From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Spanish examples corrections[edit]

Carro denotes "automobile", instead of the Spanish automóvil; like-wise, troca denotes "truck" instead of the standard camión. this is incorrect carro is an accepted word by the RAE and is mostly used in Latin America.

The word rentar ("to rent") is used in Spanglish, Mexico, and parts of Central America instead of alquilar, the standard Spanish for "to rent". acording to the RAE this is an accepted verb it means to give benefit or to be useful but in latin american spanish it means to rent an just like "checar" it has been accepted by the RAE

Closet denoting a "wardrobe cabinet" is used instead of the standard Spanish ropero. this is an accepted word by the RAE as a borrowing from English

Lonchera is Spanglish for "lunch box" instead of the standard Spanish fiambrera. Lonche denotes from "lunch", instead of the standard Spanish almuerzo. Lonche and any derivatives from it (lonchera being an example) have been accepted by the RAE although it's recomended that the traditional term almuerzo is used also.

Amoscare —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

Estacionar for "(to) park" is standard Spanish primarily in Mexico. Parquear is common in Colombia, and aparcar in many other countries, including Spain. Cobylub (talk) 17:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

major rewrite[edit]

I just did a pretty major rewriting of this page, with a number of corrections:

  1. Spanglish is not a pidgin. Trust me, I've studied pidgins and creoles.
  2. I make clear in my rewrite that "Spanglish" is not a technical term of linguistics. It is a popular way to refer to a bunch of different stuff that linguists classify differently.
  3. I added better stereotypical examples of expressions people refer to as "Spanglish", classified by what is going on in them.
  4. Most of the examples were really idiosyncratic (instead of stereotypical, as the one's I've picked), and some were just plain wrong; e.g. "carro" is not an English borrowing at all.
  5. The material about Spanish influence on American English is not too bad, but it just doesn't belong on this entry. The term "Spanglish" is only really used to refer to the English-influenced speech of Spanish speakers.

-- 15:55, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Carro may come from the Latin, but can we not safely assume the word car also has a Latin root, ie carriage also comes from carrus, SqueakBox 00:25, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Can you tell me how many people speak spanglish and when it was first used??? If you can, please post it on this page.

The deleted material[edit]

I'm not going to argue with most of the above, but the following material is certainly encyclopedic and was deleted from the article; I have no problem moving it somewhere more appropriate (suggestions welcomed), but I think deletion was inappropriate.

Typical examples of Spanish words that have thoroughly passed into American English include:

  • "Mesa", literally meaning table, referring to a flat-topped hillock
  • "Patio"
  • "Veranda"
  • "Garbanzo"
Other Spanish words have passed into English, slightly modified, as slang words that are almost universally understood. For example:
  • "Vaquero" (cowboy), respelled as "buckaroo".
  • "Juzgado" (literally "judged"), respelled as "hoosegow" (jail).
Still other Spanish words are still considered exotic when used in an English-language context, but are almost universally understood:
  • Many foods, such as "taco", "burrito", "quesadilla" and true Spanglish hybrids like "a hot chile".
  • Certain common polite expressions, such as "¿Qué pasa?", "Gracias", "Adiós", "Por favor".
  • Many other words, including "amigo", "compadre", "cerveza", "agua", and (with slightly less universality) "gordo" (used like "fatso"), "sierra" (mountain range).

In addition, the following was deleted for reasons that escape me. All of these strike me as perfectly good examples of Spanglish. Why were these removed?

  • "Loisaida", a largely Puerto Rican neigborhood in Manhattan, whose name derives from "Lower East Side".
  • A fully conjugated verb "sharpeniar" (to sharpen; note that the "sh" sound normally does not exist in Spanish).
  • "Postostes" ("breakfast cereal") deriving from the brand name "Post Toasties"
  • "Regando diches" (digging ditches).
  • "No Hangear" (no loitering).

Jmabel 05:40, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I didn't just "remove" them, I replaced them with more a list of more stereotypical, well-known examples, organized by the way English influences enters Spanish. Those examples are simply loanwords, and not particularly well-known ones. I judged that a shorter list divided by kinds of influence was better. 06:29, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Loisaida" not well known? Even English-speakers have started using it! It's become an official alternate name for Avenue B. -- Jmabel 07:06, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
My comments as a native Southern Californian (L.A./Orange County):
"hoosegow" - Never heard of the word. People just say "jail". :) Perhaps a regional thing?
"Loisaida" - Never heard of it. Of course, it's a regional thing, and I'm in SoCal. But because it IS regional, probably MOST native English speakers have never heard of it, so it's probably not the best example for Spanglish.
"sharpeniar" - Never heard of it.
"Postostes" - Never heard of it.
"Regando diches" - Never heard of it.
"No Hangear" - Never heard of it.

