From my experience in learning the language, I started with books and CD's
moved to speaking, after sufficient practice speaking a verb wil just not
"sound" right if you conjugate it wrong. The ultimate goal of most students
of a foreign language is to speak it. No system will help you to conjugate
a verb better when you speak it because you won't be able to think in terms
of that system. The only way to improve is by speaking.

"Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfru@chat.ru> wrote in message
news:498td6Fndng7U1@individual.net...
> ¡Hola!
>
> Perdonad me por escribir en inglés porque todavía no puedo ni hablar ni
> escribir un buen español. Si podéis ayudarme con mis estudios de los
> verbos españoles irregulares, lo haced. Por favor, no me recomendéis
> diccionaríos o guías, ya los tengo (por ejemplo, Spanish Verbs by
> Christopher Kendris, Barron's education series)... Bueno, si sabéis algo
> con todos los patrones de conjugación, decid me...
>
> I've been recommended to ask more scientific language related questions
> in another group, but so far I had no useful input, so I'm posting here.
>
> We all know that there exist several different conjugation patterns for
> regular and irregular verbs in Spanish. Interestingly enough, the
> irregular
> verbs also exhibit quite a regularity in the way they're conjugated, it's
> just that there're more patterns for irregular than for the regular and
> the
> irregular ones are used less often. However, there exist a number of verbs
> which are very irregular in nature and are conjugated individually (e.g.
> haber, ir, etc).
> I'm kind of struggling to learn the conjugation and I want to do that well
> for which I need complete understanding of the conjugation with all its
> rules, exceptions and patterns. And I also want to make a tool for
> conjucation of a given infinitive. Yes, I know there're a number of such
> tools available but they mostly work as a database -- they contain several
> hundred or a few thousand of fully conjugated verbs entered once from a
> book. Definitely, I'm not gonna learn that many verbs nor do I want to
> repeat that gigantic work of taking verbs from the book and I don't really
> want to take the database from one of the existing conjugators.
> What I want to do is to find out all the conjugation patterns and
> individually conjugated verbs so that I could minimize the effort in
> learning conjugation and making a conjugator (the size reduction would
> also
> be nice). I have a few books explaining the conjugation, but neither of
> them
> is complete nor entirely correct, yet there're rare verbs which seem to
> match a certain pattern but they're conjugated differently (e.g. hervir,
> servir), which is probably a sign of individual conjugation.
> The approach I'm thinking of is like this:
> 1. in a very small database of individually conjugated verbs look up the
> given verb and if it's there, conjugate it appropriately (or take the
> precomposed conjugation form from that same database). If the verb isn't
> there, continue:
> 2. in another database find out which pattern the verb matches, and if
> there's such a pattern, conjugate the verb appropriately. If there's no
> pattern match, continue:
> 3. conjugate the verb as regular verb
> So, has anyone studied the verb conjugation patterns in Spanish and if so,
> are the results of the study available anywhere to use them when making a
> formal conjugator like outlined above?
>
> I really think that one of the biggest problems of the language studies is
> the incompleteness of information and even occasional (often
> unintentional)
> misinformation. That puts the students into a position where they do know
> some rules, some exceptions, but that's a very small fraction of what they
> will really need in practice and when they face the reality, they find out
> that they weren't taught something or something was inappropriately
> simplified or extended and can't be applied just like that, it needs
> correction, which is generally bad (and IMO the worst thing one may need
> correct in the language is the pronunciation).
>
> The above was basically the post to that group. And I now have more
> information to add to that...
>
> Here's the bad thing I've discovered after hours of studying the verb
> conjugation patterns in Spanish...
>
> There're a number of verbs which change their e to ie under the stress,
> examples:
>
> pensar
> negar
> enterrar, cerrar
> confesar
> dispertar
> manifestar
> entender
>
> I was trying to find patterns which would tell me if I need to make that
> change from e to ie.
> At first I tried taking as pattern the part of word starting at the vowel
> in
> the next to last syllable, e.g. ensar, egar, etc and see if I can make a
> decision based on that.
> To make sure I was doing the right thing I then tried to find regular
> verbs
> or those that would match the same patterns but as regular verbs would not
> the change from e to ie, and I found plenty of such verbs, and here are
> some
> of them:
>
> dispensar
> llegar
> esperar
> expresar
> acertar
> contestar, prestar
> vender, aprender, comprender
>
> One interesting pair is pensar and dispensar. First verb is irregular,
> second verb is regular yet they have exactly the same pattern, including
> the
> consonant before ensar.
>
> Negar and llegar could probably be explained this way: n can be softened
> (by
> changing the e following it to ie), while ll can't because it's already
> soft
> (compared to l).
>
> Enterrar/cerrar vs esperar... Following the logic from the previous pair
> here, in all verbs the consonant before e could be softened (I know that
> there're words and conjugations where it happens), but this happens only
> in
> some verbs, not all where possible.
>
> Confesar vs expresar -- same thing, however, I would probably be less
> willing to soften r than f. Maybe at this point I should start including
> into the pattern the sequence of consonants that comes before the vowel in
> the next to last syllable, e.g. nfesar vs sperar. I haven't tried that
> yet.
>
> Dispertar vs acertar -- same thing. But if I were to take as patterns
> spertar and certar, I'd arrive at conclusion that p in sp+e may or may not
> get soften -- just compare dispertar and esperar from the previous pair.
> This makes it odd.
>
> Manifestar vs contestar/prestar -- f in festar is OK to soften and t in
> ntestar is also OK (example: entender), but I'd probably not do that for r
> in prestar.
>
> Finally, entender vs vender/aprender/comprender... t in ntender gets
> softened and v in vender could be softened too (example: venir), but
> again,
> I'd probably not soften r in prender and mprender.
>
> So, these findings render a simple pattern-based decision making if not
> just
> complicated (taking bigger portions of verbs as patterns) then impossible
> (e.g. each irregular verb should be listed along with conjugation method
> and/or preconjugated forms).
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>

