How to say..
We stayed .. for example 'we stayed in a hotel'
46 Answers
Natasha said:
Heidita said:
James Santiago said:
Glasnost, ¡por fin! ¡Hurra!¿Y quién dice que la paz mundial es imposible?
¿Y por qué usas Glasnost aquí?
Glasnost, as in new openness between the opposing superpowers. he he
I think the true meaning of Glasnost was a "supposed" openness between various government departments to provide transparency in the activities of all government institutions in the Soviet Union, together with the sharing of information, ie "freedom of information". They certainly had no intention of opening up to other superpowers. It was also pointed out that Glasnost was like tipping a vase so someone else could look into it, but don't tip it far enough so they can see the bottom. Now it depends on who has the vase, Lazarus or James.
Heidita said:
James Santiago said:
Glasnost, ¡por fin! ¡Hurra!¿Y quién dice que la paz mundial es imposible?
¿Y por qué usas Glasnost aquí?
Glasnost, as in new openness between the opposing superpowers. he he
James Santiago said:
Glasnost, ¡por fin! ¡Hurra!¿Y quién dice que la paz mundial es imposible?
¿Y por qué usas Glasnost aquí'
James Santiago said:
Glasnost, ¡por fin! ¡Hurra!
¿Y quién dice que la paz mundial es imposible?
En el fondo nos lo pasamos muy bien los dos juntos, ¿eh? ¡Confiesa! 
Glasnost, ¡por fin! ¡Hurra!
¿Y quién dice que la paz mundial es imposible'
James Santiago said:
I do not think that the meaning of these verbs changes in Spanish. I completely, totally, and absolutely agree that to a Spanish speaker, there is, for example, only saber, in its various tenses, and that its meaning does not vary. What I do believe, and in fact know to be true, is that the meaning of these verbs changes when translated into English depending on their tense. There is really no doubt about this.
I'm glad we agree, then. I never doubted that the meaning in English changes. As a matter of fact, I have stated that very thing quite a few times in this thread, stressing each time what you just said: it doesn't in Spanish; only in English, where the aspectual difference is expressed with two verbs instead of one. I like your Einsteinian metaphor, by the way.
But I insist on one thing: you wrote "(Spanish) Verbs that change their meaning...", and that is wrong, because the verbs are Spanish verbs, and in Spanish they don't change. The correct thing -also to avoid misleading students- would be to say something like "(Spanish) Verbs that in English have to be translated as two different verbs depending on the tense.".
James Santiago said:
Or, if those words put you off, let's say that, depending on the tense, different English words, whose meanings are distinct in English, have to be used to translate these verbs.
That would be perfectly compatible with the point of view I defend, and (hopefully) it shouldn't confuse any beginner. Believe it or not, students jump to conclusions and get the wrong idea with the original sentence, and later, when you try to get them to think differently, they find the change hard, and always ask you: why didn't you say so in the first place? I've experienced it.
James Santiago said:
*The whole discussion strikes me as Einsteinian. A Spanish speaker is standing on the train (the Saber-ian Express), and an English speaker is on the platform viewing the train. They are looking at the same thing, but they see it differently. That is, it's relative. (This analogy will probably only be clear to those familiar with the theory of relativity.) The meaning changes in English, but not in Spanish. *
So, what we need is a linguistical equivalent to the speed of light, which is the absolute that allows us to change reference frames at will. Sort of like the Universal Translators in Star Trek.
(sorry, can´t help myself)
My main point was that (I very much doubt) that a Spanish speaker says to himself, "Oh, in this case I'll use the preterito perfecto for 'saber' because I want to convey that other meaning of 'saber'". To him, "saber" just means what it means. Changes in tense/aspect may be needed depending on how/when he uses it but the meaning stays the same.
You still seem to be unclear on what I have been saying, so I'll reiterate one last time.
I do not think that the meaning of these verbs changes in Spanish. I completely, totally, and absolutely agree that to a Spanish speaker, there is, for example, only saber, in its various tenses, and that its meaning does not vary.
What I do believe, and in fact know to be true, is that the meaning of these verbs changes when translated into English depending on their tense. There is really no doubt about this.
The whole discussion strikes me as Einsteinian. A Spanish speaker is standing on the train (the Saber-ian Express), and an English speaker is on the platform viewing the train. They are looking at the same thing, but they see it differently. That is, it's relative. (This analogy will probably only be clear to those familiar with the theory of relativity.) The meaning changes in English, but not in Spanish. Or, if those words put you off, let's say that, depending on the tense, different English words, whose meanings are distinct in English, have to be used to translate these verbs.
That is what I have been saying all along, so please, everybody, stop commenting on how the meaning doesn't change in Spanish.
Eddy said:
But surely these alternative meanings don't only apply to Spanish verbs but to English verbs as well. I am not as versed as you guys with regards the complexities of even my own language but I do know to "cleave" has two opposite meanings, one is to "adhere or join" and the other is to "split or break apart".
The OED has two entries for the verb "cleave" (corresponding to the two meanings that you indicated) and it indicates that they have two different etymologies. In effect, it's saying that we started with two different words but they eventually came to be spelled and pronounced the same. There's a lot of that sort of thing in English (more, I think, than in most languages) because of our promiscuous borrowing from so many sources.