Good call on removing those words. This whole idea of what, exactly constitutes Spanglish, anyway, is interesting. I always understood Spanglish to be an English word that's been modified by the speaker so as to pass it off as a Spanish word, when it really isn't. An example would be saying "Givar el dinero to me," instead of "Darme el dinero." (Sorry, it's been a long time since I took Spanish; "dar" is the verb meaning "to give," correct?) BeakerK44 02:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's probably "dame los dineros", imperative tense, pluralis... But I am not an expert of spanish, particularly not american one...
A bit too late, but... "dame el dinero". Dinero is just as uncountable as money so it's in singular. Sabbut 21:53, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Hoosegow" goes clear back to the 19th century. Over 7000 Google hits, plus about another 700 for "hoosgow" with the same meaning. -- Jmabel|Talk 18:47, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

  • This page needs to be deleted. I have been told in no uncertain

that obscure languages are not welcome at Wikipedia. -Ms. Greenberg 22:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    • Ah, there is nothing like a troll. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:39, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Sharpeniar is even used at spanish --AleG2 21:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Is it really useful to link "Linguists" to "List of linguists"? The link doesn't take you to the particular linguists being referred to, just a generic list of linguists. I think this sort of link is a liability. I won't unilaterally remove it, but does someone else agree? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:39, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


Have deleted this as hopelessly confused. All it really says is that Spanish isn't a mirror of English, which we know. Words like car and carro clearly have the same Latin root, and indeed were content from this paragraph to return to the article it would need to be in the context of the shared Latin root, which effects 33% of words, some subtle like tapar and tap, SqueakBox 00:37, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

A list of common mistakes with etymologies:

  1. The words "parcar" and "parquero" are a mishearing of the perfectly accepted Spanish words aparcar and parqueadero, and do not reflect English influence. When these last two are pronounced quickly they may sound different, like for instance, "parquea'ro", and may seem similar to the English word "to park".
    But initially aparcar or parquear were Anglicisms in Spanish. The neologism estacionar has had limited success. --Error 22:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Carro comes from the Latin word "carrus", as does the English word "car". Carro does not come from car.
    But carro is mainly "carriage". It means "car" in Mexico. In Spain, it coche (originally, a particular kind of carriage, coach, from Hungarian kocsi). Could it be an influence of American English? --Error 22:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-You're wrong. Carro is a word used in all Latin America, not just in Mexico.

The word for "car" in Portugal is carro, cognate to the Latin American word. I don't think anybody seriously suggests that the Portuguese got their word for car as a borrowing; it's clearly an independent development, and as such, it demonstrates that it's possible for Latin American Spanish carro to also be that. -- 29 June 2005 06:07 (UTC)
  1. Bus is a short word for "autobús", although it doesn't matter from if it is from direct English influence. It is now a common word in various Spanish speaking countries.
  2. Aseguranza is a correct term in the Spanish language (used only in Salamanca, Spain). It originally means "seguridad" (that is "security") and, as it is a word in disuse, speakers have changed 'naturally' its meaning to that of "insurance". "Seguridad" is a similar word to "seguro". There is no English influence whatsoever in this change.
    Could it be an influence of French assurance? --Error 22:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    The word aseguranza is common among immigrant Mexican workers in Northern California, and in that case, it's certainly not French influence, nor influence from the Spanish of Salamanca. The word for insurance in Mexico is seguro; try Googling for "México seguros" and you'll see it clearly (e.g., there's a link to a yellow pages section in the first page of results). If you google for "México aseguranza," the hits you get are in the USA. What's happening is that aseguranza is calqued from English insurance. It's morphological analogy: sure : seguro; insure : asegurar; insurance : aseguranza. -- 29 June 2005 06:07 (UTC)

General problem with initial link[edit]

I really think there is an initial problem with the link. In fact the page comes for "Anglicisms in Spanish" and "Spanglish" is just part of the Anglicisms in Spanish. Spanglish happens in bilingual cultures, like the USA or like Gibraltar, and is the extreme of the phenomenon. When I followed the link I certainly didn't expect to have just an article about 'Spanglish'. We should perhaps create two different links: one to a general introduction to Anglicisms in Spanish, basically applied to Spanish speaking countries, and a different link to Spanglish as a special issue. In addition, it is quite obvious that the inluence of English on the Spanish in Spain, for example, will be quite different to that of Hispannic communities in the US or to that of Spanish in Venezuela or Peru... I think this article shows a partial view of a very complex topic.

