1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "Mi novio nunca ha bebido cer…

"Mi novio nunca ha bebido cerveza."

Translation:My boyfriend has never drunk beer.

December 27, 2012



I find that English speakers use the wrong words frequently when forming the "perfect" tenses. "Have went" (wrong) instead of "have gone" (right), "have ran" (wrong) instead of "have run" (right), "have took" (wrong) instead of "have taken" (right), and many more examples. Probably one of the most frequent errors I hear.


Yep, right up there with using "good" instead of "well" and "real" instead of "really".


If people frequently use these words, and others understand what is intended with no confusion, then isn't it the rule that's wrong, not the words?


Language does change, but thankfully it changes more slowly than common usage, and more restrictively than regional usage. There are cases verbs changing over time. We no longer say clomb or clumb but instead say climbed (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/climb).

There may come a time when 'have drunk' becomes archaic. It has not yet. So the rule is not wrong. It's the rule and the usage is clear.

Just because unambiguous communication occurs does not make it correct. I could use the word 'aint' and you would understand me. Communication occurs, but it's not 'proper'. This is a site about language, and 'proper' usage is important.


Agreed. I get that the reason most users want to use this site is so they can learn to speak/read/write passably well in another language. For that sake alone, drank and drunk may as well be interchangeable. But the site has another goal as well: translation, and for the sake of translation its important to do it correctly.

For sure there are going to be some texts out there where the source language includes improper words like ain't... and so an equivalent colloquialism would be the best translation, but it takes a pretty high level of expertise to know when its the right time to do so. For most people here, I'd say just stick with whats correct.


While I agree that this is proper, I would also say that for the purposes of what we're doing here, comprehension far more important than proper usage. If I'm learning a language and there are expressions that are commonly used, I better know them whether they are proper or not. In that light, someone learning English should learn to say or write "have drunk," but they also need to understand that huge numbers of native speakers will say "have drank." As Spanish learners, we should also assume that not everyone speaking Spanish is in total compliance with the RAE.


A line has to be drawn somewhere. I think it is best that line is drawn at what is correct / standard English. Should they allow every common / slang usage from the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, South Africa, Jamaica, ...?

Fair go mate, if I started chuckin Aussie slang around like a dunny budgie in bottle, you Yanks would think I'd gone troppo, and I'd cop a right earbashing.


Good luck to Spanish speakers travelling to Australia and expecting to understand the locals - even native English speakers struggle. And in case you thought English slang was hard, check this out... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LjDe4sLER0


You can even go from place to place within the US and sometimes wonder what language people are speaking. Sadly, most of us here don't know anything more about Aussie lingo than what we learned watching Crocodile Dundee. Maybe someone here should start an incubator for Aussie for English speakers. :)


Well, I'm not talking about what Duo allows, but what we should know and understand. If I was a native Spanish speaker and was traveling to Australia, I'd hope to be able to understand what people are saying to me even if they are chuckin' Aussie slang.

Yes, we should definitely be learning what's proper, but we also need to understand real people speaking in everyday language.


I had to laugh. I just crack up and say, "Clammered!" But, I rock climb so my friends just giggle!


Drank, on the other hand, has gained a level of acceptance in spoken use. drank as a past participle showed up during the 17th century, and it seems to have been commonly used in writing throughout the 19th century. Writers of early 20th-century handbooks, striving to make irregular verb inflection uniform in English, thought differently about drunk and prescribed it as only a past participle of drinkthat should be criticized when used for past tense. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/usage-drank-vs-drunk


i've never said drunk in my life unless it pertains to me being "drunk" off alcohol. I'm missing these questions bc of improper english


Sounds like a good time to learn proper English, then. :)


"Has drank" is incorrect and "has drunk" is correct.

In spoken English, I have heard many people (including native speakers) use "has drunk" or "has drink". If I turn into grammar police and fix that every time I heard it then the conversations would not go anywhere.

On written English, however, "has drank" is simply wrong.


I hereby make a motion that the drink/drank/drunk discussion thread is over. Do I hear a second?


Which is more correct - drunk or drank?


Drunk=bebido, es participio. I have drunk= he bebido

Drank es el pretérito perfecto I drank=yo bebí


Wow. I understand it better now that it was explained in Spanish, and English is my first language.


I would think drank should be acceptable as well. They're both pretty flexibly used in the English language, and that's really what the point of this is, right?

Pretty sure no one is going to correct my usage of drank instead of drunk.


"Drank" is wrong - it's really that simple. It's the wrong tense in English, and if you don't understand that, how can you expect to learn the right tense in a completely different language?


Ring rang rung, sing sang sung, spring sprang sprung, sink sank sunk, drink drunk drunk? Who's idea was it for drunk to be highly irregular?


