"Yo no bebo tanta cerveza."
Translation:I do not drink much beer.
You don't need to add "that" though. It's unnecessary. Also if you do, you change rhe meaning slightly and put too much emphasis on the amount of beer. When you say "that much" it becomes a comparison, whether you are comparing the amount of beer you drink with the amount of beer someone else drinks or you are comparing the amount of beer you drink with what people generally consider a lot. You DO change the meaning of the sentence and it is therefore NOT a translation.
Transliterate is to word-for-word "translate" each word into the new language, preserving the exact, original, sentence structure.
Translate is to take the phrase/sentiment as a whole and "translate" into a sentence in the new language that sounds right to native speakers, as well as to preserve the emotion of the original phrase in the original language.
I know I broke the definition rule and used the word I was defining in my definition, but hopefully that helps!
Thanks for the definition, and I, too, think that sometimes a transliteration is not preferable to a translation.
Re-reading this thread a year later, I feel the need to add that "literal" can also be described as "denotative," and that "idiomatic" or "colloquial" can also be described as "connotative." The meanings of "idiomatic" and "colloquial" shade into each other, but what is key is that these adjectives pertain to how the sentence (and by extension, the paragraphs) hangs together as a whole based on the constraints imposed by every language's syntactical rules and accepted word usage. Connotative meaning, in a nutshell, is why so many sentences need to be translated with words added or subtracted. The inescapable fact is that speakers of all languages are constantly popularizing word usages and syntactical constructions that "sound good" in that language, to the point that these idioms become accepted or even preferred. This selection process–that is, the "survival of the fittest phrase"–is mysterious, and no one knows why certain phrases and word preferences become idiomatic and colloquial. What's important is that when large groups of native speakers consistently choose one translation over another, then that is the preferred translation.
One other point: There is disagreement over the differences between the words "colloquial" and "idiomatic." To some people, there is no difference. For what it's worth, my teachers said that "idiomatic" usage doesn't follow the grammatical rules of the language but is still accepted as correct by native speakers. Colloquial usage follows the rules of the language, but those rules are always not mirrored in the rules of other languages.
Sorry to butt in, but what you guys are talking about is the difference between literal translations and idiomatic translations. NOT "transliteration"
An idiomatic translation is like how we translate "por favor" as "please" but it literally translates as "por": "by", "at", "for", "to" and "favor": "behalf", "help", "favor", "kindness"
I am with Carol's what comment this is supposed to be basic Spanish for the unlearned not a platform for much further levels of Spanish!
Yes, but you were confusing the terms "translate" and "transliterate" They do not mean the same thing
One is about reading one alphabet with the tools of another, and one is about comprehension of language.
Transliteration is NOT translating one letter into another language's letter. An English "A" can be transliterated into a Hebrew "Aleph" OR an "Ayin",. since they can make the exact same sounds
"Translating one letter into another language's letter" is EXACTLY what transliteration is. Sometimes there is more than one possible transliteration depending on the phonemes in each language. "Aθηνη", for example is sometimes transliterated into the alphabet English uses as "Athene" and sometimes as "Athena". And this is why we have both "sulphur" and "sulfur" in english. The Greek letter "Φ" can be transliterated into English as either "ph" or "f". Some of the discussion on this matter on this page is simply mistaken concerning what "transliteration" means. It would be useful if one of our language experts who monitors the discussions could remove the false (although presumably well-meant) material lest it misled people trying to learn here. It is not helpful if the discussion here has people solemnly affirming that "Spanish is spoken primarily by elephant herders who live above the Arctic Circle."
I'm not sure what he meant, but a transliteration is when a language does not have a translation for a word that another language has, and a new word is created in the first language to represent the other language's word. (Clear as mud, huh.) I know there are other examples, but the only one I know is the Greek word /baptizo/. (I probably misspelled it.) English didn't have a word for it, so, each Greek letter in that word was used to create our word /baptize/ meaning submerge or plung. It is really quite interesting.
At dictionary.com, transliterate is defined as "to change (letters, words, etc.) into corresponding characters of another alphabet or language." IMO, this means that "transliterate" is a word-for-word, denotative translation, instead of a connotative translation that slightly changes a sentence syntax and/or omits words redundant in one language but not in the other. For instance, «No bebo cerveza nunca» means "I never drink beer." The reason why is because Spanish allows and sometimes mandates a double negative, one to modify the subject and the other to modify the verb. I'm not sure why, but I believe emphasis is one reason Spanish uses a double negative.
English, on the other hand, does not allow a double negative because the sentence's meaning is affected by each negation. The transliteration of «No bebo cerveza nunca» is literally/denotatively "I do not drink beer never." The connotative meaning of "I do not drink beer never" is "I do drink beer." The rule in English is this: If the number of negatives in a sentence is an even number, then the negative words cancel each other out to create a positive connotative meaning: I drink beer. Another example: "I do not ever not breathe!" means "I breathe!" However, if the number of "no's" is a singular or odd number, then the negative connotation remains. For example, "I cannot breathe!"
