Earlier White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Spain has agreed to cooperate with the U.S. military after President Donald Trump threatened to cut trade with Madrid over its stance against the US-Israeli strikes on Iran
Which then quickly prompted the Spanish government to categorically deny any such agreement of cooperation with the US military.
Article translated w/ DeepL
The Minister of Foreign Affairs, José Manuel Albares, has “categorically” denied that Spain will “cooperate militarily” with the US, as previously stated by White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt. At a press conference, the US official said that “Spain has agreed to cooperate militarily in the last few hours.” In an appearance this morning, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez summed up Spain’s position on the conflict “in four words: No to war.” For its part, the European Commission has warned that it is prepared to act and safeguard the interests of the Union in response to US President Donald Trump’s threat of a trade embargo against Spain. On the ground, Turkey has reported that NATO systems installed on its soil have shot down a missile over its territory, which fell without causing damage after flying over Iraq and Syria. NATO has condemned the launch by Iran. In addition, Israel continues, together with the US, its bombing of Iran, where it has attacked targets in Tehran and other cities. The death toll from the offensive by both countries has exceeded 1,000, while the Ayatollah regime has continued to launch missiles against US targets in countries surrounding the Persian Gulf, such as Kuwait, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.
Could just translate it “no to the war” instead of writing an explanation.
I’d rather translate it as: in three words no to war. Translation does not have to be literal in these cases. But I guess since it was translated with DeepL, it is good that someone pointed out the reason for that discrepancy.
I can only draw from my French, but I guess “no to war” is the correct translation, as “no to the war” in English would be either wonky or would mean “no to this specific war”. But the Spanish wording is more read as “no to war in general”, so the translation is more correct.
Est-ce que Duolingo me menti?? Il accepte les deux… (/s)
Anyway, I figured “no to this specific war” was close enough, especially since he was in fact talking in the context of a specific war.
Soit Duolinguo “te ment” (au présent), soit il “t’as menti” (au passé). Mais “me(présent) menti(passé)” c’est pas possible
Noter que l’équivalent première personne pour “t’as” est “m’a”, in order to seed confusion among enemy troops
Based on french, I would also support the “no to war in general” hypothesis. I don’t have a grammatical reason for this, it’s just that this phrasing is most often used for general concepts than specific instances. If they were talking about this war specifically, it would look like “no a esta guerra” or something.
Who knows maybe someone who actually has a clue how spanish works will one day read this thread x)
That looks wonky in English. Nobbling your translations for the sake of people incapable of understanding that words work differently in other languages is like putting “REMOVE FROM BOX BEFORE EATING” on pizza cartons.
I was under the impression that “la” could act as an article as well as helping signify gender. My mistake.
But in that case, if you don’t want to “nobble” your translation, why not go for “in [three] words: no to war” instead? Translating the math definitely seems less “wonky” to me than annotating it with a long, awkward explanation.
It is an article