# En las referencias 4 y 5 fuiste tú...



## slow

the sentence "En las referencias 4 y 5 fuistes tu quien contrato el camion" into english   would be "In the 4 and 5 references, you was who take on the truck", wouldn't it? 

regards


----------



## el_novato

Hello Slow:

I have  an idea for your translation

In the 4 and 5 references, *you were the one who * ((contract) or (took on)) the car.

En las referencias 4 y 5 fuistes t*ú* quien contrat*ó* el cami*ó*n


----------



## slow

thanks , 

But "the one" sounds a little like stronger, innit?

Regards


----------



## el_novato

I feel it is the same strong that "fuistes tú".  It seems that you (they) want him (her) to leave in evidence, or to leave clear that him (her)  took on the car 

But, we can wait for the help of the advanced people.  I am learning.   *Slow*, what is *innit*?


----------



## slow

It's the same that "isn't it". Like want to is wanna. 

Ok?


----------



## milkbox

Perhaps what you want to say is, "In references 4 and 5, you were the one  who took the truck"  or, "In references 4 and 5, you took the truck"?  (I'm guessing here.)  There really is no way in written english to put an emphasis as in "fuistes tú", except for writing the emphasised word in italics or bold letters. 

And innit is often short for "isn't it" or "inside it".  I think it's "isn't it" here, though. 

I hope that helps.


----------



## el_novato

Do you want to make the emphasis in "fuistes tú?

Or only, "En las referencias 4 y 5 tú contratastes el camión".  Like says milkbox 
"In references 4 and 5, you took the truck". 

In another case, I still feel emphasis in "fuistes tu". Then is it possible "you were the one who"?

milkbox:  Is it "*you took*" or "you took *on*"?


			
				milkbox said:
			
		

> ...  or, "In references 4 and 5, you took the truck"?  (I'm guessing here.)  ...
> I hope that helps.


----------



## el_novato

Es emocionante como siendo de habla española (castellana), nos estamos ayudando en otro idioma.  Eso es bonito, habla del espíritu de cooperación.

Saludos


----------



## LadyBlakeney

Coincido con El novato. Solamente un apunte: la forma verbal correcta sería "*fuiste* tú", sin "s" al final.


----------



## David

Estimado Slow: Dejando por el momento las fallas del español original, que no es mi ramo, dejame ayudarte con el inglés. 

*With regard to references four and five, it was you who rented (leased? hired?) the truck.* 

Esto refleja el hincapié de "fuiste tú."

Lo que no sé, es que si "contrató" en este caso se refiere a un alquiler del vehículo por un período breve, un _lease_, que es un contrató de alquiler por un período prolongado, v.g. de un año o más, ó si se refiere a un contrato de carréo por un camionero (camión con su chofer), en cual caso sería "who hired the trucker."


----------



## Rod

Hola, solo una amigable observacion,  la palabra "fuistes" no existe, correcto es decir fuiste.   En relacion a la pregunta creo que la traduccion que ha hecho "el novato" es la correcta.


----------



## David

Rod, con todo respeto, tengo que discrepar. "You who was take on the truck" just isn't English. It would have to be "it was you who..." Despuès de _was_, habrìa que usar el pasado _took on._ Y el verbo "take on", aunque existe, es un término muy generalizado. Puede significar _aceptar, obligarse, aceptar el reto de, comprometerse, empeñarse, echarse por encima, hasta abordar (agua en una tormenta)_...mientras "contrató" es muy específico...

El problema es que _contratar _ no se puede traducir adecuadamente a _take on, _, ni tampoco al inglés_ "to contract," _ ya que contratar es transitivo, que _to contract _ no lo es, y puede significar emplear, que to contract no significa. Así que la traducción de Novato podría beneficiar de un poco de revisión.


----------



## milkbox

el_novato said:
			
		

> milkbox:  Is it "*you took*" or "you took *on*"?



Oops, "take on" is what _contractar_ is.  However, that doesn't sound right in english.  If Slow meant _contractar_ as in _alquilar_, then perhaps rented (or leased, or hired) like David had mentioned is the magic word.

And yes, fuistes seems to be a typo.  Sorry there for repeating it.


----------



## Gabriel

Creo que David dio en el clavo (he hit the nail on its head?):

*"With regard to references four and five, it was you who rented (leased? hired?) the truck"* es, por lejos, la mejor opción de las propuestas hasta ahora, y es la que yo habría propuesto si no hubiese encontrado el mensaje de David.

