1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "Yo compré tres pantalones ba…

"Yo compré tres pantalones baratos."

Translation:I bought three cheap pairs of pants.

April 24, 2018



I wrote "I bought three pairs of cheap pants". Why is that wrong?


It sounds better to me than Duo's answer.


It has become clear to both myself anf my wife that the person(s) translating the Spanish to English are Not native English speakers, neither British nor American.


But now Duo approves it. I wrote the same and got " correct" .


That's ambiguos because "par" also means 2 separated pieces.



I am sorry, I do not understand your response. "par" does not appear in the sentence. What is ambiguous about it?


OK. I don't see this as particularly important but there are two contributing factors within this discussion: 1) the fact that, here in the UK, we never refer to trousers as pants. Pants are underwear. It is a peculiarity that both come in "pairs" although everyone knows they are both single item. You can't buy half a pair of pants or trousers! 2) This is a nuance of UK English but, generally, if I "buy cheap trousers" then it implies that the item is inferior in some way. If I "buy a pair of trousers cheap" then it implies that I paid less than the normal price for the item. Either way, the English is good - there is just an implied difference of meaning.


Where I grew up in Manchester we said pants all the time. It wasn't until I moved south at the age of 16 that I even realised that pants could mean underwear!


The connotations of the word cheap are the same in American English. If something is low cost yet good quality, we would say inexpensive. Yet Duolingo won't accept that term.


I think you would say “no caro” for inexpensive instead of barato. Perhaps a native speaker could respond here


I am not a native Spanish speaker, but Duo accepted "I bought three pairs of inexpensive pants, 02 April 2019. I didn't try "three pair," but that should be accepted, as well.


I don't think it makes grammatical sense in any English speaking country to use "cheap" as an adverb. You could use "cheaply" but I'm not sure if that's a real word. The phrase "on the cheap" is the closest accepted (though informal and maybe only used in America) form of "cheap" as an adverb.


The Oxford Dictionary says "cheap" can be an adverb (only the Learners' Dictionary is available online without a subscription: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cheap ).


As previously said, I have no authority or expertise outside of the south of England and no idea what is correct or what is normally said in the 'States'. However, I think we need to remember what this forum is - and what it is not. Yes of course "cheap" can be an adverb but does it matter? My previous comment was about actual usage of the language and was meant to help those people from outside my area to understand how the language is used here. The fact is that the vast majority of people here would not know what an adverb is - and they couldn't care less! That does not stop them using (or abusing, if you like) the English language. We should be striving to communicate with others and should not get side-tracked by whether a "rule" has been stretched or broken. I have tried not to be too academic on this forum - hence "this be me last word" on this topic!


Word order in English can be either way for same meaning


Up to this point pantalones has been translated as pants. This is the first time the translation has been pairs of pants. The change seems arbitrary and abrupt.


In English, we do not generally say, "I bought three cheap pants." Good translation requires attention to the fine points of both languages and a little imagination.


It accepted i bought three cheap trousers. I would have expected that to fail even though that's what it translates as. We would never say that. We would say i bought three pairs of cheap trousers.

  • 1246

"I bought three cheap pants" is also correct.


but still not accepted as correct.


I heard the spoken sentence as : "Yo compre tres pantalones para dos" - "I bought three trousers for two". As you often get "three for two" deals in the UK, this made perfect sense to me!! (And they would still be cheap :) !)


I wrote "I bought 3 cheap pants" and it was accepted, although it doesn't sound correct.


I wrote "I bought three pairs of pants cheap", and was marked wrong


Why is "I bought three pair of cheap pants" incorrect?


...three pairs...

You need to use the plural. Three pair is not correct.


Daniel, I'll copy my post from above here, since it was after yours: "In a DL lesson long ago and far away, I believe it was established that, in the US, 'three pair' (as my mother said/taught) is quite old-fashioned and 'three pairs' is the modern terminology. Not saying which I prefer, only what others have said . . . ." So, I do not think "three pair" is actually incorrect.


i dont believe i should be required to say pairs


Amy91..., why not? Both THREE of anything and Pants/trousers are plural, and take plural adjective endings when something defines them.

It seems reasonable to go along with the multi-millions of others speaking both Spanish and English, both sides of the Atlantic.

Or, we could see if they'll create a special rule just for you! ;-D

(I hope you don't get offended by a little teasing, it is meant to lighten up this discussion so we don't argue about it.)


Why pairs. I wrote three cheap pants. It is marked correct. Is the word pair assumed


"pair" and "pairs" are can both be used as plural in English


Actually the word 'pair' in English is singular because it is treated as one unit.
I have a pair of shoes. = Tengo un par de zapatos.

It only becomes plural if there is more than one pair.


I said "I bought three pairs of pants cheap." If I replace 3 pairs of pants with 3 ink pens and exchange it in the original sentence. Yo compré tres bolígrafos baratos. Do you say: I bought three cheap ink pens. Or do you say: I bought three ink pens cheap. The difference is the quality of the ink pens vs the cost. I think the latter one is how American English would be spoken.


Er, as a native speaker of American English, I'd like to point out that "I bought three cheap ink pens" has a somewhat different meaning than "I bought three ink pens cheap." In any case, I, personally would be much more likely to say "I bought three cheap pens" than either of your suggested variants. I can't remember when the last time I heard someone say "ink pen" was.


If I say " three cheap pants", would it be incorrect? And it could be tres pars.


Yes, unless you are a clothing catalog.


I believe three pair, rather than three pairs of pants is more correct English


I suspect this is a matter of regional variation.


I agree with both. I have heard "Three pair of pants" and used it here. It may well also be regional or something falling from usage.

South Jersey US English with a significant smattering of BBC World Service in my formative years.

Reported, but admittedly we may be a minority opinion.


I'm not sure if it's grammatically incorrect but I've heard the same (three pair vs. three pairs). I live in California so it seems pretty common across the U.S.


Carolla, et al--In a DL lesson long ago and far away, I believe it was established that, in the US, "three pair" (as my mother said/taught) is quite old-fashioned and "three pairs" is the modern terminology. Not saying which I prefer, only what others have said . . . .


Could "baratos" also be "para dos"?


"Baratos" means "cheap" or "inexpensive." "Para dos" means "for two."


It uses the word pants here however I think it should be trousers


In American English, which is what Duolingo uses, "pants" is perfectly acceptable. If the system failed to accept "trousers," report your sentence, using the button on the lower left, after you answer the question. If the course contributors agree that your translation is appropriate, they will (eventually) add it to the list of alternative translations.

Learn Spanish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.