar a nuestro "Cóbreme cuando pueda" (que por cierto, a los españolitos nos sonará de lo más normal, pero tengo una amiga chilena que fue a trabajar a España como camarera y al principio se tomaba esa frase literalmente, es decir "cuando puedas, cuando tengas un momento, cóbrame" cuando en realidad es un eufemismo, ya que cuando usamos esa frase lo que queremos es que nos cobren lo antes posible!)

Saludos,
Be


----------



## sergio11

oso said:
			
		

> _They say:_
> _Cuanto más me llames, menos te contestaré._
> _We say:_
> _1) Cuanto más me llames, menos te voy a contestar_
> _2) Mientras más me llames, menos te voy a contestar._
> _3) Entre más me llames, menos te voy a contestar._


1) "Cuanto más" is the correct form according to any textbook and according to the DRAE.
2) "Mientras más" is a colloquialism according to the DRAE.
3) "Entre" is a vulgarism for "mientras" according to the DRAE, especially in the expression "entre más", but it is also used in "entre tanto", which is a colloquialism for "mientras tanto" or "en tanto".

All three are understandable by Spanish speaking persons. 

"Ahorita" is listed in the DRAE as a colloquialism, and I have been hearing it a million times every day in Los Angeles, for the last 28 years, or at least it seems like a million times every day, but I cannot get used to it. I think it is not only Mexico, but also other countries. But whatever country it is, please forgive me, it sounds very "different". 

It is not that we would not use it at all; we would use "ahorita" if we were talking to a baby or a small child, or to emphasize the shortness of time for a subsequent action, of temporal closeness, but not in normal circumstances to an adult. We would not use it as a substitute for "ahora": only to give it a special nuance of immediacy and quickness. 

En esto concuerdo con Laia:





			
				Laia said:
			
		

> ..."ahorita" sí corroboro que me suena muy exótico...


 
Saludos


----------



## oso

Laia said:
			
		

> Hola, aquí está una servidora barcelonesa para intentar aclarar un poco esto...
> 
> "ahorita" sí corroboro que me suena muy exótico...
> 
> 
> saludos


Gracias.  Ojalá me pueda acordar de muchas otras expresiones como ésta con las que tuve problemas.


----------



## oso

belen said:
			
		

> ¿Les pago todo de una vez? = ¿Les parece bien si pago ahora?
> (.....)
> Be


Esto en inglés se dice "Should I pay you at once?"

De una vez significa, ahora mismo, ahorita. 

En Cuba ahorita significa "espera un poquito más". En México a veces también. 

   Madre: Ya termina tu trabajo
   Hijo:     Ahorita. _ (significa, en un rato más)_


----------



## oso

Laia said:
			
		

> Respecto al "vosotros" y "ustedes"... váis a reir con mi confesión...
> 
> Antes de empezar a visitar este foro, no sabía que en América no se usaba el "vosotros" y claro, cuando oía el "ustedes" me parecía pedante, como queriendo hacerse "el educado"... jeje



En México cuando se usa el "vosotros" es para algo muy formal, normalmente en películas o cosas de religión.

 Creo que cuando se hace una cita de la biblia, se usa vosotros, y normalmente se considera como extremadamente formal.

 Lo mismo con las películas de Cantinflas -un actor mexicano- siempre que hay un rey o un sultán en sus películas, siempre se habla de vosotros, para aparentar formalidad. No sólo eso, sino que se usa incorrectamente para hablar con el rey con conjugaciones de vosotros:

   -Como estáis su majestad.
   -Qué deseáis su majestad.

Etc.


----------



## oso

diegodbs said:
			
		

> "Ahorita" lo entiendo, pero ningún español dice eso. Si alguien lo dice, suponemos que es mexicano.
> "Les pago todo de una vez" = es lo normal, ¿no?, pagar todo de una vez, no en varias veces. ¿O no significa eso? Si una cerveza cuesta 1 euro, se paga un euro, y no 50 cts. ahora  y otros 50 cts luego. ¿O en México significa algo completamente distinto?



Acabo de recordar otras cosas que son diferentes:

  Mex:  tengo ganas de ....,  se me antoja.....

  España:  Me apetece ....


(digo México porque es lo que conozco, ojalá conociera los demás países para poder opinar también sobre ellos...)


