Talk:Mexican Spanish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

He he he, this article was translated into Spanish, (see link) and has been described as biased! --tequendamia 13:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, it seems like nobody in Mexico says "Es mucho muy importante", as it would be a too evident grammar error. A rather very common expression would be "es mucho lo importante", though.--tequendamia 13:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] This article is extremely biased

This article has many mistakes, unsupported assumptions and biases. I'll begin by saying that I am a Spaniard, born and raised in Madrid and have also lived in Mexico where my cousins live. I am an Hispanophile and have always closely followed the evolution of Spanish.

First of all I'll say that English-speaking people and particularly Americans have coined a term they seem to love to use: "Castilian Spanish". Let me tell you that there is no such thing! Simply put, "Castilian" is a word that is interchangeable with "Spanish". In fact, many people in Spain prefer to use "Castilian" because we have several autoctonous official languages in Spain besides Spanish (such as Basque and Catalan) that can also qualify to be called "Spanish" because they are languages of the Spanish State. Further, you should all know that both in Spain and Latin America the terms "Castilian" (Castellano) And "Spanish" (Español) are interchangeable. There is no such thing as "Castilian Spanish" or "Español Castellano" That simply is redundant! Once and for all people! Please take note! I have also seen this happen in the word for the Mexican "Habanero" peppers. Americans think that the "n" in Habanero stands for the letter "ñ" and thus pronounce it as "Habañero" when in fact that is NOT the case. They just assumed that the n was an ñ, why did they assume that? Only God knows! It's the same thing with the trem "Castilian Spanish" You English-speaking-non-spanish-Speaking folks made that one up!!! I cringe every time I hear or read the term "Castilian Spanish". Trash it you all! Put a lid on it, and while you are at it stop calling Habanero peppers "Habañero"! Geez Luis!

Secondly, even as a Spaniard I should tell you that the better Spanish is spoken in the educated regions of Mexico and Colombia. Yes, Spanish ORIGINATED in Spain, but we don't own the language, just like England doesn't own English. All Spanish speakers own the language the same. I am sad to say that in my mother country Spain we have so many national languages and regional dialects that Spanish/Castilian is given a secondary role. Many people speak their local dialect or language at home and only use Spanish in school or when they travel elsewhere in Spain. Therefore the Spanish language in Spain is very bastardized and corrupted. (and it has many more anglicisms than Mexican Spanish by the way)

Thirdly, someone needs to authorize a major edit of this article because it states lies upon lies, untruths upon utruths, such as saying that "In Mexican Spanish names you cannot use "ino" as a diminutive and therefore you end up with entirely different names such as Paula and Paulina". This is hilarious and it made me laugh so much! Yes, "Paula" and "Paulina" ARE different names and it has NOTHING to do with Mexican Spanish. Paulina and Paulino are ancient Roman (Latin) names! Whoever wrote this article is (sorry to say) VERY misinformed or just trying to mislead people.

Finally, Mexican Spanish, along with Spanish from Bogota and Central Colombia is the best form of Spanish spoken in the world. It is the most standard, accentless and correct form of our language out there. Not surprisingly and until recently most of the dubbing and translation work came out of Mexico. And if you were to compare Mexican Standard Spanish and Stadard Spanish from Spain you would find at least 50%-75% more proximity between the two than if you were to compare Standard American English and Standard British English. This article is a shame! Troptard2006 07:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Troptard2006Troptard2006 07:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chiapas

In my experience, they do not speak Central American Spanish in Chiapas. I have crossed made the trip from San Salvador to Mexico city many times. And in my experience, the accent, and vocabulary change at the Mexico/C.A. boundary, like magic. I have heard a rumour that vos is used in Chiapas. But I have never heard it first hand.Jackie

