# ¿Antes había mucho extranjero por esta zona de la ciudad?



## fedayn

Hola a todos,
_¿Antes había mucho extranjero por esta zona de la ciudad?_

- Did there used to be many/a lot f foreigner in this part of the city?
- Were there usually many/a lot of foreigner in this part of the city?

Tengo serias dudas entre ambas, pero me quedo con la primera.

Gracias.

Saludos.


----------



## aztlaniano

En todo caso: foreignerS


----------



## Conree

Hello,

I think you can say:
- Many foreigners, or
- A lot of foreigners/foreign people.

but never many foreigner...

Personally i'd say: Did there used to be many foreigners around this part of the city?

Expect confirmation,

Conree.


----------



## aztlaniano

Conree said:


> I think you can say:
> - Many foreigners, or
> - A lot of foreigners/foreign people.
> 
> but never many foreigner...
> 
> Personally i'd say: Did there used to be many foreigners around this part of the city?


Bien, pero también vale:
Were there a lot of foreigners around this part of town before?


----------



## kayokid

Hello.

A couple of thoughts about your sentences...
1. I agree completely with the use of the plural here. It must be 'foreigners.'
2. Both of your attempts are okay otherwise although personally I prefer:

Were/Weren't there a lot of foreigners in this part of the city previously?

Somehow it just seems to flow better to my ear.


----------



## fedayn

Thanks a lot for the corrections and your opinions.


----------



## Conree

Sure. And thanks for your contribution. I was just focusing in the "foreigner(s)" part.


----------



## k-in-sc

(focusing *on*) 
"Foreigners" sounds awfully harsh in English. What do you mean by "extranjero(s)"? Immigrants? Expatriates? Foreign-born residents?


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

k-in-sc said:


> (focusing *on*)
> "Foreigners" sounds awfully harsh in English. What do you mean by "extranjero(s)"? Immigrants? Expatriates? Foreign-born residents?



How about aliens? 

Immigrants is probably more neutral and is also common.  When referring to those of my clients who are immigrants, I usually refer to them as "foreign-born clients."


----------



## inib

Sé que no todos estarán de acuerdo, pero yo usaría "Did there use to be...?" en lugar de "Did there use*d* to be...?"


----------



## aztlaniano

k-in-sc said:


> "Foreigners" sounds awfully harsh in English. What do you mean by "extranjero(s)"? Immigrants? Expatriates? Foreign-born residents?


Hay que emplear "foreigners" porque lo abarca todo - turistas, estudiantes, hombres de negocios, inmigrantes, diplomáticos, periodistas, soldados de las fuerzas de ocupación, etc.



Conree said:


> Sure. And thanks for your contribution. I was just focussing on the "foreigner(s)" part.


No se puede emplear el singular con un sentido plural, como se puede en español. Otro ejemplo.
An imaginary interview with the head of the employers' association of Spain (CEOE), Gerardo Díaz Ferrán:
 El empresario tiene claro que la forma de acabar con el paro es “obligando a la gente a trabajar, que *mucho vago es lo que hay*. Se coge a los parados y se les dice que para estar en el sofá tirados, os vais a la fábrica. Mantas, que sois unos mantas. Es lo que hice yo aquí en la galera”.
En inglés: "there are a lot of lazy people/persons". Mucho vago = many lazy people
Recuerda que "people" es plural. There are a lot of people who* are* lazy.


RicardoElAbogado said:


> How about aliens?


"Aliens" is not readily understood by Britons (or rather they could mistake it for a reference to extraterrestrials) unless they paid close attention to the lyrics of Sting's song about Quentin Crisp, "Englishman in New York", with the refrain "I'm an alien, I'm a legal alien, I'm an Englishman in New York".


----------



## lospazio

k-in-sc said:


> (focusing *on*)
> "Foreigners" sounds awfully harsh in English. What do you mean by "extranjero(s)"? Immigrants? Expatriates? Foreign-born residents?