I was trying to come up with a tool that would conjugate not better but
rather /correctly/ and potentially have more uses than pure conjugation. But
for both uses, conjugation is the common ingredient. I could just enter all
the verbs of primary interest into a flash card program and make myself
memorize them, it would work, no doubt. But I wanted more than doing just
that kind of exercise. So, let me get it straight. It's not just about me
learning Spanish, it's now more about turning the computer (originally,
something dumb) into a system that knows how (or let's say that can apply)
certain grammar rules (including verb conjugation) to a number of
automatically generated examples, from which a student could learn the
grammar (again, including that same conjugation). What's good in it? It can
be used anytime one wants, even when there're no speakers of the language in
question around. It can be extendible. It will pay attention to all
combinations that need to be considered when constructing a sentense
(person, number, tense, object, subject, etc). It can be used again to
recall/repeat the things learned in the past. It can be used to train to say
or write things right automatically without much of thinking. Nobody wants
to be something to try those combinations over and over again on, but the
computer won't mind. That's what it is.

Alex

Peter Chabot wrote:
> From my experience in learning the language, I started with books and
> CD's moved to speaking, after sufficient practice speaking a verb wil
> just not "sound" right if you conjugate it wrong. The ultimate goal
> of most students of a foreign language is to speak it. No system
> will help you to conjugate a verb better when you speak it because
> you won't be able to think in terms of that system. The only way to
> improve is by speaking.
> "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfru@chat.ru> wrote in message
> news:498td6Fndng7U1@individual.net...
>> ¡Hola!
>>
>> Perdonad me por escribir en inglés porque todavía no puedo ni hablar
>> ni escribir un buen español. Si podéis ayudarme con mis estudios de
>> los verbos españoles irregulares, lo haced. Por favor, no me
>> recomendéis diccionaríos o guías, ya los tengo (por ejemplo, Spanish
>> Verbs by Christopher Kendris, Barron's education series)... Bueno,
>> si sabéis algo con todos los patrones de conjugación, decid me...
>>
>> I've been recommended to ask more scientific language related
>> questions in another group, but so far I had no useful input, so I'm
>> posting here. We all know that there exist several different conjugation
>> patterns
>> for regular and irregular verbs in Spanish. Interestingly enough, the
>> irregular
>> verbs also exhibit quite a regularity in the way they're conjugated,
>> it's just that there're more patterns for irregular than for the
>> regular and the
>> irregular ones are used less often. However, there exist a number of
>> verbs which are very irregular in nature and are conjugated
>> individually (e.g. haber, ir, etc).
>> I'm kind of struggling to learn the conjugation and I want to do
>> that well for which I need complete understanding of the conjugation
>> with all its rules, exceptions and patterns. And I also want to make
>> a tool for conjucation of a given infinitive. Yes, I know there're a
>> number of such tools available but they mostly work as a database --
>> they contain several hundred or a few thousand of fully conjugated
>> verbs entered once from a book. Definitely, I'm not gonna learn that
>> many verbs nor do I want to repeat that gigantic work of taking
>> verbs from the book and I don't really want to take the database
>> from one of the existing conjugators. What I want to do is to find out
>> all the conjugation patterns and
>> individually conjugated verbs so that I could minimize the effort in
>> learning conjugation and making a conjugator (the size reduction
>> would also
>> be nice). I have a few books explaining the conjugation, but neither
>> of them
>> is complete nor entirely correct, yet there're rare verbs which seem
>> to match a certain pattern but they're conjugated differently (e.g.
>> hervir, servir), which is probably a sign of individual conjugation.
>> The approach I'm thinking of is like this:
