Question For Non Navite Spanish Speakers

Sergio   Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:46 pm GMT
SIGMA,

Soy mexicano también, y estuve leyendo estos mensajes. Tengo que decir que estoy de acuerdo con Rob. En algún momento histórico en la evolución del español, "haiga" ERA la forma correcta gramaticalmente hablando, de la conjugación del verbo "haber". En regiones aisladas de México, esta forma subsistió hasta nuestros días, quedando sin embargo como un español malo, sin educación. Pero su origen es correcto.

Lo mismo pasa con el famoso "truje", en lugar de traje. En portugués y en gallego esta forma persiste como la forma oficial.

Si tienes oportunidad de leer "El mio Cid", encontrarás muchas palabras y locuciones que hoy aún se escuchan en algunas zonas aisladas y "no educadas" de México.
Ivory   Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:44 pm GMT
Ningún país hispanoamericano es poseedor exclusivo del más correcto, claro y fonéticamente armonioso español. Nadie tiene el monopolio de la lengua. En cada uno de los países hay un sector de la población que, por su buena educación, habla correctamente este idioma.
Es una cuestión de porcentajes. Colombia posiblemente cuente con un buen número de personas bien educadas que hablan el español con propiedad, sin embargo, en México, Chile, etc., aunque posiblemente con un porcentaje menor de personas bien educadas, también tienen un sector de la población que habla correctamente el español. En la mayoría de los países hispanoamericanos ha habido y hay escritores, linguistas, catedráticos, etc. que han contribuido a darle lustre a la lengua castellana, algunos galardonados con el Premio Nobel de Liteatura. Un mexicano, chileno, uruguayo, etc. bien educado habla un español nada diferente del que habla un colombiano bien educado.
Las clases indígenas, a causa de su penuria económica y su muy limitada educación, usan un español incorrecto, deformado con palabras, expresiones y modismos que a veces tienen su origen en sus lenguas autóctonas. Eso existe en todos los países, incluyendo a Colombia.
Algunos hispanoamericanos encuentran al español que se habla en España un tanto "raro" a causa de su entonación, énfasis diferente y la pronunciación de las letras "c", "s", "z". Como éstas son tres letras que muchas veces le dan a las palabras diferentes significados (caso, cazo), lo correcto es que cada una se pronuncie de diferente manera. Pronunciarlas de igual forma no es un pecado mortal, pero es incorrecto.
Por alguna razón la Real Academia de La lengua, situada en España, no modifica este aspecto del español hablado en España. La Academia es la rectora de la lengua y todos los hispanoparlantes deben de obedecer sus reglas y dictados, de otra manera llegará el día en que cada quien se vaya por su lado y no nos entendamos los unos a los otros.
Hay norteamericanos que dicen no entender a sus humildes empleados domésticos (ilegales) y cuando escuchan a un colombiano les parece que están oyendo una lengua límpida y muy comprensible y eso los hace decidir que los colombianos deben ser los que hablan el mejor español de Hispanoamérica. La comparación es absurda, pues están comparando un individuo sin educación que ni siquiera sabe escribir el e spañol, con uno bien educado.
g   Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:30 pm GMT
Sigma:

¿como está eso de que no ers mestizo ni indigena?

Por que en México no los hay (esos se quedaron es España) todos los que llegaron a conquistar junto con los pueblos indigenas y algunos esclavos negros somos hoy mexicanos (salvo que seas hijo de inmigrantes, lo cual no te libra de tener una visión racista) esa observación de que los blancos controlan el pais no es más que una reflejo del racismo que impera en nuestro pais (México), es un hecho que los indigenas son discriminados (que mejor que leer tu escrito), pero no por eso se puede decir "los blancos controlan el pais",o "los ricos son blancos".

Que mejor ejemplo que nuestras costrumbres el taco, el chile y la tortilla son para todas las clases sociales, que las altas y medias altas las acompañen con muchisimos más alimentos y las bajas se tengan que conformar solo con eso es una cuestión de dinero educación y oportunidades .

