Interesting basically "obtener" follows the same conjugation pattern as "tener". It just has the "ob" in front of it.
"Tener" has the same root as the word part "tain" in English (obtain, contain, attain, maintain etc.).
Mantener, contener, obtener... You see a pattern here.
The ob is a variant of the Latin ab= from, away from so: take away, or get from.
In English I don't think I've ever heard people say that they "obtained" a good education. Grammatically it makes sense, but nobody says that
They might write it, though; I've seen it in biographical sketches. I definitely agree that it isn't the most natural thing, but no language is going to perfectly and naturally translate every time.
Can someone explain why there is "una buena educación" and not "una educación buena"? Thank you.
There are a few adjectives that are very frequently placed in front of the noun, and "buen" is one of them. As for why. . . well, any adjective can be placed in front of the noun, actually, but the meaning changes. Basically, placing the adjective after the noun shows contrast between two or more possibilities (and since that is usually the reason for including an adjective, this is by far the most common placement for most adjectives), while placing the adjective before the noun shows an intrinsic quality. A friend of my father once explained it this way:
You can say, "Gracias por el correo largo," or "Gracias por el largo correo," and they both translate to "thank you for the long letter" but . . .
"Gracias por el correo largo" means that there were two letters, one long and one short, and you're thankful for the long one, not the short one.
"Gracias por el largo correo" means that you are thankful for the letter, and by the way, one property of it was that it was long.
So here, you might say, "ella obtuvo una educación buena, pero su hermano obtuvo una educación mala," or some other such thing, making a contrast between the good education she received and the bad education she might have received, but very often you can treat "a good education" all together as one phrase, with the focus really just on the word "education" and "good" being added as an optional explanation of the quality of the education, thus you say, "una buena educación."
Does that make any sense?
Bet explanation I've seen of this. It has been difficult for me, especially when I see adjectives that go beyond bueno, malo, ordinal numbers, etc. that go in front. It will help A LOT once I have it in the Spanish grammar section of my brain.
Thank you, that was a terrific explaination for something that was confusing me. Its still a little difficult to quickly process the rule. At least it does give a methodology
I listened to it fast and slow and I hear her stressing the tu, not the o in obtuvo.
Both sort of. I know how mumbled the voice on here can be at times, however to my ears I do not here her saying obtuvó there at all. Generally when the stress is on the ending o you can really hear it clearly. You can play around with hearing both versions (even though obtuvó isn't a word, spanishdict.com site wil pronounce it with the stress on the O) here - http://www.spanishdict.com/translate/obtuv%25C3%25B3
Just but in the obtuvó and obtuvo to hear the differences. Hope it helps. To answer your question, it's pronounced obtúvo, so your surmise was correct.
Doesn't educacion have a diferent meaning from education in english??I was led to believe it meant how one was raised, or upbringing.
It would be more accurate to say it has a broader meaning, rather than a different meaning. I have heard the word used in exactly the same way as English, but also when talking about what I would probably translate to "manners" or maybe "upbringing." For example:
"No es buena educación señalar con el dedo." = "It's not good manners to point."
Good education would have enabled her to translate "obtuvo" as received, not obtained!
When a sound is swallowed by the speaker because of dialectal laziness, the tester should not be penalized for not hearing it, and therefore not writing it. When spoken at normal speed the sound is not there. When spoken at slower speed, it is obvious that the person re-said the sentence placing the o back in her pronunciation. I wrote what I heard in normal speed. The o in obtuvo was not audible.
When a sound is swallowed by a speaker due to dialectical laziness it is called normal speech, and it is what you will hear if you ever speak to real people instead of a computer. EVERYONE does it, but each dialect does it a little differently. And EVERYONE speaks a dialect. Some of those dialects are considered more standard than others, but everyone speaks a dialect.
Part of the listening exercises are to be able to fill in the grammar bits that you know should be there, but are hard to hear, as we all do in normal, every day speech. Trying to include all of the "Dialectically lazy swallowed" bits clearly in speech at normal speed is pretty impossible. We just don't hear where we do it in our own language. If you want to hear what it sounds like when an attempt is made not to drop (or elide) the sounds, listen to the English pronunciation on any of the reverse trees at normal speed in one of the higher levels. It is actually harder for a native speaker to understand.