----------



## oso

gisele73 said:
			
		

> ¿Y cómo dicen entonces "pagar de una vez"?, para mí eso es normal.
> 
> Otra cosa que decimos en el Perú es "cancelar" con el mismo significado de "pagar"...no sé si en México también lo usen o no.
> 
> Por ejemplo si uno compra un televisor, al recibir el comprobante o factura, la palabra "cancelado" está estampada ahí (en el recibo)
> 
> Y, bueno, "ahorita" es algo que decimos todo el tiempo, yo casi nunca igo "ahora".



Hola.

Creo que sí se pone cancelar.  Un sello de cancelado.  Aunque es medio antiguo, ahora se pone "pagado".


¿Qué significa _de una vez _en Perú?

Para nosotros no es literal, es "en este mismo momento".  Esta vez, no otra vez, asumiendo que vas a ver a la persona más tarde.

Como cuando vas a un restaurante y pides comida para llevar, le dices "le pago de una vez", significa que le pagas en ese momento y la siguiente vez que veas a la persona para recoger la comida ya preparada, obviamente, no le pagas.

En inglés se dice "at once".


----------



## Thottt

Ante todo pido disculpas por las posibles faltas de ortografia que pueda cometer a la hora de escribir las tildes, pero esto es lo malo de los teclados no españoles, tengo que escribir la eñe con codigo ascii (alt + 164 para ñ y alt +165 para Ñ), y las tildes no las puedo escribir. 
En España se suele decir simplemente pagar, y los sellos de caucho que se ponen en las facturas suele poner "Pagado" o "Cobrado" dependiendo de para quien sea la copia, si "pagado" para el cliente, si "cobrado" para el emisor de la factura. 
Si vas a un restaurante hay ciertas formas un tanto peculiares de referirse a la factura, que no son precisamente ortodoxas, pero son comunes como "pedir la dolorosa" oracion en la cual se lleva a cabo una elipsis del nombre al que el adjetivo dolorosa se refiere. 
Con respecto a pagar, se suele decir pagar al contado, cuando se paga en billetes y monedas o pagar a escote, cuando se paga todo en el el momento.


----------



## gisele73

oso said:
			
		

> Hola.
> 
> Creo que sí se pone cancelar.  Un sello de cancelado.  Aunque es medio antiguo, ahora se pone "pagado".
> 
> 
> ¿Qué significa _de una vez _en Perú?
> 
> Para nosotros no es literal, es "en este mismo momento".  Esta vez, no otra vez, asumiendo que vas a ver a la persona más tarde.
> 
> Como cuando vas a un restaurante y pides comida para llevar, le dices "le pago de una vez", significa que le pagas en ese momento y la siguiente vez que veas a la persona para recoger la comida ya preparada, obviamente, no le pagas.
> 
> En inglés se dice "at once".



Hola oso,

En el Perú "de una vez" significa lo mismo que en México. Por ejemplo, si voy a revelar un rollo de fotos y me preguntan en la tienda si quiero pargar el total o una parte y el resto cuando recoja las fotos, yo puedo decir "pago de una vez", es decir, pagar el total.

Por lo que entendí, es el mismo uso que le dan ustedes.

Saludos 

P.D. El sello de "cancelado" lo seguimos usando.


----------



## gisele73

Thottt said:
			
		

> Ante todo pido disculpas por las posibles faltas de ortografia que pueda cometer a la hora de escribir las tildes, pero esto es lo malo de los teclados no españoles, tengo que escribir la eñe con codigo ascii (alt + 164 para ñ y alt +165 para Ñ), y las tildes no las puedo escribir.
> En España se suele decir simplemente pagar, y los sellos de caucho que se ponen en las facturas suele poner "Pagado" o "Cobrado" dependiendo de para quien sea la copia, si "pagado" para el cliente, si "cobrado" para el emisor de la factura.
> Si vas a un restaurante hay ciertas formas un tanto peculiares de referirse a la factura, que no son precisamente ortodoxas, pero son comunes como "pedir la dolorosa" oracion en la cual se lleva a cabo una elipsis del nombre al que el adjetivo dolorosa se refiere.
> Con respecto a pagar, se suele decir pagar al contado, cuando se paga en billetes y monedas o pagar a escote, cuando se paga todo en el el momento.



Hola 

En el Perú también decimos *"pedir la dolorosa"* , o, como dice mi papá *"por favor, tráigame la cuenta y un policía cojo"* 


En cuanto a pagar al contado, le decimos igual, aunque algunas veces decimos *"pagar cash"* o *"pagar al cash"*, pero por lo general decimos *"pagar al contado"*.