>> 1. in a very small database of individually conjugated verbs look up
>> the given verb and if it's there, conjugate it appropriately (or
>> take the precomposed conjugation form from that same database). If
>> the verb isn't there, continue:
>> 2. in another database find out which pattern the verb matches, and
>> if there's such a pattern, conjugate the verb appropriately. If
>> there's no pattern match, continue:
>> 3. conjugate the verb as regular verb
>> So, has anyone studied the verb conjugation patterns in Spanish and
>> if so, are the results of the study available anywhere to use them
>> when making a formal conjugator like outlined above?
>>
>> I really think that one of the biggest problems of the language
>> studies is the incompleteness of information and even occasional
>> (often unintentional)
>> misinformation. That puts the students into a position where they do
>> know some rules, some exceptions, but that's a very small fraction
>> of what they will really need in practice and when they face the
>> reality, they find out that they weren't taught something or
>> something was inappropriately simplified or extended and can't be
>> applied just like that, it needs correction, which is generally bad
>> (and IMO the worst thing one may need correct in the language is the
>> pronunciation). The above was basically the post to that group. And I now
>> have more
>> information to add to that...
>>
>> Here's the bad thing I've discovered after hours of studying the verb
>> conjugation patterns in Spanish...
>>
>> There're a number of verbs which change their e to ie under the
>> stress, examples:
>>
>> pensar
>> negar
>> enterrar, cerrar
>> confesar
>> dispertar
>> manifestar
>> entender
>>
>> I was trying to find patterns which would tell me if I need to make
>> that change from e to ie.
>> At first I tried taking as pattern the part of word starting at the
>> vowel in
>> the next to last syllable, e.g. ensar, egar, etc and see if I can
>> make a decision based on that.
>> To make sure I was doing the right thing I then tried to find regular
>> verbs
>> or those that would match the same patterns but as regular verbs
>> would not the change from e to ie, and I found plenty of such verbs,
>> and here are some
>> of them:
>>
>> dispensar
>> llegar
>> esperar
>> expresar
>> acertar
>> contestar, prestar
>> vender, aprender, comprender
>>
>> One interesting pair is pensar and dispensar. First verb is
>> irregular, second verb is regular yet they have exactly the same
>> pattern, including the
>> consonant before ensar.
>>
>> Negar and llegar could probably be explained this way: n can be
>> softened (by
>> changing the e following it to ie), while ll can't because it's
>> already soft
>> (compared to l).
>>
>> Enterrar/cerrar vs esperar... Following the logic from the previous
>> pair here, in all verbs the consonant before e could be softened (I
>> know that there're words and conjugations where it happens), but
>> this happens only in
>> some verbs, not all where possible.
>>
>> Confesar vs expresar -- same thing, however, I would probably be less
>> willing to soften r than f. Maybe at this point I should start
>> including into the pattern the sequence of consonants that comes
>> before the vowel in the next to last syllable, e.g. nfesar vs
>> sperar. I haven't tried that yet.
>>
>> Dispertar vs acertar -- same thing. But if I were to take as patterns
>> spertar and certar, I'd arrive at conclusion that p in sp+e may or
>> may not get soften -- just compare dispertar and esperar from the
>> previous pair. This makes it odd.
>>
>> Manifestar vs contestar/prestar -- f in festar is OK to soften and t
>> in ntestar is also OK (example: entender), but I'd probably not do
>> that for r in prestar.
>>
>> Finally, entender vs vender/aprender/comprender... t in ntender gets
>> softened and v in vender could be softened too (example: venir), but
>> again,
>> I'd probably not soften r in prender and mprender.
>>
>> So, these findings render a simple pattern-based decision making if
>> not just
>> complicated (taking bigger portions of verbs as patterns) then
>> impossible (e.g. each irregular verb should be listed along with
>> conjugation method and/or preconjugated forms).
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex

