escuchar

Question

I was taught that "escuchar" means "to listen," but I have heard it used to mean "to hear." Por ejemplo, cuando un amigo estaba hablando por teléfono y había mucho ruido, dijo "repita, por favor. No escucho bien."

¿Es algo raro aquí en Colombia, o se dice así en todas partes? Creo que él estaba hablando con alguien en Venezuela.

Answer 1

There is no doubt that this confusion is a reality for most speakers, and probably people will find ways to avoid ambiguities, such as saying "querer escuchar" rather than just saying "escuchar", which is shorter and more precise. However, I don't intend to get a lobotomy to remove the mother tongue I learnt from my parents, just for the privilege of fitting in a world where the trend is not to have formal instruction, over-simplify words and structures, and reduce the vocabulary and expressive resources to a minimum to satisfy the needs of the (uneducated) majority.

Hopefully, I'll be dead before all this becomes a norm.

Answer 2

I would think you could use both 'oír' and 'escuchar' in that context.

Answer 3

The distinction, in theory, is that "oír" means "to perceive sounds", and "escuchar" means "to pay attention to the sounds", so "No escucho" would mean (in theory) that "I can't be bothered listening to you", but in practice few people appear to be aware of this distinction. I remember a situation where a guy giving a speech said "¿Se me escucha bien'" and a person from the audience said "Escuchamos perfectamente, pero no le oímos bien". I bet most people didn't even understand the joke.

Answer 4

I consider this a real bad mistake, but, it IS used all the time now, in Spain too.
I agree with Lazarus. Oír y escuchar is a completely different verb.

Answer 5

I don't think there was a change in meaning. I think he meant to say that he is unable to listen fully to you with the noise in his background. Implying that he can't listen well to you while all of that noise is going on.

Answer 6

CV, I hear escuchar used often to mean "hear," such as in the following examples.

Nadie me escuchó gritar por dentro.
Nobody heard me scream inside.
Escucho de la mayoría de las personas, sin importar su edad, que...
I hear from most people, regardless of their age, that...
¿Qué vió o escuchó usted hoy que usted cree que su niño puede hacer en la casa?
What did you see or hear today that you think your child could do at home?

In fact, this use of escuchar can be confusing. For example, in English, if someone is talking to us and we don't want to listen anymore, we might say "I'm not listening" (perhaps while holding out a palm). In Spanish, this would be "No te escucho," but since that phrase is often (or even most often) used to mean "I can't hear you," it is better to say something like "¡No quiero escucharte/oírte!" in order to eliminate ambiguity.

This usage may not be strictly correct, but it is extremely common, in my experience.

Answer 7

lazarus1907 said:

There is no doubt that this confusion is a reality for most speakers, and probably people will find ways to avoid ambiguities, such as saying "querer escuchar" rather than just saying "escuchar", which is shorter and more precise. However, I don't intend to get a lobotomy to remove the mother tongue I learnt from my parents, just for the privilege of fitting in a world where the trend is not to have formal instruction, over-simplify words and structures, and reduce the vocabulary and expressive resources to a minimum to satisfy the needs of the (uneducated) majority. Hopefully, I'll be dead before all this becomes a norm.

Demoraste demasiado. ¡Tendrías que haberte muerto antes de que nacitste!

Answer 8

My friend who lives in Mexico came to visit last summer, and in the morning she said my baby had been crying in the night and she rocked him back to sleep. (I never even heard him.) She used escuchar; I think it was ¿No le escuchabas? (It surprised me.) So it's not just in Columbia.

Answer 9

Samdie, don't we have to use the subjunctive after "antes de que"? As in "antes de que nacieras" or "antes de que hubieras nacido"?

But I sympathize with Lazarus. I feel the same way about the distinction between lie and lay, to name just one example. Whenever a language loses a useful distinction, it's somehow sad. But evolution marches on!

Answer 10

Natasha said:

My friend who lives in Mexico came to visit last summer, and in the morning she said my baby had been crying in the night and she rocked him back to sleep. (I never even heard him.) She used escuchar; I think it was ¿No le escuchabas? (It surprised me.) So it's not just in Columbia.

Columbia? You mean the District?

No, this is very common in Mexico and here in the US. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "No te oigo bien" on the phone. (Anti-flame note: I'm not saying that that isn't the proper way.)

Answer 11

James Santiago said:

Samdie, don't we have to use the subjunctive after "antes de que"? As in "antes de que nacieras" or "antes de que hubieras nacido"?

You may well be right. I certainly would for the equivalent thought in English. Unlike Natasha, I don´t normally "beweep my outcast state" (vis a vis the subjunctive) but that is not to say that the subjunctive (in Spanish) never gives me trouble.

Answer 12

ColOmbia!

(I'm always doing that, probably because I live half an hour away from ColUmbia, MO.)

Answer 13

Saying "No te escucho bien" on the phone rather than "oígo" is very common everywhere, not just in Mexico and Combia, and many people don't even understand why sometimes, when they say that, I answer: "Pues presta más atención".

The RAE explains, regarding this verb, that it is a voluntary action, and therefore it implies intention, unlike "oír". They also say that, although using "escuchar" instead of "oír" is not justified, it cannot be censured, for its use is very common, even in good literature.