I don't know if this article necessarily indicates that the Spanish from Chiapas is Central American Spanish; however, in my own experience, it does have quite a bit in common with Central American Spanish dialects. The intonation, the variations of speed, and the presence of "vos" are things that are common both to Chiapas, Mexico and many Central American nations (Guatemala and El Salvador, for example). One of my best friends is from Chiapas, which is how I became acquainted with that particular subdialect of Spanish. I would also argue that the Spanish spoken in either of the coastal regions, as well as anywhere in the south of Mexico, have more in common with Central American Spanish than with the dialects spoken in North or Central Mexico (which are distinct from each other as it is). The accents and dialects in Mexico really do comprise a great diversity.69.235.80.101 01:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)James Lopez

[edit] "Easiest to understand"

Can you site a source for these "international sources" who say that Mexican Spanish is the easiest dialect of Spanish to understand? As an English speaker, I find it much easier to understand Castillian Spanish. Mexican Spanish is often filled with slang and wordplay of sorts. Who says it's easiest to understand? If you are going to make a sweeping statement like that, I'd like to see a source. Moncrief 21:45, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

One more, according to the Spaniards and many South Americans, even Fidel Castro said it once, the best spoken Spanish is the Colombian one.--tequendamia 13:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All countries have their slang, Mexican Spanish accent is considered easier to understand because of enunciation. "Castillian Spanish" often misses "d"s, like in "partío" for "partido" while many Caribbean countries miss ending "s", and say "puntoh" for "puntos". Puerto Ricans pronounce many "r"s like "l"s, as in "pueltoliqueño" for "puertorriqueño".--Vizcarra 02:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the pronunciation of Mexico city is the easiest to understand for an english speaker. 'D's are pronounced very clearly. 'S's are pronounced as in English. However, I disagree with the way that that the portorican pronunciation of puertorriqueño is transliterated above. "pueltorriqueño" is much more accurate as intervocalic 'r's and less so 'rr's do not seem to be affected by the r->l shift that is common there. However, I only know this by listening to Reggaeton carefully.Jackie

As a native speaker of Brazilian Portuguese, I can confirm Mexican Spanish is far easier for me to understand than Castillian Spanish. 200.177.27.11 02:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I heard that South American Spanish in general is clearer, slower and easier to understand than Castilian Spanish. However, I think I've heard that the easiest dialect of all was Guatemalan Spanish. 惑乱 分からん 15:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Guatemalan Spanish is easiest diaclect to understand in Latin America (not many people know this), followed by the Colombian Spanish spoken in the central region of that country. Gtrojan 19:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I am from Mexico City, and I am born to Spanish-born parents. I have heard almost every dialect of Spanish spoken, and depending on the person one particular regions Spanish can be easier than another. Typically, understanding how the word is spelled and pronounced is easiest in Mexico City, as we do not trill our r's, drop out letters, nor overaccent vowels/consonants. But Mexico City is definently not the easiest to comprehend vocabulary as there is a very big difference in word usage between Mexico City and the whole country, even areas nearby like Acapulco/Guadalajara - the connotation of the word in the northern part of the country could be vulgar, but in Mexico City it could be a basic word; also we speak extremely fast. Whomever said Guatemalan or Colombian [ only from Bogota as up to the north along the coast has a big influence of Caribbean Spanish vocabulary and pronunciation, and other parts of the country use different pronunciations/grammar e.g. sumerce, vos, etc ]is probably correct because they use, generally, the most standard Spanish vocabulary, and do not tend to use vos instead use tu/usted, and pronounce clearly.

