Mexico Connect
Forums  > Specific Focus > Learning Spanish
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All


sioux4noff

Oct 25, 2009, 7:37 AM

Post #1 of 26 (13998 views)

Shortcut

escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply
When the plumber was at our house the other day, he was petting our 2 dogs. He said he liked one better than the other, because one is escandalosa. That one always barks at him.
I hadn't heard that word before and asked another friend. He said you could call the dog ruidosa or escandalosa, but that escandalosa was more commonly used for a barky dog.
Maybe everyone else knew that, but I thought it was interesting.



"El Gringo Jalapeño"


Oct 25, 2009, 8:28 AM

Post #2 of 26 (13984 views)

Shortcut

Re: [sioux4noff] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply
¡Hola, amigos! Racket is probably the equivalent to "escandalo". Esta mujer trae una ropa muy escandalosa That woman has on really loud cloths. Los artistas del cine y los politicos siempre andan en el escandalo. Movie stars and politicians are always doing something scandalous.
There are lots of other uses, but I have to go on my Sunday bike ride.
¡Hasta pronto!
Roy B. Dudley "El Gringo Jalapeño" See more about Xalapa at www.xalaparoy.com


sioux4noff

Oct 25, 2009, 8:45 AM

Post #3 of 26 (13978 views)

Shortcut

Re: ["El Gringo Jalapeño"] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply

Quote

Yo tambien!


esperanza

Oct 25, 2009, 10:21 AM

Post #4 of 26 (13966 views)

Shortcut

Re: ["El Gringo Jalapeño"] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply

In Reply To
¡Hola, amigos! Racket is probably the equivalent to "escandalo". Esta mujer trae una ropa muy escandalosa That woman has on really loud cloths. Los artistas del cine y los politicos siempre andan en el escandalo. Movie stars and politicians are always doing something scandalous.
There are lots of other uses, but I have to go on my Sunday bike ride.
¡Hasta pronto!

In the sense of clothing (especially women's clothing), escandaloso/a means shocking, shameful, or outrageous, not loud. For example:

El escote de ese vestido es muy escandaloso.
The neckline of that dress is shocking.
Qué escandalosa la minifalda de esa chica, por poco se le ve los chonitos.
How outrageous that girl's miniskirt, you can almost see her underpants.

To express the word 'loud', say chillante.
El color verde limón de su pantalón es muy chillante, no crees?
The lime green color of her pants is very loud, don't you think?


http://www.mexicocooks.typepad.com









Manuel Dexterity

Oct 25, 2009, 10:43 AM

Post #5 of 26 (13959 views)

Shortcut

Re: [esperanza] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply

In Reply To

Qué escandalosa la minifalda de esa chica, por poco se le ve los chonitos.


"se le VEN"


mazbook1


Oct 25, 2009, 4:11 PM

Post #6 of 26 (13940 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Manuel Dexterity] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply
Sorry, esperanza has it right! But the le should probably be les, since it refers to los chonitos. About the les, that's only IMO, and I don't pretend to be an be an expert on Spanish grammar and that's one of those strange nouns that only has a plural.

BTW, esperanza, where in México are underpants called chonitos? All I've ever heard up here in the wilds of Sinaloa is calzones.


Peter


Oct 25, 2009, 4:33 PM

Post #7 of 26 (13936 views)

Shortcut

Re: [mazbook1] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply
Depends if she was speaking second (or third) person plural.

All the time (all my life, almost) that I lived in southern California I only heard "chones" for underwear. Until I got here I thought calzone was an Italian sandwich.


(This post was edited by Peter on Oct 25, 2009, 4:47 PM)


La Isla


Oct 25, 2009, 4:52 PM

Post #8 of 26 (13933 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Peter] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply

In Reply To

All the time (all my life, almost) that I lived in southern California I only heard "chones" for underwear. Until I got here I thought calzone was an Italian sandwich.


And so it is, along with being the Italian word for pants! "Chonitos" is a new word for me. Is it a Mexican regional term?