This surprises me. Until now I employed _foreigner_ to name a person who is not a citizen of a given country, no matter if he or she is an immigrant, an expatriate, a tourist or whatever. Am I wrong? Is it necessary to be so specific about the poor guy?


----------



## nwon

No es necesario. La verdad es que se usa esa palabra siempre, y a la mayoría de la gente no le molesta. Siempre que la uses en una manera respetuosa, todo será bien.


----------



## Gesnabe

Sé que no todos estarán de acuerdo, pero yo usaría "Did there use to be...?" en lugar de "Did there used to be...?"


I agree inib about this

Regards


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

aztlaniano said:


> "Aliens" is not readily understood by Britons (or rather they could mistake it for a reference to extraterrestrials) .



I was making that suggestion tongue in cheek. I was not seriously suggesting that the term "aliens" was less harsh than foreigners.


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

inib said:


> Sé que no todos estarán de acuerdo, pero yo usaría "Did there use to be...?" en lugar de "Did there use*d* to be...?"



I would certainly write *used* but in speaking I might be less careful and say *use*.  I believe that there are threads arguing this issue back and forth, which I commend to anyone interested in the argument.


----------



## srb62

fedayn said:


> Hola a todos,
> 
> - Did there used to be many/a lot f foreigner in this part of the city?
> - Were there usually many/a lot of foreigner in this part of the city?
> 
> Tengo serias dudas entre ambas, pero me quedo con la primera.
> 
> Gracias.
> 
> Saludos.



An interesting discussion.
For me, as a British speaker, I think I find 'immigrant' to have the potential to sound more negative than 'foreigner' - and the comments about it not being precise enough are well made.  I would probably use 'foreign people'.
To describe the idea of 'previously', I'd employ 'in the past', giving something like:

_Did many foreign people (used to) live in this part of the city in the past?
In the past were there many foreign people living in this part of the city?_


----------



## k-in-sc

I agree that sometimes you have to use "foreigners," but Spanish speakers seem to be unaware of the unpleasant connotations. When possible, alternatives are usually preferable.


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

I agree that "foreigner" can have a negative connotation.  I also agree that saying "foreign people" (or otherwise modifying "foreign" with a word or phrase (such as  "foreign-born clients") removes it. 

I am not surprised that "immigrant" has a negative connotation in the UK (and probably in many other countries). But in the US, it's part of our DNA.


----------



## k-in-sc

Modifying it does usually sound better, but "foreign people" sounds awkward.


----------



## duvija

I agree with k-in-sc. 
"Foreigners" sounds bad, kind of demeaning. "Foreign people" isn't any better. So what to use? it's a mistery. They all sound despective. And 'people born in foreign lands' is great for Disneyland.


----------



## srb62

RicardoElAbogado said:


> I agree that "foreigner" can have a negative connotation.  I also agree that saying "foreign people" (or otherwise modifying "foreign" with a word or phrase (such as  "foreign-born clients") removes it.
> 
> I am not surprised that "immigrant" has a negative connotation in the UK (and probably in many other countries). But in the US, it's part of our DNA.



I know, it's funny isn't it? - and very interesting!



duvija said:


> I agree with k-in-sc.
> "Foreigners" sounds bad, kind of demeaning. "Foreign people" isn't any better. So what to use? it's a mistery. They all sound despective. And 'people born in foreign lands' is great for Disneyland.



Sorry, you're wrong - 'foreign people' can sound much better, and said in the proper way would be perfectly acceptable!


----------



## duvija

srb62 said:


> Sorry, you're wrong - 'foreign people' can sound much better, and said in the proper way would be perfectly acceptable!



Not here.


----------



## srb62

duvija said:


> Not here.


. 

Well, exactly!!  That was the whole point - and why I qualified my post with the fact that I opined 'as a British speaker'.   So, I'm afraid you're.......wrong?


