Talk:Spanish prepositions

message: Hi.  I'm the main contributor to this article.  If anyone has any questions regarding Spanish grammar, I'd be happy to answer them, and incorporate the answer into the article.  Fire away!  — Chameleon 17:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I hate to negate a huge chunk of your work, but it seems like a lot of the content here would be better suited to a dictionary. A number of the sections should probably be merged into the relevant Wiktionary entries. :-/ Ruakh 06:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: After more than a month with no reply, I went ahead and removed the sections that only gave etymologies, definitions, and usage information, and moved the information in them to Wiktionary. The sections that gave grammar information, I left intact, though the etymologies and such should still probably be removed and added to Wiktionary. Ruakh 19:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: :In popular spoken Spanish para is often clipped to pa as in the very vulgar Amos p'alante ("Let's go forward") instead of the standard "Vayamos para adelante".
I changed "vayamos" to "vamos". Is there any reason anybody would say "vayamos" here that I might be unaware of? - furrykef (Talk at me) 08:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard anyone use vayamos in such a context, and don't expect to, but logically it does make sense: vamos is an archaic first-person plural present subjunctive of ir, and it's rather odd that it was preserved as its first-person plural affirmative imperative. (Indeed, ir is Spanish's only verb to have a distinct first-person plural affirmative imperative; all other verbs use their first-person plural present subjunctives as their first-person plural affirmative imperatives.) Nonetheless, this preservation is quite standard, and to use the modern subjunctive for this purpose would be non-standard; so I think you were right to make that change. —RuakhTALK 10:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Vamos" or "vayamos"? 

message: I haven't seen any sections on this, and I could have sworn it was a preposition.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.42.126 (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a conjunction. The closest it comes to acting like a preposition is in a sentence like "María es mayor que José", but since you say "… que yo" and not *"… que mí", it's clear that it's a conjunction even here. —RuakhTALK 06:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Que? 

message: The Latin Etymologies are nice and quite interesting, but they ought to be written like this and not LIKE THIS.  Also, such and not SVCH.  Yes, in the good old days, latin was written with all caps and Vs, but this usage is better suited for comical usage.  Most languages were once written all caps, way back in history, but not much anymore.  When writing seriously, type bicamerally.  There are times to write in þe olde style and this is not one of them.  Also, with the CVMs and MECVMs, these ought to be U's.  Though U and V where once the same, if we are writing in the nice bicameral way, condense them both to u which is more reflective of all the pronunciations of U/V which happens to be u/w.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.110.120 (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin Etymologies 

message: This section says that the examples only use prepositions, but "Hace tres años" uses a verb that needs to be conjugated. "Él me dijo que hizo tres años..." would be "He told me that three years ago..." Dconman2 (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to fix that. --Jotamar (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translating English postpositions to Spanish 

message: I'd like to add an in-depth section on direct object a, but it seems like it would be excessively detailed here.  Would everyone be alright if I added it here and provided a link? Esszet (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct object ''a''