Con respecto a enfatizar el "tú" en "fusite tú", si se desea enfatizar más en esta frase podría escribirse "it was you the one who...."

Con respecto al "fuistes", sí existe. ¡En serio! Es lo que entiendo que corresponde al "vos" argentino (derivado del vosotros fuisteis). Si bien la mayoría de los argentinos diremos "vos fuiste", creo que sería un error. En cualquier caso, obviamente "tú fuistes" sigue siendo un error (¡Incluso en Argentina!)


----------



## gotitadeleche

Gabriel said:
			
		

> *"With regard to references four and five, it was you who rented (leased? hired?) the truck"* es, por lejos, la mejor opción de las propuestas hasta ahora, y es la que yo habría propuesto si no hubiese encontrado el mensaje de David.
> 
> Con respecto a enfatizar el "tú" en "fusite tú", si se desea enfatizar más en esta frase podría escribirse "it was you the one who...."





David's translation was correct and well written. "It was you" does give emphasis similar to fuiste tu. 

"it was you the one who" is awkward sounding in English. You could say "you were the one who" as an alternate to "it was you who."


----------



## Maru

Rod said:
			
		

> Hola, solo una amigable observacion,  la palabra "fuistes" no existe, correcto es decir fuiste.   En relacion a la pregunta creo que la traduccion que ha hecho "el novato" es la correcta.




Hola, para los que están aprendiendo español creo que es importante también decir que aquí faltaron algunos acentos: observación, relación y traducción.


----------



## el_novato

Maru said:
			
		

> Hola, para los que están aprendiendo español creo que es importante también decir que aquí faltaron algunos acentos: observación, relación y traducción.



Hola Maru.  Gracias por la observación, ya se había efectuado en un principio.  Pero profundizando en el tema; el fuistes, ahmm, me han dicho que es incorrecto usarlo en el español que se habla en México.  Aunque en Argentina nuestro compañero dice que se usa, sin que sea incorrecto.



			
				el_novato said:
			
		

> ...
> En las referencias 4 y 5 fuistes t*ú* quien contrat*ó* el cami*ó*n ...


----------



## el_novato

David said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> *With regard to references four and five, it was you who rented (leased? hired?) the truck.* ...."



Now. I have doubts.  Please, helpme and David, you are native english speaker.
. You is followed for were or was?.   
. Before You is was or were?
. Is it correct the expresion: You were the one who  (without see the original sentence.)


----------



## bofico

LadyBlakeney said:
			
		

> Coincido con El novato. Solamente un apunte: la forma verbal correcta sería "fuiste tú", sin "s" al final.
> 
> I agree with LadyB, but it's just that in colloquial mexican spanish, there's got to be an -s final on the end of the second person singular of the preterite tense, otherwise it's just not colloquial mexican spanish. So lah-dee-dah to you, LadyB.


----------



## bofico

Novato,

"You" always agrees with "were" in English (before or after), whether we're talking to 1 or 101 people.


----------



## el_novato

bofico said:
			
		

> Novato,
> 
> "You" always agrees with "were" in English (before or after), whether we're talking to 1 or 101 people.



Thanks Bofico.  I was confused, because David repeated "... was you ..." and explain about it.  Perhaps it was a oversight, but he is the expert.




			
				David said:
			
		

> Rod, con todo respeto, tengo que discrepar. "You who was take on the truck" just isn't English. It would have to be "it was you who..." Despuès de _was_, habrìa que usar el pasado _took on._ Y el verbo "take on", aunque existe, es un término muy generalizado. Puede significar _aceptar, obligarse, aceptar el reto de, comprometerse, empeñarse, echarse por encima, hasta abordar (agua en una tormenta)_...mientras "contrató" es muy específico...
> 
> El problema es que _contratar _ no se puede traducir adecuadamente a _take on, _, ni tampoco al inglés_ "to contract," _ ya que contratar es transitivo, que _to contract _ no lo es, y puede significar emplear, que to contract no significa. Así que la traducción de Novato podría beneficiar de un poco de revisión.


----------



## LadyBlakeney

El_novato, creo que tu confusión con el mensaje de David se explica porque en la frase "It was you who..." la forma verbal "was" acompaña al sujeto "it", no a "you". Por ejemplo, diríamos "It was you who were spying on us". Por supuesto, puede ser que yo lo haya entendido mal y no sea ésta la razón de tu confusión. 

