Listening comprehension

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

One more exercise for Spanish speakers, I think he raps very clearly... I think English speakers will have fun with it too.

[Perikles]

Excellent - the first rap video I have ever watched until the end.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

The man is hilarious... he has a very entertaining YouTube channel.

[pjt33]

A mí no me parece muy fácil, pero por lo menos es inglés corriente y no hace falta conocer la jerga del rap. Es muy interesante que pronuncia "see" como yo "say".

[Caballero]

Cantadores frequentemente substitute vocales como /i/ e /e/, sin embargo usualmente es a la fin de la palabra por ejemplo "party" como /parte/. Otras modificaciones includen non-rhoticidad y haciendo vocales son como "ah" y "aw" la misma.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

Originally Posted by Caballero

Cantadores Los cantantes frequentemente frecuentemente substitute sustituyen vocales como /i/ e y /e/. Sin embargo, usualmente es a la fin al final ("fin" is also a masculine) de la palabra, por ejemplo, "party" como /parte/. Otras modificaciones includen non-rhoticidad (what do you mean here?) y haciendo vocales son como si "ah" y "aw" fueran la misma iguales.

I suggest that you use a couple of dictionaries to find the words you want to write in Spanish, their right genre, and to make sure you're using the right word for what you mean.

[Caballero]

Si una persona no tiene la rhoticidad, esta persona no usa los r's si son final.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

The word "rhoticidad" does not exist in Spanish... What would you mean in English?

[Caballero]

Interesante. Tiene razón. Yo googleba "rhoticidad" y el sólo resulta era esta página. Sin embargo, la palabra existe en inglés. ¿Cómo se dice "rhoticity" en castellano?

¿Por k no es "cantadores" correcto?

[chileno]

Originally Posted by Caballero

Interesante. Tiene razón. Yo googleba "rhoticidad" y el sólo resulta era esta página. Sin embargo, la palabra existe en inglés. ¿Cómo se dice "rhoticity" en castellano?

¿Por k no es "cantadores" correcto?

Podría ser cantores.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

"Cantador" is specific for flamenco or "cante hondo" singers.

Rhoticity should be "pronunciación de la letra r después de una vocal". As it seems to be a specific word for an English variation, there doesn't seem to be a word in Spanish for it.

[Caballero]

Voto que ponemos la palabra en castellano. Es más facil than the long phrase.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by Caballero

Interesante. Tiene razón. Yo googleba "rhoticidad" y el sólo resulta era esta página. Sin embargo, la palabra existe en inglés. ¿Cómo se dice "rhoticity" en castellano?

No it doesn't. Perhaps you are thinking of rhotacism, the excessive or peculiar use of the letter r. I've just found it in my dictionary between rhopalcerous and rhubarb.

[Caballero]

No it doesn't. Perhaps you are thinking of peculiar use of the letter r. I've just found it in my dictionary between rhopalcerous and rhubarb.

Google tiene aproximadamente 8,210 resultados de rhoticity (Buscando con la palabra Rhoticism tiene sólamente 2,150). -icity está derivada from -ism (rhotic, rhoticism, rhoticity) -icity normalmente coresponde to Spanish -idad.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by Caballero

Google tiene aproximadamente 8,210 resultados de rhoticity (Buscando con la palabra Rhoticism tiene sólamente 2,150). -icity está derivada from -ism (rhotic, rhoticism, rhoticity) -icity normalmente coresponde to Spanish -idad.

That maybe so, but the internet is no reliable source. Neither the BNC (English) nor COCA (American) recognize the word. That's enough for me to say the word does not exist.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

It can be linguistics jargon, so it doesn't have to be included in the dictionaries, but it's true one cannot be inventing words all around.



So, one more exercise... and maybe some pronunciation practice... everyone put your guns down, please.

[CrOtALiTo]

Originally Posted by AngelicaDeAlquezar

It can be linguistics jargon, so it doesn't have to be included in the dictionaries, but it's true one cannot be inventing words all around.

Angelica.

I'm sorry for this correction.

I want to do a little commentary or correction in your post, because you have wrote this in your post.

It can be linguistics jargon, so it doesn't have to be included in the dictionaries
There in that post you have used the third person and instead of you write has you wrote have that it's used in first and second person, therefore I believe you should to use has instead of have.

I hope my correction being correct and I'm be more confused with the post or the has and have uses.

Sincerely yours.

[Rusty]

Crotalito,

What was written was correct.

It has to be ...
It doesn't have to be ...

The first is an affirmative sentence.
The second is a negative sentence.

[CrOtALiTo]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Crotalito,

What was written was correct.

It has to be ...
It doesn't have to be ...

The first is an affirmative sentence.
The second is a negative sentence.

Yes, then the third person there isn't important right?
I mean, if you use the doesn't is third person and that isn't second person for uses the have verb when here it should to takes has verb.

Please clarify me that question, I'm a little confuse with the fact that there in that post is written have instead of has using the third person rules.

I will thanks with you if you can clarify my question or doubt.

[Rusty]

I already explained, but perhaps some examples will help.

John has an apple. (affirmative: has)
John does have an apple. (emphatic: does have)
John doesn't have an apple. (negative: doesn't have)

She sees the apple. (affirmative: sees)
She does see the apple. (emphatic: does see)
She doesn't see the apple. (negative: doesn't see)

The auxiliary verb 'do' is what makes the difference. The auxiliary 'do' is used to form emphatic, negative, and interrogative sentences, and the main verb is not conjugated. So, you only need to learn the conjugations of the auxiliary verb. That agrees with the person.

In the interrogative, we also change where the subject is placed (it goes after the auxiliary 'do').

Does she see the apple?
Does John have an apple?

The auxiliary 'do' was conjugated in the present tense above. As a reminder, here is the conjugation chart for 'do' in the present tense:

1st-person, singular or plural: do
2nd-person, singular or plural: do
3rd-person, singular: does
3rd-person, plural: do

So, if the person changed to 3rd-person, plural, a new conjugation for the auxiliary verb would be used:

They see the apple.
They do see the apple.
They don't see the apple.
Do they see the apple?


Now let's look at what happens in the past tense.
The auxiliary 'do' has only one conjugation in the past tense for all persons: 'did'

John had an apple. (affirmative: had)
John did have an apple. (emphatic: did have)
John didn't have an apple. (negative: didn't have)
Did John have an apple?

She saw the apple. (affirmative: saw)
She did see the apple. (emphatic: did see)
She didn't see the apple. (negative: didn't see)
Did she see the apple?


For the future and conditional, 'will' and 'would' take the place of the auxiliary 'do', and we have no emphatic form.

John will have an apple.
John will not have an apple. -or- John won't have an apple.
Will John have an apple?

She will see the apple.
She will not see the apple. -or- She won't see the apple.
Will she see the apple?

John would have an apple.
John would not have an apple. -or- John wouldn't have an apple.
Would John have an apple?

She would see the apple.
She would not see the apple.
Would she see the apple?