Manuel Dexterity

Oct 25, 2009, 5:05 PM

Post #9 of 26 (13928 views)

Shortcut

Re: [mazbook1] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply

In Reply To
Sorry, esperanza has it right! But the le should probably be les, since it refers to los chonitos. About the les, that's only IMO, and I don't pretend to be an be an expert on Spanish grammar and that's one of those strange nouns that only has a plural.


Uh no, maz. You are wrong again. Le refers to the muchacha. The verb needed to match the plural form of the object, in this case chonitos.



Chonitos is a slang diminutive form for calzones, kinda like baby talk.

Cal(zones) > chones > chonitos (or sometimes) choncitos.


esperanza

Oct 25, 2009, 6:34 PM

Post #10 of 26 (13920 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Manuel Dexterity] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply
se le ven is correct, thank you for noticing.

And yes, chonitos is the baby-talk diminutive for calzones. It's not a regional thing--you hear it all over the country. There are a zillion diminutives of this kind, a sort of baby talk combined with -ito(a).


http://www.mexicocooks.typepad.com









(This post was edited by esperanza on Oct 25, 2009, 6:36 PM)


mevale

Oct 25, 2009, 8:25 PM

Post #11 of 26 (13903 views)

Shortcut

Re: [mazbook1] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply

In Reply To
Sorry, esperanza has it right! But the le should probably be les, since it refers to los chonitos. About the les, that's only IMO, and I don't pretend to be an be an expert on Spanish grammar and that's one of those strange nouns that only has a plural.


"Les" is the plural form of "le" and both are indirect object pronouns.
"Le compré un regalo." (I bought her a gift.)
"Les compré un regalo." (I bought them a gift.)


Peter


Oct 27, 2009, 9:36 AM

Post #12 of 26 (13855 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Peter] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply
Qué escandalosa la minifalda de esa chica, por poco se le ve los chonitos.
How outrageous that girl's miniskirt, you can almost see her underpants.
______________

I was being somewhat flippant with my earlier reply about 2nd person plural as my main comment was about the use of the word "chonitos." I was happy with the original statement and how I understood it at the time, as a general statement. Subsequent comment made me jump back in and do some homework as now I understood it as a reflexive-verb phrase, and that "verse" has the additional meaning of 'to appear' or like 'parecer.'

Those darn reflexive verbs can be confusing, but whether I viewed this as a general statement or a reflexive verb phrase it had the same meaning to me, only the grammar was changed to confuse the innocent.

In either context the subject, object, and indirect object was different or pertained to different elements, but the clause itself had the same general meaning. Perhaps that is why reflexive verbs work as they do and have different meanings than the verb in non-reflexive form. Am I now a step closer, or further away?

I asked my ladyfriend about the statement and she thought it OK as originally written. But after discussing with her how I analyzed this she thought again and suggested, "..., por poco se ven los chonitos." She felt in this reflexive form the indirect object was not applicable or necessary.


(This post was edited by Peter on Oct 27, 2009, 9:42 AM)


esperanza

Oct 27, 2009, 11:09 AM

Post #13 of 26 (13837 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Peter] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply
For non-native speakers of Spanish, this is one of the most difficult constructions in the language. It's really hard to wrap your brain around the combination; it's counter-intuitive and actually non-grammatical in English.

Qué escandalosa la minifalda de esa chica, por poco se le ven los chonitos.

Translating it this way will help you see why the verb is se ven: That girl's miniskirt is outrageous, the underpants are almost seen to her.

Remember that in Spanish, body parts and one's clothing are preceded by an article, not a possessive pronoun. "Me lavé las manos." 'I washed the hands to me.' "Me las lavé." 'I washed them to me.'

This usage is called 'the dative of interest', the 'ethical dative', or the 'dative of advantage'. It's like saying in English, "The lights went dead on me." My English teacher is rolling over in her grave--went dead ON ME! Oh no! Let's say it like this, instead: "The lights went dead to me." That's not an English usage, but it is a literal translation of the Spanish indirect object.

In this case, the subject of the sentence is los chonitos (the underpants).
The indirect object is le (to her).
And the verb is verse, the reflexive verb that means ' to appear, or to see myself, himself, herself, etc'.

So: the indirect object le is placed in between the se and the ven, and as in a good deal of Spanish sentence construction, the subject los chonitos is placed at the end of the sentence.

