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"
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.
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."
What is the difference between mucho and tanto? I still do not understand from reading other comments, because it doesn't seem like they literally translate easily.
In particular, what is the difference between "bebo/no bebo mucho..." and "bebo/no bebo tanto...?" Does the latter mean you drink even less than "mucho" or slightly more than "mucho"?
While the sentence "I don't drink much beer" could be taken as "rarely drink beer" in English it may not be the case in Spanish. Also, I think that "rarely" has more of a connotation of "barely, if at all" in regards to rate of occurrence for most people, whereas "much" is more of a quantity aspect.
For example, I don't drink, but let's say that every day after work I stop off at the corner bar to grab a drink but only have one beer and then go home, yet on the weekends I drink a bunch of shots or mixed drinks at clubs. A person I'm hanging out with on a regular basis could be like "hey, want me to grab you a beer from the bar?" and I could say "no thanks, I don't drink much beer, but you could grab me a shot of jager!". That statement would be correct while "Nah man, I rarely drink beer, but you could grab me a shot of jager!" is actually a flat out lie since I do drink it 5 days per week.
I think your translation is acceptable since English words that work as either adjectives or adverbs can be placed in different parts of a sentence when they are used as adverbs modifying a verb. In your sentence, the word "much" is used as an adverb to alter the meaning of "I don't drink beer," so that the sentence indicates that you drink sparingly and/or infrequently. In other words, you DO drink, but you don't drink great quantities or drink very often. In the sentence "I do not drink that much beer," however, the word "tanta" is being used as an adjective modifying the noun "cerveza." When "tanto/tanta" is used that way, I myself prefer to think of it as "I do not drink a lot of beer," even though this translation is not the one that Duo was seeking. Interestingly, the sentence "I do not drink a lot" is an example of how a noun phrase (such as "a lot") can either be viewed as an adverb modifying a predicate and indicating frequency or be viewed as a direct object specifying the quantity of what is drunk. English syntax is very slippery, and depending on a word's placement in an English sentence, that word can be an adjective, adverb, or some other part of speech.
I think that it doesn't matter if tanto is an adjective or not, what matters is the gender of the sentence. Think of it like keeping tense in English sentence i.e. present, past, future tense has to be kept throughout the sentence. The same rule applies for gender in Spanish. Here tanto is modifying (or describing) cerveza so we change tanto to tanta to keep the gender tense!
I hope this helps!