We really only hear about 60% (or less) of what is spoken, and fill in the rest with our knowledge of the language. Part of the problem with a new language is that we don't know what to fill in yet. If you cn rd ths sntc nd ndrstd it you wll see wht I mn.
Cou'nt a said it better m' self. Thank you for your thorough explanation, as well as your abbreviated example.
Language is much like vision, we rarely see the whole picture, but our brains fill in the details. That's why eyewitnesses are not always the best source of evidence.
Unlike English, the "v" sound is not made between your lower lip and upper teeth, but rather between your lower lip and upper lip. The "b" is not "popped", that is, if you put your hand in front of your mouth, you should not feel a significant gust of air. This means that the "v" sound and the "b" sound are almost, if not entirely, identical in Spanish. The only difference, it there even is any, is that when you make the "v" sound, you do not close your lips all the way together. In actual practice, both "b" and "v" tend to be pronounced more strongly at the beginning of words and more weakly between vowels. Having a "weak-ass V" is entirely normal. I myself almost leave out the "v" entirely when I say "obtuvo".
Carribean Spanish is replete with elided consonants, so no damage is done while another lesson is learned. We do the same in English. Listen carefully to those around you, or even record your own voice, and those silent letters will be found peeking through our everyday speech.
That's just how a native speaker would say it too. It's common practice to slur the final vowel of one word into the beginning vowel of the next. If you don't do it, you sound stilted. We do this in English, too, to emphasize the prosody pyramid; ever heard anyone slur "Do you want to go to the store?" into "d'y'wanna gótethe store? Try saying that sentence with every consonant perfectly clear and every word slightly separate from the preceding one. Does it sound natural, or does it sound like a robot?
So just try to get really good at catching those slurred-in vowels. With a bit of practice, it should come naturally.
No, "tener" is an irregular verb in the preterite, and has the accent on the second to last syllable.
In case you or anyone else reading this thread want to know more about when to place written accents, here's how it works:
Spanish pronunciation rules dictate that any word (without a written accent mark)
ending in "n" "s" or a vowel is pronounced with the accent on the second-to-last syllable, for example:
comen = COMen (they eat)
martes = MARtes (Tuesday)
manzana = manZANa (apple)
calurosamente = calurosaMENte (warmly)
Any word ending in
anything else, such as "r" "l" "d" "z", is pronounced with the accent on the last syllable, for example:
pulgar = pulGAR (thumb)
encinal = enciNAL (field of live oaks)
municipalidad = municipaliDAD (municipality)
The vowels "i" and "u" (weak vowels) are slurred into any vowel they are paired with, so that they are counted together as one syllable, for example:
coninuo = conTINuo (continuous)
aula = AUla (large classroom or theater)
Jaime = JAIme (variant of James)
nuevo = NUEvo (new)
The vowels "a" "e" and "o" are strong vowels. They are not slurred, for example:
crear = creAR (to create)
proa = PROa (prow)
aseo = aSEo (cleaning)
And, unless I'm forgetting anything, that is all you need to know. Simply,
written accent marks are only used for exceptions, that is, when the spoken accent is on a different syllable than the above rules would dictate. Obviously, ALL words with the accent on the third-to-last or fourth-to-last syllables will always have a written accent, because there no pronunciation rule ever yields that scenario. So, for example:
haBLO = habló (he spoke ) (otherwise it would be read "HAblo" = I speak)
haCIa = hacía (he was doing) (otherwise it would be read "HAcia" = towards)
contiNUo = continúo (I continue) (otherwise it would be read "conTINuo" = continuous)
raUL = Raúl (Ralph) (otherwise it would be read as one syllable, not two.)
teLEfono = teléfono (telephone)
AGuila = águila (eagle)
TRAemelo = tráemelo (bring it to me)
ARbol = árbol (tree)
aQUI = aquí (here)
aLLA = allá (over there)
CESped = césped (lawn)
Etc. The only less obvious rule is that if an adjective has an accent mark and you make it into an adverb, it keeps the accent mark and the word is stressed twice:
rápido --> rápidamente
RApido --> RAPidaMENte