En cuenta de/en cuanto a

[poli]

¿Existe una diferencia en el significado entre ellos?:hmm:
Is en cuenta de wrong? Should it be en cuenta a?

[Rusty]

en cuenta de
= on account of

en cuanto a
= as for
= as regards

[chileno]

en cuenta de
= on account of

en cuanto a
= as for
= as regards

Por cuenta de
= in behalf of

[Rusty]

a cuenta de
= at the expense of

[Fazor]

No pude pescar ayer en cuenta de el frío.

Necesito praticar paciencia en cuanto a atencíon al cliente.

¿Correcto?

[Rusty]

No podía pescar ayer por el frío.

Necesito practicar la paciencia en cuanto a la atención al cliente.

¿Correcto?Some corrections.
no pude = I failed
no podía = I couldn't

Por el frío is the more common way to say 'because it was cold'.

En cuenta de doesn't appear too often without tener, tomar, or caer preceding it, and then you have two different idiomatic expressions.
tener/tomar en cuenta (de) = take into account, keep in mind, consider
caer en (la) cuenta (de) = realize, catch on

[CrOtALiTo]

No pude pescar ayer en cuenta de el frío.

Necesito praticar paciencia en cuanto a atencíon al cliente.

¿Correcto?

I will do a few corrections in your post. I hope this corrections don't bothering you.

No pude pescar ayer porque hacia frio.


Necesito practicar mucho y tener paciencia en atencion al cliente.

I hope those corrections can help you.


Sincerely yours.

[Fazor]

Some corrections.
no pude = I failed
no podía = I couldn't

Is that more of an idiom than a conjugation? Am I right that imperfect verses preterate is generally the difference between a past act that was completed at a specific time verses one that was done at some unspecific time in the past?

Also, one of the things I keep having trouble with is ... indirect object pronouns? I don't know if that's the right term.

Like, if I say "I didn't like the concert." followed by "It was too loud." How do you say the "It was"?

Or, if you're responding to something else, like up above, how would I say "Is that an idiom?" I know there's El, Ella, Ellos, Ellas, Lo, Los, La, and Las. But I have a hard time knowing which to use where, and am always confused when it's at the beginning of a sentence.

[CrOtALiTo]

Rusty. You are setting these corrections about.

But I don't achieve understand the meaning between your hints.

No pude- I failed ( This phrase would to be I can't)

I don't understand this correction.


Please. If you was lovely give me more information about.

[Rusty]

Is that more of an idiom than a conjugation? Am I right that imperfect verses preterate is generally the difference between a past act that was completed at a specific time verses one that was done at some unspecific time in the past? It's not an idiom, but the proper translation of the completed sense of the negated form of the verb in the preterite tense. There are a couple of good threads that teach the differences between the imperfect and the preterite tenses. Search the grammar forum for them. The preterite deals with actions started and ended in the past. The imperfect is used for action started in the past, but not completed. It is used to set the stage for another past action. It is used to describe habitual or repetitive past action. And there are other uses.

Also, one of the things I keep having trouble with is ... indirect object pronouns? I don't know if that's the right term.
Like, if I say "I didn't like the concert." followed by "It was too loud." How do you say the "It was"? Technically, the word 'it' is a subject pronoun. It takes the place of the subject. Subject pronouns aren't always said in Spanish because that information is encoded in the conjugated verb (the grammatical person is established by what ending you chose to use). Since you're talking about the volume level of the music at a concert when you say 'it was', the equivalent is 'fue muy alto (el volumen)'. The parenthetical subject could have been said at the beginning of the sentence or at the end to make sure you weren't misunderstood.

... how would I say "Is that an idiom?"
The word that, in this instance, is a demonstrative pronoun.
Eso, ese, esa, esto, este and esta are the singular demonstrative pronouns. The plurals are formed by adding an 's'. The ones ending in -o are neuter forms, used only when the gender of the object is unspecified or undetermined (unknown). Otherwise, the pronoun must agree in gender and number with the object it represents. In your example, idiom is the object. Since this is modismo in Spanish, the singular masculine form ese is used:
¿Es ese un modismo? -or-
¿Es un modismo ese? -or-
¿Ese es un modismo?

[Rusty]

Rusty, you are making corrections, but I'm not grasping the meaning of one of your changes.

No pude- I failed (This phrase should be I can't) :bad:

I don't understand this correction.

Please, if you would be so kind as to give me more information about this, I would appreciate it.
Have a look at this website (http://www.drlemon.net/Grammar/pretvsimp.html), where it shows the English meanings of no poder in both of the past tenses.

no puedo = I'm not able to -or- I can't
no podía = I wasn't able to -or- I couldn't
no pude = I failed to

[CrOtALiTo]

What does grasping mean?

[Rusty]

to grasp the meaning = lograr entender

[Tomisimo]

Por cuenta de
= in behalf of
on behalf of :)

[Fazor]

no puedo = I'm not able to -or- I can't
no podía = I wasn't able to -or- I couldn't
no pude = I failed to

Now that I look at that again, that makes sense with my current understanding of pret v imperfect (which was, for the most part, the same as you explained).

No pude ir a el banco antes de cerró ayer. -You attempted to go, at a specific time (yesterday), but failed.

No podía ir a el banco ayer porqué trabajé hasta seis de la noche. -You didn't directly attempt to go, but you couldn't because of some circumstance.

Is that the right line of reasoning?

[Rusty]

Now that I look at that again, that makes sense with my current understanding of pret v imperfect (which was, for the most part, the same as you explained).

No pude ir al banco antes de que cerrara ayer. -You attempted to go, at a specific time (yesterday), but failed. (antes de que always requires the subjunctive mood)

No podía ir al banco ayer porqué trabajé hasta las seis de la noche. -You didn't directly attempt to go, but you couldn't because of some circumstance.

Is that the right line of reasoning?Yes, you understand the concept. Take a good look at the website I posted for more information. Getting a grasp on when to use the imperfect and preterite tenses is a trouble spot for all of us learning Spanish.

[CrOtALiTo]

Now that I look at that again, that makes sense with my current understanding of pret v imperfect (which was, for the most part, the same as you explained).

No pude ir a el banco ayer porque cerro antesantes de cerró ayer. -You attempted to go, at a specific time (yesterday), but failed.


My attempt for this example should be.

I failed go to the bank because it close before.

I can't go to the back because it close before.:yuck:

No podía ir a el banco ayer porqué trabajé hasta seis de la noche. -You didn't directly attempt to go, but you couldn't because of some circumstance.

I couldn't go to the bank yesterday because I worked until six clock.

I'm not sure in my translation.

Is that the right line of reasoning?


My suggestion above.

[chileno]

on behalf of :)

jajaja that's right! :D