haha yeah it's usually "stupid" things like this that stick in your mind. I still have "KPCOFGS" stuck in my head from 6th grade (Kingdom Order Class Order Family Genus Species) = "Killer People Often Forget Green [Day] Songs". VERY stupid, I know. Maybe this will be stuck in my head for another few decades haha. Thanks!
I wrote "she goes to him", which was wrong. But is it really? Because I first learned "caminar" in German and there it's "laufen" or "gehen", which both translate to "go" or "walk"... And I simply can't imagine the Spanish using two different verbs for walk and go that in are in no way interchangable.
When you translate, you can't add or delete specificity. The speaker said "walk" so your translation must be walk. "Go" is less specific. Did she run to him? Drive to him? Fly to him? Any of those would fit with "going" to him. So in terms of specificity, no, they are not interchangeable, just as in English.
While I generally agree in this specific case, one of the most frustrating things with learning languages is that it is impossible to preserve specificity in many cases. The most frustrating is when you have to add (possibly false) specificity, as is relatively often the case when translating from an oral language to a sign language.
There are two problems:
to him = hasta él BUT towards him = hacia él
andar can mean either go or walk http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=andar BUT caminar means only "walk"
I am not sure, but the personal a is used with nouns.
- With certain pronouns: This is really more of a clarification rather than an exception. When used as direct objects, the pronouns alguien (somebody), nadie (nobody) and quién (whom) require the personal a. So do alguno (some) and ninguno (none) when referring to people. No veo a nadie, I don't see anyone. Quiero golpear la pared, I want to hit the wall. Quiero golpear a alguien, I want to hit somebody. ¿A quién pertenece esta silla? Whose chair is this? ¿Taxis? No vi ningunos. Taxis? I didn't see any. ¿Taxistas? No vi a ningunos. Taxi drivers? I didn't see any.
I'd say it's because there's already a preposition. "A" is used if the verb were transitive if it weren't about a person. For example, see is transitive so you use no preposition: "veo una cerveza" (I see a beer). But if you see a person, you use "a": "veo a mi madre". Caminar is intransitive, which mean it needs a preposition, so no "a" here. I'm not 100% sure though.
upd: when a person/an object is designated by a pronoun (el/ella), an objective pronoun (le/la) is used with transitive verb. "se que hay una cerveza pero no la veo"/ "se que mi madre esta aqui pero no la veo" (or "no veo a ella").
Hacia is also used to indicate time – • hacia las diez …. “around about ten o'clock” • empezó a perder la vista hacia los sesenta año …. ‘she started to lose his sight at around the age of sixty” • hacia las cinco …. about five; around five • hacia finales de año …. toward the end of the year • hacia mediodía …. about noon; around noon
No, it does not. When hacía is a conjugation of the verb hacer, it has an accent and it is pronounced as 3 syllables: ah-SEE-ah. When it is the preposition toward, it has no accent and it is pronounced as 2 syllables: AH-sya. The accent on the i breaks the -ia dipthong into two syllables.
Yes, always. Any given spelling in Spanish always has exactly one correct pronunciation. ia makes a diphthong, which is always pronounced as one syllable. (An accent on the weak vowel, the i, breaks up the diphthong into two syllables.) Yes, you are correct that hacia él ends up sounding similar to haciél in speech because of liaison in Spanish. ¡Buenas días!
"Él anda por la calle." ;-) Okay, okay; maybe, "Él camina por el camino." "Por la" is used, as if to say, "He walks by way of the street." Via the via, perhaps? But anyway, I really do hear "calle" for street or road in common, everyday Mexican (-American) Spanish (and Spanglish and Texican) speech, not "camino" much at all. :-)
This one always reminds me of “I read somewhere, once, that crying defines scientific explanation. Tears are only meant to lubricate the eyes. There is no real reason for tear glands to overproduce tears at the behest of emotion. I think we cry to release the animal parts of us without losing our humanity. Because inside of me is a beast that snarls, and growls, and strains toward freedom, toward Tobias, and, above all, towards life. And as hard as I try, I cannot kill it.”