(never got signed)

In the short Spanglish conversation carro should be changed to troca or troque meaning truck in American English.

A short Spanglish conversation:

   * Anita: "Hola, good morning, como estás?"
   * Mark: "Good, y tú?"
   * Anita: "Todo bien. Pero tuve problemas parqueando mi carro this morning."

(anon 4 Aug 2005)

meaning of aplicación[edit]

Hi guys I have a problem with this sentence,

In Spanish aplicación means "use of" or "appliance";

I'm no expert but aplicación doesn't mean "appliance" in my book, even “use of” is questionable. I’ll have to admit that my Spanish to English dictionary says it means appliance, but when in doubt go to the source.

I checked which as many know is the highest authority in the Spanish language and they have about 5 meanings: roughly

1: the act of applying (applying paint to a wall) (apply knowledge)

(NOT applying for a JOB)

2: diligence (application to her work, studies) 3: similar to 1, again an application of wallpaper on a wall. Etc. 4: Computer program (application) 5: a math operation.

That’s it, the main idea of the article is a the incorrect use of aplicación as a job application.

Appliance as in electrical appliance has nothing to do with aplicación

Bizarre claim[edit]

"'Spanglish' can also refer to the typical errors made by native speakers of one language learning the other" was reworded as "One of the biggest misconceptions about Spanglish is that it can also refer to the typical errors made by native speakers of one language learning the other. However, Linguists have proved otherwise."

How can linguists prove that the word Spanglish cannot also refer to this phenomenon? Barring a citation, I intend to revert. - Jmabel | Talk 03:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"ya lo sé"[edit]

Really "ya lo sé"? I'm not native, but it would surprise me if that's the most likely Spanish wording; I'd just expect "lo sé" or "yo lo sé". Would a native Spanish speaker please chime in? - Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a native but can confirm that ya lo sé is definitely correct. It's a very common conversational phrase that shouldn't be analysed word by word. Google has about 600,000 hits for that phrase. Flapdragon 10:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It's always interesting to discover that my Spanish has holes even in such common things. - Jmabel | Talk 22:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
"I (already) know" is the word-by-word translation. Isn't that close to what it means? -Iopq 02:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Clearly. I'm just remarking that if I were speaking, I wouln't have thought you use the "ya" here. - Jmabel | Talk 19:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
In English you would omit it because already is a longer word ;) -Iopq 04:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
"Ya lo sé" is correct--Asterion 04:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I know it's late to say this, but actually the word that was ommited was "I"(yo). "Ya" could mean "already". So the complete phrase would be "(Yo) ya lo sé", though "yo" is redundant(because the verb is conjugated in first person: "lo se").
This is called "sujeto eliptico" in Spanish, and is very common. When the subject of the sentence is obvious, you omit it. Besides, constructions with "Ya" are also very common: Ya llegué (yo) -> I've arrived , Ya llegó (el) -> He arrived, Ya llegaron -> They've arrived, Ya está (eso, neutral) -> It's done, It's ready,

It's correct and fairly common.( 09:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

Not to mention that English speakers do frequently say "I know already" — it only seems strange in Spanish because of the word order and shortness (and hence convenience) of the phrase. --Lenoxus 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
it doesn't sound strange to us native bilinguals of english and american spanish; in that "ya lo se" is attested as the shortening for "yo ya lo se", though i commonly hear just "ya se" without the "lo", analougues to the shortening of "i know already" to just "i know".

MattTabarnaknaytev (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

but "ya se" sounds very latin american, in Spain everybody would say "ya lo se"


Contributors to this article may be interested to know that the article on Embarazada (Spanish for "pregnant", a false friend cognate with "embarrassed") is currently up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Embarazada. Flapdragon 10:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


Yes, it is a "pseudoanglicism"[1]. The term is accepted by DRAE but it has been in disuse for two or three centuries. My point was that it did not become common again till around 20-30 years ago, due to contact with English. --Asterion 17:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ilán Stavans[edit]

The article used to say that "Ilán Stavans argues in Spanglish: The Making of a New American Language that it is rapidly becoming a language in several U.S. regions." Now, all mention of Stavans is gone except an external link, and there is a strong claim that Spanglish is not even a dialect (I would say it is several dialects or jargons, myself). Which is to say, I don't agree with Stavans, but I think he is citable and his views should be mentioned. Also, the views to the contrary (that it is a misconception to even count it as a dialect) are totally uncited. - Jmabel | Talk 17:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've given several months for a response, gotten none, and will restore. - Jmabel | Talk 04:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I've taken it out. Though I do believe that Ilán Stavans is a charlatan who only makes his claims for publicity, I will only justify the removal on these reasons: (a) he is neither a linguist nor a scholar of the Spanish language; (b) there is no support for his claims among such people; (c) his claims about "Spanglish" do not meet scholarly standards of evidence. It is not citable because his writings do not actually constitute information about the Spanish of people under a sizeable influence from English. 04:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

