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

[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.. )

Originally Posted by 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

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

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.

' 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]

Originally Posted by 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.. )




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

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.

' 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]

Originally Posted by irmamar

- 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

- 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..

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!
Aunque temo que el principio propio () no es tan facíl y un poquito confuso

[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 :

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

In Spanish exams IO is a trap to catch you . 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

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

[EmpanadaRica]

Originally Posted by irmamar

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

¡Oye..! ¡¡No me digas..!!

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

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

Sí muy claro gracias

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! 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!!

[ROBINDESBOIS]

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