# Rubén es padre de tres hijos.



## Tazzler

Hola:

¿Por qué no se usa ningún artículo en esta frase? 

Gracias.


----------



## cyberfenix

Del mismo modo que decimos que "Ernesto es hijo de padres ricos".
No usamos artículo cuando hablamos genéricamente de ser padre o ser hijo.


----------



## Tazzler

Ok, entiendo.

Hablando del mismo tema, ¿por qué no usas ningún artículo después de _usamos_?


----------



## cyberfenix

Tazzler said:


> Ok, entiendo.
> 
> Hablando del mismo tema, ¿por qué no usas ningún artículo después de _usamos_?


 
Misma razón: uso "artículo" genéricamente hablando.
Otra cosa es si digo: No usamos el artículo correspondiente.
Quedo a las órdenes por cualquier otra consulta.


----------



## lqs2n

In Spanish the article is almost never used (except maybe for emphasis) after the verb ser with an unmodified noun.


----------



## Peterrobertini7

Tazzler said:


> Hola:
> 
> ¿Por qué no se usa ningún artículo en esta frase?
> 
> Gracias.



Normally is not used with Rubén, proper noun, but if you wish to use it, the meaning is one of reproach and criticism, or to demean a person.
*el Rubén, la María esa, el Pedro ese, etc.*


----------



## Tazzler

lqs2n said:


> In Spanish the article is almost never used (except maybe for emphasis) after the verb ser with an unmodified noun.


 
Completely and utterly true? I'd say this:

Es libro.
Es mamífero. 

I'm still a bit confused.

Thank you for the answer, Peter, but I was talking about no article being after _es_.


----------



## lqs2n

Yes, I believe that it is true; at least that's what all of my teachers have told me.

Remember I said that the article is not used with an unmodified noun:
Es libro.  But, es un libro interesante.


----------



## Tazzler

Yes, that's probably right. I just want to be sure before I accept an umbrella statement, you know?


----------



## cyberfenix

Now I'm a bit confused. We started talking about:
Rubén es padre de tres hijos.

Another thing is to say:
Rubén es el padre de esos tres niños.

Now you mention: Es libro. Es mamífero. What's the context here?
I would say: Es un libro. Es un mamífero. This is totally different and we are talking about another type of article.
I will gladly do my best and try to help you. Please let me know what your concern is here.


----------



## Tazzler

Let's leave out the definite article and only talk about the indefinite article.

¿Qué es un tapir?
Es mamífero.

Do I need to use _un_?


----------



## dj_paula_stein

According to what I think, you shouldn't write the article "el" in front of a noun, generally speaking and writting.

It's not necessary to use "el" if you want to say "Rubén es padre de tres hijos". However, I think it is OK to say "Rubén es el padre de tres hijos" but, as spanish speakers are not acquainted with using "el" when talking about general statements, we omitted it.
This is a general statement since we don't know who these children are. We know he is their father but we don't have an adjective nor a pronoun that particularly show us who they are.

Hope you can clear this up!

Teli


----------



## cyberfenix

Tazzler said:


> Let's leave out the definite article and only talk about the indefinite article.
> 
> ¿Qué es un tapir?
> Es mamífero.
> 
> Do I need to use _un_?


 
Absolutely.
But if you ask: ¿El tapir es mamífero?, you don't need the article.


----------



## Tazzler

Heh, I meant before _mamífero. _Unless that was you were referring to...


----------



## Josué Carli

Tazzler said:


> Hola:
> 
> ¿Por qué no se usa ningún artículo en esta frase?
> 
> Gracias.


Gee! Never thought of that! Ok, this is a quick reaction subject to your wiser comments:
As to the case of the definite article:
I guess we're dealing with an issue that needs to be focused from a semantical point of view. Consider:
(1) Juan es doctor para 34 pacientes en esta clínica.
(2) Él es dueño de 5 fábricas.
(3) Ése tipo es profesor de mi hijo.
(4) ... es ídolo de millones de personas.
But
(5) ... es _la_ mascota de mi hija.
(6) Ésas son _las _llaves de mi auto.

from (1) to (4) the nouns after the "ser" are in some way "superior" to what follows. Maybe, for some mysteryous reason (as it always is for the deep causes of linguistic habits), our ancestors decided that such nouns have the right to lack the definite article, though certainly they can decline that right, as you can easily see from the above examples: they make absolutely perfect sense with or without it. This is not the case in (5) and (6), as "mascota" and "llaves" are hardly to be considered "superior" to "hija" and "auto". It's just that by omitting the article in the cases where there's this "superiority"  we seem to adjust to it or emphasize it.
Don't know... good question anyway!


