"I don't drink that much beer" is a valid translation to english even though it's not a transliteration.
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.
I disagree. In colloquial English (at least in British English) it's very common to use "not that much" to mean "not very much" or "not so much" without making any real comparison.
What do you mean by transliteration? I though the word was 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!
Transliterate is to change "Aθηνη" to "Athene" (Greek letters to Roman/Latin letters) or "прявда" to "pravda" (Cyrillic letters to Roman/Latin alphabet). Translate is to change "прявда" to 'truth".
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"
"Transliterate" is to write a letter or word from one language using the closest corresponding letters of a different alphabet or language.
For example, writing a mandarin word with the letters of the alphabet that most closely sound it out.
You mean "literal translation" not "transliteration."
This is about idiomatic phrasing, not phonemes.
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.
In Australia, I do not drink much beer means the same as I do not drink a lot of beer.
If I wanted to say simply, "I don't drink much," would it be better to say "no bebo mucho" or could I say "no bebo tanta (tanto)."
"no bebo mucho" is I don't drink much. "no bebo tanto" is I don't drink too much. Mucho = much; Tanto = too much, in these sentences. I hope this helps :D
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
I don't drink too much be
no bebo demasiado?
no bebo tanto seems to translate better to
I don't drink that much (although Duo's given answer is just "I do not drink much").
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".
Because cerveza is a feminine word, and tanta is the feminine conjugation for tanto.
Hope this helps.
I dont understand why tanto is taught as "so many" and then in this sentence it means "so much." I tried it as "so much" in another exercise where the translation would have made sense and it told me no it is "so many," which made no sense. I am confused...
Agreed. "So many" is a sloppy translation in English. It may fit in a very informal and imprecise context.
tanta < tantus (Latin), cognates with tant (French), tanta (Italian, Portuguese) .
"I do not drink beer so much" was wrong however hivering over tanta suggests "so much". Is there any case in which my sentence would be true?
tanta cerveza would be referring to the quantity drunk; your sentence would be referring to how often you drink, but it might still be considered grammatically incorrect, i.e. better to say "so often" - maybe.
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."
So, in the context of yo, why is the correct term tanta and not tanto, for this sentence?
Because "tanta" is modifying the noun "cerveza" which is a feminine noun. It has nothing to do with "yo" gender.
When you hover over "tanta" it sounds like she is saying "scanta" to me. Good thing I read it.
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.
How about, "I don't drink beer much". That's what I put. Maybe it is bad english because I got it wrong.
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.
Instead of using beber when talking about drinking alcohol, could you use tomar?
tanto was presented as and adverb. why does the ending change with gender like an adjective?
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!
In English, "so many beerS". In Spanish, "tantaS cervezaS". Not the sentence Duo has given.
So, does No hablo tanta Español translate as I don't speak a lot of Spanish? Or is it grammatically incorrect?
"No hablo tantO español" (I don't speak so much Spanish) is not normally said in Spanish. You would probably be understood, but... "I don't speak a lot of Spanish" = No hablo mucho español is better..
So what I want to know is why are we not using tanto which means that "I" when we are talking "I"? Why are we using tanta meaning "you" when we are talking " I"?
"Tanta" is not a verb, so its ending does not change to agree with the subject. In this sentence, it is being used as an adjective to modify the noun "cerveza" which is feminine, and its ending changes to "a" to agree with the noun.
Would not "yo no bebo mucho cerveza" be correct as well? I got it correct necause I considered tanta a new word being introduced for vocabulary expan
The "o" ending only has to do with the verb "bebO." "Tanta" is modifying "cerveza," a feminine noun, so it needs to have a feminine ending.
"Tanta" is an adjective here - not a verb. It is modifying "cerveza" which is a feminine noun, so it has to have feminine ending.
What's the difference between 'mucha' and 'tanta' ? When do we use 'tanta'?