My main point was that (I very much doubt) that a Spanish speaker says to himself, "Oh, in this case I'll use the preterito perfecto for 'saber' because I want to convey that other meaning of 'saber'". To him, "saber" just means what it means. Changes in tense/aspect may be needed depending on how/when he uses it but the meaning stays the same.
samdie said:
Natasha said:
I must have missed the whole part about tenses-changing-meaning in Spanish class somehow. So, although I knew about the common sabía / supo distinction, I don't remember learning it as a meaning change, just a translation change, if that makes any sense. For that reason, Lazarus' explanation is very helpful, and especially the examples of exceptions to the "rule."
I agree. To say that a verb "changes it's meaning" is an unfortunate way of putting it. Although we usually say to someone who asks "What does 'saber' mean'", "It means 'to know'." this is not really accurate. The meaning of "saber" (or any other Spanish word) can really only be defined by the way(s) it is used in Spanish. It would be better to say "'saber' is best translated by 'to know' in such and such context. (One may, perhaps, add that it is best translated by 'to meet' in some other context.) What's changing is not "saber" but, rather our choice of the best equivalent word/expression to use in English. Granted, "is best translated by" is somewhat cumbersome to be using all the time and any/most of us would be prone to use the shorthand "means" most of the time but I think it's a good thing to periodically remind ourselves (and others) that the shorthand expression is just that.
But surely these alternative meanings don't only apply to Spanish verbs but to English verbs as well. I am not as versed as you guys with regards the complexities of even my own language but I do know to "cleave" has two opposite meanings, one is to "adhere or join" and the other is to "split or break apart".
Natasha said:
I must have missed the whole part about tenses-changing-meaning in Spanish class somehow. So, although I knew about the common sabía / supo distinction, I don't remember learning it as a meaning change, just a translation change, if that makes any sense. For that reason, Lazarus' explanation is very helpful, and especially the examples of exceptions to the "rule."
I agree. To say that a verb "changes it's meaning" is an unfortunate way of putting it. Although we usually say to someone who asks "What does 'saber' mean'", "It means 'to know'." this is not really accurate. The meaning of "saber" (or any other Spanish word) can really only be defined by the way(s) it is used in Spanish. It would be better to say "'saber' is best translated by 'to know' in such and such context. (One may, perhaps, add that it is best translated by 'to meet' in some other context.) What's changing is not "saber" but, rather our choice of the best equivalent word/expression to use in English. Granted, "is best translated by" is somewhat cumbersome to be using all the time and any/most of us would be prone to use the shorthand "means" most of the time but I think it's a good thing to periodically remind ourselves (and others) that the shorthand expression is just that.
Holy mackerel! You people have written pages and pages here since I left work.
Quentin's illustration is simply awesome, but from my perspective it illustrates the dangers, when teaching adults anyway, of starting with a rule that's later overturned. (You should try teaching imaginary numbers to high school students some time.)
I must have missed the whole part about tenses-changing-meaning in Spanish class somehow. So, although I knew about the common sabía / supo distinction, I don't remember learning it as a meaning change, just a translation change, if that makes any sense. For that reason, Lazarus' explanation is very helpful, and especially the examples of exceptions to the "rule."
látigo said:
Sabía vs supo is a matter of perpective. "Sabía" just embellishes the event, it is static (not advancing the story at all, but just describes the middle), but "supo" does advance the story forward and does decribes the end of a cyclic event ( can find out just once). Pret. advances the story forward while Imp. just embellishes it. (It was cloudy; He was 21 years old; He was tall)- There are too many rules while a few can cover a lot.
I think we all agree with you (what you are saying is exactly my main argument, actually), but there are some concerns about teaching the idea of these tenses straight to beginners.
Sabía vs supo is a matter of perpective. "Sabía" just embellishes the event, it is static (not advancing the story at all, but just describes the middle), but "supo" does advance the story forward and does decribes the end of a cyclic event ( can find out just once).
Pret. advances the story forward while Imp. just embellishes it. (It was cloudy; He was 21 years old; He was tall)- There are too many rules while a few can cover a lot.
James Santiago said:
I don't recall anybody suggesting that this rule should be taught without giving students a sensible explanation.
No one has, explicitly, but that's what the title suggests, and I know it from experience, from answering questions from students: they have been told that "there are certain verbs that change their meaning depending on the tense". Period. Even though they haven't been told that there is no reason for it, the lack of explanation is automatically interpreted by most students (maybe not you) as: it is random, it makes no sense. Many students have actually asked me why does this exception happen in Spanish, despite the fact that neither their book nor their previous teachers have ever suggested that they were exceptions. The brain doesn't work like a machine: it makes sense of the world the best it can, and it fills the gaps if there is information missing, or it doesn't seem to make sense.
Funny enough, maybe we all agree after all, and we are arguing for no reason, but I think you have to be extremely careful when you say things like "Verbs that change meaning in preterit and imperfect". A simple "Verbs that appear to change meaning in preterit and imperfect" would, at least, give beginners a warning for what it is yet to come, and avoid lots of misunderstandings and misinterpretations later on.