 

Bofico, I am aware that the verbal form "fuiste*s*", with a final "s", is used in colloquial Spanish. As a matter of fact, it is also used in Spain. But the fact remains that this is wrong use of Spanish. Just like "You who was take on the truck", as David posted, isn't proper English, but a grammar mistake, "fuistes" is also a grammar mistake. There are many examples in everyday English as well as in everyday Spanish of such mistakes, but all the same they shouldn't be taken as admissible in the correct use of language. 

For example, there is a very popular joke in Spain that says "Te lo diré en dos palabras: im presionante", which means "I'll say it in two words: im pressive". This is colloquial Spanish, but everybody (I hope) knows that "impresionante" is just one word.


----------



## el_novato

Rod and Ladyblakeney are right.  Fuiste*s* is not a correct word, the correct word is fuiste, but is very common to use fuistes, se hace costumbre.


----------



## bofico

Lady B,

You are absolutely correct, the use of "fuistes" would cause points to be taken off on a grammar test.

But, let's be real for a second. Where does Spanish (or any other Romance Language for that matter) come from?

It comes from something called Vulgar Latin, which was a colloquial--hence incorrect by your definition--rendering of classical Latin by it's everyday speakers in different geographic areas of the empire, which over time evolved into what we now call Spanish, Portuguese, Galician, Catalán, French, Romanian, whatever.

I'm sure that, 600 years ago, when upstart speakers of the Castillian dialect changed the initial F- to H-, in "fazer" to "hazer" or "fígado" to "hígado" for example, speakers of old spanish could have just as easily been mortified by the "incorrectness" of the linguistic innovation.

It may be that we just have different approaches to language, mine may very well be descriptive, while yours preservationist, purist.

At the end of the day, 120 million mexican speakers of Spanish can't all be wrong, no?


----------



## LadyBlakeney

Bofico, I believe you could do a bit more use of the dictionary, as you seem to confuse colloquial and incorrect, which are not the same at all.

There is a sarcastic saying in Spanish that may be appropriate as an answer to your exhibition of deep knowledge of the Spanish language and etymology:

"Let's eat crap! a thousand million flies can't be wrong."

In this forum, we try to show the deepest respect for the different ways of speaking that persons from other countries use, but we try to encourage people to use correct grammar and vocabulary, as well as to understand idiomatic expressions and slang and learn where and when it is pertinent to use them. I think that should be the goal of this whole forum activity, to draw the line between what is colloquial and what is incorrect. 

By the way, in Latin, Egyptian and other classic languages, it was common to have a formal and an informal (vulgar) version of the language or speech, and both of them were correct. As a matter of fact, Spanish has a "registro culto" and a "registro vulgar" and both are correct in terms of grammar. "Fuiste*s*" is not a part of the "registro vulgar", is a grammar mistake, plain and simple.

Regards,

Lady B.

P.S. Before calling somebody "preservationist" of "purist", make sure you know what and who you are talking about. It is most impolite to show sheer prejudice against a person just because he or she does not agree with you.


----------



## Gabriel

Lady B,

I agree woth you: tú fuistes is a plain mistake. At least until some authority accepts it (as happened for example with maní, maníes, manises). My doubt is, is it a grammar  istake or a spelling mistake?

I already said this: I think that "fuistes" is the correct conjugation for vos (voseo argentino: vos fuistes) as it follows the logic of eliminating the last "i" from the conjugation in vostoros (vosotros fuiste*i*s)


----------



## bofico

LadyBlakeney said:
			
		

> Bofico, I believe you could do a bit more use of the dictionary, as you seem to confuse colloquial and incorrect, which are not the same at all.
> 
> There is a sarcastic saying in Spanish that may be appropriate as an answer to your exhibition of deep knowledge of the Spanish language and etymology:
> 
> "Let's eat crap! a thousand million flies can't be wrong."
> 
> In this forum, we try to show the deepest respect for the different ways of speaking that persons from other countries use, but we try to encourage people to use correct grammar and vocabulary, as well as to understand idiomatic expressions and slang and learn where and when it is pertinent to use them. I think that should be the goal of this whole forum activity, to draw the line between what is colloquial and what is incorrect.
> 
> By the way, in Latin, Egyptian and other classic languages, it was common to have a formal and an informal (vulgar) version of the language or speech, and both of them were correct. As a matter of fact, Spanish has a "registro culto" and a "registro vulgar" and both are correct in terms of grammar. "Fuiste*s*" is not a part of the "registro vulgar", is a grammar mistake, plain and simple.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Lady B.
> 
> P.S. Before calling somebody "preservationist" of "purist", make sure you know what and who you are talking about. It is most impolite to show sheer prejudice against a person just because he or she does not agree with you.