----------



## Tazzler

Hmm. Why don't you need it when it's in a question? 

Allow me to change the sentence.  I saw something like this:

_Hay que atarlo con una cuerda._ 

I thought that you don't need an indefinite article after _con _or _sin_ when used generally.


----------



## Forero

Just as we say "He is Russian", Spanish says "Es ruso".  Any noun that gives a person's or animal's station in life works the same way in Spanish.  Station in life could be the species or something like nationality, job, religion, political party, etc.

English allows this type of noun to be used without the article in some situations:
_
Reuben Doe, father of three boys, sometimes has trouble making ends meet._
_
Those men are teachers._

But English is less consistent about it than Spanish. I think Spanish can be more consistent about this because the line between nouns and adjectives is less distinct in Spanish than in English.

I wouldn't say "Es libro" though.


----------



## Josué Carli

Alright, second shot (as the first one was a real mess, I apologize). The use of the definite or indefinite article in these cases (i.e. after an instance of "ser") depends on the speaker's intention as to the behavior they want to convey to the predicated concept: noun-like or adjective-like.

(1) Él es ruso.

Here "ruso" is not a noun but an _adjective_, therefore we omit "un", as we are only _adjoining a quality_ to a noun. If we did use "un" ("Él es un ruso"), we wouldn't be doing the former but _categorizing_ the noun "Él" under the _other noun_ "ruso". Remember that in Spanish we turn adjectives into nouns by an ellipsis of a supposed original noun: "El/Un hombre ruso" --> "El/Un ruso", "El color verde" --> "El verde", "El hombre chaparro" --> "El chaparro". Now,

¿Qué es un tapir?
  (2) Es mamífero.    (3) Es un mamífero.

Without a context the most natural answer would be (3): A tapir is under the category of "mamífero"; "mamífero" is a noun. But imagine a context where we are characterizing different animals as being mammals or not, then "mamífero" would become a quality to be adjoined to "tapir", thus (2) would be the right answer, for "mamífero" there is an adjective.

(4) Rubén es padre de tres hijos. / Él es dueño de 5 fábricas. / Ése tipo es profesor de mi hijo. / ... es ídolo de millones de personas.

(5) Rubén es el padre de tres hijos. / Él es el dueño de 5 fábricas / ... es la mascota de mi hija. / Ésas son las llaves de mi auto.

In (4), "padre de tres hijos" is an adjectival phrase predicated of Rubén. The same is to be said of the sentences following (4). In (5), "padre", thanks to "el", is a noun of which "de tres hijos" (whoever they are) is an adjective and, thus, it's only being pointed that the referents of both sides of the copula (the noun group "el padre de tres hijos" and "Rubén") are the same. The sentences following (5) can be equally described. To practical ends, the difference in meaning between (4) and (5) is irrelevant; that's why they are interchangeable in every discourse I can imagine. But note that it's extremely hard that "mascota de mi hija" and "llaves de mi auto" would be treated as adjectival phrases.

Now, this happens with copula sentences. A different kind of explanation deserves (6) "Hay que atarlo con una cuerda." What happens here is that you're not treating cuerda as an uncountable noun (what you call "to be used generally") but as a countable one, thus meaning that you're thinking of using just one rope. Consider "Hay que adornarlo con listón." In this case, listón is seen as an uncountable: the question as to whether it will be one or many singular ribbons is open. If you would like to achieve this sense of uncountability in (6) you could say: "Hay que atarlo con cuerda;" while "Hay que atarlo con cuerdas" would restrain the ropes to be more than one.

Uff... Ojalá sirva.


----------



## Tazzler

Of course it was useful. For such a simple point of grammar I seem to have an awful lot of trouble with articles.

What if I were to translate _You must tie it with a rope_, with the _a_ _rope_ referring to rope in general and not just one piece of rope. Would it be _con cuerda_ or _con una cuerda?_

I saw this sentence too: _Mi abuelo era artista aficionado. _Why is there no _un_ if the predicate is modified?