OK I must admit Spanish is not my mother tongue and I learned it in central Spain, but that's part of my point: I can't understand at all how someone could say that Mexican Spanish is the clearest or easiest to understand! It depends on which type of Spanish you are most familiar with, and that's basically it. Apart from that I do think there are at least two things that are not clear at all about Mexican Spanish (although both apply to many American Spanish varieties):
(1) The fusion of the "th" sound as in za, ce, ci, zo, zu with the "s" sound as in sa, se, si, so, so. This frecuently creates spelling problems -- people from Latin America tend to write s's were it should be z or c. The z-s fusion also implies that word pairs like "caza" (hunt) and "casa" (house) are pronounced the same.
(2) The use of ustedes instead of vosotros implies that the same verb forms are used to refer to "them" (ellos) and "you all" (ustedes). Since the pronoun ustedes is frequently omitted, this can create confusion. ¿Llegaron ayer? may mean Did you guys arrive yesterday? or Did they arrive yesterday? This does not happen in most Spanish dialects of the Iberian Peninsula since Did you guys arrive yesteray? tanslates to something quite different: Llegasteis ayer?.

Capullo2 17:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a really subjective topic, to say the least. Some dialects and subdialects of Spanish are much easier for some to follow than others. In terms of mutual intelligibility, I would suggest that the Spanish spoken in Spain, most of Mexico, Costa Rica, parts of Colombia, and most of Argentina are among the most easily intercommunicable dialects-- however, this does not necessarily render these dialects as easy to understand for everyone (native and non-native speakers included). Generally speaking, most Spanish-speakers can understand the majority of different dialects of the same language, but difficulties do arise from time to time, even among speakers from the same country. I can understand some Mexican Spanish-speakers but not others, and yes, these other speakers are also from Mexico. I can understand very few Cuban Spanish speakers, yet I generally understand Puerto-Rican Spanish, which is remarkably similar to the Cuban dialect(s). It all really depends on the person.69.235.80.101 01:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)James Lopez

[edit] Siguro

Does 'siguro' mean for sure /certainly as in Standard Spanish or 'maybe'/'perhaps'(quizas)? The reason I ask this is that many Mexicans came to the Philippines when it was a Spanish colony. 'Siguro' in Filipino today means maybe or perhaps.--Jondel 00:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the question, but siguro doesn't mean anything unless it it's seguro but pronounced incorrectly; and seguro means certainly. --J.Alonso 02:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Does 'siguro/seguro' mean 'maybe/perhaps' in Mexican Spanish at certain times?--Jondel 02:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Philippine "siguro" underwent the same change that "Sure" is in American English, which more and more is used sarcastically and means "not likely" or "I don't believe it".--JWB 03:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I heard about that. Today, sarcastic or not, in all Philippine dialects, 'siguro' means maybe or perhaps even when serious.'For Sure' or Certainly' is 'sigurado' or 'siguradong' (as an adverb). --Jondel 04:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Allow me to shed some light. SEGURO is synonimous to SAFE, ENSURED, something that is considered CERTAIN. As JWB stated, it may be turned around in a sarcastic tone, but this does not affect the meaning of the word itself. "SEGURO! TE CREO!" meaning "Sure! I believe you!", could be meant both as an honest or sarcastic remark, depending on the context. INSEGURO usually conveys a different meaning (see: Insecure). The equivalent to 'maybe/perhaps' has always been along the lines of 'quiza/quizas/puede ser/a lo mejor/tal vez'. Reminds me of Capulina :P. Rouxcharlotte 08:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some changes

Yucatan Spanish is not at all related to Central American Spanish: it does not use vos, as it is common in Central America, and it has many unique words, some Mayan words (chichí for grand-mother) and also non-Spanish European words (estrada for sidewalk, while "banqueta" is the common Mexican word, "vereda" in South America, "acera" in Spain). In some areas of Yucatan, the "r" is even uvular as opposed to the alveolar (rolled) r, which is common almost everywhere else where Spanish is spoken.