Drink drank drunk, not drink drunk drunk. I have never drunk beer. The past participle is used with have, and as an adjective and often as a noun. I drank a lot of beer. The past tense is used without have


It's how many(most?) English speakers talk. I'd include all possibilities because no matter if you say 'drunk' or 'drank' you know what the Spanish is saying.


The problem here is that your usage suggests, in Spanish, that at a specific time, you did not drink beer whereas the other tense is more general. I.e. I drank beer vs. I have drunk beer.


i guess i concur... i don't have enougn grasp of fine points of grammar to distinguish between "drank" and "drunk".... never have used "drunk" unless inebriated :-) but I guess I'll have to start (using the word drunk, not getting drunk,, ha)


What would be the spanish equivalent of -> "My boyfriend never drinks beer", like if someone asks you at a party. He has drank before, but is currently not(get it?)


Just like in English, present tense. "Mi novio nunca bebe cerveza" => "My boyfriend never drinks beer"


I thought novio can also mean fiance


Novio can be a number of different words depending on the region. http://spanishskulduggery.tumblr.com/post/92338860162/something-funny-that-happens-in-spanish-is-that-el For example in Chile, boyfriend/girlfriend is pololo/polola, fiance is prometido/prometida, groom/bride is novio/novia, and husband/wife is marido (or esposo)/mujer (or esposa).


Interesting discussion. I'd suggest checking usage dictionaries as well as grammar books when determining correct (i.e, standard colloquial) usage. They generally will discuss all common usages, and come to a conclusion as to whether or not a usage is acceptable in written and/or standard colloquial English. Might get bees out of a lot of bonnets. (I vote for not allowing have drank). I think the problem with this is that we'd usually say "My boyfriend has never had a drink of beer", so the sentence just sounds odd and we're trying to figure out why.


When you think you've covered the complicated stuff but then this section appears...


I usually say drank, not drunk. Am I wrong?


If you are saying "have drank," then you are in error. The past participle of drink is drunk, and you use the past participle with have/had constructions. Saying "I drank a soda" is fine because you're using the preterit tense of drink, which is drank. Clearly nobody is going to misunderstand you if you say "have drank," and a great many people do say it, but it is technically incorrect.


Just a passing comment, something similar, I was reading THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD (Dicken's last novel) In the first chapter is a man saying He has took it, (or something similar) and being corrected to Has taken it. So this controversy has been around for a while. Unfortunately, while many people use the past tense of irregular verbs instead of the past participle, it is one of those things that can get in your way when trying to be upwardly mobile.


I would never say he drunk a beer. Never, ever...


Good, because that would be wrong.


"He drank a beer" or "He has drunk a beer"


that is just so wrong and stupid


And here we see prescriptivists and descriptivists arguing.

I guess "drunk" is the proper past participle, if we're being super picky and descriptivist, but at least in my LongIslandese dialect, "drunk" is pretty much only used when you've had too much alcohol. It's a borderline case as to whether drank should be regarded as correct.

And in any case, this is part of the fun of learning another language! You get to learn something about your own, and what the "proper" usage really is.


I agree with you here, though I believe you meant that "drunk" is the proper past participle if we're being picky and prescriptivist. If we were being descriptivist, we'd generally regard what most people actually use as the correct form.


Yup, haha. Honest mistake, I promise I wasn't "drunk" here. Just kinda tired...


I used drunken as the past participle and was marked wrong. Looking it up it is supposedly an archaic form but hey, that's what I grew up with in NZ and it is technically correct.


I don't think "drunken" can be used as a past participle, only an adjective - as in the old song "What shall we do with the drunken sailor". Can you provide a reference that shows it as a past participle?


Word Origin and History for drunken adj. full form of the past participle of drunk. Meaning "inebriated" was in Old English druncena ; adjectival meaning "habitually intoxicated" is from 1540s. Related: Drunkenly. Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper (ie dictionary.com)

Origin Old English, archaic past participle of drink. Oxford Dictionaries website

1 Thessalonians 5:7 For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. KJV amongst others

Interestingly I found "drucken, drunken" being mentioned as the past participle in Scots. The area I come from in NZ was settled by the Scots so this may explain the persistence of this form.


No, it is not correct. We are not in the 1500's.


The ha part is very faint. I thought she was saying nunca bebido. Is this usually the case when native speakers talk?


It's VERY common for Spanish speakers to run words together when they end/start with the same sound. In fact in many cases a double "a" sound (like in this example), will become just a slightly longer "a".

This is normal. I would even say that in this example she separates the two words MORE than a native speaker normally would.

When translating you therefore need to take this into account, but once you get the hang of it you'll realise that the sentence makes no sense without the "ha" there. You cannot say "Mi novio nunca bebido cerveza." It is not grammatically correct.


"I have drunk beer." You know that feeling you get when words like "ball" suddenly lose its meaning. Funny that so many had a reaction to this sentence. What else? Have drunken?


It is not a good translation. I would say never drank beer.


"My boyfriend has never drunk beer" hic Sounds like she drank it all !!

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