No me queda más?
Ok, translated this says, I have no more to give. I am just not getting this. I thought tengo was 'I have.' Quedar is, to remain, to stay.
So then, how can that say I have no more to give. What in that sentence is making this change? If I am telling someone in English, I have no more to give, those are the only words I would use. Or I could word it differently by saying, I don't have anything left to give. Granted, that wouldn't be the best way to say that but, and I know James will get me for this, hehe, how else can you take the word have? And by all means Lazarus and James, do feel free to give me a few sentences that would help me adjust my thinking.
You would think that after about 4 or 5 months of lessons, I would have a better understanding than I do. But as I get older, I find learning something new is a bit more challenging. So ALL input would be greatly appreciated. This forum is one place I have learned so much. Paralee is an awesome teacher, but she can only fit so much time into each lesson. I look at older threads and see where I went wrong. This forum is invaluable due to the experienced ones who exercise great patience with people like me.
9 Answers
Thank you. I hardly deserve your patience because the word being new to me, I might have first taken a moment to look up its spelling. In fact, I might have taken a moment to look up what it means! I will do that now.
lazarus1907 said:
Janice, the term is pronominal, from pro- + nomial (the word nomial doesn't exist), from Latin "nominalis". Notice words like nominate (not "nomiate"), denomination and ignominius.
>
Janice, the term is pronominal, from pro- + nomial (the word nomial doesn't exist), from Latin "nominalis". Notice words like nominate (not "nomiate"), denomination and ignominius.
Ah..I was indeed off base - with regards to the grammar, which I think I am going to have to learn more about now! I have to admit that I am not at all sure that I would ever recognize on my own the difference between a pronomial verb and a verb simply referring to an indirect object. I do, at least know what an indirect object is and so understand your explanation, Samdie. Thank you. I read "pronomial verb" for the first time in my life looking up "quedar" in the dictionary. I should not perhaps have been so bold. But hey! we figured out, Wendy and I, how that sentence could mean what it means! And so did Redemida by feel - What a wonderful way to learn! and how I look forward to the day when I will be able to feel in Spanish.
samdie said:
Redimida said:
I'm interested to see what James or Lazarus have to say on this one as well, because I don't think this explaination works. But I can't explain why. Though I did attend a good language school, most of my language learning has been hands on. So I interprete a lot of things by feel. I would say that it can't be "quedarse" because the subject and the the object aren't the same here. "Me queda" is more like it remain with me or in this case in me. I could say "me queda cinco pesos." Which feels to me like I had more I've spent most of it, but I still have five pesos. What it is really saying is "five pesos remain" and i am their indirect object. If I said "me queda mucho trabajo" I would be saying I still have a lot of work left to do. Not a direct translation, but that is how I would use it.
Janice said:
Just guessing here, but if "quedar" has a sense of "to remain" and your sentence uses it as a pronomial verb "quedarse", perhaps it means that nothing remains of you...or, "you have no more to give." Is that possible'Incidentally, my web browser only shows an "r" as the subject of your post, but a few minutes ago, it showed a complete sentence. I hope I remember the sentence correctly as having "me" in it. I could otherwise be way off base with this. (and, of course, may be anyway
"quedarse" is pronominal in something like "Voy a quedarme un rato." (I'm going to stick around for a while) or "Me quedo aquí." (I'll stay here.) but in "No me queda más" it is not pronominal. the "me" is simply the indirect object of "quedar".
If "No me queda más" is the complete sentence, then it means "I have no more (whatever we've been talking about)." An excruciatingly close/literal translation could be "For/to me there does not remain more (of whatever)." If the sentence were "No me queda más remedio." it could be translated as "I am left with no alternative." (which, as a translation, has the virtue of preserving "left") or (in somewhat more colloquial English) "I have no other choice."
P.S. Me quedan cinco pesos.
