1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "El plato contiene arroz."

"El plato contiene arroz."

Translation:The plate contains rice.

December 20, 2012



Contains for plate, bowl etc. I have no problem with. I have to listen closer because I keep thinking contiene sounds like continuam but it doesn't. Did anyone notice that contiene has "tiene" in the word?


Fun tip: all verbs ending in 'tener' conjugate in the same way as 'tener'. For example, yo contengo, él contiene, ellas contienen etc.


Little conspiracy theory of mine: Con = with Tiene = has, which could be someone holding something Therefore, contiene = withhold, which is synonymous with contain.


to withhold (a thing) is to refuse to give something, which isn't synonymous with contain. (just fyi for english learners)


Agree with nWmlJ. withhold is not synonymous with contain. It's a shame that a lot of misinformation is passed on in these discussion.


try "hold/ have with..."


Good way to remember. 'with-hold' (rather than 'withhold')


Interesting observation. Glad you pointed that out. Someone above asked if tiene could be used. Well, sure. It's right there in contiene. Hey, knowing this now can help me to remember how to spell it!


can a plate contain rice? surely the rice is on the plate, a bowl contains rice. Is this expressed in a different way in Spanish?


Curiously, the shown answer at the top of page now shows the word, dish, instead of plate. So, it appears that plato can lawfully be translated as, dish.


Only in the same sense that "plate" can mean "dish" in English. It's more of a clarification of the versatility of the word. It can be a literal plate or it can be a combination of food that comprises a plate.


TRUE, and there is all sorts of flat things identified as plates, and not so flat as well, such as dentures, of all things. Hard to fathom that one, though.

[deactivated user]

    I tried "this dish contains rice" and Duo whacked my knuckles again.


    Poison rice????


    Could this also translate into "the plate has rice"


    Would it be alright to say "El plato tiene arroz", or do you have to use "contiene"?


    jill.99: You have to use "contiene".


    I'm sure either way is fine.


    all right; don't think alright exists (yet) in English


    You are correct, Archie25. "Alright" is still widely considered improper (it originated as a misspelling of the phrase "all right"). In written word, I've mostly seen "alright" used in dialogue. This is usually to add style. There is, however, a difference in the meaning of "alright" and "all right" that must be noted. "Alright" (if it were a formalized word) would exclusively mean "satisfactory/acceptable/okay." Whereas "all right" may mean "satisfactory/acceptable/okay" or "all correct/right in every aspect" depending on the context. Because of this, the misspelling offers disambiguation potential. Consider, for example, the difference between these two sentences:

    "The figures were all right," and, "The figures were alright."

    or how about,

    "Today I saw a man claim that he could survive a fall from a ten-story building. Then he dove right off!"

    To which the response, "Well did he turn out alright?" is thoughtful whereas the response, "Well did he turn out all right?" is darkly hilarious.

    See how there is disambiguation in using the apparent misspelling? Because of this, the use of "alright" is becoming more and more accepted over time (somewhat akin to how "their" is slowly becoming more acceptable as a neuter singular possessive).

    tldr; It's wrong to use "alright," but it could become all right in the future.


    The Oxford English Dictionary accepts 'alright' and says that there is no good reason not to do likewise while conceding that some people don't agree. Just saying :P


    I'd agree with you if there weren't already perfectly good alternatives for the use you propose for "alright". Of course, the average ability to spell could be improved dramatically by accepting the most popular alternative spelling for, say, the 1000 words most commonly miss-spelt.


    I mean, there's "altogether" and then there's "all together." There's "already" and then there's "all ready." It's a common English pattern to create clarity by shortening a phrase into a word, and I disagree entirely that this is on par with misspelling "they're" as "their." Rather than creating more confusion by allowing multiple acceptable spellings of a word that has equally distinct meanings, this in fact works in the opposite direction. It doesn't subtract from the clarity that the English spelling system offers for homonyms. Instead, it creates a new distinction between what otherwise might be confused.

    Still, different strokes for very different folks.


    Don't remember saying anything about spelling they're as their (or there), though as it happens I do this a lot while emailing. Not sure why that should be; I'm in no doubt whatsoever about which should be used where. Let's agree to disagree about alright, shall we.


    I think the their that was being discussed was different. Like if you didnt know if a person was a female or male but you want to refer to something that belongs to the person so you could say their car instead of his/ her car ? Not sure though


    To be fair to English speakers of today, we do still use spellings from the 1700s and people spoke a lot differently back then.


    Nobody would really use "all right" to mean "all correct"...They would say "all correct" or "they were all right", which I know contains "all right" but it needs to be in a sentence if you're using it that way.


    Archie, you are correct. "Alright" is not a legitimate English word, or at least it hasn't been for a long time.


    y frijoles tambien...Why is no article used before rice???


    It is not general, because rice can be in bowls etc. And it cannot be particular because normally it would not contain all of the rice in the house.


    Rice is generally served in small bowls in Japan and China, but is on plates in Thailand where it can be served with other foods in dishes such as Swimming Rama. Rice is served in bowls in the US when sugar and milk are added or is made into a sweet pudding.


    Meal is wrong? Dish is right? What? Nobody really says "dish"...at least not up north.


    I put con tiene instead of contiene and it took it. Is that correct?


    "The plate holds rice" is accepted of 12/4/15


    thought this said pato and was a little confused


    why is "el plato contiene el arroz" is wrong? is it wrong to use the article here?


    unnatural. El plato doesn't contiene but TIENE arroz


    can you say el plato tiene arroz?


    Wrong because i didn't start with a capital letter? Confused....


    this is very stilted in English. Is it the same as "the plate has rice on it" in English? That flows much better. Would Duo accept that?


    The plate does not contain rice unless it is made of rice. Which seems unlikely. The plate may have rice on it though but that is not accepted


    Did anyone else accidently put " the duck contains rice? "


    What's wrong with THERE IS RICE ON THE PLATE - that sounds more English than THE PLATE CONTAINS RICE (I don't think any native English speaker would say that!!!)


    "What's all in this dish? Is it starchy? I don't like starch." "Well, ma'am, the plate contains rice, so you might want to get another meal."


    What most matters is not the English. What the main thing is that is important is that one understsnds the Spanish statement. And It is best to understand it without the English involvement. Like one could picture in one's mind what the Spanish statement means.


    rice is more commonly in bowls or jars...?


    In the Mexican restaurants I've visited it has almost always been on a plate.

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