Also, I agree with Tequendamia. I have never heard the superlative "muy mucho" in Mexico. I've heard people say "muy importantísimo" or "súper importantísimo", which is also ungrammatical (a pleonasm), but never "muy mucho". I assume the statement was translated from the Spanish wiki article, which was, as it can be judged from the style, written by a Spaniard, not by a Mexican; and it was contested in the discussion page too. --J.Alonso 02:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me add: the phrase "Mucho muy..." (as opposed to "Muy mucho"), grammatically incorrect as it may be, IS used at the very least in certain areas of Mexico (although somewhat uncommonly). Its use is discouraged due to its redundancy, but ultimately, it is used to qualify something in a superlative manner. In a sense, it is a literal translation of the English phrase "very much". This of course, does not mean its use is entirely justified... Rouxcharlotte 08:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] §

What does this symbol mean? It's not IPA. --JWB 19:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


'"Asumo que no va a venir", for I assume he is not coming, instead of the correct form: "Supongo que no va a venir".' I've never heard asumo used in this way, but, in any case, shouldn't both forms contain vaya, not va? Maw 00:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that is the case. "Supongo que va." is correct I recon, just as "Creo que va.", as opposed to "No creo que vaya.".81.102.87.109 17:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Supongo que no va a venir (or asumo que no va a venir) is correct; the indicative should be used. As mentioned by 81.102.87.109 only when negating the phrase the subjunctive should be used. I hear (and sometimes incorrectly use) asumo all the time; may be if you have never heard it, then it is not as generalized as I thought, and in other regions of Mexico (probably in the south) they still use the correct verb. Obviously at school they teach you not to use asumir instead of soponer, but at least in the region where I used to live, it is widely used. --J.Alonso 20:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, in this case, the use of the verb "asumir" is something of a (sloppy?) shorthand... "Asumir" and "suponer" are not entirely synonimous. One could take the phrase "Asumo que no vendra" and expand it to "Asumo la idea (de) que no vendra". This is, "I hereby take unto myself the belief that he will not come", which is, of course, unnecessarily overblown... (: Rouxcharlotte 09:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mucho muy importante

Hello!! I am Mexican, and certainly, I speak Mexican Spanish, and I am to clear some of the points discussed here: first, the user tequendamia is wrong; Mexicans do say mucho muy importante, in fact, it is quite common (more than es mucho lo importante, which means something completely different anyway). It is still seen as incorrect by the educated, but this is not as rigid as it is for haiga, for example; some even say muchísimo muy importante.

Second, for J.Alonso: muy importantísimo does not exist, despite the previous point, muy is not used with superlatives. I cannot say súper importantísimo does not exist, but if it did, it would be pretty rare and odd to hear for the common speaker.

Third, for Maw: I assume he's not comming = Creo que no viene or mostly No creo que venga (present often stands for both forms of future in Spanish, negative sentences do use subjunctive), Creo is the most common way to say I assume, Supongo is next and it is not very common, and Asumo is considered incorrect by most people, though some use it especially close to the US border.

Fourth, about the diminutatives: there exist other forms of diminutatives, the terminations eto/eta help form a new word, like cubeta (bucket), from cubo=cube (cubo itself means also bucket, but this form is not used in Mexico); camioneta (truck), from camión = bus; and some others. The other one is the familiar is; it's usage has been extending recently and it's used for euphemisms and sympathetically naming someone (tontis for "dummy", primis and tiyis for cousin and "auntie"). The ill infix is also generally used, though less than it.200.65.10.61 15:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

For 200.65.10.61, muy importantísimo is obviously grammatically wrong as "muy " is not used with superlatives, as you said it. Nonetheless it is widely used, specially in rural communities. (In other words the fact that it is wrong and that some speakers know it is wrong does not mean that it is not used at all). Secondly, "super importantísimo" is not as widely used as "muy importantísimo", I agree, but it can still be heard; the qualifier "súper" is now being widely used (perhaps confined to the central states of Mexico) by young people, meaning "awesome". (Está súper) or "very" (Está súper padre"). As with "muy" certain speakers use it incorrectly (Está súper padrísimo"). Thirdly, the fact that is "asumo" is considered incorrect (not by most people, but only by educated people) does not mean that is is not used. The same thing happens with the verb "diferenciar". I even heard president Fox saying "diferencío" (breaking the diphthong incorrectly) even though every children is taught at school that it is incorrect. And finally, the proposed diminutive "is" is only used with certain words, like the examples given by 200.65.10.61, but it cannot be applied to all words; I've never heard any one say "dame un platis" instead of "dame un platito", or "qué bonita casis" instead of "qué bonita casita"; and even if a speaker says "primis" it does not necessarly mean "little cousin" as primito would; in other words it is not a diminutive. Yet, I agree, the "ill" is also used, though less that "it". --J.Alonso 21:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for answering. I guess I hurried a bit by saying muy importantísimo did not exist at all, I am sure it does; but still, mucho muy importante is far more common and it is not confined to rural communities but widely used throughout the country as very few consider it to be wrong. And, yes, súper importantísimo is at the bottom; for most people, including the young, use only súper importante to say very, VERY, important.