Y creo que sería bueno que viajaras por México, pues he conocido muchos "güeros" que dicen haiga, truje, juites, vinites y viven en la miseria.

Asi como gente con dinero (prieta) que habla "bien".

Las cosas no son blanco y negro hay también matices.
Aldvs   Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:40 pm GMT
Los Mexicanos son una nacionalidad, no una raza. En Mexico aun existe una plenitud de razas forasteras.
Johnathan Mark   Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:51 am GMT
Ivory:

En Andalucia, Cuba, Puerto Rico, y la Republica Dominica (y en mas zonas litorales), se considera normal y aceptado hablar sin pronunciar los eses en posicion implosiva. Diria usted que todos estos pueblos son maleducados? Es que su acento, su dialecto, nos resuelta dificil entender a nosotros estudiantes de espanol que han aprendido una pronunciacion que es muy fonetica. Ademas, la utilidad de la distincion entre s, c, y z es muy limitado, porque solo existe en espana. En mi opinion, la Real Academia Espanola puede decir lo que sea, pero los hispanohablantes del mundo deben seguir hablando como han hablado. Las variaciones pueden hacer que la lengua sea mas dificil entender, pero es tambien muy interesante y divertido oir las distinciones.

Ya he dicho que soy estudiante (y quizas siempre estare); entonces, si hay errores, dime. Gracias
ERICK LATUFF   Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:07 am GMT
NO DISCUSSIONS COLOMBIAN SPANISH IS THE BEST AND THE MOST OF THE COLOMBIAN PEOPLE LIVING IN USA HAS AT LEAST HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION....
Aldvs   Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:54 am GMT
Johnathan tu español es excelente.

<<En Andalucia, Cuba, Puerto Rico, y la Republica Dominica (y en mas zonas litorales), se considera normal y aceptado hablar sin pronunciar los eses en posicion implosiva>>

Yo diria que no es que es normal y aceptado sino mas bien que no lo notan ya que desde que nacen lo escuchan y aprenden de esa forma. Igual que le sucede a un ingles o a un estadounidense o a todos nosotros.

<<Es que su acento, su dialecto, nos resuelta dificil entender a nosotros estudiantes de espanol que han aprendido una pronunciacion que es muy fonetica>>

Todos entendemos lo que dices pues a veces para un hispanohablante incluso resulta dificil entender a algunos cubanos, puertorriqueños o dominicanos que hablan con su acento algo rapido y tenemos que preguntar cada cierto tiempo "que?" "como?". A veces es muy embarazoso.

<<En mi opinion, la Real Academia Espanola puede decir lo que sea, pero los hispanohablantes del mundo deben seguir hablando como han hablado. >>

Hasta donde yo se la RAEL solo controla la forma escrita no la fonetica.

<<entonces, si hay errores, dime. Gracias >>

Muy bueno tu español como dije antes y solo unas pequeñas correcciones porque lo has pedido:

<<la utilidad de la distincion entre s, c, y z es muy limitado>>

la utilidad de la distincion (femenino).....es muy *limitada* (adjetivo femenino).

