Translation:I'm not drunk, I'm just intoxicated by you.
"Intoxicated" does mean "drunk", but my understanding is that "intoxicado" means "poisoned". A false friend.
I had to think about it for a bit at first. If you think of being drunk as the early stages of alcohol poisoning, it makes a bit more sense. The English language has ascribed the connotation of inebriation to intoxication. If you look at the root work "toxic" it's easier to get past the American cultural connotation of "drunk". Literally, "drunk" is the past test of "drink" which isn't specific to alcohol. Based on context, we simply understand what context is being used. For example, "I have drunk all the soda in the cooler." And of course a "drinking fountain" isn't confused for an alcohol fountain. From this perspective, for Spanish to make "poison" a colloquialism for inebriation, isn't much of a stretch.
I don't think it is a false friend. From checking a few dictionaries it looks like it has all the same meanings intoxicate has: http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=intoxicado.
Maybe it depends on the particular Spanish-speaking region, but from what I understand, when someone hears "intoxicado", they understand "poisoned". But I think when English speaking people hear "intoxicated", they understand "drunk".
Maybe not technically a "false friend", but it does seem to be an opportunity for misunderstanding.
I wonder if they use the word just as english speakers do. Most of the time when we say just, its irrelevant or really not just. Like when a little kid gets in big trouble for hitting someone, he might say "but I just kicked him" using the word just as a way to say that was all he did. I think in this way, if we translated the sentence, we would use solo, but maybe if his parents thought he was right to kick the bully, we could use the word for just as it was justified.
Im just trying to think about why the word "just" isnt used here and this is only a guess so if im right or wrong some confirmation would be great.
Thank you for the clarification. Without the comma separation I was drawn askew by trying to describe the more typical Spanish use of the double negative that rarely surfaces in English, but apparently is a more advanced concept than we have been introduced to on DL, as yet.
People do use 'intoxicado' in Spanish, so as far as i'm aware it works fine in Spanish. What doesn't work is the English translation! "I'm not drunk, just poisoned by you"???! That doesn't sound romantic, but more like something off CSI. A better translation would be, well, pretty much any other translation!! Try "I'm not drunk, just drunk for you" or "I'm not drunk, just drunk on your love". In any case, 'poisoned' is definitely NOT the word you're look for here in the translation. It can never be used in romance unless your name is Sleeping Beauty and you're telling the Prince your life story.
I think a more appropriate idiomatic translation would be something like, "I'm not drunk, I'm under the influence of you." You're right PorquePuedo, that it's not romantic. You can say in English that someone has an intoxicating effect (either by looks, character or influence...) I might describe a highly seductive person as being intoxicating however being "just intoxicated by you" sounds awkward rather than romantic to me.
DJGute, to respond to your comment beginning "Whether or not", I don't think there is a grammatical error in your sentence, but I do think there is a usage error. "intoxicated for" isn't used in English. Yes, it would be understood, but it is something a non-native speaker would say.
Hmm. "I am intoxicated on tequila" sounds fine to me, but to me it sounds somewhat medical. Maybe the medical aspect is why "intoxicated on you" sounds very strange. I think "intoxicated by you" may be the only idiomatic way to use intoxicated in this context.
(For me, "drunk on you" sounds strange in exactly the same way.)
I agree. I think insisting that it should be "intoxicated by you" is beside the point. That's over parsing a line, presumably idiomatic Spanish. There are English language idioms, such as "over the moon for you" and "jumping for joy," that arguably make as much sense in English as "intoxicated for you." Here, I interpret the preposition "for" to mean "because of." DJGute's assertion that his version is "clear and correct" seems as reasonable a position as anyone claiming "intoxicated by you" is a proper translation.
I appreciate that "intoxicated by you" might seem more sensible to some, but that's not a good enough reason to invalidate "intoxicated for you." Certainly, there is no "common usage" ground here, since this is a somewhat nonsense phrase in the first place.
Finally, a decent English language dictionary would, in fact, include an entry for "for" that would fit DJGute's translation.
Now, what was that about "poisoned"?
Guess Duo threw that in there for those who often need to explain why they're acting like a drunken creeper, while they simultaneously continue to flirt; thus proving that they are in fact Gross Drunken Creepers. ...That's pretty nice of 'em lol ^_^; they're lookin' out for everybody aren't they?
In the movie Rio Bravo, a great western btw, former sheriff's deputy Dude (Dean Martin), acquired the contemptuous nickname Borrachón, which means drunk I understand. What's the difference between borracho and borrachón? Why does the latter have an 'n' and the mark over the o--is that a peculiarity to Mexico?
Heh, yeah, I was thinking the same thing after I posted it. I guess I shouldn't have said "temporary".
It doesn't matter whether it is actually permanent or temporary. It only matters whether it's a characteristic/occupation/etc or a condition/location/etc. Even if your hair is only blue for a couple of hours, it's "ser". Even if Madrid is always in Spain, it's estar.
Actually, that is an interesting point. If 'Fred' is born with blond hair, it is 'ser', but if he is prone to dying it different colours (he is a punk, afterall) would you not use 'estar' in this case? The same as someone who is usually stupid, you would use 'ser' but if a normally intelligent person is being 'a bit thick' one day, you would use 'estar' (just thinking about a lesson by the wonderful Ben and Marina from 'Notes is Spanish')
Well, I know that you can both ser mal (be evil) and estar mal (be sick). Maybe there are other things like that can be both characteristics and conditions.
But my understanding is that it would always be "ser" for being blond because hair colour is always considered to be a characteristic.
I sometimes wonder whether the mnemonic of "temporary" vs "permanent" does more harm than good. It took me a long time to shake it off.
Do you have a link to the Notes in Spanish lesson you're recalling?
Hi Barbara I can't remember which lesson it was on, but here is the link to the site : http://www.notesinspanish.com/category/beginners-podcast/ I listen to it a lot, so when I catch it again, I'll let you know!
Soy has a connotation of permanence, or being by definition.... Estoy has a connotation of describing a state of being, a temporary condition, or a place of being.
So, since drunk cannot be a state that defines you (even a true drunkard still has to drink to maintain that state), you use estoy with borracho.
You'll see estoy and all its conjugations a lot more as the lessons go on.
For maximum confusion, Spanish has to words for "to be", ser and estar. So "estoy" also means "I am".
Here's my favourite site that explains when to use which one. http://www.spanishdict.com/guide/ser-vs-estar For me, the quiz at the end is the part that makes it really useful. (The first time I visited the page, I skipped straight to the quiz, and only read the page after I finally passed the quiz.)
The english phrase is (partly) used in "Twighlight"... so this lesson is not for using it yourself, just to help you understand "literature"...
"Besides, friends don't let friends drive drunk," he quoted with a chuckle. I could smell the unbearably sweet fragrance coming off his chest. "Drunk?" I objected. "You're intoxicated by my very presence."