  • About asumo, I never said it did not exist, I just said that it is STILL the least common way to say I assume, for creo is, by far, the most common way to say it.
  • Er... I never mentioned diphtong breaking, but it is a very common grammar vice which I think will, eventually, become the rule for those verbs.
  • The diminutative "is", is, as I said, used mostly for euphemisms, like "dummy", plato and casa do not need an euphemism; I called it a diminutative because it IS, although not used for that purpose; and anyway, I pointed that its usage is very recent and it can be a sort of moda.

Greetings!! 201.128.225.154 01:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC) (previously 200.65.10.61)

First off, I have to disagree with the person above me, If I ever heard anyone say es mucho muy importante I wouldn't even pay attention to them, because they are speaking completely incorrect. I agree with the person who said that it is confined to rural regions, because it would be used with undereducated people; it is a redudant sentance - a lot, very important. The correct way to say that sentence would be es lo(a) más importante, or es más importante que... One being superlative and the other being comparative. Also with súper, that is a new term used by the young people in and around the Mexico City region. No ending is added to word it is just súper importante, or súper rápido, not súper importantísimo which I think you did state above.

[edit] LL as english J and Y as english J

I've not seen it mentionned but we had a discussion the other day at a bar (I'm a Canadian married to a Mexican and living in mexico)... Wheter it was better to pronounce the LL as the english J such as 'Jay' or Y like Yellow. It kinda ended up with some (mexicans) stating that pronouncing LL as Y was the lazy way while a couple of others said the contrary. For example, como te jamas (llamas), para jevar (llebar), DJo tambien etc... I've done some research on the web on this, and it's not really being discussed. I did find an articule saying that a lot of Mexicans use it this way (the J) but never really discussed.

About the Double L: Typically, it's somewhere between the two (J and Y), not too strong, not too soft. Of course, people from different regions have their own colorful ways of pronouncing these sounds... Some people, for example, will pronounce it closer to "J". The phoneme "CH" (such as in CHAIN, CHUBBY, CHACHA); some people pronounce it closer to "SH" (SHACKLE, SHOUT, SHAMBLES), which is WRONG, if you ask me, but what can you do about it? :P Rouxcharlotte 09:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


The double l (ll) is pronounced in some parts of central spain (Valladolid and Salamanca) as you'd pronnounce an lj in english. Example: Valladolid: Val-ja-doh-leed. I don't think there's an oficial phonetic differentiation between them.

[edit] Panique

Is there a word 'panique' meaning bat? We have these in Philippine languages.--Jondel 04:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the Spanish Dictionary, it's a species of bat from the region of Oceania Rouxcharlotte 09:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to be rude to whomever is asking the question, but just because it is used in the Philippine language it most likely is not the exact same in Spanish [thus it would not be very recognizable as if I were to look at the word and say what the first word that came to mind to me in Spanish would be panico], it can be a mix a different words from different parts of the world [english, spanish, etc.] And the word for bat is murciélago.

Following Rouxcharlotte's lead, I researched online dictionaries and found the word panique at www.rae.es (busqueda sin diacriticos). The word indeed originates from Oceania--Jondel 11:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ¿Que Onda?