<...que la lengua sea mas dificil entender...>

que la lengua sea mas dificil *de* entender
raul sanchez   Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:27 am GMT
hey, luis zalot, you went to tepatitlan?! that's awesome that's where i was born. and i have never used habemos for ser or tener. kinda weird. but i love the way i speak, and i'm from mexico. i speak clear. my italian exchange student friend told me that he likes the way mexicans speak, because it's clear, and when he went to spain, he could not understand them at all. i was flattered of course. but i love the way they speak in spain, except the andalusian accent. i'm really not a fan at all of the weakening of the s as they do on the eastern coasts of mexico, chile, and other places in latin america. And my favorite spanish accent has got to be argentinian and uruguayan. they are so cool. i must admit, i can hardly understand the uruguayans i know, but it just sounds so cool. probably cause i'm also an italophile. i have a unique accent, i would say. i am mexican, so i have mexican influences, but i grew up in california, speaking english all the time when not at home. and then i would read ALOT about accents in spain, accents in south america, the carribbean, and in mexico. so, i picked up some of the spanish Z's, and some of the argentinian LL''s. and i've learned italian, and french which also influence my accent. so i kinda sound funny. but i can speak my clear mexican if i want. oh, and by the way. you were talkign shit about the indians. well, my parents are basically white, from jalisco, where most of the population is of spanish descent. and they say haiga which frustrates me to pieces, and they don't speak very properly. but they're from a rancho.
oh, and i hate when people say the B instead of the V. una baca, instead of una Vaca pisses me off. and i agree, mejis make up some strange words, but don't all the spanish speakers, i mean, come on. spanish is a very diverse language, and it's spoken in sooo many parts of the world. ou can't expect there to be STANDARD spanish. and if you do, that's pure bunk.
so, peace, i'm out.
Benjamin   Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:58 pm GMT
I think spanish from El salvador is the most difficult one since they don't use TU anymore spanish from el salvador is strong it sounds like french when you don't know the language as well. I am agree who said that spanish from mexico is the easiest they speak slowly and clear but they use their own commonly vocabulary words it's not easy at all.
Diana   Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:03 pm GMT
Spanish is one of the most difficult language to learn even than french can you believe that french is not easy.
Sergio   Thu Sep 21, 2006 11:20 pm GMT
Hi Benjamin,

I would put it like that:

Spanish variants are not that different really. The differences between English accents and dialects are by far greater. We, in the Spanish speaking world, never have an unintelligibillity (is it written like that???), as you in English speaking world may have, or at least within England.
LAA   Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:31 am GMT
"Los Mexicanos son una nacionalidad, no una raza. En Mexico aun existe una plenitud de razas forasteras. "

I know. You might be interested to know that a popular slogan for Chicanos in the U.S. is "Viva la raza!". I participated in the recent chicano movement, where we peacefully demonstrated by going out on a walkout. I refrained from any racial comments, though.

<<The differences between English accents and dialects are by far greater. We, in the Spanish speaking world, never have an unintelligibillity (is it written like that???), as you in English speaking world may have>>

We really don't have that either, except maybe within England. Spanish grammar is slight different with the vosotros in Spain, which is not present in Latin America. There is no such thing that is comparable to that in English. But I think it's silly to call various regional Spanish accents "dialects" as if they are not 100% intelligable.
Pauline   Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:42 pm GMT
<< How do you find the language Easy? Hard?'
Do you consider Spanish as a important language in the international area??? if you do or not please explain your reasons.
And also what do you think of the grammar and the various accents of Spanish? >>

Hola,
Hablo un poquito de espanol, pero me gusta mucho seguramente. Para mí, la lengua espanola no parece dificil ; sin haber tenido clases puedo leer el periódico, o un libro fácil, aunque la gente comprender cuando habla es otra cosa, y eso no puedo.

Sin dudo es un idioma muy importante ; no solamente por los países donde lo se habla como lengua maternal, sino como lengua de communicación, social y cultural también.

la gramatica no conozco suficiente para dar mi opinion, y los varios accentos tampoco. En belgica tenemos TVE internacional, y de vez en cuando le veo, pero siempre me parece que habla rapidisamente, y no entiendo casi ninguna palabra !!!
Benjamin   Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:59 pm GMT
I'll just say that the 'Benjamin' above isn't me... seems to be two of us with the same name!
Sigma   Fri Sep 22, 2006 10:29 pm GMT
Por que en México no los hay (esos se quedaron es España) todos los que llegaron a conquistar junto con los pueblos indigenas y algunos esclavos negros somos hoy mexicanos (salvo que seas hijo de inmigrantes, lo cual no te libra de tener una visión racista) esa observación de que los blancos controlan el pais no es más que una reflejo del racismo que impera en nuestro pais (México), es un hecho que los indigenas son discriminados (que mejor que leer tu escrito), pero no por eso se puede decir "los blancos controlan el pais",o "los ricos son blancos".****************************************