Bofico, I believe you could make a bit more use of the dictionary.....

"Let's eat crap! a billion flies can't be wrong."

By the way, in Latin, Egyptian and other classic languages.... (FYI, Egyptian is not a language).


P.S. Before calling somebody "preservationist" of "purist", make sure you know what and who you are talking about. It is most impolite to show sheer prejudice against a person just because he or she does not agree with you

I really don't know where this came from: Sugerí nomás que tenemos enfoques diferentes.

So, who am I talking to? You've never had much contact with mexican speakers of spanish, have you?


----------



## bofico

Gabriel said:
			
		

> Lady B,
> 
> I agree woth you: tú fuistes is a plain mistake. At least until some authority accepts it (as happened for example with maní, maníes, manises). My doubt is, is it a grammar  istake or a spelling mistake?
> 
> I already said this: I think that "fuistes" is the correct conjugation for vos (voseo argentino: vos fuistes) as it follows the logic of eliminating the last "i" from the conjugation in vostoros (vosotros fuiste*i*s)




My doubt is, is it a grammar  istake or a spelling mistake?

This is really a great question!

if we look at all the other forms of the 2nd person singular in all the tenses for the verb "ser" (and this works for all verbs in Spanish), vg. 

tú eres
tú serás
tú fuiste
tú eras
tú serías
tú has sido
tú habrás sido
tú habrías sido
tú seas
tú fueras
tú hayas sido
tú hubieras sido
tú hubieses sido

as one can see, the preterite tense is the only one where the inflected "tú" form lacks a final -s. This final-s, is called a morpheme, and expresses what means "you, singular, informal". 

the act of replacing it, or putting it back, in the preterite tense, where it doesn't belong, en el habla cotidiana, is a phenomenon attributed to "por analogía con los demás tiempos" by Spanish linguists. Technically speaking, it is a morphological problem.

In areas where the voseo is prevalent, it may , in part, be a phonological problem due to the instability of final -s which tends to be aspirated.


----------



## Gabriel

_"Let's eat crap! a billion flies can't be wrong."_

You are right. the number 1 000 000 000 is a billion in all the world except outside USA. Everywhere else, a billion is a million of millions. Even in English. Ask a brit.

_By the way, in Latin, Egyptian and other classic languages.... (FYI, Egyptian is not a language)._

Incorrect. Egyptinan is a language in the same way that Latin is. It is an extinct language, the one that was spoken (and written in fancy hieroglyphs) by the ancient Egyptians (before they started to use the Arabic).


----------



## bofico

Gabriel said:
			
		

> _"Let's eat crap! a billion flies can't be wrong."_
> 
> You are right. the number 1 000 000 000 is a billion in all the world except outside USA. Everywhere else, a billion is a million of millions. Even in English. Ask a brit.
> 
> _By the way, in Latin, Egyptian and other classic languages.... (FYI, Egyptian is not a language)._
> 
> Incorrect. Egyptinan is a language in the same way that Latin is. It is an extinct language, the one that was spoken (and written in fancy hieroglyphs) by the ancient Egyptians (before they started to use the Arabic).



You are right. the number 1 000 000 000 is a billion in all the world except outside USA.  gabo, do you realize how "messed up" this sounds?

Everywhere else, a billion is a million of millions.
(¿Y por eso todo el mundo dice mil millones?)

Egyptinan is a language in the same way that Latin is. It is an extinct language, the one that was spoken (and written in fancy hieroglyphs) by the ancient Egyptians (before they started to use the Arabic).

De acuerdo. Nomás pensé que la otra persona traía confundidos el egipto con el árabe. Mea culpa, mea máxima culpa.

*Echémosle tierra y tapémoslo...estamos MUY lejos de la pregunta que se propuso al comienzo de este hilo.*


----------



## Padawan

bofico said:
			
		

> as one can see, the preterite tense is the only one where the inflected "tú" form lacks a final -s. This final-s, is called a morpheme, and expresses what means "you, singular, informal"...[/FONT]


Por favor, no reinventemos el castellano. La S al final del pretérito perfécto simple de la 2ª persona del singular es un error que comete muchísima gente, y no porque le parezca que es una forma de hablar más amena e informal, sino porque ni siquiera sabe que está hablando mal. Es cuestión de cultura.