He is Lewis-Sebring Professor in Latin American and Latino Culture at Amherst College. That would usually be considered enough of a credential to be citable on the topic. Considering that most of the article is completely uncited, it is remarkable that you are removing one of the few things with any citation at all. - Jmabel | Talk 23:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that would usually not be considered enough credential. There is a sizeable academic literature on language contacts between Spanish and English, and it is part of an ever larger literature on langauge contact in general. Stavans fails to demonstrate any knowledge of any of it, no matter what title he may carry. (And be careful of getting bewitched by words: despite what his title might suggest, he's not an anthropologist, sociologist or social scientist of any sort. He's a literary theorist.)
He also fails to demonstrate knowledge of material taught in any Linguistics 101 course; for example, one of the first things taught in such a course is that, contrary to layperson opinion, a language is not a "bag of words," but rather, a system of grammatical rules. However, Stavans' book on "Spanglish" operates on a layperson's understding of what a language is, by dedicating roughly 2/3rds of itself to a vocabulary. Sacundim 08:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel, I agree with Sacundim. Ilan Stavans is very controversial with his claims about Spanglish and he doesn't have the credentials to back any of them up. Any citations of him in this article should be limited to differing opinions on Spanglish as his outspoken views on it are very well known (probably what he's most known for). KingOfAfrica 04:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Stavans has never made the claim of being a linguist. Would the potential for such a claim justify his views? Can nobody but a specialist write about language? There seem to be two opposing poles in the discussion of Spanglish, and both seem to revolve around its (il)legitimacy as a language--or dialect. Why all the fuss? Who was is that said a language is just a dialect with an army behind it? Ganev 22:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

The "Real Academia Española" external link doesn't seem to have anything to do with Spanglish per se. It doesn't point to a specific reference and I can't find any link to Spanglish. Is it just an advert? (admittedly my Spanish is non-existant so I might be missing something). --Nickj69 11:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You are. The RAE is the official governing body for the Spanish language; there is no such a thing for English, but a good analogue is the Académie française (BTW, the article at Real Academia Española would have told you as much). In any case, I doubt it's of much use here. Taragüí @ 12:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Spanglish Babel Labels[edit]

It'd be really cool to see some Wikipedia:Babel labels for Spanglish. I for one know I speak Spanglish decently, and as this article suggests, I am obviously not the only one. --Syhususi 22:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Tex-Mex as a local/regional synonym[edit]

I'd gladly take sources to back me up on this, but I can say as a Spanish and ESL teacher in Texas that I have run into a number of people here (generally but not always of Mexican origin) who don't call it Spanglish, but rather "Tex-Mex." It seemed worth noting in the interest of full coverage. Nonetheless, I know it's better to source it. Unfortunately, it's 5:00 am and I haven't slept yet. I'll live if it's deleted for this oversight, but I'd rather someone sourced it ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lawikitejana (talkcontribs) 2 August 2006.

I agree 100%. Please see my comments below under "Spanglish versus Tex-Mex". In Texas, Tex-Mex and Spanglish are two separate things...William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


Somebody please correct the meaning of "pocho". It is not correct that that it is the way Mexicans call those who speak Spanglish. "Pochos" are the those Mexicans who are recent emigreés in the US and who refuse to speak Spanish because they want to be taken as "old" US citizens. Pedron 02:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Pocho" is a mexican who have been living in United States for a long time(or those who were born there but their parents are mexicans) and they tend to talk spanglish. ( 09:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

Todo un suceso[edit]

"Todo un suceso" is not spanglish. Perhaps a spanglish-user could use it that way, but if you say "fue todo un suceso", the correct (literal) meaning is "it was a full event" or something to that effect.. for example it could be used saying that the opening of a new store in a city "didn't go by any means unnoticed". Opinions? -- 09:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments by[edit]


(same comment was inserted into article) That may well be true, but you would need to provide some references/citation for this statement and phrase it in a more neutral manner. -Kubigula (ave) 20:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

USA's laws[edit]

Actually, USA's government has forbidden and proscribed free use and wide usage of Spanish language several times by repressive and oppressive laws, such as California's Proposal 227 "English Language in Public Schools" (the 2nd of June, 1998) that only enables primary education partly on Spanish language if children have yet learnt enought English before it. Another "Proposal 227-like" laws are rising in Arizona and Colorado. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) . (same comment also inserted into article)

Words like "repressive" and "oppressive" are your opinions and are not neutral - please see WP:NPOV. -Kubigula (ave) 20:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And the governments of individual states are not the U.S. government. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


I was reading this article until I saw in the table of examples of Spanglish, the English of "to cool,, the spanish of "enfriar", but the spanglish of "culear". Culear is a vulgarism of have sex in spanish. So... it is needed to change to the correct spanglish synonim or to delete this from the table.

