"Eu passei muito tempo na Ásia."

Translation: I spent a lot of time in Asia.

[Oceanotti]

Why in this sentence “too much” is not accepted as translation for “muito”, when in other similar instances what gets rejected is the simple “much”. I feel like I am missing something here and I would appreciate some background to help us decide whether “muito” means “much” or “too much” based on context.

[reno300]

Can the verb Passar, when translated to 'to spend' also be used in terms of spending money, or is it only used for spending time?

[Paulenrique]

Passar only works as spend to refer to time. Spend money = gastar dinheiro. Waste = gastar, desperdiçar.

[SecretAgentWoman]

I was told that "gastar" can be used with "tempo" as well. My question is: can it be used without the negative connotation the verb "waste" has?

[Paulenrique]

Yes, you can! Gastar can have both positive and negative connotations.

But "desperdiçar" has only a negative connotation.

[SecretAgentWoman]

Thank you!

[reno300]

Thanks :)

[MeiaSala]

The slow speech for Asia sounds nothing like it should

[marthaduranduran]

I was in Asia for a long time- should be accepted right?

[jccesinha]

Eu não entendi pq não é spented no passado?

[vinidcali]

Porque é um verbo irregular - não existe "spented" C:

[jccesinha]

Thanks a lot Vini!

[badboo]

why not "i have passed through asia many times"?

[vinidcali]

Because that has a different meaning. See:

Your sentence means that you have travelled through Asia many times.
Duo's sentence means that you stayed in Asia for a long time: it could have been many travels (as you said), but it could have been just one single loooong trip.

C:

[badboo]

But can't passei also mean passed?

[vinidcali]

Yes, but the same still applies: I passed/spent a lot of time in Asia and I passed through Asia many times have different meanings (as I explained before).

The problem is not the verb, but using "through" instead of "in" and using "many times" instead of "lot of time"

C: