A Grammatical Question

Question

I have recently been trying to read some short stories in Spanish. In one of these stories, the words "¿Que toma el burro?" appear. As far as I can tell, toma means to take. The story has nothing to do with the taking or stealing of the donkey. It does involve the donkey dying however. Could toma refer to death?

If it is any help, the story is called El burro de Buridian.

Many thanks

Welcome to SpanishDict. - rac1, Sep 4, 2014

Answer 1

Some more context please.

Tomar can refer to drinking or eating, as in: What does the donkey eat/drink?

But depending on context it could easily be something else entirely.

El burro de Buridian:

Well I now think it refers to the question of will the burro eat or will he drink? So literally:

¿Qué toma el burro? = Which will he take?

Buridan's Ass

I think you are correct! The story is about a donkey who dies after not being able to decide whether or not he wants to drink or eat. Thank you! - JohnMathewSenior, Sep 4, 2014

Answer 2

I can’t answer for Spanish, but “what took him” is a perfectly understandable euphemism for “what killed him, what did he die of” in English, at least to me.

Here is an example:

http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2013-12-28/chutney-artiste-dies-24

“It all happened so fast, and right now our family don't even know how to move on from this,” Dhanraj said. “We just left forensics as an autopsy was ordered to see what caused his death, not even the pathologist knows what took him from us. He said some tests show that he may have developed pneumonia, but this is not official and further tests have to be done.” He added that Rajin, the youngest of three boys, was the family's light and now that he is gone it will take a lifetime to let go.

Although I suppose I would expect past tense normally.

Edit to add: looking up the story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's_ass

Buridan's **** is an illustration of a paradox in philosophy in the conception of free will. It refers to a hypothetical situation wherein an assthat is equally hungry and thirsty is placed precisely midway between a stack of hay and a pail of water. Since the paradox assumes the **** will always go to whichever is closer, it will die of both hunger and thirst since it cannot make any rational decision to choose one over the other.1 The paradox is named after the 14th century French philosopher Jean Buridan, whose philosophy of moral determinism it satirizes. A common variant of the paradox substitutes two identical piles of hay for the hay and water; the ass, unable to choose between the two, dies of hunger.

It is clear that GringoJRF has the correct interpretation- the question is which, the water or the hay, is the donkey going to take.

I had not even thought of that. Although as you state, past tense would be expected in this case. - gringojrf, Sep 4, 2014

Your thoughts are also good, without more context, it is impossible to resolve. :) - bosquederoble, Sep 4, 2014

I believe that Gringojrf is correct. Thank you for your help though! - JohnMathewSenior, Sep 4, 2014

I do too, having seen a bit more context. - bosquederoble, Sep 4, 2014

It is interesting that it edited out the other name for donkey twice, but not in all cases. :D - bosquederoble, Sep 4, 2014

If something took the donkey however the sentence would change with 'el burro' becoming he direct object instead of the subject - ?qué tomó al burro? - Kiwi-Girl, Sep 4, 2014

Would that only be the case if you ascribed a personal "a" though?- Which you might if you care about the donkey enough to ask about it, but is not a given? - bosquederoble, Sep 4, 2014

Answer 3

Really not a very good paradox. Take the water since you can only live for 3 days without water. Then having water you can return for the food as you can live much longer without food.

JMO.

Very true. Funny story though. Maybe the author is trying to say something about human culture. Then again, maybe it's just a bedtime story :) - 00ffada9, Sep 4, 2014