Eh g, puedo escribir mucho detalles, pero como se que no me vas a creer, mejor lee por ti mismo una opinión de terceros, no Mexicanos, pienso que deberias tu tambien hacer caso a tu consejo, y viajar mas por el páis, ya que decir que no existen Mexicanos que no sean o mestizos o indigenas es totalmente absurdo, basta con ver a las élites "blancas" que estan en la política, o los estudiantes de universidades privadas como el ITESM, La Salle, UPAEP, La Escuela Libre de Derecho, etc para ver que si hay Mexicanos blancos o de piel morena clara:

How Latino Intermarriage Breeds Racial Inequality

by Steve Sailer
www.VDARE.com
5/18/2000
Home

Email Steve



This is the third and final installment of my VDARE.com series "Importing Mexico's Worsening Racial Inequality" on the Mexican racial hierarchy and its implications for America. If friends of yours wants to join my "iSteve" mailing list and receive my published articles by email, just have them send a blank email to iSteve-subscribe@egroups.com .
--------------

After nearly twenty generations of intermarriage between whites and Indians, Mexico has ended up with an almost wholly white elite, a vast mixed race (mestizo) working class, and at least 10 million extremely impoverished pure Indians who have never assimilated into Hispanic culture. And the ruling class is becoming ever whiter. Yet, intermarriage is supposed to bring about racial equality and harmony. So, how did this happen? And what does it portend for America's dream of colorblind equality?

The first column in this series described the corruption of Mexico's white rulers. [Part 1: Mexico's Corrupt White Elite http://www.vdare.com/sailer_mexico.htm] The second outlined race in Mexico. [Part 2: Mexico's Insidious Color Continuum http://www.isteve.com/ImportingMexicanInequality.htm] This will explain the mechanism through which Latin America's seemingly anti-racist freedom to marry across color lines produces such racially hierarchical societies - and what this implies for the U.S.

In Mexico, white conquistadors interbred with Indian women to produce mestizos. Let's assume that in 1519 the Spaniards and the Mexican Indians were equal in IQ and other significantly heritable traits that aid economic success. I'll follow Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs & Steel: The Fates of Human Societies) in stipulating that the conquistadors won solely because by luck they had the guns, germs, and steel on their side, and that the only reason they had superior technology was because Spain was less isolated than Mexico.

Now, imagine a conquistador and his Indian woman have two sons in the 1520s. These two mestizo brothers grow up and go out in the world to seek their fortunes. One is smarter, and he strikes it rich. The other wasn't so lucky in the genetic lottery, and he becomes poor. The rich son has a wide variety of potential wives to choose from. Like most men, and like almost all Mexican men, he is more attracted to blonde women, and thus marries one. (If you aren't familiar with the depths of Mexico's blonde obsession, try watching Spanish-language TV shows. Almost all the women on Mexican TV look like Finns.) His impoverished brother, in contrast, cannot attract a blonde wife. So he marries an Indian girl.

Then, the brothers have children. On average, the smarter, richer brother's kids, who are 3/4 white, are smarter than their underprivileged 1/4 white cousins. They're smarter not because they are whiter, but because their father had more smartness genes than their uncle. This trend continues: in both families, the smartest, most energetic, and most ruthless sons marry the blondest wives, while the blondest daughters marry the husbands with the most Right Stuff. Repeat for another dozen and a half generations. By 2000, this pattern could lead to the most European-looking people being the most naturally formidable, even if they weren't when they arrived in 1519.

Of course, talented youths are still born among the mestizos, but the white elite discriminates against them. However, in Mexico every century or so, there is a massive upheaval like the Revolution of 1910. The white monopoly is fractured. Up through the cracks come the most able mestizos and Indians. They start dynasties that persist to this day … but their grandsons and great-grandsons are notably whiter they were, since the men of the family have been exploiting their social ascendancy to marry white women. (Of course, many rich Mexican men father second families with their lower-ranking mistresses. But these kids seldom get the breaks in life that the legitimate children do.)