>
I think Samdie's explanation is as clear as it gets: in that sentence it is not pronominal. The pronoun just indicates who is "affected" by the fact that there isn't anything left of something in particular. This pronoun can be removed, and then the sentence would simple become "There aren't any left":
No me quedan galletas = "To me, there are no biscuits left" (I have no biscuits left)
No quedan gallegas = There are no biscuits left
In Spanish they are identical sentences, but in one there is an "affected" person to be mentioned, and in the other one there isn't. In English you would rephrase the entire sentence for either case.
No me queda más remedio = I have no other choice
No queda más remedio = There isn't any other choice
Not that he needs it, but I completely agree with samdie here. The literal translation of "No me queda más" is "No more is left to me." Obviously, that sounds odd in English, so we would phrase it differently. You could say "I have no more to give (you)" more literally in Spanish, as "No tengo más que dar(te)," but the Spanish you gave sounds perfectly natural in this context.
Redimida said:
I'm interested to see what James or Lazarus have to say on this one as well, because I don't think this explaination works. But I can't explain why. Though I did attend a good language school, most of my language learning has been hands on. So I interprete a lot of things by feel. I would say that it can't be "quedarse" because the subject and the the object aren't the same here. "Me queda" is more like it remain with me or in this case in me. I could say "me queda cinco pesos." Which feels to me like I had more I've spent most of it, but I still have five pesos. What it is really saying is "five pesos remain" and i am their indirect object.
If I said "me queda mucho trabajo" I would be saying I still have a lot of work left to do. Not a direct translation, but that is how I would use it.
Janice said:
Just guessing here, but if "quedar" has a sense of "to remain" and your sentence uses it as a pronomial verb "quedarse", perhaps it means that nothing remains of you...or, "you have no more to give." Is that possible'Incidentally, my web browser only shows an "r" as the subject of your post, but a few minutes ago, it showed a complete sentence. I hope I remember the sentence correctly as having "me" in it. I could otherwise be way off base with this. (and, of course, may be anyway
"quedarse" is pronominal in something like "Voy a quedarme un rato." (I'm going to stick around for a while) or "Me quedo aquí." (I'll stay here.) but in "No me queda más" it is not pronominal. the "me" is simply the indirect object of "quedar".
If "No me queda más" is the complete sentence, then it means "I have no more (whatever we've been talking about)." An excruciatingly close/literal translation could be "For/to me there does not remain more (of whatever)." If the sentence were "No me queda más remedio." it could be translated as "I am left with no alternative." (which, as a translation, has the virtue of preserving "left") or (in somewhat more colloquial English) "I have no other choice."
P.S. Me quedan cinco pesos.
I'm interested to see what James or Lazarus have to say on this one as well, because I don't think this explaination works. But I can't explain why. Though I did attend a good language school, most of my language learning has been hands on. So I interprete a lot of things by feel.
I would say that it can't be "quedarse" because the subject and the the object aren't the same here. "Me queda" is more like it remain with me or in this case in me. I could say "me queda cinco pesos." Which feels to me like I had more I've spent most of it, but I still have five pesos. What it is really saying is "five pesos remain" and i am their indirect object.
If I said "me queda mucho trabajo" I would be saying I still have a lot of work left to do. Not a direct translation, but that is how I would use it.
Janice said:
Just guessing here, but if "quedar" has a sense of "to remain" and your sentence uses it as a pronomial verb "quedarse", perhaps it means that nothing remains of you...or, "you have no more to give." Is that possible'Incidentally, my web browser only shows an "r" as the subject of your post, but a few minutes ago, it showed a complete sentence. I hope I remember the sentence correctly as having "me" in it. I could otherwise be way off base with this. (and, of course, may be anyway
>
Ahhhh, How could I not think of it that way? Of course. That has to be it. Thank you Janice. I was feeling pretty frustrated. I edited it to the right title. I must have hit a wrong button after submitting it. Thanks again.
Just guessing here, but if "quedar" has a sense of "to remain" and your sentence uses it as a pronomial verb "quedarse", perhaps it means that nothing remains of you...or, "you have no more to give." Is that possible?
Incidentally, my web browser only shows an "r" as the subject of your post, but a few minutes ago, it showed a complete sentence. I hope I remember the sentence correctly as having "me" in it. I could otherwise be way off base with this. (and, of course, may be anyway