----------



## duvija

srb62 said:


> .
> 
> Well, exactly!! That was the whole point - and why I qualified my post with the fact that I opined 'as a British speaker'.  So, I'm afraid you're.......wrong?



Hell yeah!


----------



## FromPA

k-in-sc said:


> I agree that sometimes you have to use "foreigners," but Spanish speakers seem to be unaware of the unpleasant connotations. When possible, alternatives are usually preferable.



Personally, I don't see anything unpleasant about the word at all.  It simply means non-native and has no pejorative connotations at all except in the minds of people who don't like foreigners, and substituting new, more-convoluted but less-precise terms won't cure that.  Sorry for the rant.


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

duvija said:


> My problem is with the original 'Había mucho extranjero...'. I don't mind  'Había(n) muchos extranjeros',



I thought that _hay_ and its variants (e.g., _había_) were invariable and did not change to match number. Typo?  Or do I have more to learn?


----------



## k-in-sc

RicardoElAbogado said:


> I thought that _hay_ and its variants (e.g., _había_) were invariable and did not change to match number. Typo?  Or do I have more to learn?


 I thought that too ... looks like duvija has some 'splaining to do


----------



## RicardoElAbogado

FromPA said:


> Personally, I don't see anything unpleasant about the word at all.  It simply means non-native and has no pejorative connotations at all except in the minds of people who don't like foreigners



The denotation of the term is, of course, neutral. Here's my guess why some people think that the term "foreigner" has a negative connotation.  When we Americans read about ourselves being referred to as "foreigners" in the press and public statements of people in foreign countries, it very often has a negative connotation.  A lot of the time "foreigner" is associated with trouble-maker in those statements (foreign spy agencies, foreign governments interfering in local affairs, etc.). And it is sometimes used by native speakers to speak disparagingly about foreigners (or as it usually rendered when quoting suspicious rural folk in the US, "them furriners").


----------



## duvija

I do believe that using the singular for a group, has some added values (or lack of them). '¿Habían muchos extranjeros...?' sounds to me much better than 'Había mucho extranjero...' 
Does anyone agree? (or I'm nuts? don't answer!)


----------



## inib

@ Duvija. Well, even in plural the verb would be "había", not "habían" as Ricardo and K-in-sc pointed out, but I see your point about the Spanish, "mucho extranjero" vs "muchos extranjeros". It's common to hear it expressed that way here, but you might be right that there is a critical tone about it, as in "Hay mucho listo/mucho mangui etc por aquí".


----------



## aztlaniano

RicardoElAbogado said:


> I was not seriously suggesting that the term "aliens" was less harsh than foreigners.


How can "foreigners" be considered "harsh"? Every single person on the planet is a "foreigner" in the eyes of the vast majority of the rest of humanity.
And "alien" is just "foreigner" expressed in legalistic jargon.


----------



## Marialejandra González

The first is bad.

'Did there use*d* to be a lot/many foreigners in this part of the city?'

You alredy are let it cleare that is in past simple with the 'Did' , why to use a regular verb?

'I *used* to be...'
'I *didn't* *use* to be...'


----------



## Amapolas

Marialejandra González said:


> The first is bad.
> 
> 'Did there use*d* to be a lot/many foreigners in this part of the city?'
> 
> You alredy are let it cleare that is in past simple with the 'Did' , why to use a regular verb?
> 
> 'I *used* to be...'
> 'I *didn't* *use* to be...'


There's much disagreement on this. Logic would dictate that what you explain is correct. However, many native English speakers, and educated NES at that, say _'didn't used to'._ I believe that's because the feel 'used to' as a set phrase, as one word, as it were.


----------



## Bevj

Este hilo es viejo, pero por favor recordad que la pregunta inicial era 
*¿Antes había mucho extranjero por esta zona de la ciudad?
*
Hay otros hilos abiertos sobre la diferencia entre use/used to be y siempre se puede añadir un comentario a uno de ellos, por ejemplo este

Gracias.


----------