Pero nunca había oído *"pagar a escote"*...no estoy muy segura del significado...¿es a lo que nosotros llamamos *"pagar de una vez"*?


----------



## Nineu

oso said:
			
		

> There are many differences between the Spanish in Mexico and Spanish in Spain:
> 
> They say:
> 
> Por la tarde. Por la mañana.
> 
> We say:
> 
> En la tarde. En la mañana.  English influence.
> 
> They say:
> 
> Cuanto más me llames, menos te contestaré.
> Or: Cuanto más me llames, menos te voy a contestar/menos caso te voy a hacer.
> 
> We say:
> 1) Cuanto más me llames, menos te voy a contestar
> 2) Mientras más me llames, menos te voy a contestar.
> 3) Entre más me llames, menos te voy a contestar.
> 
> 
> They say:
> 
> ¿?¿?¿? Voy a salir para afuera.  Voy a salir.
> 
> We say:
> 
> Voy a salir.
> 
> 
> 
> They say:
> 
> ¿?¿?¿? Voy a subir para arriba.  Voy a subir.
> 
> We say.
> 
> Voy a subir.
> 
> 
> 
> They say
> 
> ¿?¿?¿? Voy a bajar para abajo.  Voy a bajar.
> 
> We say:
> 
> Voy a bajar.
> 
> 
> 
> They say:
> 
> ¿?¿?¿? Voy a entrar para adentro.  Voy a entrar.
> 
> We say:
> 
> Voy a entrar.
> 
> 
> They say:
> 
> Mucho gusto/encantado de conocerle.
> 
> We say:
> 
> Mucho gusto/encantado de conocerlo.
> 
> 
> They say:
> 
> Voy al colegio. Vi una película. Bolígrafo or boli.  Pluma.
> Cole and peli are used speaking with children.
> Boli/bolígrafo and pluma.  They have different meanings.
> 
> We say:
> 
> Voy al colegio. Vi una película. Pluma. _(bueno, esto es vocabulario, no gramática)._
> 
> They say:
> 
> Hoy he hablado con mi padre.
> 
> We say:
> 
> Hoy hablé con mi papá. (even adults say this)
> 
> 
> They say:
> 
> ¿Qué hora es? ¿Tiene hora?
> 
> We say:
> 
> ¿Qué hora es? ¿Qué horas son?
> 
> 
> They say:
> 
> Son las 10 menos 5.
> 
> We say:
> 
> Son 5 para las 10.  English influence
> 
> 
> 
> They say:
> 
> Ahora mismo.
> 
> We say:
> 
> Ahora mismo. Ahorita. Ahorita mismo. Ahorititita mismo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many differences.....


 
Well, this is what I think.  Maybe there are places where people speak as you said...


----------



## Laia

No acabo de entender esta discusión sobre "voy a salir" o "voy a salir para afuera" / "salir afuera"/ "salir fuera"... ¿Queréis decir que "salir para afuera" es incorrecto? Pues yo lo digo mucho. 
Por ejemplo: (entre clase y clase) ¿salimos afuera? quiero estirar las piernas...

Cole, peli, boli... está claro que no lo escribiriamos, pero sí lo decimos.


----------



## Laia

oso said:
			
		

> En México cuando se usa el "vosotros" es para algo muy formal, normalmente en películas o cosas de religión.
> 
> Creo que cuando se hace una cita de la biblia, se usa vosotros, y normalmente se considera como extremadamente formal.
> 
> Lo mismo con las películas de Cantinflas -un actor mexicano- siempre que hay un rey o un sultán en sus películas, siempre se habla de vosotros, para aparentar formalidad. No sólo eso, sino que se usa incorrectamente para hablar con el rey con conjugaciones de vosotros:
> 
> -Como estáis su majestad.
> -Qué deseáis su majestad.
> 
> Etc.


 
Bueno oso, creo que entonces no es "vosotros" sino "vos", pero no el "vos" argentino! jeje
Cuando dan películas de reyes y sultanes por la _tele_, dicen: "¿Qué opináis, vos, mi majestad?"