 
Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
> =A1Hola!
>
> Perdonad me por escribir en ingl=E9s porque todav=EDa no puedo ni hablar =
ni
> escribir un buen espa=F1ol. Si pod=E9is ayudarme con mis estudios de los =
verbos
> espa=F1oles irregulares, lo haced. Por favor, no me recomend=E9is diccion=
ar=EDos o
> gu=EDas, ya los tengo (por ejemplo, Spanish Verbs by Christopher Kendris,
> Barron's education series)... Bueno, si sab=E9is algo con todos los patro=
nes
> de conjugaci=F3n, decid me...
>
> I've been recommended to ask more scientific language related questions
> in another group, but so far I had no useful input, so I'm posting here.
>
> We all know that there exist several different conjugation patterns for
> regular and irregular verbs in Spanish. Interestingly enough, the irregul=
ar
> verbs also exhibit quite a regularity in the way they're conjugated, it's
> just that there're more patterns for irregular than for the regular and t=
he
> irregular ones are used less often. However, there exist a number of verbs
> which are very irregular in nature and are conjugated individually (e.g.
> haber, ir, etc).
> I'm kind of struggling to learn the conjugation and I want to do that well
> for which I need complete understanding of the conjugation with all its
> rules, exceptions and patterns. And I also want to make a tool for
> conjucation of a given infinitive. Yes, I know there're a number of such
> tools available but they mostly work as a database -- they contain several
> hundred or a few thousand of fully conjugated verbs entered once from a
> book. Definitely, I'm not gonna learn that many verbs nor do I want to
> repeat that gigantic work of taking verbs from the book and I don't really
> want to take the database from one of the existing conjugators.
> What I want to do is to find out all the conjugation patterns and
> individually conjugated verbs so that I could minimize the effort in
> learning conjugation and making a conjugator (the size reduction would al=
so
> be nice). I have a few books explaining the conjugation, but neither of t=
hem
> is complete nor entirely correct, yet there're rare verbs which seem to
> match a certain pattern but they're conjugated differently (e.g. hervir,
> servir), which is probably a sign of individual conjugation.
> The approach I'm thinking of is like this:
> 1. in a very small database of individually conjugated verbs look up the
> given verb and if it's there, conjugate it appropriately (or take the
> precomposed conjugation form from that same database). If the verb isn't
> there, continue:
> 2. in another database find out which pattern the verb matches, and if
> there's such a pattern, conjugate the verb appropriately. If there's no
> pattern match, continue:
> 3. conjugate the verb as regular verb
> So, has anyone studied the verb conjugation patterns in Spanish and if so,
> are the results of the study available anywhere to use them when making a
> formal conjugator like outlined above?
>
> I really think that one of the biggest problems of the language studies is
> the incompleteness of information and even occasional (often unintentiona=
l)
> misinformation. That puts the students into a position where they do know
> some rules, some exceptions, but that's a very small fraction of what they
> will really need in practice and when they face the reality, they find out
> that they weren't taught something or something was inappropriately
> simplified or extended and can't be applied just like that, it needs
> correction, which is generally bad (and IMO the worst thing one may need
> correct in the language is the pronunciation).
>
> The above was basically the post to that group. And I now have more
> information to add to that...
>
> Here's the bad thing I've discovered after hours of studying the verb
> conjugation patterns in Spanish...
>
> There're a number of verbs which change their e to ie under the stress,
> examples:
>
> pensar
> negar
> enterrar, cerrar
> confesar
> dispertar
> manifestar
> entender
>
> I was trying to find patterns which would tell me if I need to make that
> change from e to ie.
> At first I tried taking as pattern the part of word starting at the vowel=
in
> the next to last syllable, e.g. ensar, egar, etc and see if I can make a
> decision based on that.
> To make sure I was doing the right thing I then tried to find regular ver=
bs
> or those that would match the same patterns but as regular verbs would not
> the change from e to ie, and I found plenty of such verbs, and here are s=
ome
> of them:
>
> dispensar
> llegar
> esperar
> expresar
> acertar
> contestar, prestar
> vender, aprender, comprender
>
> One interesting pair is pensar and dispensar. First verb is irregular,
> second verb is regular yet they have exactly the same pattern, including =
the
> consonant before ensar.
>
> Negar and llegar could probably be explained this way: n can be softened =
(by
> changing the e following it to ie), while ll can't because it's already s=
oft
> (compared to l).
>
> Enterrar/cerrar vs esperar... Following the logic from the previous pair
> here, in all verbs the consonant before e could be softened (I know that
> there're words and conjugations where it happens), but this happens only =
in
> some verbs, not all where possible.
>
> Confesar vs expresar -- same thing, however, I would probably be less
> willing to soften r than f. Maybe at this point I should start including
> into the pattern the sequence of consonants that comes before the vowel in
> the next to last syllable, e.g. nfesar vs sperar. I haven't tried that ye=
t=2E
>
> Dispertar vs acertar -- same thing. But if I were to take as patterns
> spertar and certar, I'd arrive at conclusion that p in sp+e may or may not
> get soften -- just compare dispertar and esperar from the previous pair.
> This makes it odd.
>
> Manifestar vs contestar/prestar -- f in festar is OK to soften and t in
> ntestar is also OK (example: entender), but I'd probably not do that for r
> in prestar.
>
> Finally, entender vs vender/aprender/comprender... t in ntender gets
> softened and v in vender could be softened too (example: venir), but agai=
n,
> I'd probably not soften r in prender and mprender.
>
> So, these findings render a simple pattern-based decision making if not j=
ust
> complicated (taking bigger portions of verbs as patterns) then impossible
> (e.g. each irregular verb should be listed along with conjugation method
> and/or preconjugated forms).