-- 01:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

True in Mexican Spanish (culear is having anal sex there), and almost everywhere Spanish is spoken... but Puerto Ricans use the phrase (regrettably, I should add, since most of my compatriots are not aware of the original meaning). That probably explains the entry. Demf 17:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Pun presumably unintended, Demf? - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware that Puerto Ricans in the island use the verb culear in the literal sense English sense of "enfriar." They do use it some of the metaphorical senses of the English word, and as such, it is an anglicism. For example, if you are angry at somebody and storm off to "cool down", you can say something like Me fui a culearme un rato antes de que le gritara ("I went away to cool down for a bit before shouting at him/her"). Another example: Mis vecinos mandaron al delincuente juvenil que tienen por nieto a vivir en Orlando con su pai para culearse antes de que alguien le pege un tiro ("My neighbors sent the juvenile delinquent they have for a grandson to live in Orlando with his dad to let things cool down before somebody puts a bullet in him").
The sense of culear that means to have sex also exists in Puerto Rico, because the word can also be seen as a straightforward derived lexeme from culo. (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I lived in the island for 21 years, and now in the states for 5. I've never used or heard culear to refer to anything that is not dancing reggaeton or to have anal sex. That doesn't mean that others that speak Spanglish might use it. Just don't say it's used generally by Puerto Ricans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

mombuey, bilto[edit]

How are "mombuey" and "el bilto tu spill" Spanglish? (The second one looks like a typing or editing error.)

It would be great to label the examples in that table with their regions. For instance, where does "watchman" become "guachiman"? In my part of New Mexico it's "guache". —JerryFriedman 21:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputed ideas about Spanglish[edit]

Big cut from article:

Despite this, both are commonly labeled as "Spanglish."

Other common misconceptions about "Spanglish" are:

  • That "Spanglish" is a "language," or even a dialect. It is rather a popular label for a collection of disparate language contact situations, where Spanish-speaking communities are influenced by English.
  • That Spanglish is uniform; that is, that it is the same for all speakers in all places. In fact, Spanglish varies in many important ways:
    • Some people who are said to speak "Spanglish" live in a Spanish-speaking country (such as Puerto Rico, Honduras or Panama), while others live in the USA. Code mixing and code switching are far more common in the USA.
    • Those who live in the USA trace their ancestry to different countries, where different variants of Spanish are spoken. The "Spanglish" spoken by them reflects these differences; the "Spanglish" of a bilingual Mexican-American is not the same thing as that of a bilingual Puerto Rican.
    • Spanglish varies by region of the United States. This in fact correlates with ancestry; Dominicans and Puerto Ricans are concentrated in the Northeast, Mexicans in the Southwest, Cubans in the Southeast.
    • More importantly, the many varieties of "Spanglish" developed largely independently. In the case of a language like Spanish or English, there was a time and place where it originated, spread out to many countries and regions, and then diverged from the original form. In the case of "Spanglish," there isn't any such "original" version of it, from which its "dialects" sprang; each form represents a unique instance of English influencing the speech of Spanish speakers.

All of this is unsourced, and some of it is argumentative. Is an editor trying to overcome stereotypes here? --Uncle Ed 17:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What they are presumably doing is arguing against Ilan Stavans, who claims that Spanglish is developing into a language. But most of these statements are accurate, and should be cited for and restored. - Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, the only person I know who speaks Spanglish in Honduras is me, lol. Though there are English/Spanish speakers on the north coast when they speak Spanish it is the native Honduran variety which doesnt contain Englsih (or no more than any other language or dialect in the world right now). I say delete, SqueakBox 22:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


The word 'chatear' is now considered to be part of Standard Spanish since it is already included in the RAE dictionary.

One problem with this article[edit]

I find this article to be very narrowed. There are different Spanglish variations for many English words. For example: English to Spanish - Brakes (n) Brekas, Brekes, Breks, Breiks. to park (v) parquear, parquiar, parcar. plumber (n) plomer, plomero. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Platio101 (talkcontribs) 18:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Spanish is anyway very similar to English, SqueakBox 18:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I will say the other way around: spanish in its modern form came about a couple hundred years before English, back when French was the court language in Britain.--Cerejota 12:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Nonetheless, each spanglish word used above is completely different from the correct corresponding translation. The translations are as is: Brakes (n) frenos. to park (v) estacionar. plumber (n) fontanero. *In respect to the change of words from the Latin America to the US. The essential similarities between the English and Spanish are irrelevant.