----------



## gisele73

Laia said:
			
		

> No acabo de entender esta discusión sobre "voy a salir" o "voy a salir para afuera" / "salir afuera"/ "salir fuera"... ¿Queréis decir que "salir para afuera" es incorrecto? Pues yo lo digo mucho.
> Por ejemplo: (entre clase y clase) ¿salimos afuera? quiero estirar las piernas...
> 
> Cole, peli, boli... está claro que no lo escribiriamos, pero sí lo decimos.




Hola Laia 

Sí, *"salir para afuera"* es incorrecto, es un redundancia, ya que no se puede *"salir para adentro"*. Lo mismo sucede con *"entrar adentro" *porque no se puede *"entrar afuera".*

Lo he oído decir muchas veces en mi país también. 

En cuanto a "cole" y "peli", en el Perú también le decimos así.

Saludos


----------



## Thottt

En España se suelen usar mucho esas expresiones, pero sobre todo cuando se trata de una conversacion relajada en el aspecto gramatical.  Con respecto a "cole" y "peli" he de decir que tambien se emplean en España, y como no, en ambitos no academicos. 

Saludos, y disculpen las faltas de ortografia en que haya podido incurrir, pero estoy usando un teclado americano, no puedo poner tildes, y las eñes las saco por codigo ascii.


----------



## luis masci

sergio11 said:
			
		

> Another interesting little detail about all this, is that not only the conjugations of the verbs, as I said in my previous posting, but also the pronounciations that are taught in the schools as correct, such as the c and z, the ll, etc., are the ones of the Peninsula, that is, of Spain (at least in my days it was like that). Of course the teacher says this, but in the next sentence he or she uses the Argentinian pronounciation. At least in my days, everyone was taught that way. I graduated from elementary school in 1958. I don't know how it is now.


 
Si Sergio, yo fui enseñado de una manera similar a la que vos decís. Se daba la paradoja que las maestras te pedían que expresaras un correcto castellano después que te hacían pasar diciendo:”a ver *vos *fulanito *pasá* y *decí* la conjugación del verbo amar”. 
Es decir que te pedían que declamaras algo que ni ellas mismas usaban. Hoy  viendo los cuadernos y libros de mis hijos noto que hay más un acercamiento a la realidad. Es decir, se enseña la forma castiza del habla haciéndose la salvedad de cómo eso mismo se dice popularmente, al menos en Argentina. Inclusive los libros traen un anexo con el voseo al lado de la conjugación, llamémosle tradicional de los verbos.
​


----------



## Laia

Una de las cosas que más me llaman la atención son las conjugaciones de los verbos... creo que en América usan mucho el pasado (yo dije) en las ocasiones en las que yo diría "yo he dicho". Es decir, yo sólo usaría "yo dije" si esto que dije lo hubiese dicho ayer o hace más tiempo. Nunca para nada que haya dicho hoy.
¿Me entendéis? jeje, porque me he hecho un lío yo sola


----------



## sergio11

gisele73 said:
			
		

> Hola Laia
> 
> Sí, *"salir para afuera"* es incorrecto, es un redundancia, ya que no se puede *"salir para adentro"*. Lo mismo sucede con *"entrar adentro" *porque no se puede *"entrar afuera".*


Hay un caso en el que no sería una redundancia, y creo que la mayoría lo usa en esa situación: es cuando "afuera" y "adentro" significan algo que el "salir" y el "entrar" no expresan completamente.  Por ejemplo, "salgo de la oficina" puede significar que salgo del cuarto que se llama oficina, y estoy en el pasillo, o en la sala de espera, o en la antesala.  Puedo haber salido de la "oficina" sin haber salido del edificio. En general, "afuera" y "adentro" significan no sólo dirección, sino también expresan lugares. "Salgo afuera" significa que salgo del edificio.  "Salí al zaguán" significa que salí del aula o de la oficina, pero no del edificio. "Salí afuera" significa que salí del edificio.

El DRAE muestra precisamente este ejemplo del uso de "afuera": _"Salgamos afuera"_
*Cita del DRAE:*


> *afuera.*(De a-1 y fuera).
> 1. adv. l. Fuera del sitio en que se está. _Vengo de afuera. Salgamos afuera._
> 2. adv. l. En lugar público o en la parte exterior.
> 3. f. pl. Alrededores de una población.
> 4. f. pl. _Mil._ Terreno despejado alrededor de una plaza, para que el enemigo no pueda acercarse sin sufrir el fuego directo de la artillería.