The ruling class today is not restricted solely to the legitimate heirs of the current magnates, however. It continues to recruit smart young men from the lower orders. For example, President Ernesto Zedillo, who has a doctorate from Yale in economics, is from a quite poor background. Yet, he looks pure white (and acts that way, too -- his aides used to call him "El Nerd" behind his back). His mother was a medical student who dropped out for obscure reasons. There is some uncertainty about whether he really is the biological son of the humble Mexicali electrician who raised him, or of a Finance Ministry official.

President Zedillo is the classic manifestation of Mexico's "technocrat" trend. Extremely well-educated young men with state-of-the-art managerial skills shove aside the old guard "dinosaurs." The great majority of these bright young things are all or almost all white. In the U.S., we see an IQ gap of roughly half of a standard deviation between non-Hispanic whites and Mexican-American mestizos, and something like that probably holds true in Mexico too, after all this assortative mating.

Why does the Mexican government need so many technocrats? After all, Chicago's similar one-party machine clanks along just fine under the guidance of endearingly mediocre minds. Mexico's Left, however, demanded the intrusion of the state into the business world, such as the nationalization of the oil business in 1938 by the sainted President Cardenas (father of the leftist candidate for President in 2000). Ironically, nationalizing industries started the need for technocrats in government, which turned out to mean more whites at the top.

Mexico has in some ways become an IQ meritocracy rather like Imperial China. Enormous prestige and power have gone to graduates of American Ivy League universities. (Or at least to people who claim to have graduated from these universities -- quite a number of cabinet officials were recently found to have failed to complete the degrees on their official resumes.) Still, the educational levels of top government officials is radically higher than in the past, and may well be higher than in the U.S.

The technocratic ascendancy, though, has not decreased corruption or brought more justice to Mexico. In fact, it simply seems to have lead to Mexico being ruled by more clever crooks. Nepotism and cronyism remain rampant. The leaders became less in touch with their subjects, and less sympathetic to their needs, than at any time since the Revolution. Having a lot of Ivy League PhD’s run a semi-literate country where maybe only 2% or 3% of the population subscribe to newspapers is not necessarily a recipe for good government. In a political culture where the current President personally picked the next President, this IQ stratification meant that Presidents increasingly picked their own elitist technocrat aides, many of whom had never won an election before, rather than traditional slap-on-the-back politicians who were more in tune with the masses.

The technocrats have some successes to their names, such as Mexico's highly rational process of developing new tourist destinations. But after several decades of hideous corruption and mismanagement, the average Mexican is sick of technocrats. So the PRI made sure to nominate a presidential candidate this year who only had a bachelor's degree.

Whites have also dominated even Leftist guerilla movements. For example, Subcommandante Marcos, who led the Chiapas guerilla uprising in 1994, is a white college professor from Mexico City. The reason he calls himself a Subcommandante instead of a Commandante is because he supposedly answers to the real Commandantes, who are all Mayan Indians. In fact, Marcos was not originally the spokesman for the rebels -- a Mayan named Commandante Felipe made the initial statements to the press on January 1, 1994. But he proved insufficiently charismatic and articulate in Spanish, so Marcos elbowed him aside a few hours later. But of course, Marcos is today the real Supercommandante and the Indians do what he says.

What does all this portend for America as we become more genetically and culturally Mexican?