También está el caso que se da en mucha gente de poca cultura que dice "fúrbol" en lugar de "fútbol" y sonidos muy similares. La gente lo dice así muchas veces sin saber siquiera que lo está diciendo mal.

Y estoy de acuerdo con Lady B, puesto que este sitio está para aprender correctamente otras lenguas, y si se da el caso, se enseñan vulgarismos, pero advirtiendo de que lo que se va a enseñar no es recomendable en un lenguaje culto...


----------



## Gabriel

Yes. A billion in USA is mil millones in the spanish speaking world. We add a new -illion word every 6 zeros, not every 3.

1 000 000 million vs millón
1 000 000 000 billion vs mil millones
1 000 000 000 000 trillion vs billón
1 000 000 000 000 000 cuatrillion vs mil billones
1 000 000 000 000 000 000 quintillion vs trillón

But I have just learnt a new thing. It seems that you were not so wrong after all (and that I was wrong indeed). In two English dictionaries I have just checked, one defines billion as: 1) a 1 followed by 9 zeros. 2) (Chiefly British) a 1 followed by 12 zeros. And the other one defines it as: 1) a 1 followed by 9 zeros. 2) (formerly, in Britain) a 1 followed by 12 zeros.

So they disagree on whether billion = 1 and 12 zeros is chiefly British or formerly in Britain, but thay agree that the usual use in English is 1 and 9 zeros be it in USA, England, Australia or wherever.

And the same applies to trillion, etc..

So you were right: In English it is one billion, not a thousand million (unless you use a chiefly of former British). I stand corrected.

Don't know what "messed up" means.
The expression "in all the world except outside USA" was inteded to be a kind of joke. A little bit ironic, I admit it, but just humor. No offense intended, of course. Sorry if It sounded otherwise.

I know you asked to bury this because it is way off the original subject. I am answering just because I wanted to let you know I was the wroong one, not you (mea culpa) and because my mistake can lead to error to those who read it (for example, you).


----------



## bofico

Thanks, you are a gentleman and a scholar.  Es más, te invito que me digas "Bob", mi nombre cristiano.  

[Sí, efectivamente lo quería enterrar, pero ahora tengo que contestarle al Pedawan, quien interpretó al "verrés" lo que había planteado en mi minidisquisición sobre la morfología castellana.

Lo interesante es que este hilo ha tenido casi más de cuatrocientos "hits", y parece que todavía no se quiere morir.]


----------



## LadyBlakeney

Bofico:

First of all I thank you for your corrections. It is sad but, although I already knew about "to make use of" and "billion", I have this awful habit of writing (and speaking) in English as fast as I do in Spanish, which leads to my making lots and lots of mistakes. 

About "Egyptian", as you can see in my previous message I wrote it together with Latin and I called them "classic languages". I don't know if that is the right term, but it implied that I was considering Egyptian as an ancient language. If I had been speaking about old Greek (different from the language Greeks speak today), I would have said "Ancient Greek", but as Egyptian is no longer spoken, and in Egypt they speak Arabic nowadays, I thought it wasn't necesary to make any distinction. I don't mind you correcting me at all, but you see, I am not a scholar but I have a degree and I am not completely illiterate despite my dreadful English. 

As for you calling me "preservationist", perhaps you didn't intend it to be pejorative, but to me it sounded as if you thought that I was one of those Spaniards who think the only "proper" Spanish is the one spoken in Spain, which I am not. In the same message I stated how respectful I am with all the different forms of the Spanish language in the various countries where it is spoken. Nevertheless, I still think that "fuistes" is a mistake everywhere (I already said it is also a commonplace in Spain), and your quite interesting dissertation about the possible origin of the problem makes me think you understand why it is so.

I know you asked us to drop the issue, I just thought I ough to answer to your remarks. By the way, I guess I have had as much contact with "Mexican speakers of Spanish" as you have had with speakers from Spain. 

Meanwhile, I have a new question: Bofico wrote "nomás" in one of his previous messages. Is that a correct spelling (of what I think is a Mexican variation of "nada más"), or should it be written as "no más"? I suppose a lot of people write "nomás", but I would like to know if it has been accepted as a new word  by any linguistic authority.

Thank you very much for your help.