My final example is a compound sentence with four negative words: "I did not speak, I did not run, but never did I not fight." The two simple sentences "I did not speak" and "I did not fight" each contain one negative reference. The simple sentence "Never did I not fight" contains two negative references that add up to the positive connotative meaning "I did fight." This adds up to two negatives from the first two simple sentences and two negatives from the third simple sentence, so what this means is that, syntactically, the "count" of negatives in a complicated sentence starts anew in each clause.
P.S. Rereading this months later and reading all of the additional comments, I realize that I was not taking into account that transliteration is also a letter-by-letter substitution. Rather, I was talking about how the idiomatic/syntactic/grammatical uses of the word "no" are different in Spanish and English. Please read my other comments in this thread and those of Edward Dov, because I now realize that idiomatic and colloquial meanings, as opposed to literal meanings, were what I was discussing. I've left this posting b/c I think my explanation is still valid with respect to the different ways that Spanish and English address double negatives.
This thread has been a good discussion and taught me much in the months that I have participated in it. I am not good at learning different languages, so I try to make sense of the new language by making analogies between the grammar rules of each language. For instance, the idiomatic phrasing of Spanish is to say "los lunes," which literally is translated into "the Mondays," when the correct idiomatic translation to English is "on Mondays." What this means to me is that the English idiom uses the preposition "on" and the Spanish idiom uses the determiner "the." Still, each language's idiom mean the same thing to native speakers, and each language's idiom is equally valid because idiom itself is just a convenient shortcut to more rapid comprehension.
That's my understanding of how idiomatic usage works: it is the result of every language's evolution into phrases universally understood by the language's native speakers, so that when they hear frequently used phrases they don't have to waste time and mental energy on deciphering those phrases' meanings. Instead, the mental energy can be saved for deciphering new or less frequently used words and phrases.
The realization that learning the vocabulary is only the start of accepting and learning that different phrasing is another component of acquiring a second language. Thank you, Edward, for increasing my understanding of the meanings and nuances of the words "idiom" and "transliteration." Lingot to you.
This is not how que would be used in Spanish. That in "That much" is a demonstrative pronoun, used as an adjective. In Spanish, the demonstrative pronouns are not used in this manner. As far as a Spanish speaker is concerned, this English construction is an idiomatic expression that does not have a direct analogue in Spanish. Tanto fits the bill here in Spanish. Que has nothing to do with demonstrative pronouns in Spanish and has no place here whatsoever.
Lingot to you for mentioning that Spanish does not define the pronouns este, esta, esto, estes, and estas as either demonstrative pronouns or subordinate conjunctions. In fact, Spanish grammar doesn't have subordinated conjunctions as English defines them, but rather just compound sentences and sentences in subjunctive tense. IMO, the reason that commas aren't used more in Spanish is that all clauses in Spanish are what English grammar calls "independent," and only an "y," "e," "pero" or "sino" is needed to connect them. By virtue of the syntax of each Spanish clause being "independent," it is a given that only these conjunctions, or other Spanish colloquialisms that work like them, are needed. Accordingly, translated sentences that English grammar breaks down into two smaller sentences so that they won't be "run-on" sentences are, IMO, the Spanish equivalent of English "complex" sentences (defined by English grammar as sentences with subordinate clauses). These equivalently complex Spanish sentences, again in my opinion, are combined because their ideas are interconnected, and putting all of these related ideas and details in one sentence emphasizes that. I also read a comment in Duo about Spanish subjunctive sentences that stated that the first and second clauses of a subjunctive sentence need to have subjects and predicates that differ from each other. In terms of complexity, this indicates that syntactically the subordinate clause is to English what the subjunctive tense is to Spanish, except that there are "WEIRDO" stipulations in Spanish.
When it comes to frequency you can use either one.
The difference between "mucho" and "tanto" is subtle. Sort of like saying: "I don't drink a lot" (mucho) vs "I don't drink too much" (tanto). This is difficult to explain because "tanto" does not translate well into English. It does mean "too much" however, a better way to think of it is that it means "more than a lot".
Also, all the Spanish speakers I know use both interchangeably for amount, but for frequency "tanto" is used most. They say both are usable for frequency as well though.
I hope this helps. Dx
OK, I asked my Spanish speaking friends and this is what they told me. You basically have it right, however, "demasiado" has a bit more meaning than "tanto". That is why in English you could translate tanto to "that much" and demasiado to "too much", but they are both used interchangeably when you say "too much".
In this case, think of it as the words "so" and "that" being used as adjectives to describe the pronoun "much." If you're wondering what English noun the pronoun "much" could be substituting for, think of the pronoun "much" referring to the noun phrase "a lot." This is not a literal translation, but it is a good way to remember how these Spanish pronouns can be substituted for either the English noun phrase "a lot" or the English word "much."