Interracial marriage between whites and East Asians in California has indeed worked largely as advertised, bringing these two races quite close together. Since Asians tend to have slightly higher IQ's and significantly better work ethics than whites, white-Asian weddings have contributed to racial equality. The trend toward white-Asian couples, however, has benefited Asian women and hurt Asian men, since only 28% of white-Asian couples feature an Asian husband. (See my ever-controversial article "Is Love Colorblind?" [http://www.isteve.com/IsLoveColorblind.htm])

On the other hand, a new class system based on color is also growing more visible in Southern California. Although the men of LA are less prejudiced about women's hair and skin color than the men of Mexico, in LA, like most places, the blonde remains queen. As Hugh Hefner has pointed out, for 85 years Hollywood has pulled in the most beautiful blondes from all over the world, which is why native-born California women are so attractive. For generations to come, the blondes will keep arriving from all over America, Canada, and Europe, and they'll continue to marry the hardest charging, most successful men. This will keep LA's hereditary overclass blonder than is expected by today's Tiger Woods-bedazzled conventional wisdom.

Likewise, the Hispanic influx into California seems to be simply recreating the racial hierarchy of Latin America - rather like the freed slaves who went to Liberia and set up an imitation Southern slave-owning society there. America's leading Latino politicians tend to marry Anglos (for example, the last two Latino Cabinet officers, the head of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus, and the last two presidents of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund [MALDEF]). Thus, the Mexican-American elite is likely to become even whiter over the generations.

While upwardly mobile Mexican-Americans marry blonde Anglos, downwardly mobile white men often wed Mexicans. Now, there is plenty to be said for getting hitched to a Mexican lady. They tend to make better mothers, homemakers, and cooks than the leggy blonde careerists who, however, are so much more in demand in Southern California. But sadly, there is a big social cost to Anglo-Hispanic marriages - which raises severe doubts about America's ability to assimilate Latino immigrants. As pro-immigration/ pro-assimilation researcher Gregory Rodriguez admits, "Surprisingly, in most homes headed by an Anglo/Latino couple, Spanish becomes the household language." [http://www.med.ucla.edu/cesla/oped/5-5-96.htm] (Possibly, this stems from Latinos staying in closer touch with their extended families, which makes speaking Spanish more necessary for family life than speaking English.)

Thus, those L.A. blue-collar whites who don't flee to Utah will tend to assimilate genetically and culturally into Latino culture.

If the U.S. were to adopt a merit-based immigration policy like Canada's that favored those immigrants with the smarts to contribute the most to the economy and to the IRS (i.e., more Asians and fewer Latinos), then skin and hair color would become less accurate predictors of intelligence and social class. However, our current nepotism-driven immigration system, which allows in so many mestizo immigrants under the family reunification provisions, is simply importing Latin America's race-based inequality.

http://www.isteve.com/HowLatinoIntermarriageBreedsInequality.htm



¿como está eso de que no ers mestizo ni indigena?

Por que en México no los hay (esos se quedaron es España) todos los que llegaron a conquistar junto con los pueblos indigenas y algunos esclavos negros somos hoy mexicanos (salvo que seas hijo de inmigrantes, *******

Si soy hijo (mas bien nieto para ser exacto) de inmigrantes, de nuevo si según tu, solo existen Mexicanos que son indigenas o mestizos, entonces: ¿la mayoria de los politicos que rigen el pais, no son Mexicanos, debido a que son blancos o de piel morena clara?. ¿algunos empresarios, actores de telenovelas, estudiantes de universidades (sobre todo de las privadas), no son Mexicanos?

Hay un racismo muy marcado no solo en México, en toda la América Latina, pero esto es producto de siglos de desigualdades, esta mal generalizar, pero las tendencias de siglos y siglos de esta "marginalización" de la gente en el poder (los descendientes de los Españoles u otros inmigrantes, que generalmente obstentaban el poder económico y político) hacia la gente de escazos recursos (en su gran parte, indígenas y mestizos), ha causado estas tendencias de que se ve un gran númerto de personas que pertenezcan a las élites que sean o bien "blancas" o "morenas claras" y que la gente de escazos recursos tenga un mayor aspecto físico "indigena" o de "piel obscura".

Claro que hay un nivel medio y puedes encontrar de todo, pero por otra parte decir que en el país solo existen Mexicanos indigenas o mestizos, y nada más, es una totalmente absurdo