Leche

[Iris]

I think the Tomísimo dictionary was having a bad day. As far as I know that word doesn't exist. But let me check:...doesn't appear in my very fat dictionary.

[Iris]

So, it wasn't the Tomísimo dictionary, but Alfonso that was having a bad day.:p

[Tomisimo]

Well, I don't know. I've studied some linguistics, and I've never heard the term syntagma. According to Wikipedia, Syntagma refers to the Greek Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Greece). Wikipedia also mentions Syntagmatic analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntagm).

[Alfonso]

OK, David. Nevertheless, syntagma is an almost non changed Greek word you can use for linguistic proposals.
Sure, some English or American linguistic school used it.
But, of course, the distinction you made between phrase and sentence is enough to know what we talk about.
On the other hand, sintagma is very common in Spanish, as you said, as we usually don't distinguish between frase and oración.

[Iris]

I also found syntagm. And there is another word related to these two: clause for the Spanish proposición.

[Alfonso]

In Spanish you can also say cláusula or proposición. But these are not the same as sintagma.

Sintagma: ... con Perico.
Proposición: ... que te marches con Perico.
Oración: No quiero que te marches con Perico.

[Iris]

I didn't say they were the same, teacher.

[Alfonso]

I didn't mean that, Iris. Sorry if I expressed it wrongly, but I know you didn't. ;)

[Iris]

Apology accepted.:)

[Alfonso]

By the way, I edited the syntagma discussion Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constitution_of_Greece). Let's see what happens.

[Iris]

Why do you always have to say that your English is not good enough? Don't put yourself down. I'm here to do that myself...

[Tomisimo]

Ok, I found syntagma in a regular dictionary and it means a syntactic element. Thanks Alfonso. It's a new word for me.

[poli]

It's really tempting to link this daily word, leche, to Jane's today post, el colmo (http://forums.tomisimo.org/showthread.php?p=7440#post7440), as:

Es el colmo.
Es la leche.
... meaning the same, with the latter being vulgar, and the former not being vulgar (former / latter phrases need to be balanced or they will sound broken.There are less awkward ways of writing writing this, but my my correction here is less intrusive. Additionly, referring to the latter first and the former later is bad form--not quite cantiflando but getting there . Do you use it the same way in other Hispanic countries?
Regarding "hispanic countries". I believe hispanic is an incorrect word choice although it my be technically correct and a matter of symantics. Nevertheless, it fees wrong. Example: Cuban people are hispanic because they are Spanish-speaking, but Cuba is not an hispanic country. Austrians are germanic for the same reason. Austria is not a germanic country but it is a German-speaking country. The people Turmenistan may be Turkic, but Turmenistan is not a Turkik country unless it is owned by Turkey, and it is not.

[Iris]

To me Hispanic doesn't mean that it belongs to Spain, but that it shares the same language, heritage and cultural roots.

[Alfonso]

Poli, regarding ... with the latter being vulgar, and the last not, you are correcting your correction, as you can see following the link below:...Regarding Hispanic countries, that is a political correction I don't share.

Thanks a lot for your effort, and I am not kidding. ;)

[poli]

You acked me to to clarify my corrections several times. Each time I tweeked it a little bit more. Regarding the former/latter thing: refer to later corrections I made and you will note that I have not corrected my
English but yours. As far as "hispanic countries" is concerned, technically
it may be correct, but apolitically and honestly the term Spanish-speaking nations sounds less odd.

Poli
.

[Alfonso]

I'm sorry Poli. I'm a bad person, I know. ;) To me it's clear who proposed the phrase in question, but I think it doesn't matter.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that it's not easy to correct, and that one need to leave aside his own idiolect to consider what might be right and what is wrong in an other's text. For example, the question about Hispanic countries.
OK, it's perfect if you consider this expression a little odd, or you don't agree its political connotations. But, google it:

Hispanic countries: 191.000 entries.
Spanish speaking nations: 28.000 entries. (this one is the last one you proposed).

And:
268.000 de "Spanish speaking countries". (0,68 segundos)

You, bad boy, tried to exchange my Hispanic countries (pointed with 191.000 entries) with your Spanish speaking nations (28.000 entries).

Three possibilities are correct. Is one of them odd? Maybe Spanish Speaking nations... Poli's famous choice.

I know, I welcome all corrections, but it's important to follow some rules for the corrections to be worthwhile: to be as less invasive as possible, to be accurate, not to change the nuance of the text you are correcting, to think that you don't really need to change what is OK in some part of the world, to explain all corrections which are not grammatical (because the very first thing the learner thinks when he sees a corrections is that the grammar is wrong), etc.

I think we have enough confidence to share what I mention. I hope you understand it. Nevertheless, I will understand if you tell me to mind my own business. That's what I'm doing ;).

... I think you will not get upset with me, but if you get: :mad:

[poli]

I'm sorry Poli. I'm a bad person, I know. ;) To me it's clear who proposed the phrase in question, but I think it doesn't matter.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that it's not easy to correct, and that one need(s) to leave (put) aside his own idiolect to consider what might be right and what is wrong in an other's text. For example, the question about Hispanic countries.
OK, it's perfect if you consider this expression a little odd, or you don't agree its political connotations. But, google it:

Hispanic countries: 191.000 entries.
Spanish speaking nations: 28.000 entries. (this one is the last one you proposed).

And:
268.000 de "Spanish speaking countries". (0,68 segundos)

You, bad boy, tried to exchange my Hispanic countries (pointed with 191.000 entries) with your Spanish speaking nations (28.000 entries).

Three possibilities are correct. Is one of them odd? Maybe Spanish Speaking nations... Poli's famous choice.

I know, I welcome all corrections, but it's important (to know that the following rules for corrections are worthwhile. :bad:to follow some rules for the corrections to be worthwhile:bad:: to be as uninvasive as possible, to be accurate, not to change the nuance of the text you are correcting, to think that you don't really need to change what is OK in some part of the world, to explain all corrections which are not grammatical (because the very first thing the learner thinks when he sees a corrections is that the grammar is wrong), etc.

I think we have enough confidence to share what I mention. I hope you understand it. Nevertheless, I will understand if you tell me to mind my own business,(because minding my business is exactly what I'm doing.)I think this is what you mean in not, explain further :bad:That's what I'm doing:bad: ;).

(... I think you will not get upset with me, but if you get:) :mad:
I'm not sure what you mean here, but I think it means:
I don't think you will get upset with me, but if you do get upset,then tough s..t.
Is that what you mean?:rolleyes:


Poli

[Alfonso]

Great, Poli. This is absolutely great. I understand all of your corrections. I'm sorry if I sounded demanding or rude. But I didn't have any other way to express something of my concern!
I owe you a couple of very good corrections and a couple / pair of drinks next time you came to Madrid.
Cheers!
Yes, I meant what you thought!

[Tomisimo]

I'm sorry if I sounded exigent or rude. But I hadn't got any other way to express something of my concern!Exigent probably exists as an English word, but the best translation for exigente would be demanding. "I'm sorry if I sounded demanding or rude".

Also, "I hadn't got" sounds rather strange to me. I'd use "I didn't have" in this case.

I don't have any money :good: = I haven't got any money :good:
I didn't have any money :good: ≠ I hadn't got any money :bad:

I hadn't got OR I hadn't gotten any money sounds like I hadn't received any money to me.

Of course, this might be different in British English etc.