----------



## gisele73

sergio11 said:
			
		

> Hay un caso en el que no sería una redundancia, y creo que la mayoría lo usa en esa situación: es cuando "afuera" y "adentro" significan algo que el "salir" y el "entrar" no expresan completamente. Por ejemplo, "salgo de la oficina" puede significar que salgo del cuarto que se llama oficina, y estoy en el pasillo, o en la sala de espera, o en la antesala. Puedo haber salido de la "oficina" sin haber salido del edificio. En general, "afuera" y "adentro" significan no sólo dirección, sino también expresan lugares. "Salgo afuera" significa que salgo del edificio. "Salí al zaguán" significa que salí del aula o de la oficina, pero no del edificio. "Salí afuera" significa que salí del edificio.
> 
> 
> _"Salgamos afuera"_
> *Cita del DRAE:*


 
Hola Sergio11 ,

Ahora sí ya me confundí con lo de la RAE, poruqe si está citado ahí debe ser correcto  .

En el ejemplo que diste de "salir del edificio", en ese caso no me parece que haya redundancia porque no estás usando la palabra "afuera"...pero bueno, la cosa es que al parecer no es incorrecto decir "salir afuera", talvez depende del caso, no lo sé. Me gustaría saber más al respecto.

Es interesante aprender siempre algo nuevo


----------



## Laia

Yo creo que ya lo he entendido:

"¿Salimos afuera? quiero estirar las piernas" es lo mismo que decir "¿Salimos al pasillo? (...)"

Afuera en este caso se refiere al pasillo y por eso es correcto. Indica a dónde sales. También podría salir a la calle, pero no sería el caso de este ejemplo.


----------



## Fonεtiks

oso said:
			
		

> They say:
> Voy a salir para afuera.
> We say:
> Voy a salir.


El problema es que no se puede comparar "voy a salir" con "voy a salir para afuera" como dos formas distintas de expresar "voy a salir" propias de España y Latinoamérica. (They say, we say?)
Como había dicho antes, cualquiera que tenga sentido común dirá que si se dice "voy a salir" uno se refiere al hecho de salir para afuera. No es una diferencia de "éste español es de México o éste es de España". Como si decir "me cai para abajo" fuera otra forma coloquial de decir "me cai"... no tiene sustento pues todo cae para abajo.

Ahora, el punto de Sergio es bueno ya que salir para afuera o simplemente salir son equivalentes en un contexto, pero pongamos dos trabajadores en una oficina:

A: Voy a salir
B: Al pasillo? A tomar aire? A una discoteca? Con tus amigos?

A: Voy a salir afuera
B: OK, te veo afuera entonces (sea el pasillo, el salón o cualquier espacio fuera de éste)


----------



## luis masci

Inclusive el hecho de que sean redundantes no implica necesariamente que esté mal dicho.Una redundancia puede ser usada para agregar énfasis. En la frase “hace un tiempo atrás” el “atrás” estaría de más porque si decimos “hace un tiempo” se sabe que es para atrás (tiempo pasado). Sin embargo suele ser muy usado para enfatizar un poco más la frase y no creo que  sea incorrecto.


----------



## jmx

luis masci said:
			
		

> Inclusive el hecho de que sean redundantes no implica necesariamente que esté mal dicho.Una redundancia puede ser usada para agregar énfasis. En la frase “hace un tiempo atrás” el “atrás” estaría de más porque si decimos “hace un tiempo” se sabe que es para atrás (tiempo pasado). Sin embargo suele ser muy usado para enfatizar un poco más la frase y no creo que sea incorrecto.


Coincido totalmente.


----------



## Guatas_UK

Sergio11 is correct in his assessment that the language is one and that cultured speakers will be easily understood by all.  However, the problem is not so much with the spoken language as with written Spanish.  People may be tolerant about accents when interacting with others in person, but in written communications this tolerance of the written version of the accent, call it style if you wish) is typically not present, independent of the education level of reader. So when translating text, the more colloquial the text the more need for segmented Spanish.


----------



## solinvictus

Estoy plenamente de acuerdo con la opinión de Sergio11.
Alguién por favor me puede indicar si el hecho de referirse a un idioma llamado _Latin American Spanish_ por posición a un idioma llamado _Spain-Spanish_ es un absurdo total o sino, que me lo pueda explicar?
Muchas gracias!