Project Spain[edit]

I am going to remove this as Spanglish has nothing whatsoever to do with Spain, SqueakBox 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Brown population?[edit]

In the introduction to the article it says: "Spanglish refers to the code-switching of "English" and "Spanish", in the speech of the Brown population of the United States and to a lesser extent Gibraltar and most Spanish holiday resorts, who are exposed to both Spanish and English."

Although I don't live in the United States I have never herd or read that phrase and I tend to think is not very academic or encyclopedic, besides that, the "Brown" linked is the colour and in the disambiguation page of that topic there is no reference to that kind of use nor in the corresponding article in Wiktionary.

I think that part of the article need to be changed or eliminated.

--Camahuetos (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is a mess[edit]

It is unsourced, still somewhat idiosyncratic despite the rewriter's good intentions, and very informal. It comes across as one person's rant-lecture, which is not the style for Wikipedia. Can we not gather a few more of the many knowledgeable people, add quite a bit of documentation, and make this article a useful gathering of information? I've seen it happen with many articles, and been part of it, too, but on this one I have not the slightest notion how to begin. Yikes. Lawikitejana (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Things like "It is totally informal; there are no hard-and-fast rules." are what people always say about communication methods on the fringes of defined languages. If there weren't hard and fast rules that were agreed upon by both parties, communication would be impossible. It may be used informally, but the next phrase is completely incorrect. I added a request for expert attention, hopefully someone will get something going. I don't know enough Spanish to really help, but I'm going to stick around and help with the linguistics parts.Matttoothman (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I think "This article is a mess" is the proper heading under which to locate my comments. The article, six years later, still has many passages that read like gobbledygook. Can someone with knowledge and documentation about the subject please translate them to clear English or delete them? Here are some examples, sentences that I don't understand:
  • "Spanglish is difficult..." (Difficult to learn? To use? To understand? To categorize? Does that mean some people try and fail to learn it?)
  • "Spanglish is part of Receptive Bilingualism." (Why capitalized? Why italics?) Does this mean Spanglish is _an example_ of receptive bilingualism? "Receptive bilingual" appears in the Wikipedia article Passive speakers (language); shouldn't that be linked?
  • "Receptive bilinguals are those who understand a second language but don't speak it. That is when Spanglish is used." How does "That is when..." relate to the preceding definition of persons? Are "receptive bilinguals" the only ones who use Spanglish? Is Spanglish used by the receptively bilingual Ainu of Japan mentioned in the Wiki article? (Rhetorical question, to say the sentence needs clarifying.)
  • "Receptive bilinguals are also known as the productively bilingual"—this can't be right: the terms are opposites, antonyms. What was intended?
  • What is the scientific source of these references to "difficulty" and "effort"?
Please deal with these questions. Kotabatubara (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Tenis (spelling)?[edit]

I've heard my sister-in-law use the word "tenis" (spelling?, prounounced "ten-ees") when describing tennis/running shoes. I suspect this is Spanglish but didn't see it listed here. I thought I would toss this out in case somebody wanted to work it into the main article. CheMechanical (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"los tenis" <> the sneakers ... was fairly common in spain in the 80's, now it's not very used, rplaced by "zapas" (short for zapatillas) or deportivas

Footing and Puenting[edit]

Autocar is bus or coach

Autoestopista is hitchhiker

Block is writing pad

Consulting is consultors

Crack is remarkable or crash

Esmoquin is tuxedo

Filomatic is disposable edge razor

Footing is jogging

Jersey is sweater or pullover

lifting is facelift

Play back is lip-synching

Puenting is bungee jumping

Recordman is top scorer

Slips is underpants

Tumbing is lying down

Water is toilet — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Spanglish versus Tex-Mex[edit]

This article does not clearly differentiate between "Spanglish" and "Tex-Mex". As we use it in Texas - which you would think would count since it's called TEX-MEX - Spanglish and Tex-Mex are two different things.

Spanglish is what this article refers to as "code-switching", that is, speaking in good English, then switching to good Spanish, then maybe back again, all grammatically correct on the phrase level. For example, "Voy a comprar my truck this afternoon." [I am going to buy my truck this afternoon]. The sentence starts out in normal Spanish, then switches to normal English. There is no merging of the languages except at the discrete phrase or sentence level. Certainly, English words are pronounced as English and Spanish words as Spanish. I have known plenty of Mexicans and bi-lingual South Americans who speak this way among family and friends.

