From what I understand of other comments, when you hear the radio (the radio station/the sound coming from the radio player) it is la radio, but the physical object of the radio player is el radio
I am noticing that the examples provided as a sentence are not using the 'new' word in context. for example, 'viste' was gving as 'saw'. For the solution, we end up using see, even though it is past tense. Has anyone else noticed this?
Did see = saw (past) , Do see = see (present) So this sentence really depends on Do or Did to make it a correct translation.
I think the literal translation on this would be, "Where saw you that radio?" so "saw" actually is correct. Because that sounds odd in English, we rephrase it and it becomes "Where did you see that radio?" (I probably wouldn't write it, but I have sometimes spoken questions like this in conversation as, "You saw that radio where?")
I have heard that antiquated word order used on several radio shows when they are trying to sound all haughty-like. How oddly appropriate for this sentence ;)
"Where have you seen that radio?", wasn't accepted. I'm pretty sure that it would mean the exact same thing, unless there is another way to say "seen". Any suggestions/advice?
unless there is another way to say "seen"
There is (actually "have seen")
Seen is the past participle of "to see". In Spainish visto is the past participle of "ver".
Next, haber is conjugated as the helping verb "have" (either has (informal, tú), ha (formal, usted), or han (plural, ustedes).
Using the tú form, your sentence would be:
¿Dónde has visto ese radio?