The verbs you mentioned are called stem changing (or radical changing)
verbs. According to "A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish", Butt &
Benjamin, "Grammarians have traditionally been reluctant to call these
verbs 'irregular' but their forms cannot be predicted since their
infinitive is no guide to whether they are radical changing or not".
They go on to list eleven patterns of common stem changing verbs.

I'm not sure if this is quite what you are asking, but you might find
it interesting. I have an Oxford Spanish/English dictionary that has
patterns for every listed Spanish verb. The total number of patterns is
probably about 100. They are listed as Axx, Exx, and Ixx, where the xx
is the number of the pattern for -ar, -er, and -ir verbs. A1, E1, and
I1 are the commonest regular conjugations, and they are listed in full
by a click (it's a computer dictionary) on the pattern number found
just after the verb's headword entry in the dictionary. All the other
patterns list only the forms that are different from the regular
conjugation.
That means their database has about 100 patterns; for the connection of
verbs to patterns, they don't rely on inspection of the verb, but just
the assignment of a short code to each verb.
--
john

John O'Flaherty wrote:
...
> The verbs you mentioned are called stem changing (or radical changing)
> verbs. According to "A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish", Butt
> & Benjamin, "Grammarians have traditionally been reluctant to call
> these verbs 'irregular' but their forms cannot be predicted since
> their infinitive is no guide to whether they are radical changing or
> not". They go on to list eleven patterns of common stem changing
> verbs.
>
> I'm not sure if this is quite what you are asking, but you might find
> it interesting. I have an Oxford Spanish/English dictionary that has
> patterns for every listed Spanish verb. The total number of patterns
> is probably about 100. They are listed as Axx, Exx, and Ixx, where
> the xx is the number of the pattern for -ar, -er, and -ir verbs. A1,
> E1, and I1 are the commonest regular conjugations, and they are
> listed in full by a click (it's a computer dictionary) on the pattern
> number found just after the verb's headword entry in the dictionary.
> All the other patterns list only the forms that are different from
> the regular conjugation.
> That means their database has about 100 patterns; for the connection
> of verbs to patterns, they don't rely on inspection of the verb, but
> just the assignment of a short code to each verb.

So, basically, they need to have a list of all the supported verbs, since
their patterns aren't verb patterns but rather conjugation patterns. This
isn't quite the thing I wanted, but it deserves looking into it. What's the
title/ISBN of the dictionary?

Alex

 
Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
> John O'Flaherty wrote:
> ...
> > The verbs you mentioned are called stem changing (or radical changing)
> > verbs. According to "A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish", Butt
> > & Benjamin, "Grammarians have traditionally been reluctant to call
> > these verbs 'irregular' but their forms cannot be predicted since
> > their infinitive is no guide to whether they are radical changing or
> > not". They go on to list eleven patterns of common stem changing
> > verbs.
> >
> > I'm not sure if this is quite what you are asking, but you might find
> > it interesting. I have an Oxford Spanish/English dictionary that has
> > patterns for every listed Spanish verb. The total number of patterns
> > is probably about 100. They are listed as Axx, Exx, and Ixx, where
> > the xx is the number of the pattern for -ar, -er, and -ir verbs. A1,
> > E1, and I1 are the commonest regular conjugations, and they are
> > listed in full by a click (it's a computer dictionary) on the pattern
> > number found just after the verb's headword entry in the dictionary.
> > All the other patterns list only the forms that are different from
> > the regular conjugation.
> > That means their database has about 100 patterns; for the connection
> > of verbs to patterns, they don't rely on inspection of the verb, but
> > just the assignment of a short code to each verb.
>
> So, basically, they need to have a list of all the supported verbs, since
> their patterns aren't verb patterns but rather conjugation patterns. This
> isn't quite the thing I wanted, but it deserves looking into it. What's the
> title/ISBN of the dictionary?

