I understand that the preposition "a" means "to" or "at". However, "to" and "at" aren't really equivalent in English. For example:
"He threw the ball to him."
It sounds like he is throwing the ball with the intention that the other person catch it.
"He threw the ball at him."
Here it sounds like the ball is intended to strike the other person.
Is there any way to show this distinction in Spanish?
Since no one has answered you, I'll take a guess: it's like in French and your "at" is simply a preposition.
"He threw the ball to him." - your "at" would mean "to" him. ie. at his location.
"He threw the ball at him." - "on" would be the preposition used to "throw at". eg. he threw the ball "on" him.
But I'm just guessing without knowing or being able to write any Spanish! This might help 'til a Spanish speaker replies.
My guess would be that in Spanish, the verb would make the difference. Maybe for the first example, a verb followed by a preposition would be "to him" and then for the second example, just a verb without a preposition would be "at him."
He threw the ball to him
Le tiró una pelota
He threw the ball at him
Le tiró un pelotazo
There is no way of knowing the intention. I mean, if it's with or without "mala leche" (bad milk) with that prepositional thing.
The Spanish language is, obviously, rich enough to make its evil intentions known. In the second case --the one with "mala leche"-- we would say:
Le tiró un pelotazo. A "pelotazo" is a "blow with a ball". "Le dió un pelotazo en la cara." "The ball hit him in the face." So, what makes the difference isn't the verb , or the preposition, but the noun.
Well, with all my regards, from Spain. There might be other solutions but my native linguistic feelings tell me that is the way to do it.
According to my dictionary to do something will "mala leche" is to do it "for the hell of it."
>"pelotazo" is a "blow with a ball">
A blow-delivering-ball? (a blow as in striking) That's a super-noun!
Mala leche, beautiful expression!
There was a song "Mala Leche", but it was horrible!!!
Yes, you're right. "Pelotazo" is also beautiful.
How do you say "He threw XYZ at him" in Spanish?
(where XYZ is: stones, water, an orange, any object, etc.)
The usual thing would be Le tiró una piedra, agua, una naranja....
If you want to stress that you reached your target, hurting somewhat the receiver, the thing for "stone" would be "le dió con una piedra" (literally, he gave him with a stone.)
For water you'd have to specify where you hit him, should you want to make this information clear:
Le tiró agua en la cabeza (on the head)
Can you write:
"He threw the ball at him", which to me, is the same as "He hit him with the ball" => le dió con una pelota ?
As for water, I'm guessing it's different, as you throw water over someone who is set ablaze.
As I told you you'd have to say "Le tiró la pelota" "Le" means "a él" or "him" and it would mean both "to" or "at" without the nuance we have in English. Thus, the sentence is more ambiguous in Spanish than in English. You would, therefore, have to say "He hit him with the ball" in that case.
Someone sez:
<<I understand that the preposition "a" means "to" or "at". However, "to" and "at" aren't really equivalent in English. For example:
"He threw the ball to him."
It sounds like he is throwing the ball with the intention that the other person catch it.
"He threw the ball at him."
Here it sounds like the ball is intended to strike the other person.
Is there any way to show this distinction in Spanish?>>
I've never noticed that about our language. True, Spanish doesn't have the idosyncracy present in English (throw to/at) and is not that easy to make the distinction betweent those two sentences.
This is what I would say:
Lo golpeo con la pelota
La golpeo con la pelota
He hurt him with the ball.
Sometimes a DIRECT translation is not adequate/appropriate because languages have a "unique feel" to them. That's just the way it is.
Another one:
Le pego con la pelota.
Well In English, in this situation, 'to' means "in the direction of" or "in the vicinity of", whereas 'at' means "to collide with..." or "to strike". As you can see, the 2 are different enough.
Spanish is weird. I say this even if I speak it since I was 2 or 3.
Xatufan,
Since you are a native Spanish speaker it would seem you started to speak quite late in life.