----------



## bofico

you asked:

Meanwhile, I have a new question: Bofico wrote "nomás" in one of his previous messages. Is that a correct spelling (of what I think is a Mexican variation of "nada más"), or should it be written as "no más"? I suppose a lot of people write "nomás", but I would like to know if it has been accepted as a new word by any linguistic authority.

L.B., if you are truly interested in finding out the scoop with respect to the word _nomás_ (and notice that it's construed to be one word), then please refer to its entry in:

Peruanismos
Martha Hildebrandt
Jaime Campodonico - Editor - Lima - Perú
ISBN 9972-40-101-4

Martha Hildebrandt is the "Martha Stewart" of peruvian linguistic anthropology who was once elected to the Cámara de Diputados in the Fujimori government, and has since exited politics and gone back to linguistics (fyi, there's an hilariously funny satire in _Caretas_ which lampoons her failure to include the peruvian word for "ass" [vg, "poto"] in the latest edition of her lexicon at http://www.caretas.com.pe/2004/1822/articulos/gregorio.html  ). 

as for your remark,

_but I would like to know if it has been accepted as a new word by any linguistic authority._

I can't quite figure out why you continue searching for linguistic "acceptance"....it is what it is. 

You'll find a copy of _Peruanismos_ in any decent library in Madrid, or just about any serious bookstore should have a copy in either the section on dictionaries, or on linguistics. enjoy. 

Since most of us don't have access to that book, it would be really neat if you could post the definition, or report back on what you found there regarding _nomás_.


----------



## norelys

hello i want to know what does fully paid-up mean


----------



## norelys

i want to know what does fully paid-up mean


----------



## norelys

norelys said:
			
		

> i want to know what does fully paid-up mean


   undefined


----------



## bofico

it means

cancelado


----------



## LadyBlakeney

Bofico, now I am convinced that you didn't bother to read all mi message, only the part you thought you could be smart about. Therefore, I won't even bother to respond to your sarcasm.

I reiterate my question to the rest of the forum: Is it correct in South America to write "nomás"? Is it considered as one word? A "yes/no" answer will suffice.

Thank you very much for your help.


----------



## bofico

Dearest L.B.,
After having read your entire message, I responded to what I thought was a legitimate question--wow, was I ever mistaken. But I hasten to add that I am very sorry if I hurt your feelings. 

FYI, all you have to do is check the _wordreference.com_ entry for *nomás* para calmar tu ansiedad intelectual.

*nomás* adverbio (Latinoamérica) (generalmente) just
(= tan sólo) only
See más A7

y si esto no te convence aún, hay otra fuente más, la cual sin duda desconoces:

* nomás.* 
 1. adv. m. Am. Mer., C. Rica, Hond., Méx. y Nic. no más (¦¦ solamente). 
 2. adv. m. Am. Mer., El Salv., Hond. y Méx. U. en oraciones exhortativas, generalmente pospuesto, para añadir énfasis a la expresión. _Atrévase nomás._ _Pase nomás._ 
 3. adv. m. Arg., Bol., Col., El Salv., Nic. y Ur. Apenas, precisamente. 

 *Real Academia Española* © Todos los derechos reservados


----------



## LadyBlakeney

Bofico, I was prepared to take your word as enough guarantee. Thank you for the sources anyway. 

I'll try to heal the heartbreak your words caused to me and I'll be sending the psychoanalyst's bill to you.


----------



## bofico

L.B,

I deeply regret the pain and heartbreak _mis intervenciones sobre la gramática_ have caused you. Some "time off from each other" might be appropriate at this juncture.

My most profuse apologies to you, y a los demás socios, that my Spanish is "littered" with an occasional _arcaísmo_: I learned Spanish the old-fashioned way, which is to say, in the Andes (close to Micchu Pacchu). A circumstance which is, nevertheless, no excuse whatsoever.

Apologies to the rest of the forum as well, that it has taken forty-something posts to put an end to this internecine, yet petty spat, over what can best be described by the Spanish term _pendejadas_.

Te dejo con la última palabra sobre el aspecto.

Mua,

Bob

pd, sí mándame la cuenta del psicólogo. Para mí, no sería un gasto frívolo.