The list of verbs is just the word set of the dictionary. At each entry
that is a verb, there is a two or three letter code in red that's a
hyperlink that takes one to the appropriate verb table.
The CDROM dictionary I was talking about is the Oxford 3-in-1 Bilingual
dictionary, with Spanish/English, French/English, German/English, and
the reverse versions. Its ISBN is 0-19-268332-2. I got it about 6 or 7
years ago, so I don't know if it's still available. The hardback
Spanish dictionary version is ISBN 0-19-864510-4.
--
john

John O'Flaherty wrote:
...
> The list of verbs is just the word set of the dictionary. At each
> entry that is a verb, there is a two or three letter code in red
> that's a hyperlink that takes one to the appropriate verb table.
> The CDROM dictionary I was talking about is the Oxford 3-in-1
> Bilingual dictionary, with Spanish/English, French/English,
> German/English, and the reverse versions. Its ISBN is 0-19-268332-2.
> I got it about 6 or 7 years ago, so I don't know if it's still
> available. The hardback Spanish dictionary version is ISBN
> 0-19-864510-4.

I haven't found that one or anything close to that at the local Barn and
Nobles, but I've found a pocket dictionary with those 90 conjugation models.
That should be enough for me to get started. It's Merriam-Webster's Pocket
Spanish--English Dictionary, ISBN 0-87779-519-3, if anyone's interested.

It actually takes time to find something useful. :) Some books have odd page
numbering (including the numbers printed near the binding), some books have
low paper/printing quality, some miss a lot (e.g. some offer a reduced set
of conjugation models (65), which may be not a very big deal, but it's nice
to have more than less to cover more verbs), while others are great, e.g.
they graphically mark the differences and irregularities.

And as far as the books are concerned, I've also found very useful books by
Christopher Kendris, on the grammar and verbs, especially the former -- it's
a pocket size grammar reference with most of the things explained, with
examples, with some references and it uses color for Spanish
words/phrases/sentenses and other important information. It's amazing how
proper addition of just one color to an otherwise black-and-white book can
make a huge difference in usability. I wonder why not every book aimed at
teaching something or being a reference uses at least two colors and I
wonder how we have been living without that for so many years...

Alex

 
Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
> John O'Flaherty wrote:
> ...
> > The list of verbs is just the word set of the dictionary. At each
> > entry that is a verb, there is a two or three letter code in red
> > that's a hyperlink that takes one to the appropriate verb table.
> > The CDROM dictionary I was talking about is the Oxford 3-in-1
> > Bilingual dictionary, with Spanish/English, French/English,
> > German/English, and the reverse versions. Its ISBN is 0-19-268332-2.
> > I got it about 6 or 7 years ago, so I don't know if it's still
> > available. The hardback Spanish dictionary version is ISBN
> > 0-19-864510-4.
>
> I haven't found that one or anything close to that at the local Barn and
> Nobles, but I've found a pocket dictionary with those 90 conjugation models.
> That should be enough for me to get started. It's Merriam-Webster's Pocket
> Spanish--English Dictionary, ISBN 0-87779-519-3, if anyone's interested.
>
> It actually takes time to find something useful. :) Some books have odd page
> numbering (including the numbers printed near the binding), some books have
> low paper/printing quality, some miss a lot (e.g. some offer a reduced set
> of conjugation models (65), which may be not a very big deal, but it's nice
> to have more than less to cover more verbs), while others are great, e.g.
> they graphically mark the differences and irregularities.
>
> And as far as the books are concerned, I've also found very useful books by
> Christopher Kendris, on the grammar and verbs, especially the former -- it's
> a pocket size grammar reference with most of the things explained, with
> examples, with some references and it uses color for Spanish
> words/phrases/sentenses and other important information. It's amazing how
> proper addition of just one color to an otherwise black-and-white book can
> make a huge difference in usability. I wonder why not every book aimed at
> teaching something or being a reference uses at least two colors and I
> wonder how we have been living without that for so many years...

