I do not know the film. Unfortunately.
But your opinion would interest me.
Is the film worth a look?
Stanton has been writing on the database a very positive comment.
Another unknown masterpiece by Mulargia ?
https://www.spaghetti-western.net/index.php/Vayas_con_Dios,_gringo
For the greater part this is indeed a very remarkable film.
Never heard of before, great poster artwork!
You do surprise me Silence.
I had heard the title but knew nothing about the film.
I donāt even understand the title
My Spanish isnāt anything to write home about, but I donāt think vayas is correct
Well, itās the Italian title, while the Spanish title is actually Vete con Dios, Gringo.
Vete is correct, as far as I know
Vayas con Dios is no Italian (in Italian this would be āVa con Dioā), I guess it was made up by an Italian who thought he knew Spanish. (A sort of Van Gaal German, so to speak)
Well if what their trying to sya its:
GO WITH GOD
SPANISH - Vaya con Dios or Vete con Dios
Both ways are correct I do not Know whatās the diference between them.
[quote=āEl Topo, post:9, topic:2378ā]Well if what their trying to sya its:
GO WITH GOD
SPANISH - Vaya con Dios or Vete con Dios
Both ways are correct I do not Know whatās the diference between them.[/quote]
They are imperatives of different verbs, if Iām not mistaken (as said Iām not an expert in Spanish):
Vaya from the verb ir
Vete from the verb andarse
I guess you have similar verbs in Portuguese, the pairing exists in all Latin languages:
French: Aller and Sāen aller
Ialian: Andare and Andarsene
The meaning of those verbs is in all cases very close
[quote=āscherpschutter, post:8, topic:2378ā]Vete is correct, as far as I know
Vayas con Dios is no Italian (in Italian this would be āVa con Dioā), I guess it was made up by an Italian who thought he knew Spanish. (A sort of Van Gaal German, so to speak)[/quote]
Of course it is not Italian.
And we call it Trapdeutsch, honoring by this the great Trapatoni, who redefined the German language and really became a cult figure among the linguists. Trapatoni was more influential than the last German spelling reform.
But still Iām wondering, why didnāt they simply ātranslateā it in Spain with vaya instead of vete?
Andarse means something like go away, vanish, if you know what I mean.
Vaya con dios will mean go with with god, in a good way
So I guess that Vete con Dios will mean go off with God, or desappear from here or something like that.
[quote=āscherpschutter, post:10, topic:2378ā]They are imperatives of different verbs, if Iām not mistaken (as said Iām not an expert in Spanish):
Vaya from the verb ir
Vete from the verb andarse[/quote]
Iām afraid you are mistaken Scherp. Wow, I never thought Iād be correcting you on a matter of language :o
Vete is the familiar you (tu) imperative form of the verb irse which is, as I think Topo mentioned, to go away.
Vaya is the imperative form of ir (to go) in the third person singular or polite (usted) form of you.
Vayas is the present subjunctive of ir in the familiar form. Or, in the negative, can also be in the imperative. So for example. āGo with Godā (in the polite form) would be Vaya con Dios. āDonāt go with Godā (in the familiar form) would be No vayas con Dios. But Vayas in the imperative can only be used in the negative so either way, Vayas con Dios is incorrect grammar.
Hope thatās all clear ;D
Now I just need Julio Alberto to come on and tell me Iām talking rubbish.
[quote=āPhil H, post:13, topic:2378ā]Iām afraid you are mistaken Scherp. Wow, I never thought Iād be correcting you on a matter of language :o
Vete is the familiar you (tu) imperative form of the verb irse which is, as I think Topo mentioned, to go away.
Vaya is the imperative form of ir (to go) in the third person singular or polite (usted) form of you.
Vayas is the present subjunctive of ir in the familiar form. Or, in the negative, can also be in the imperative. So for example. āGo with Godā (in the polite form) would be Vaya con Dios. āDonāt go with Godā (in the familiar form) would be No vayas con Dios. But Vayas in the imperative can only be used in the negative so either way, Vayas con Dios is incorrect grammar.
Hope thatās all clear ;D
Now I just need Julio Alberto to come on and tell me Iām talking rubbish.[/quote]
Gracias seƱor !
I was never a happy marriage, Spanish and me ā¦
(Makes me think, by the way, of one of my favourite TV series, Dadās Army. Captain Mainwaring (Iāve got some highly trained men here!) and Sergeant Wilson were my favourites. When Mainwaring made a mistake, and was corrected by Wilson, he inevitably would say : āOkay Wilson, I was only testing you.ā)
So: Okay, Hardcastle, I was only testing you ā¦
I think this incorrect grammar is just here in database. Imdb and other sites use the correct title.
I think youāre right Bill.
Vete con Dios can still be correct, Stanton.
Again, it is just a matter of using the tu form of irse. I am more familiar with the term Vaya con Dios but I have seen Vete used in the past in the same context. Iāve often wondered if it was a regional variation thing. Maybe Mexican rather than Spanish or whether both are as common as each other. To me vete has the implication of displeasure, i.e āLeave!ā rather than āTravelā or simply āgoā. We really do need a native speaker to answer that one.
[quote=āscherpschutter, post:14, topic:2378ā](Makes me think, by the way, of one of my favourite TV series, Dadās Army. Captain Mainwaring (Iāve got some highly trained men here!) and Sergeant Wilson were my favourites. When Mainwaring made a mistake, and was corrected by Wilson, he inevitably would say : āOkay Wilson, I was only testing you.ā)
So: Okay, Hardcastle, I was only testing you ā¦[/quote]
;D
I always loved Dadās Army too. Particularly liked Wilsonās polite public school manner in organising the troop on parade. āI say, would awfully mind falling in?ā ;D
Itās not just the database, both Giusti and Casadio list the film as VayaS con Dios, Gringo in their book
I think itās simply a mistake made by an Italian.
Imperatives are tricky in those languages
This is just an empiric suposition, Spanish itās not Portuguese.
But Vete itās not a so common expression I think, Vaya yes thatās more of commum use. And yes there are some regiosn of Portugal and I guess from Spain also (In the interior of both coutries) were the imperative itās of more commom use, but with same meaning of the normal verb.
Like
EntĆ£o, isso vai indo indo the imperative of the verb ir/go
In English would be something like thisSo, how are you going
I too have a picture of a poster in the Kessler book with Vayas, while he writes the title with Vaya.
It seems Vayas is the correct title, even if it is wrong.