----------



## Heize

In Uruguay we definetely learn " Yo soy, vos sos, etc" As well as " vosotros" 
It looks quite weird how we are always forgotten in every discussion! We have the same accent as Argentinian from Buenos Aires have, although less exagerated. 

Being a little country does not make us invisible... Or that is what I would like to believe!

Does anybody know why our accent is so different from the rest of Latin America? ( Now I'm asking about Buenos Aires and Uruguayan accent) 
I know it is because there has been more influence from italian people but is that the only reason? And for us being whiter than the rest of latin american countries? 

Thank you in advance. Sorry about my mistakes... Correct me!


----------



## Fonεtiks

for being whiter? Lmao!
One reason might be the distance between BA and the main centers of the Spanish power in LAmerica. For instance, Spanishes from Antioquia in Colombia and Cuzco in Peru seem to have been quite well preserved as compared to the one in the peninsula, while the ones on the coast, especially Cuban, Venezuelan or Uruguayan seem to be the most "flamboyant" ones


----------



## Heize

Fonεtiks said:


> for being whiter? Lmao!
> One reason might be the distance between BA and the main centers of the Spanish power in LAmerica. For instance, Spanishes from Antioquia in Colombia and Cuzco in Peru seem to have been quite well preserved as compared to the one in the peninsula, while the ones on the coast, especially Cuban, Venezuelan or Uruguayan seem to be the most "flamboyant" ones



My dear friend, it looks like you have never been to Uruguay. Flamboyant? Us?  Don't make me laugh! I can invite you if you want but don't say that again! I think cuban are extravagant and more colorful than us. We are considered to be more depressive and sad people because of the weather.

I'm not trying to be offensive at all. But Uruguay and Argentina are one of the countries in South America with more percentage of white people(88%). after Costa Rica. It's nothing to be proud of, I simply don't care colours, but i'm just saying because of the beggining of your post.

Regards.


----------



## lercarafridi

I think the main difference between the Spanish spoken in Spain and the rest is the pronunciation of _c _followed by _i _or _e_  and _z_. As you all know, Spaniards produce an interdental sound (quite similar to that of English _th-_ in _thick_), whereas Latin Americans make an alveolar fricative one (like that in _cell_):



				SPAIN 		
Circo           	/zirko/			
Zapato		/zapato/	


		LATIN AMERICA

		/sirko/

		/sapato/	




However, this is not common all across Spain. Some parts of Andalucia and most of the Canary Islands pronounce those words just like Latin Americans do. There is also the opposite phenomenon again in some Andalucian provinces when words such as _paso_ is pronounced with an interdental consonant in what is known as zezeo in phonetics.


----------



## carzante

Latin American Spanish and Peninsular Spanish are in fact the same language, I think we all should agree at this point. In spite of this, we can find three main differences between them:
- Phonetics, as lercarafridi indicates.
- Vocabulary. A lot of American objects (e.g., food) that are not native from Spain have their own name in America (often Spanish speakers not even have heard of them). There are also many words referring to the same things which are different in both the two sides of the Atlantic. That's maybe the main difference between Latin American and Peninsular Spanish. (For instance, a peach is _durazno _in Argentina, _melocotón _in Spain; a car is _carro _or _auto _in America, _coche _in Spain, and so on)
- Syntax. Few differences in this field.
- Morphology. A few differences. (For instance:_ ahorita _voy, Mex. and Guat.; in Spain this form is not used)


----------



## Fonεtiks

Heize said:


> My dear friend, it looks like you have never been to Uruguay. Flamboyant? Us? Don't make me laugh! I can invite you if you want but don't say that again!


 
It sounds flamboyant to most of the andean people, not conservative, colorful. An invitation would be great


----------



## Iliana

asm said:


> Javier:
> 
> I am Mexican, I received my education in Mexico and I did learn "vosotros sois", never used, though; I do not know if this is true today with the next generations.



I am Mexican and I never learned to conjugate vosotros. Most Mexicans today do not even know what it means or how to conjugate it.


----------



## -CAIN-

Vosotros (as): segunda persona del plural.

Se usa en España, no se usa en latinoamérica, excepto en contextos formales o supraformales (al menos en Chile).

Me llama profundamente la atención que no podais o no sepais conjugarlo.


----------



## CarolMamkny

Iliana said:


> I am Mexican and I never learned to conjugate vosotros. Most Mexicans today do not even know what it means or how to conjugate it.