I agree about the usefulness of color. I guess it just adds an
increment of cost that they try to avoid.
I've found the computer dictionary so easy to use that I don't think
I'll ever buy a paper dictionary again- in any language.
I did see a few web references to that three-language cdrom, for $75. I
don't think Oxford University Press is making any more of them- it
gives too much away for the price.
--
john
--
john

John O'Flaherty wrote:
> Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
...
>> And as far as the books are concerned, I've also found very useful
>> books by Christopher Kendris, on the grammar and verbs, especially
>> the former -- it's a pocket size grammar reference with most of the
>> things explained, with examples, with some references and it uses
>> color for Spanish words/phrases/sentenses and other important
>> information. It's amazing how proper addition of just one color to
>> an otherwise black-and-white book can make a huge difference in
>> usability. I wonder why not every book aimed at teaching something
>> or being a reference uses at least two colors and I wonder how we
>> have been living without that for so many years...
>
> I agree about the usefulness of color. I guess it just adds an
> increment of cost that they try to avoid.
> I've found the computer dictionary so easy to use that I don't think
> I'll ever buy a paper dictionary again- in any language.
> I did see a few web references to that three-language cdrom, for $75.
> I don't think Oxford University Press is making any more of them- it
> gives too much away for the price.

There are different dictionaries. Some don't support Unicode and as such
require the appropriate code page set up for them and all other non-Unicode
applications since Windows does not support code pages on an per-application
basis; it has only the global code page setting. Some have a bad UI, where
it's impossible to get around without a mouse. I'm not a disabled person,
but all crappy UI software requiring a mouse to make use of it makes me
sick. I use a great multilingual dictionary on my PC, it's almost perfect
except occasional mistakes in its new subdictionaries (the Spanish, for
example, which had just been added to the version I bought). So, the only
thing that's good about electronic dictionaries is that you can find /basic/
things quickly, but other aspects of using them aren't good. I used to put
pencil marks on the pages when I find something interesting, new or I'm just
trying to analyze things. I can't do that with most electronic dictionaries.
In fact, I haven't seen a single one allowing that. Not all electronic
dictionaries have separate, smaller indices, they usually have a huge one
with everything in there. Finally, unless I have a notebook or some other
small computer on which the dictionary can run, I can't take it with me
anywhere or just read something lying in the bed before I fall asleep. I'm
sure there're other things.

Alex

 
Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
> John O'Flaherty wrote:
> > Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
> ...
> >> And as far as the books are concerned, I've also found very useful
> >> books by Christopher Kendris, on the grammar and verbs, especially
> >> the former -- it's a pocket size grammar reference with most of the
> >> things explained, with examples, with some references and it uses
> >> color for Spanish words/phrases/sentenses and other important
> >> information. It's amazing how proper addition of just one color to
> >> an otherwise black-and-white book can make a huge difference in
> >> usability. I wonder why not every book aimed at teaching something
> >> or being a reference uses at least two colors and I wonder how we
> >> have been living without that for so many years...
> >
> > I agree about the usefulness of color. I guess it just adds an
> > increment of cost that they try to avoid.
> > I've found the computer dictionary so easy to use that I don't think
> > I'll ever buy a paper dictionary again- in any language.
> > I did see a few web references to that three-language cdrom, for $75.
> > I don't think Oxford University Press is making any more of them- it
> > gives too much away for the price.
>
> There are different dictionaries. Some don't support Unicode and as such
> require the appropriate code page set up for them and all other non-Unico=
de
> applications since Windows does not support code pages on an per-applicat=
ion
> basis; it has only the global code page setting. Some have a bad UI, where
> it's impossible to get around without a mouse. I'm not a disabled person,
> but all crappy UI software requiring a mouse to make use of it makes me
> sick. I use a great multilingual dictionary on my PC, it's almost perfect
> except occasional mistakes in its new subdictionaries (the Spanish, for
> example, which had just been added to the version I bought). So, the only
> thing that's good about electronic dictionaries is that you can find /bas=
ic/
> things quickly, but other aspects of using them aren't good. I used to put
> pencil marks on the pages when I find something interesting, new or I'm j=
ust
> trying to analyze things. I can't do that with most electronic dictionari=
es.
> In fact, I haven't seen a single one allowing that. Not all electronic
> dictionaries have separate, smaller indices, they usually have a huge one
> with everything in there. Finally, unless I have a notebook or some other
> small computer on which the dictionary can run, I can't take it with me
> anywhere or just read something lying in the bed before I fall asleep. I'm
> sure there're other things.