Other examples:

Se me apagaron las luces.
The lights went dead (on me).
Se nos echaron a perder los huevos. The eggs went bad (on us).

Does this help? It's extremely difficult because generally we don't think about all this in English. Most Spanish-speakers don't think about it either; as in English, it's simply natural to speak like this.

Got all that? Sheesh...


http://www.mexicocooks.typepad.com









Peter


Oct 27, 2009, 12:14 PM

Post #14 of 26 (13827 views)

Shortcut

Re: [esperanza] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply
Thanks, Esperanza. That really uh..., cleared things up. Really, I understood what was happening after I thought about it but I think some other(s) probably did what I did in the beginning and read it as a general statement where you (todo el mundo) could almost see the undies, the general 'you' being the subject of the verb. And like I said earlier, it did not change the general meaning of the statement except that it changed the subject to the chonitos.

I am examining some other similar construction to see if the meaning remains generally the same though the elements change function. I recall my english teachers and their sentence diagraming, and think of how much fun that could be in Spanish with the variables possible. One of my dictionaries did not even list 'ver' as reflexive, or at least not with that meaning.

So who says I no longer lead an exciting life?


La Isla


Oct 27, 2009, 2:03 PM

Post #15 of 26 (13817 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Peter] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply

In Reply To

One of my dictionaries did not even list 'ver' as reflexive, or at least not with that meaning.

So who says I no longer lead an exciting life?


That's why it's advised to have several dictionaries on hand and on-line, since no one dictionary has all the answers we may need!

Well, Peter, I've always considered learning new things a key to having an exciting intellectual life, even when other parts of my life have fallen into unexciting routines.


Manuel Dexterity

Oct 27, 2009, 2:30 PM

Post #16 of 26 (13815 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Peter] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply

In Reply To


One of my dictionaries did not even list 'ver' as reflexive, or at least not with that meaning.

So who says I no longer lead an exciting life?


It didn't list it because verse is just the verb ver with a pronoun attached, another form of the same verb. And just to confuse you further, not all verbs you see with the pronoun se attached to the infinitive form of the verb are reflexive.

That should really make life exciting!


(This post was edited by Manuel Dexterity on Oct 27, 2009, 2:31 PM)


Peter


Oct 27, 2009, 5:37 PM

Post #17 of 26 (13803 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Manuel Dexterity] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply

In Reply To

In Reply To


It didn't list it because verse is just the verb ver with a pronoun attached, another form of the same verb. And just to confuse you further, not all verbs you see with the pronoun se attached to the infinitive form of the verb are reflexive.

Not by any stretch of my imagination could I profess to be an expert on such matters, I'm just trying to make sense of it. For my enlightenment could you please clue me in on what makes a verb reflexive or a tip on how to spot one?


mazbook1


Oct 27, 2009, 8:09 PM

Post #18 of 26 (13796 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Manuel Dexterity] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply
"…not all verbs you see with the pronoun se attached to the infinitive form of the verb are reflexive."

More or less correct, but without enough information to make it anything but very misleading.

If you had said "…not all verbs you see in a sentence with the pronoun se attached to the infinitive form of the verb are reflexive." that would have been absolutely correct. When you see a standalone verb in a dictionary, verb list, etc., with the pronoun se attached to the infinitive, it is always a reflexive verb. If you see a verb infinitive in a sentence with se attached it is unlikely to be a reflexive verb.


colibri1

Oct 28, 2009, 5:24 AM

Post #19 of 26 (13777 views)

Shortcut

Re: [esperanza] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply
Just to pick another nit in this very complicated exchange.....

the addition of "on me" or "on us" in the two sentences provided, implies a state of inconvenience, rather than just possession. It doesn't make the connection to the spanish "me cualqier..." for me.


(This post was edited by colibri1 on Oct 28, 2009, 5:28 AM)


Manuel Dexterity

Oct 28, 2009, 6:27 AM

Post #20 of 26 (13772 views)

Shortcut

Re: [mazbook1] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply
Bañarse en el mar es muy divertido.

Mi hijo tiene dificultad para levantarse en la mañana.

Odia enfermarse.

No le gusta enojarse con nadie pero con la moderadora es difícil.

Fueron al bar a tomarse una cerveza.