The phrase ¿Que Onda? is pervasive enough in Mexico that it deserves mention in this article. It is possibly the most common way of saying "What's up?" to people in an informal manner. Particularly among young people.

I could try to explain where it comes from, but I don't have a definitive source. What I've read is that it's a remnant of hippie times. Supposedly, during the 60s in Mexico, they called rock music 'La Onda'. It became trendy to use it in all types of communication at that time, and '¿Que Onda?' what's survived from this. Someone with a better grasp on the details could write a more definitive description. .--Cody M Wilson 16:12, 06 Nov 2006

[edit] Emphasized Consonants/Lost Vowels

While this is certainly the case for some Mexican speakers of Spanish, it certainly is not a reality for the majority. Most Mexcain Spanish speakers tend to drop final consonants like others (for example, "lado" is usually pronounced "lao" by most people from Mexico). The Spanish from Mexico City is known for clear pronunciation of both vowels and consonants and does not exhibit the aformentioned "lao" phenomenon as much as other dialects within Mexico. Also, many speakers of North Mexican dialects of Spanish tend to exhibit greater linguistic emphasis on consonants than perhaps other dialects of Spanish, but quite a few intervocalic consonants get lost as well; therefore, although the emphasized consonants are fairly unique to Mexico, this phenomenon is not as widespread in the country as this article indicates.69.235.80.101 02:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)James Lopez

[edit] Nasals and Syntax

Regarding the following section:

Nasals Standard Spanish speakers pronounce final /m/, /n/, and /ŋ/ as [n] despite spelling that has the many modern Spanish words that end in 'm' (UNAM, .com). Many other dialects also pronounce all three final nasals exactly the same, whether that be as [ŋ], or as [n]. In Mexico, final /n/ and /ŋ/ are realized as different sounds. Final /n/ is always pronounced as [n], and final /ŋ/' as in smoking (tuxedo) is also pronounced as [ŋ].

As a native mexican spanish speaker, I feel obligued to say that final /m/ and /n/ are pronounced differently, not with the same [ŋ] phoneme as currently stated (which might only be true among the uneducated population). A similar situation happens with /m/ before /b/ or /p/.

Syntax Thirdly, some verbs in Mexican Spanish have partly lost their original meaning, and have adopted the English meaning of their cognates: "Apliqué a la universidad", for I applied to the university, instead of the original form: "Postulé a la universidad". (Mexican Spanish speakers really never used the verb "postular" but the combination "Presenté una solicitud" which literally means I filed an application.

"apliqué" seems like a literal translation of apply, which, like "chequear" (to check = comprobar, verificar) is used mostly by mexican-americans and thus incorrect for this context. Only the last part "Presenté una solicitud" is valid. SanGatiche 21:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish-speakers in Arizona, where I live, and in nearby Sonora, seem not to release their final consonants (Navajos do the same thing); they sound "bitten off," and can be hard to understand for those unused to it. My guess is that the author of this section of the article simply doesn't hear the difference between the unreleased nasals, and collapsed them all into [ŋ]. By this logic, final /t/, /d/, /c/, and /g/ all become glottal stops, which they most certainly don't. Final /r/ does have a tendency to sound like final /d/ and final /l/, though.71.223.169.27 14:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the way I read the section is as saying that while many Spanish dialects don't distinguish final /n/ and /m/, Mexican Spanish retains the distinction. The problem might be the wording "...as in smoking (tuxedo) is also pronounced as [ŋ]", which seems to imply that this [ŋ] pronunciation is the same as how final /n/ is pronounced; the beginning of the sentence, though, says "final /n/ is always pronounced as [n]." So I think this might be a typo, and should read "pronounced as [n], while...as in smoking (tuxedo), is pronounced as [ŋ]". Creo que éste es lo que está pasando, de todas maneras. --Miskwito 02:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/x/Talk%7EMexican_Spanish_ca1a.html"