On the other hand, Tex-Mex is a proto-language. It has it own grammar (primarily Spanish) with a large and often unique vocabulary which derives from the fusion of Spanish and English words. However, even if a word is English in origin, it is pronounced in a Spanish form, for example, "la trocka" [the truck].

As a reference, look at how English itself was created. In the main part of England in the 12th century, the majority of people spoke one of a variety of Anglo-Saxon (Old English) dialects. After the Norman invasion, the upper class spoke Norman French while the "lower" classes continued to speak Anglo-Saxon. BUT, after 200 years, instead of Norman French displacing Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-Saxon displacing Norman French, we instead see a language that is based on the Anglo-Saxon grammar, but with a huge amount of borrowing from the French and eventually Latin. This is why Chaucer's English is's neither Norman French nor Anglo-Saxon but a fusion of the two.

This is the real "Tex-Mex", a natural fusion of Spanish grammar and English vocabulary that is on its way to becoming its own language. Indeed, if we had a nuclear war and the current national governments ceased to exist, it would be quite plausible that Tex-Mex would arise as an undeniable language in its own right.

In any case, I would strongly argue that Tex-Mex and Spanglish ought to be in two separate articles as they are two separate things... William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Born and raised in Texas, I disagree. Spanglish is correctly described above as, "a popular label for a collection of disparate language contact situations, where Spanish-speaking communities are influenced by English." Sometimes Spanglish is code-switching, sometimes it is transliteration, sometimes it is a dialect with grammatical rules and vocabulary as you describe above, but is still Spanglish. Tex-Mex and Spanglish aren't useful, universal distinctions, as communities in other areas of the country also speak Spanglish with grammar and vocabulary as you describe above, and Puerto Ricans in NY or Cubans in Miami would never refer to it as Tex Mex, despite fitting your above description. Rather Tex-Mex could be considered a regional synonym, or in my experience a dated term describing Spanglish. Most who speak Spanglish in Texas (that I know, including myself) would currently describe it as Spanglish, nowadays Tex-Mex typically refers to food rather than language. (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Laura
Well, Laura, we have a problem. Not only did I describe my personal observations of the difference between Spanglish and Tex-Mex in Texas, I have repeatedly asked residents around here (Dallas area) who (or their ancestors) came from Mexico and who speak "Spanish" alongside (or sometimes instead of) English. The uniform response is that "Spanglish" is code-switching and "Tex-Mex" is largely Spanish grammar and vocabulary, with a lot of imported, naturalized English words.
Yes, you are correct that "Tex-Mex" is spoken primarily in Texas (although I wouldn't be surprised if a number of people in northern Mexico who had spent a lot of time in the US spoke a Spanish influenced by Tex-Mex). In fact, just the other day as I was buying wood, I asked the people loading my car my usual question about what they thought Tex-Mex was and what Spanglish was. At the end of the discussion, the guy asked me what they spoke in California, and I said with a shrug, "Cal-Mex" - we both had a laugh about that, as I don't think anyone uses that term for a language.
Honestly, for all that I've lived virtually my entire life here in Texas, I hadn't heard the term "Spanglish" used here much for most of that first recollection of hearing it was from a Peruvian friend in college who told me about how she and her sisters would flop and forth between English (which they also spoke natively) and Spanish. People routinely used the word "Tex-Mex". It wasn't until the movie "Spanglish" came out that the "gabachos" suddenly discovered that there were people speaking more than one language, i.e., using the word "Spanglish" became a trendy fad, used by people who really had no idea that people in Texas speak in a variety of formats: Standard English, Texan, Spanish/Mexican (i.e., educated), Tex-Mex, Spanglish...and that's just the people of Mexican, I am not including you in the "gabachos" ;-)
Perhaps part of the problem is that code switching and the proto-language ought to have two different names, as they are radically different. After all, code-switching is going back and forth between two standard languages, but "Tex-Mex" is neither standard Spanish nor English....we ought to have different names for this, and I think a lot of people use it just this way.

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of Change on May 9, 2012[edit]

On May 9, 2012, an anonymous editor added:

"For example,

fat -> fato (gordo)

bag -> bago (mochila)

book -> booko (libero) "

This appears to be a joke. If nothing else, the word is "libro" not "libero" suggesting that the author doesn't speak Spanish anyway. As a resident of Texas as well as a second language speaker of Spanish and Italian, I have never heard of "fato" or "bago" or "booko" except as deliberate misspeaking of Spanish.

