Culo veo, culo quiero

[ROBINDESBOIS]

this saying is said when somebody likes everybody else to have sex with. Is there a similar expression in English?

[sosia]

For me "a culo veo, culo quiero" can be used in a more general term, not only for sex.
Also spoiled children who wants whatever they see can be used the "culo veo, culo quiero"
Example
A- Mira, Juan ya se ha comprado un móvil nuevo como el de Jorge, a pesar de que el suyo lo compró hace sólo dos meses.
B- Ya sabes como es Juan, culo veo culo quiero. Se compra todo lo que les ve a los demás.
I don't know something similar in english
Saludos :D

[María José]

Yo creo que ya hablamos de esta expresión otra vez. En inglés sería:monkey see, monkey do. No es exactamente lo mismo, pero...

[ROBINDESBOIS]

Ok. Thanks. Sorry

[María José]

No need to apologize. It's impossible to remember all the threads.

[Rusty]

I know it's in the idiom dictionary, if it can't be found in a thread.

[EmpanadaRica]

Funny, in Dutch we have a (quasi?) English term for this:

He's a ' wannahave'

I suppose this is a wordplay or elaboration on 'wannabe' :). But now that I think about it I don't think I have ever heard it being used by English/ American natives?? (Kind of ironic we should use a faux- English term you guys would not be using.. :D)


For me "a culo veo, culo quiero" can be used in a more general term, not only for sex.
Also spoiled children who wants whatever they see can be used the "culo veo, culo quiero"
Example
A- Mira, Juan ya se ha comprado un móvil nuevo como el de Jorge, a pesar de que el suyo lo compró hace sólo dos meses.
B- Ya sabes como es Juan, culo veo culo quiero. Se compra todo lo que les ve a los demás.
I don't know something similar in english
Saludos :D

:D The situation you described here is almost exactly what went through my head when I read the title of this topic! :D

I know this is maybe beyond the scope of this topic but I'd like to ask:

Se compra todo lo que les ve a los demás.

I think my understanding of the grammarrules here is not sufficient. :sad:

' lo que' would in this sense, I think, function as the direct object? (that which Juan is seeing on others) - but I am not sure I understand the function of 'les' ?

Would it also be sufficient to say 'lo que ve' or would that change the meaning dramatically? If so, could anyone explain to me why or refer me to a grammarsource where this principle is explained? I would really appreciate it because I think I am struggling a bit with this rule.:)

[irmamar]

Funny, in Dutch we have a (quasi?) English term for this:

He's a ' wannahave'

I suppose this is a wordplay or elaboration on 'wannabe' :). But now that I think about it I don't think I have ever heard it being used by English/ American natives?? (Kind of ironic we should use a faux- English term you guys would not be using.. :D)




:D The situation you described here is almost exactly what went through my head when I read the title of this topic! :D

I know this is maybe beyond the scope of this topic but I'd like to ask:



I think my understanding of the grammarrules here is not sufficient. :sad:

' lo que' would in this sense, I think, function as the direct object? (that which Juan is seeing on others) - but I am not sure I understand the function of 'les' ?

Would it also be sufficient to say 'lo que ve' or would that change the meaning dramatically? If so, could anyone explain to me why or refer me to a grammarsource where this principle is explained? I would really appreciate it because I think I am struggling a bit with this rule.:)


"Lo que" would be the DO (although this is a bit complex, because relative sentences (oraciones de relativo) are a bit difficult and I don't remember well, since the whole DO would be all the sentence):

- First sentence:

Se compra todo lo que les ve =
Se compra todo "eso" (eso = OD = lo que les ve)

- 2nd sentence

lo que (eso): DO
les (a ellos, a los demás): IO
ve: verb
(Él): eliptic subject

Él les ve a ellos eso.

(eso = lo que)

Well, more or less... I hope you'll understand (I should check sentence analysis)

[EmpanadaRica]

- First sentence:

Se compra todo lo que les ve =
Se compra todo "eso" (eso = OD = lo que les ve)

Entendido, sí, eso es claro y no me ha dado problemas hasta ahora :) :thumbsup:


- 2nd sentence

lo que (eso): DO
les (a ellos, a los demás): IO
ve: verb
(Él): eliptic subject

Él les ve a ellos eso.

(eso = lo que)

Well, more or less... I hope you'll understand (I should check sentence analysis)


Aquí me duele la cabeza un poquito.. :sad: :D

Creo que el problema es que nosotros (es decir, en holandés) no utilizamos el OI (indirect object) de esta manera, y es porque no suelo utilizarlo de este modo que me da problemas aplicarlo / entenderlo. Me parece ser 'superfluo' (bueno -it feels like it would be redundant in the sentence), aunque por supuesto en español lo no es..

¿Creo que se utiliza el object indirecto para indicar (es decir: para ser más específico) donde se encuentra este objeto (DO)? (he sees them (in sentence 2: the objects) on them ('wearing them'))

Pues gracias irmamar, ¡es mucho mas claro ahora!:rose:
Aunque temo que el principio propio (:D) no es tan facíl y un poquito confuso :sad:

[irmamar]

I guess you wanted to say "el mismo principio", instead "el principio propio" ;)

Yes, we are redundant with the IO, but these are the rules. Sometimes we aren't, sometimes we are :hmm::

Dale esto a tu hermano (twice).
¡Dáselo! (just once)

In Spanish exams IO is a trap to catch you :D. Above all when some "leísmo" is accepted by the RAE. For instance, I could say:

Les vi (accepted "leísmo")
or
Los vi (that would be the best way of saying it)

The clue is to transform the sentence into the passive form:

Ellos fueron vistos por mí (=DO)

But if you said:

Les cantó

You can't transform this sentence into passive:

Ellos fueron cantados por él :bad:

Look:

Les cantó una canción = Una canción fue cantada para ellos (por él) -That's logical :)

If it's any consolation to you, it's much worse in Catalonian, and I was able to pass my exams :applause: :)

[EmpanadaRica]

I guess you wanted to say "el mismo principio", instead "el principio propio" ;)

:mad: ¡Oye..! ¡¡No me digas..!!:banghead:

I wanted to say ' The principle in and of itself'/ The principle itself.

I think the origin of my problem with these words resides in the fact that in Dutch we use the same word except they are placed differently in the sentence.
' Het zelfde principe' = The same principle (el mismo principio..?)
' Het principe zelf' = The principle itself (el principio propio..??)



The clue is to transform the sentence into the passive form:

Ellos fueron vistos por mí (=DO)

But if you said:

Les cantó

You can't transform this sentence into passive:

Ellos fueron cantados por él :bad:

Look:

Les cantó una canción = Una canción fue cantada para ellos (por él) -That's logical :)

If it's any consolation to you, it's much worse in Catalonian, and I was able to pass my exams :applause: :)

Sí muy claro gracias :thumbsup:

Yes in fact I did know about this trick of making it into a passive sentence though I confess I have not been actively doing so for a long time! Thanx for reminding me! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: I just had' t realized the 'les' was an indirect object in this case. I suppose because the abbreviated version of the DO can take on the same form in the sentence , I hadn't thought of it as IO (due to not being used to using it in this way).

I'm thinking it may be a good idea if I made some sentences to exercise this in fact, try to get a good feeling for the structure, get used to it. :)

Muchisimas gracias, ¡¡me ayudaste mucho como siempre!! :) :thumbsup: :rose:

[ROBINDESBOIS]

I like " he is a wannahave" it fits like a glove.