----------



## brendajcn

Hola LadyBlakeny

"Nomas" significa "Nada mas" cuando la empleas asi: me dieron nomas(nada mas) 4 galletas. Pero tambien utilizamos "nomas" como una expresion, bueno al menos en Mexico, como la siguiente "oi nomas", cuando alguien nos dice algo que nos sorprende como "me comi 20 rebanadas de pan" o "mi novio me dejo", uno responderia "oi nomas", o tambien por ejemplo "oi nomas, lo que dijo Carla son mentiras", que seria como un "mira nada mas que mentirosa es". Espero no haber confundido todo.


----------



## bofico

¡Gracias Brenda! ¡Qué intervención más estupenda!

Ahora, quítame una curiosidad, por favor. 

¿Tu no te has criado en la capital, verdad? ¿Ni tampoco en Guadalajara?

Bob


----------



## brendajcn

de nada bofico

Y en efecto, no creci en la capital!!!


----------



## LadyBlakeney

Gracias Brenda, he aprendido mucho sobre "nomás" leyendo tu mensaje.

Bofico, leer tu mensaje ha sido más lacrimógeno que ver a Greta Garbo mirar al mar en la escena final de Victoria de Suecia. Te vas a librar de pagarme el loquero porque me van más las técnicas orientales.

What was this thread about in the first place? (Ha, ha ha!). It is my turn to apologize to Slow for having monopolized his thread.


----------



## el_novato

Asi es.  Nada m*á*s = nom*á*s.  Se usan indistintamente en todo México.  He estado en varios estados de México.

Solo una nota, para ir cerrando este tema.    
Es mas formal (polite) usar Nada más, que nomás.  Aunque, repito, se usan indistintamente y con el mismo significado.  Ya que Nada más, se usa en escritos, y el nomás, se usa *nomás * cuando hablas.

Saludos.  Bofico y Lady, con todo respeto, me recordaron un capítulo de una caricatura. "Los caballeros del Zodiaco".  En donde dicen que cuando se enfrentan dos caballeros de oro, la batalla puede durar mil años (algo asi como este tema).  Asi que niños, de paso nos enseñaron bastante. y en la telenovela que bofico protagonizo , reconozco que aprendí y recordé varias cosas.  Con decirle que nomás no sabía que "nomás" se usaba en varias partes de América, pensaba que nada más en México.

Saludos.



			
				brendajcn said:
			
		

> Hola LadyBlakeny
> 
> "Nomas" significa "Nada mas" cuando la empleas asi: me dieron nomas(nada mas) 4 galletas. Pero tambien utilizamos "nomas" como una expresion, bueno al menos en Mexico, como la siguiente "oi nomas", cuando alguien nos dice algo que nos sorprende como "me comi 20 rebanadas de pan" o "mi novio me dejo", uno responderia "oi nomas", o tambien por ejemplo "oi nomas, lo que dijo Carla son mentiras", que seria como un "mira nada mas que mentirosa es". Espero no haber confundido todo.


----------



## LadyBlakeney

He de confesar que con diez u once años me tragué la serie entera de "Los caballeros del Zodíaco" y me encantaba. Todavía me pregunto por qué diablos, si todos los capítulos eran exactamente iguales. Quién me ha visto y quién me ve, y ahora persigo a mi sobrina de siete años para que no vea dibujos japoneses.


----------



## bofico

No hay mal que dure cien años, ni pendejo/a que lo aguante.


----------



## el_novato

Bofico:

No tengo nada contra ti, de echo, admiro y respeto lo que sabes y como te documentas para contestar algo.  Pero, no me queda claro, si tu comentario va ligado al que puso LadyBlakeney, o al mío (ya que yo fui el que salió con la de la caricutura), si le contestastes asi a LadyBlakeney, te pasaste y no te mediste; si fue para mi, lo podemos discutir aparte.   PORQUE, con todo lo que sabes y te documentas, bien sabes lo que pusistes al final.   Espero que te dignes a dar una explicación y disculparte con LadyBlakeney, y con todas las personas que usan este foro.




			
				bofico said:
			
		

> No hay mal que dure cien años, ni pendejo/a que lo aguante.






			
				LadyBlakeney said:
			
		

> He de confesar que con diez u once años me tragué la serie entera de "Los caballeros del Zodíaco" y me encantaba. Todavía me pregunto por qué diablos, si todos los capítulos eran exactamente iguales. Quién me ha visto y quién me ve, y ahora persigo a mi sobrina de siete años para que no vea dibujos japoneses.


