Spanish language Q&A Forum

Just did this lesson and saw the word "cross". Although it does make sense in old English and some people will still understand the meaning, it is definitely not a word that is used a lot among English speakers today. I think "angry" would be a better word and would reduce the likelihood of someone not understanding what it means. 

I have some confusion (and frustration) around use of definite articles in Spanish generally. In this lesson, I noticed what appears to be an inconsistency with this rule.

A mí, se me da bien contar chistes.

My question is, why is it not, "A mí, se me da bien contar los chistes".

Also, my other question concerns highlight #5 and use of "a".

The first example notes: "Se me da bien el tenis". [I am good at tennis], then later there's the example, "A mí, se me da bien contar chistes" [I am good at telling jokes.].  My question is the subject of both examples is first person ("I"), so why wasn't the first example written as "A mí, se me da bien el tenis". ?

Thank you for a clear explanation of these two issues.

Regards,

Pati Ecuamiga

This rule does not work with amable.  If you do an exercise on superlatives with a question on "amable" before you read the lesson on -co, -go, -ble, and -z endings you will make a mistake. Perhaps this lesson should should point out that -ble endings  are an exception.  

Of course I will always remember the rule now after spending some time trying to discover why  "amablísimos" was wrong.

Thank you Silvia,

In "La vida de Eva (B1)" gapfill test we have:

"Eva siempre ha sido una persona que nunca toma decisiones por dinero o por conveniencia. Su familia la quiere mucho y, para ser sinceros, ha hecho muchos sacrificios ______ sus hijos."

The hint for the gap is:

"she has made many sacrifices for her children."

the accepted answer is "por"; "para" is marked wrong.

The explanation given for this is:

"Lesson: Using por (not para) to express the originating cause or reason"

Could you please help me to see

why "for" is interpreted here as indicating the "cause" and not the "recipient"?

I think it should be noted that there are some additional adverbs which can be combined with de:

cerca (de)

adelante (de)

arriba (de)

Please confirm/update?

I have noticed from time to time, that "muy" can be placed in front of a noun to add emphasis to the nature of the noun it is modifying. For example: Marco es muy trabajador. Marco is a very hard worker.

                                          Laura es muy cirujana. Laura is a very skilled surgeon.

Is this a legitimate usage for muy?

Why were there no quotation marks placed around the word "manolos" in the Kwiziq translation of the penultimate sentence?

Thank you. 

Pati Ecuamiga