 
Bueno... dudo que esto sea cierto o algo que aplica a todos los mejicanos en general.

Aunque no uso "vosotros" cuando hablo (no me viene natural)... entiendo esta forma perfectamente y la sé conjugar porque hizo parte de mi clase de gramatica y castellano en la escuela, ya que debiamos leer literatura de otros paises en los que se usa constantemente...


----------



## ludovic111

Iliana said:


> I am Mexican and I never learned to conjugate vosotros. Most Mexicans today do not even know what it means or how to conjugate it.


 
Es cierto.  Desafortunadamente, los incompetentes encargados de la educación en México han eliminado este elemento de nuestro idioma.  Por su culpa habrá  generaciones y generaciones de mexicanos que tendrán que adivinar lo que quieren decir _vosotros _y las conjugaciones que le pertenecen, cuando se topen con estos términos en la literatura de España y en la antigua de Hispanoamérica.


----------



## michimz

Heize said:


> I'm not trying to be offensive at all. But Uruguay and Argentina are one of the countries in South America with more percentage of white people(88%). after Costa Rica. It's nothing to be proud of, I simply don't care colours, but i'm just saying because of the beggining of your post.
> 
> Regards.


 
From what I understand, the reason for the high persentage of white people is the for the same reason as the US, that the native people were mostly either killed or forced to move. There wasn't the same mixture that happend in most other latin american countries.


----------



## michimz

I've really enjoyed reading this thread, and I did just sit and read THE WHOLE THING! I agree with Sergio about it being the same for everybody. If not, how would we all be able to come here and have this conversation??

However, in the following post, Sergio,in my opinion, you crossed the line. It sounds like you are _trying_ to be offensive. Particularly this one: 





> there are more educated people who speak correctly in Spain than anywhere else.


 That is just plain closed-minded. I'm assuming you wrote this to get people pumped up, because you couldn't possibly believe this, could you?



sergio11 said:


> Come on, Oso, you are comparing colloquial, defective, street language of one location with equally colloquial street language of the other location.
> 
> In both places, educated people who speak correctly, would speak the same way.
> 
> Who would say "salir para afuera", or "entrar para adentro", or "subir arriba", etc.? You just met some people that are careless with their language. I have heard the same things said by people from every country, who didn't know and didn't care, but not from people who use the language correctly.
> 
> And what about "son 5 para las 10" and "10 menos 5"? Both ways are used and accepted everywhere, but "10 menos 5" is considered the standard, more correct way of expressing it in Spanish.
> 
> You are giving the impression that all Spaniards are hillbillies who don't know how to talk, while the opposite is true: there are more educated people who speak correctly in Spain than anywhere else.
> 
> Saludos


 


Michimz


----------



## ludovic111

> And what about "son 5 para las 10" and "10 menos 5"? Both ways are used and accepted everywhere, but "10 menos 5" is considered the standard, more correct way of expressing it in Spanish.


 
Says who?


----------



## Miss ESL

I always pronounced  s and z the same until I moved to the EE. UU., when I started making a difference in English it automatically transfered to my Spanish.


----------



## ludovic111

Miss ESL said:


> I always pronounced s and z the same until I moved to the EE. UU., when I started making a difference in English it automatically transfered to my Spanish.


 
Does that mean that you pronounce your Spanish z's as if they were English z's ? Gotta hear it to believe it.


----------



## sticke_happie

JLanguage said:


> Just curious, what differences are there in speech and in writing?


 

_Latin American and European Spanish are not that different. But I can tell you a few differences. In Spain the letter "c" after the vowels "e" and "i"  and also the letter "z" is pronounced similar as the "th-" in "the". And the "ll" is pronounced as a soft "ll" in "million". And of course, the uses of the "vosotros" which is only used in Spain. I grew up in the Philippines and Spanish is a mandatory class to take in all the schools. But we refer to it as Castilian. They teach you all the differences of grammars and verbal uses between all the Spanish speaking countries. And they also teach you "Chavacano" o "Chabacano" which is a Spanish creole spoken in some parts of the Philippines like Zamboanga, Zamboanga del sur, Puerto Pincesa, etc. When Spanish or Castilian became our very first official language, our pronounciation of "ll" was not a soft but a strong "ll" in "million". While the letters "c" and "z" is always pronounced as "s" in English. And the use of "vosotros" is common._


----------

