Aprender is not really related, as it means to learn. The others are synonyms meaning to understand, and while there are slight differences in nuance between them, you can pretty much consider them the same. (And, yes, everybody, I know there are there other uses of them, but I am intentionally not mentioning those.)

By the way,

¿Qué es la diferencia?

should be

¿Cuál es la diferencia'

Gracias, James, por su explicación y por corregirme. Lo aprecio un montón

"¿Qué es la diferencia'" no es incorrecto, pero es una pregunta muy extraña, porque las únicas contestaciones que se le pueden dar son todas definiciones de "la diferencia":

Es un grupo de dos palabras ("la" y "diferencia")
La diferencia es lo que las cosas no tienen en común.

James Santiago said:

Aprender is not really related, as it means to learn. The others are synonyms meaning to understand, and while there are slight differences in nuance between them, you can pretty much consider them the same. (And, yes, everybody, I know there are there other uses of them, but I am intentionally not mentioning those.)

By the way,

¿Qué es la diferencia?

should be

¿Cuál es la diferencia?

"I know there are there other uses". So nice to know that you CAN make mistakes, however, I bet a pound to a penny that you find away around it, hehe. By the way is "a pound to a penny" amongst your misquotes.

Eddy said:

"I know there are there other uses". So nice to know that you CAN make mistakes, however, I bet a pound to a penny that you find away around it, hehe. By the way is "a pound to a penny" amongst your misquotes.

Well, I was being funny, really, because even though you can make such a question, it is extremely unlikely that native would ever say such a thing. You just don't go asking questions like that. I was just trying to illustrate how does the question sound, and not just a simple "No, it is wrong", for no reason whatsoever. When James said it should have been "Cuál", he was taking a pragmatical approach, and giving the proper translation for what she really wanted to say, discouraging her from using a weird sentence that doesn't mean what she meant to express.

lazarus1907 said:

Eddy said:

"I know there are there other uses". So nice to know that you CAN make mistakes, however, I bet a pound to a penny that you find away around it, hehe. By the way is "a pound to a penny" amongst your misquotes.

Well, I was being funny, really, because even though you can make such a question, it is extremely unlikely that native would ever say such a thing. You just don't go asking questions like that. I was just trying to illustrate how does the question sound, and not just a simple "No, it is wrong", for no reason whatsoever. When James said it should have been "Cuál", he was taking a pragmatical approach, and giving the proper translation for what she really wanted to say, discouraging her from using a weird sentence that doesn't mean what she meant to express.

Hi Lazarus
I was referring to a mistake made by James, not you. In his reply he said "And, yes, everybody, I know there are there other uses of them, but I am intentionally not mentioning those"

Eddy wrote:
"I know there are there other uses". So nice to know that you CAN make mistakes, however, I bet a pound to a penny that you find away around it, hehe. By the way is "a pound to a penny" amongst your misquotes[']

No way around that one, I'm afraid.

As to your phrase, I think it is correct. That is, it is saying that you will bet your one pound to my one penny, and if you are wrong, I get your pound, but if I am wrong, you get my penny. In other words, you are giving 60:1 odds. Obviously, you would only make such a bet if you were positively certain, and that is the point of the expression.

James Santiago said:

Eddy wrote: "I know there are there other uses". So nice to know that you CAN make mistakes, however, I bet a pound to a penny that you find away around it, hehe. By the way is "a pound to a penny" amongst your misquotes[']

No way around that one, I'm afraid.

As to your phrase, I think it is correct. That is, it is saying that you will bet your one pound to my one penny, and if you are wrong, I get your pound, but if I am wrong, you get my penny. In other words, you are giving 60:1 odds. Obviously, you would only make such a bet if you were positively certain, and that is the point of the expression.

I know it is correct and obviously the meaning of it. I was just wondering if you have heard anyone misquote it. I am not getting into the odds argument as you are obviously quoting different currencies and exchange rates, hehe.

Eddy said:

I know it is correct and obviously the meaning of it. I was just wondering if you have heard anyone misquote it. I am not getting into the odds argument as you are obviously quoting different currencies and exchange rates, hehe.
I wouldn't swear to it but I think that I've heard/seen "in for an ounce; in for a pound". Would that do'

samdie said:

Eddy said:

I know it is correct and obviously the meaning of it. I was just wondering if you have heard anyone misquote it. I am not getting into the odds argument as you are obviously quoting different currencies and exchange rates, hehe.

I wouldn't swear to it but I think that I've heard/seen "in for an ounce; in for a pound". Would that do?

I can see the thinking in this but I must say I have never heard it used in this context.

Eddy wrote:
I am not getting into the odds argument as you are obviously quoting different currencies and exchange rates, hehe.

Yes, I momentarily confused a crown (5 shillings, with each shilling equal to 12 pence) with a pound (20 shillings). I'm surprised I did this, as I'm actually pretty familiar with pre-decimal British coinage, having a fairly large collection of British coins. So the odds you gave would actually be 240:1.

Samdie wrote:
I wouldn't swear to it but I think that I've heard/seen "in for an ounce; in for a pound".

If you have heard that, it is an error, and should be added to my list. The pound here is not a unit of weight, but a unit of money, and the correct saying is "In for a penny, in for a pound." That is, if you are going to invest in something, you might as well invest enough to make a real killing. A similar saying is "As well hanged for a sheep as for a lamb."

James Santiago said:

Samdie wrote:

I wouldn't swear to it but I think that I've heard/seen "in for an ounce; in for a pound".

If you have heard that, it is an error, and should be added to my list. The pound here is not a unit of weight, but a unit of money, and the correct saying is "In for a penny, in for a pound." That is, if you are going to invest in something, you might as well invest enough to make a real killing. A similar saying is "As well hanged for a sheep as for a lamb."
That's why I mentioned it. When Eddy asked if "pound for a penny" were among "your misquotes", I was reminded of the misquote of "In for a penny, in for a pound." that turns on misunderstanding the intended meaning of "pound".