The dictionaries I've installed usually install their own fonts, and so
don't have a problem representing what they need to show. My AHD, which
I bought about 8 years ago for $25, has wild card search, which is
great for looking up multiple forms of a word, or all the words that
contain a particular character string. It can also search for words in
definitions, so it can be used as a sort of thesaurus, or to find all
the words based on a particular etymological root.
I have a computer Diccionario de la Lengua Espa=F1ola of the Real
Academia (Spanish only, not bilingual) which allows wild-card searches,
and also _does_ allow attaching your own notes to particular words.
Plus it has a history list of recently searched words, just by pressing
F7. Every word in a definition is a potential hyperlink- left click on
it and you go to the definition of the word- great if the definition
you just looked up has more words you don't know. It's full of lists of
idioms for those words that have them, and it uses colors to highlight
things. If you hover over an abbreviation for a second or two, a little
help box opens up with the expansion of the abbreviation. (tr.? verbo
transitivo...Occ.Pen.? Occidente peninsular). Want a list of all words
ending in -ar? Choose 'b=FAsqueda de comodines y anagramas', type in
*ar, and in 1/4 second you have all of them in the left window, with
the total number (9610) at the bottom. It shows etymologies for some
words, and since installs its own fonts, it shows Greek etymologies in
Greek characters.
On the last point, portability. I do have a laptop, which weighs four
pounds, and has the three-language Oxford, the DRAE dictionary, the
AHD, and M-W installed, plus lots of other stuff. Just the hardback
Spanish section of the Oxford dictionary (which I have) weighs more
than the four pounds of my laptop. I do keep it at my side when I'm
reading something in Spanish, and it's way faster to look it up in the
laptop than in a paper dictionary. I don't take it to bed with me,
though; I concede that one.
I'm starting to feel guilty about posting all this English in AUS. En
cuanto a diccionarios computerizados, te los puedo recomendar sin
reserva.
Buena suerte.
--
john

Something I've found useful in learning other languges is to read them,
read anything you can find, soon you will be noticing that as you write
or say something is not quite right, and then with a little more
practice you will be naturally following rules or structures that you
may not have their definition but know how to use them.

May I recommend Readers Digest (Selecciones in spanish) the histories
are mostly the same (and silly) as the english edition but they use a
very proper spanish.

Good luck

Here is a link:

http://www.verbolog.com/conjuga.htm

Saludos desde Alemania

Juergen

"Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfru@chat.ru> wrote in message
news:49bt75Fnl2c9U1@individual.net...
> John O'Flaherty wrote:
>> Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
> ...
>>> And as far as the books are concerned, I've also found very useful
>>> books by Christopher Kendris, on the grammar and verbs, especially
>>> the former -- it's a pocket size grammar reference with most of the
>>> things explained, with examples, with some references and it uses
>>> color for Spanish words/phrases/sentenses and other important
>>> information. It's amazing how proper addition of just one color to
>>> an otherwise black-and-white book can make a huge difference in
>>> usability. I wonder why not every book aimed at teaching something
>>> or being a reference uses at least two colors and I wonder how we
>>> have been living without that for so many years...
>>
>> I agree about the usefulness of color. I guess it just adds an
>> increment of cost that they try to avoid.
>> I've found the computer dictionary so easy to use that I don't think
>> I'll ever buy a paper dictionary again- in any language.
>> I did see a few web references to that three-language cdrom, for $75.
>> I don't think Oxford University Press is making any more of them- it
>> gives too much away for the price.
>
> There are different dictionaries. Some don't support Unicode and as such
> require the appropriate code page set up for them and all other
> non-Unicode applications since Windows does not support code pages on an
> per-application basis; it has only the global code page setting. Some have
> a bad UI, where it's impossible to get around without a mouse. I'm not a
> disabled person, but all crappy UI software requiring a mouse to make use
> of it makes me sick. I use a great multilingual dictionary on my PC, it's
> almost perfect except occasional mistakes in its new subdictionaries (the
> Spanish, for example, which had just been added to the version I bought).
> So, the only thing that's good about electronic dictionaries is that you
> can find /basic/ things quickly, but other aspects of using them aren't
> good. I used to put pencil marks on the pages when I find something
> interesting, new or I'm just trying to analyze things. I can't do that
> with most electronic dictionaries. In fact, I haven't seen a single one
> allowing that. Not all electronic dictionaries have separate, smaller
> indices, they usually have a huge one with everything in there. Finally,
> unless I have a notebook or some other small computer on which the
> dictionary can run, I can't take it with me anywhere or just read
> something lying in the bed before I fall asleep. I'm sure there're other
> things.
>
> Alex

For a portable dictionary that runs on Palm-based PDAs and phones, I
recommend Collin's dictionary. It has more listings than the U of Chicago
dictionaries I have in my classroom.

--
Saludos y chaufas,

tj
profe's Web pages: http://webtj.net