If the author wishes to reinstate this text, he/she should provide some independent reference that these "words" are actually used by Tex-Mex speakers, not by gringos pretending to speak pseudo-Spanish.

William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Pidgin? Creole?[edit]

This paragraph is problematic, as it contradicts itself, as well as what's in the lede:

Spanglish is not a pidgin language. It is totally informal; there are no set hard-and-fast rules. From a linguistic point of view, Spanglish can be labeled many things. It can actually be a pidgin, because many of the English borrowings are due to the desire to have a common meaning for various words among all native Spanish speakers that may have varying definitions of the same word. Spanglish can be considered a creole or dialect of Spanish as well, as it has become the native language of some second-generation Hispanic children who are often exposed to Spanglish at home and when using this dialect, mostly understood by monolingual Spanish speakers. Spanglish may also be considered a Spanish-English interlanguage as it represents the linguistic border between Mexico and the United States (Ardila 2005:66).”

It seems to say that Spanglish is not a pidgin language because there are no hard rules, then asserts that it could be considered a pidgin, or a creole language, but in my understanding, creoles have more structured rules than do pidgins - is that correct? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


In The section of Examples, only music has an explanation so it will be helpful to have an brief explanation for literature and people too. And also in the section of Attitudes Towards Spanglish, if it is not a quote from the reference, it might be better to change "...Spanglish is still viewed by most as an ugly word..." to more tolerant word to explain.

Naohashi (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It would help to add citations after each statistic to give validity to the numbers. Also, it would be helpful if the introduction clearly stated what Spanglish is considered (pidgin, creole, dialect, language, or none).

Lilyflowerss (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The initial definition of Spanglish was unclear and the added information within the round brackets is more confusing than helpful. It would help to clearly state the information rather than beating around the bush ex. "maybe borrowed a lot from English but not to the extent where one could not tell that it is Spanish." You can take out the "maybe" and the bracketed information would sound more like a fact and make it clear. One suggested revision of that information could be "Spanglish can be a variety of Spanish that has had a lot of contact with English (English words and grammatical structures are borrowed from the English language and inserted into the speakers Spanish but not to the extent where one can't tell the speaker is speaking Spanish)."

Another possible revision is to add citations, specifically to the mass of statistics by the US Census Bureau(located in the History and distribution section).

Asontong (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


I added citations that link to the article that I took the information regarding the census bureau from, as well as the us census bureaus online website where the information is posted. I also corrected the explanation regarding the definition of Spanglish in the beginning. I see how it was majorly unclear, but I hope this gives better insight into it being neither a pidgin, creole, dialect or language. It is hard to pinpoint its definition because so many scholars vaguely refer to Spanglish and have trouble identifying a concise definition, but based on the references this is the definition we have been able to deduce. --Elmerpan — Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I rephrased the entry like suggested. I also made a few minor edits to make the sentences more coherent, because it seemed like there was some accidental repetition. Thanks for pointing it out! Aling007 (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Spanglish Patterns section[edit]

The Spanglish Patterns section doesn't have a clear purpose to me and seems to repeat parts of other sections. Should this be reworked a bit? -KaJunl (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)signing edit


For some reason this article reads like a term paper. My subjective opinion, but thought I'd bring it up. Hard to pinpoint why. -KaJunl (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Lunchear vs. Lonchear[edit]

inconsistent spelling of this word throughout article -KaJunl (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


There seems to be some overlap between the semantic expressions section and the loan words section, such as with the mention of words like "lunchear." -KaJunl (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

problems with first paragraph[edit]

1. "Spanglish is genetically unrelated to any other language" - huh?! It's the child of English and Spanish, fairly obviously. 2. "it is not a language" - ok, maybe not in a narrow, technical sense. But in at least one sense... sure it's a language. When I mix jazz and rock (as a musician), am I not playing music?! Strange. But ok, I will grant that it's possibly true, if kind of dubious. 3. "Spanglish is not a pidgin, because unlike pidgin languages, Spanglish has a linguistic history that is traceable." Wow. Uh No no no!! Looks like it is not a pidgin for many reasons. But I think not for that 'reason', which is ridiculous. I guess this was one of the bits that led to the 'this sounds like high-school writing' comments above. (Simplified?! It's twice as complex as its parents, at least potentially.) I don't know much about the subject, so I thought I should write this here rather than strike immediately with the delete key on the page. (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Big problems with "Attitudes toward Spanglish[edit]

The attitudes toward Spanglish section is written like an opinion piece or a poor college essay. This needs immediate revision or excision and I am adding the POV dispute until this is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm replacing the template with a more appropriate one. --Jotamar (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)