----------



## cyberfenix

Tazzler said:


> Of course it was useful. For such a simple point of grammar I seem to have an awful lot of trouble with it.
> 
> What if I were to translate _You must tie it with a rope_, with the _a_ _rope_ referring to rope in general and not just one piece of rope. Would it be _con cuerda_ or _con una cuerda?_
> 
> I saw this sentence too: _Mi abuelo era artista aficionado. _Why is there no _un_ if the predicate is modified?


 
Hi.
Yo diría: Hay que atarlo con cuerda.
Da igual decir: Mi abuelo era artista aficionado, o: Mi abuelo era un artista aficionado.


----------



## Tazzler

Pero decimos _es un profesor inteligente_ y no _es profesor inteligente_, ¿no?


----------



## Forero

Perhaps when the noun is modified by an adjective, it loses the ability to pass as an adjective.

Or maybe "profesor inteligente" is not a station in life. ("Inteligente" is not part of his job.)

¿Se puede decir "Tu papá es profesor, pero el mío es hombre rana"?


----------



## Josué Carli

Tazzler said:


> What if I were to translate (1) _You must tie it with a rope_, with the _a_ _rope_ referring to rope in general and not just one piece of rope. Would it be _con cuerda_ or _con una cuerda?_
> 
> I saw this sentence too: _Mi abuelo era artista aficionado. _Why is there no _un_ if the predicate is modified?



I agree with cyberfenix ("con cuerda"), interpreting your "in general" as meaning uncountability in Spanish. Now, googling around I found this: "Can you tie good _knots with flat rope_?" I wonder whether in English you could say (2) "You must tie it with rope.", in which case there would be a perfect coincidence in the treatment of "rope" and "cuerda":

Uncountable-like: "Debes atarlo con cuerda." / (2)
Countable-like: "Debes atarlo con con_ una cuerda_/_cuerdas_" / "You must tie it with _a rope_/_ropes_"

If (2) is not possible or sounds too weird then (1) should be in its place and I guess it would depend on the speaker's intention and context whether to take "a rope" as meaning _one rope_ or _rope in general_.



Tazzler said:


> Pero decimos _es un profesor inteligente_ y no s_s profesor inteligente_, ¿no?





Forero said:


> Perhaps when the noun is modified by an adjective, it loses the ability to pass as an adjective.



Forero hit the nail, though an "almost" is missing in his assertion: there are very particular cases where "es profesor inteligente" is possible. Imagine two kids playing to classify their teachers as "profesor inteligente" or "p. tonto" on a notebook. At some point of the game I can perfectly imagine one of them asking "¿El profe Rubén es profesor inteligente o profesor tonto?" and the other one answering "No, tonto no... Es profesor inteligente", while the other kid writes the name under the right heading. "Profesor inteligente" and "p. tonto" are treated as adjectival phrases, but this is a very very very special case as you can see. I guess in normal speaking we're habituated to adjectivizing "padre _de_ 3 hijos", "profesor _de_ secundaria" but not modified nouns, as forero sagasciously noted. "Mi abuelo era artista aficionado" seems to be another exceptional case.



Forero said:


> ¿Se puede decir "Tu papá es profesor, pero el mío es hombre rana"?



I'd intuitively (but also coherently to what I've said) expect "el mío es un hombre rana".

Gee! I'd like to be that kid.


----------



## Forero

I can't claim sagacity in this case.  lqs2n mentioned "unmodified" first.

By the way, Josué Carli, your English seems totally native to me.  Isn't English your native language (too)?

Yes, we can say "You must tie it with rope", but that is very different from "... with a rope."  Uncountable "rope" brings to mind a rope netting or a wad of ropes.


----------



## Tazzler

If I were to translate the sentence _I have a question_, which would I say?

_Tengo pregunta._
_Tengo una pregunta. _

I always come across a case in which I can't explain the use of articles! It's really annoying.


----------



## cyberfenix

Forero said:


> Perhaps when the noun is modified by an adjective, it loses the ability to pass as an adjective.
> Or maybe "profesor inteligente" is not a station in life. ("Inteligente" is not part of his job.)
> ¿Se puede decir "Tu papá es profesor, pero el mío es hombre rana"?