(This post was edited by Manuel Dexterity on Oct 28, 2009, 6:40 AM)


colibri1

Oct 28, 2009, 6:42 AM

Post #21 of 26 (13765 views)

Shortcut

Re: [colibri1] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply
I'll reply to myself....this forum is amazing.....looking back on previous discussions of verb forms, I learned that the "on me" IS the passive voice, such as "me lo perdi" and also implies inconvenience. Interesting, I've never understood why it was said this way before.
Thanks all you amazing teachers out there. I need to stay current on this forum!
Marianne


Peter


Oct 28, 2009, 8:09 AM

Post #22 of 26 (13751 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Manuel Dexterity] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply

In Reply To
It didn't list it because verse is just the verb ver with a pronoun attached, another form of the same verb.

Actually, verse is a reflexive verb. Perhaps it is just not as commonly used in its reflexive form. Merriam-Webster is just a better source than my Guide to Spoken Spanish, just fewer phrase examples provided.


esperanza

Oct 28, 2009, 8:39 AM

Post #23 of 26 (13744 views)

Shortcut

Re: [colibri1] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply

In Reply To
I'll reply to myself....this forum is amazing.....looking back on previous discussions of verb forms, I learned that the "on me" IS the passive voice, such as "me lo perdi" and also implies inconvenience. Interesting, I've never understood why it was said this way before.
Thanks all you amazing teachers out there. I need to stay current on this forum!
Marianne

Marianne, the 'on me' or 'to me' construction in Spanish is not the passive voice.

Rather, in the construction we've been discussing--the sentence about the chonitos--the se le ven portion uses "le" as an indirect object. Nothing in the use of an indirect object implies the passive voice.

For example:
Se me cayó el vaso.
The glass fell to me (ie, I dropped the glass.)
Se le perdió la corbata.
To him, the tie was lost. (ie, he lost his tie.)
A mi mamá, le encanta la fresa..
To my mother, the strawberry enchants to her. (ie, My mother loves strawberries.)

Indirect objects all--passive voice, none.

Read on: http://users.ipfw.edu/.../courses/passive.htm


http://www.mexicocooks.typepad.com









(This post was edited by esperanza on Oct 28, 2009, 8:41 AM)


jerezano

Oct 28, 2009, 9:52 AM

Post #24 of 26 (13737 views)

Shortcut

Re: [colibri1] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply
Hola a todos:

Let me weigh in on :>>>> ¡Qué escandalosa la minifalda de esa chica, por poco se le ven los chonitos! I want to do this because the whole discussion is becoming very confusing. So let me either add to the confusion or help to clear it up. I hope to do the latter.

Reflexive verbs are one thing and passive sentences are another. Colibri1 is getting there. Passive sentences constructed with the pronoun se (oneself, yourself, themselves, etc.) are not the same as sentences constructed with a reflexive verb. For example: Se me quemaron los frijoles. The beans burned themselves (for, to, etc.) me. We would translate this into English as "The beans were burned." Not I burned the beans because I don't want to take the blame. Not that Teresa burned the beans because I don't want to throw blame on her either. In other word a passive construction where the actor is not even mentioned. Yet in the sentence Se me quemaron los frijoles it appears that quemarse is a verb. Not so. The Real Academia Española says:>>La palabra quemarse no está en el Diccionario. Let's take another example of the passive construction: Se me invitaron ir con ellos. It appears here that invitarse is a reflexive verb. Not so. Invitarse is again not in the diccionary. We would probably translate this sentence as: I was invited to go with them. Again a passive construction. Actors not mentioned.

>>>... por poco se le ven los chonitos! Word for word translation: ...por poco=almost se=themselves/ le=on her/ ven=her panties see/ los chonitos=panties and is the subject of the phrase. (Se (themselves) refers to panties. Le is to her, on her, for her, etc. Awkward translation is: her panties almost see themselves on her. Better translation is her panties can almost be seen on her. The preposition that goes with le is any which fits.