----------



## bofico

fue un gesto conciliatorio nomás...

ahora, si no me equivoco, mi comentario es un refrán (¿mexicano?) y lo he leído algunas veces con esa palabra, otras veces con la palabra "loco/a". No sé cuál es la versión original pero, sí tienes toda la razón, que la versión escogida por mí no tiene la más mínima aceptación aquí y ha de estar relegado a la calle o a una cantina. Claro que este foro no tiene nada que ver con ninguna de las dos.

sé que "pendejo" es una palabra fuerte, pero más que nada, yo francamente me dirijo esa palabra a mí mismo. Es más, casi todas mis amistades mexicanas, tarde o temprano, han jurado que mi apellido es el Sr. Oso. (Yes, that's right, Bob Oso.) Así que todavía no me has conocido bien. Creo que L.B. te puede dar unas orientaciones en ese aspecto.

Ahora bien. me encanta la sugerencia de que este hilo se haya asemejado a una caricatura o telenovela. Lo malo, si es que lo hay, es el hecho de que yo desconozca "Los caballeros del Zodíaco", y no sé exactamente a lo que es que Uds. se refieren, pero sí capté perfectamente bien el sentido de los dos caballeros de oro, lo cual me hizo recordar al susodicho refrán.


----------



## LadyBlakeney

Aunque sea por aportar algo, diré que el citado refrán en España se reduce a "No hay mal que cien años dure". Lo del loco/p****jo ha de ser una aportación de allende los mares. Gracias por salir en mi defensa, El_novato, eres más majo que las pesetas (aunque ya no existan, el dicho continúa). De todas formas Bofico y yo hemos llegado a un acuerdo tácito de no tomarnos en serio los trastos que nos tiremos a la cabeza mutuamente.

Un abrazo para ambos,

Lady B.


----------



## el_novato

No hay mal que dure cien años, ni *enfermo * que los aguante.

Bueno, de ahora en adelante, se que ustedes se llevan de esa forma.

Saludos a ambos.



			
				bofico said:
			
		

> ...
> ahora, si no me equivoco, mi comentario es un refrán (¿mexicano?) y lo he leído algunas veces con esa palabra, otras veces con la palabra "loco/a"...


----------



## LadyBlakeney

Me gusta más tu versión del refrán, El_novato.

Bófico, espero que no te tomes la palabra de una dama al pie de la letra y saques a relucir tu arsenal de improperios, insultos y palabras soeces (je, je, je). Conste que probablemente el mío sea aún mayor que el tuyo, en España somos muy creativos para esas cosas.

Otro abrazo para El_novato y Bob Oso.


----------



## Edg

As usual, the whole sentence depends on its contex but I think I would say:

_In references 4 and 5, it was you who hired the truk _ ("_lorry_" si es uno de los grandes)


----------



## bofico

LadyBlakeney said:
			
		

> 1) ....... los trastos que nos tiremos a la cabeza mutuamente.
> 
> 2) Conste que probablemente el mío [i.e. arsenal] sea aún mayor que el tuyo,
> 
> 3) De todas formas Bofico y yo hemos llegado a un acuerdo tácito.....
> 
> Lady B.



1) tirarse los trastos a la cabeza = to have a blazing row
[Call me crazy, but for some reason I just love the first expression.]

2) Oh, I already knew you had a mouth.

3) sí, en efecto, tengo un pacto recíproco con L.B. (¿el diablo?), en el cual ella goza de la libertad total para lanzarme cualesquier necedades que quiera, no importa de qué tamaño ni de qué calaña, a fin de que yo le devuelva semejantes sandeces, delante de todo el mundo hispanohablante y angloparlante en por lo menos tres, quizás cuatro, continentes.

Pues, en _business school_, esto es lo que se llama una "alianza estratégica" 

el Sr. Oso


----------



## LadyBlakeney

Que conste en acta que Bofico tiene una gran intuición, porque aún no le he enseñado ni una esquina de mi arsenal de improperios (ni pienso, por respeto a la concurrencia). Conste también que, aunque probablemente Bófico se empeñe en lo contrario, ¡mamá, ha empezado él!


----------



## bofico

LadyBlakeney said:
			
		

> ...aunque probablemente *Bófico* se empeñe en lo contrario, ¡mamá, ha empezado él!




...con acento tónico sobre la -I-.....encima de todo, quieres hacerme esdrújulo


----------



## LadyBlakeney

Perdón, perdón, perdón! Se me escapó una tilde del tintero pero ya lo he cerrado bien.


----------