 
Hi.
Have to disagree with Josué Carli on this one (though I found his explanation about 'es profesor inteligente' very good).
In my opinion, it is correct to say: 'Tu papá es profesor, el mío es hombre rana' ('pero' is not necessary though), as so it is: 'Mi hermana es bailarina, la tuya es cantante'. No need for article here.


----------



## cyberfenix

Tazzler said:


> If I were to translate the sentence _I have a question_, which would I say?
> 
> _Tengo pregunta._
> _Tengo una pregunta. _
> 
> I always come across a case in which I can't explain the use of articles! It's really annoying.


 
Tengo una pregunta, definitely.


----------



## Tazzler

What about this?:

_Do you have a reservation?_

_¿Tiene reservación?_

Does the question sound good without an article?


----------



## cyberfenix

Tazzler said:


> What about this?:
> 
> _Do you have a reservation?_
> 
> _¿Tiene reserva?_
> 
> Does the question sound good without an article?


 
Definitely.

But:
Hice la reserva para las nueve.
Hay una reserva a mi nombre.


----------



## Tazzler

And the reason for that is that you can't have more than one reservation at the same time. Oh, well, sometimes, you just have to accept the norms and follow them anyway, right?


----------



## Forero

After _tener_ (and maybe _buscar_) and after _sin_ (and sometimes _con_), the indefinite article, or lack thereof, gets interesting:

_¿Tienes reserva?_ [You either have one or none.]
_ Ciérrala con llave._ [Means to an end]
_ Ya no llevo corbata._ [means "ya estoy sin corbata." One or none? Hypothetical? Means to an end?]
_Mi hermanito ya tiene novia._ [He can only have one _novia_.  Is that her "station in life"?]
_No busco piso sino casa._ [¿Se puede decir?]
_Busco mujer._ [Me suena raro.]
_Busco una mujer que tenga rizos naturales._ [I think it needs the _una_, but no personal _a_ because of indefiniteness.]
_ Busco a una mujer que tiene rizos naturales._ [a definite woman]
_ No tengo mujer._ [Hypothetical?]
_ Ya tengo mujer._ [I have (no need to say how many) one already.]


----------



## Tazzler

Two final questions:

To say translate _He is an only child_, why do we say _Es hijo único_, but not _Es un hijo único_.

_Se convirtió en especialista/un especialista._ Which is the best option?

Thank you for all of your help.


----------



## cyberfenix

Tazzler said:


> Two final questions:
> 
> To say translate _He is an only child_, why do we say _Es hijo único_, but not _Es un hijo único_.
> 
> _Se convirtió en especialista/un especialista._ Which is the best option?
> 
> Thank you for all of your help.


 
1. We say 'Es hijo único', as we say 'Es madre soltera' or 'Es médico especialista'.

2. I would say: 'Se hizo especialista'.


----------



## Tazzler

It's because of general identity, right? I was assumed that you use the indefinite article when talking about modified nouns, but I guess not.I saw this question and I got confused. Era cuestión de vida o muerte.The articles are making me go crazy!


----------



## Forero

Tazzler said:


> Two final questions:
> 
> To say translate _He is an only child_, why do we say _Es hijo único_, but not _Es un hijo único_.
> 
> _Se convirtió en especialista/un especialista._ Which is the best option?
> 
> Thank you for all of your help.


I think this is the "station in life" idea again, and _especialista_ is an adjective.

I would appreciate any comments from natives about my sentences in post 31 and Tazzler's questions in posts 30 and 34.  We are looking for ways to identify consistently what requires an indefinite article and what doesn't.

If there are no consistent "rules", more examples would no doubt help.


----------



## Peterrobertini7

Tazzler said:


> Two final questions:
> 
> To say translate _He is an only child_, why do we say _Es hijo único_, but not _Es un hijo único_.
> 
> _Se convirtió en especialista/un especialista._ Which is the best option?
> 
> Thank you for all of your help.



*El es hijo único i*s correct, with the indefinite article, contracted ( UN) would be redundant because único is 'one'.
Se convirtió en especialista ( it is not necessary to use the indefinite article because you normally especialized in one career. If you use the article is just for emphasis.


----------