Now to add to the confusion. The Real Academia Española (RAE) says there is no such word as verse.>>>La palabra verse no está en el Diccionario. They also say that the word irse doesn't exist:>>> La palabra irse no está en el Diccionario.Yet we know that here in México ir means to go and irse means to go away. Now although there is no such verb as verse our friend Esperanza with more experience here than I, says that verse means:>>> And the verb is verse, the reflexive verb that means ' to appear, or to see myself, himself, herself, etc'.<<< So I am am willing to accept her meaning that the verb ver is to see and se is oneself, yourself, themselves, etc. Irse the same thing, go oneself, go yourself, go themselves, etc. But the bible of Spanish says there are no such verbs. That I accept. For that reason I am not willing to accept that there is a verb verse although the verb ver has a pronoun (themselves) separated from itself. So to make it even clearer, the phrase ...por poco se le ven los chonitos can also be said differently, por poco le pueden verse los chonitos. ..her panties are almost able to see themselves on her. Here the pronoun se is attached to ver but the main verb is poder and is in the plural as it should since chonitos (the subject) is plural but verse is now clearly the verb ver with the pronoun themselves attached to it.

By the way, here are some translations of other examples provided by Manual Dexterity

Bañarse en el mar es muy divertido. To bathe oneself in the sea is a lot of fun. Bathing in the sea is a lot of fun. (passive) Bañarse is not in the RAE dictionary.

Mi hijo tiene dificultad para levantarse en la mañana. My son has difficulty in getting himself up in the morning. My son has trouble getting out of bed in the morning. Levantarse is not in the RAE dictionary.

Odia enfermarse. To sicken himself, herself, oneself is hateful. He/she/one getting himself/herself/oneself sick is hateful. Odio enfermarme. My getting sick is hateful. (passive) Enfermarse is not in the RAE dictionary.

No le gusta enojarse con nadie pero con la moderadora es difícil. Hey this is harder. Where is the subject? The moderator? One? Ah! Confusion sets in. With the moderator it is hard for her not to get mad at somebody. It is hard for the moderator not to get mad at somebody. But is this what Manual Dexterity really means? I don't know. He could mean that He/she/ONE (subject understood) doesn't want to get mad with anybody, but it is difficult not to do so with the moderator. What do you think he means?

Fueron al bar a tomarse una cerveza. You all/They (subject understood) went to the bar to get yourselves/themselves a beer. Better construction would be Fueron al bar para tomar una cerveza. That se doesn't need to be there. But, maybe the bar is where we all should go right now. And that preposition a is becoming ubiquitous here in México.

So many verbs which we here in México think of as reflexive really aren't. Or maybe reflexive verbs are a Mexican or Latin American invention?

Getting back to the original sentence:>>>Qué escandalosa la minifalda de esa chica, por poco se le ven los chonitos!<<<< Let's translate that as:>>>That girl's miniskirt is so short it's a scandal, one can almost see her underwear!<<<< Our friend Peter has it right. That is the meaning of the sentence no matter what the literal translation of the nouns or objects or verbs or prepositions might be.

jerezano


(This post was edited by jerezano on Oct 28, 2009, 10:17 AM)


Manuel Dexterity

Oct 28, 2009, 12:45 PM

Post #25 of 26 (13721 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Peter] escandalosa

Can't Post | Private Reply

In Reply To
[
Actually, verse is a reflexive verb. Perhaps it is just not as commonly used in its reflexive form. Merriam-Webster is just a better source than my Guide to Spoken Spanish, just fewer phrase examples provided.



I didn't say it wasn't reflexive.



The reflexive forms belong to a group of verbs called verbos pronominales. These are verbs that have the the pronoun -se attached at the end of the infinitive form. But relexives are only one of several types of pronominal verbs. Like I said in a previous post (forget about Mazbook's silliness) not all verbs with the pronoun -se attached are reflexive. There are also reciprocal and idiomatic pronominal verbs. And linguists will break these down even further but who wants to be so pedantic?

There are a few verbs that only exist in the reflexive form. An example is suicidarse. El pobre se suicidó. T

An example of a reciprocal form would be something like "nos queremos mucho" or "we love each other very much".

Idiomatic pronominal verbs are the ones that change their meaning when the pronoun is attached.. Like the difference between ir and irse.


(This post was edited by Manuel Dexterity on Oct 28, 2009, 2:07 PM)
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 
Search for (advanced search) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.4