Of course in these days of climate change – actually, geography
teachers were saying back in the 1970s that large cities create their
own climates – you can’t quite rely on the rain to set your watch by.
Sometimes it will pour down through the night, other times a short but
fierce shower will catch you just as you step out the house, or if
Murphy’s Law is in full effect, when it’s just too late to turn back.

Usually though, the heavy storms come later in the day, jamming up
rush-hour traffic and causing the Metro to slow to a near halt on its
overground sections.

As you emerge onto the street after a storm, there are a number of
precautions you can take. Large puddles often form deliberately
between pedestrians and passing cars, and many motorists appear to
have few qualms about showering their fellows with accumulations of
muddy water. It’s wise to stand back from the curb.

A number of major repairs have and are being made to the city’s
complex drainage system, although litter remains a problem clogging
up the pipelines. A city government campaign has been launched to
persuade people against throwing rubbish in the street, and it may
already be having an effect.

Last year a lot of people were flooded out of their homes when a
sewage river overflowed, and help was incomprehensibly divided across
a political line.

Funnily, if not surprisingly, enough, the people who complain the most
about rain seem to be those who are the least affected by it – a few extra hours in traffic versus a home filled with muck and modest possessions ruined.

Meanwhile, the ubiquitous “encharcamientos,” or formation of puddles -
a sort of euphemism for small floods – are constantly a feature of
post “pluvial precipitation.” That’s a fancy term for rain used by TV people who tire of saying over and over lluvia, an otherwise perfectly good word to describe water falling from clouds.

Even when two vowels together join to make a single sound, that sound is essentially a combination of the two vowels’ individual pronunciations.

Amainar – to wane or diminish – has the regular ‘a’ sound, (a as in cat) in the first syllable, while the ‘ai’ is pronounced like the long i in English, as in high. If you join the short ‘a’ and the Spanish i (prounounced as the long ‘e’ in English – like the first ‘e’ in Peter) you get a sound very similar to the English long i. It requires a bit of squashing them together as two vowels are made to fit the space of one, but the basic sounds are kept.

The ‘au’ in Spanish is pronounced like the ‘ou’ in the English ‘out’ and is a similar combination of the Spanish ‘a’ sound and the Spanish ‘u’ – which is like the English ‘u’ in flute.

This holds true for other combinations of strong and weak vowels joined to form a single syllable.

By themselves, Spanish vowels never really alter their sound, unlike English vowels, which, to the native Spanish speaker can be quite baffling. Pronunciation of words like determine, waffle, sausage, and names like Ian and Graham, as well as wind (the kind that blows) and wind (as a watch), read (present) and read (past), and differences in the pronunciation of words such as rough, bough, though, thought and thorough, are almost anathema to the logical Spanish mind.

There is, however, one subtle variation in the sound of the Spanish ‘e’, which is slightly sharper at the end of a word than at the beginning or in the middle. While the correct pronunciation of the Mexican currency – the peso – is closer to PE’-soh than PAY’-soh, the sound of the ‘e’ at the end of a word (i.e. not followed by a consonant) is slightly closer to ‘ay’ without being quite the same.

Perderé – (I will lose) – is approximately pair-de-RAY’

Depende – (it depends) – roughly de-PEN-day

Impenetrable – (like the title of this blog entry) – EEM-pe-ne-TRA-blay.

Hay lugar para tres personas. There is room for three people.

Hay tres personas en el elevador. There are three people in the elevator.

Where hay is restricted is in time, applying only to the present tense. To express “there was/were,” “there will be,”  “there would be” or “there has been,” the verb haber has to be conjugated.

Habrá tiempo para jugar después del trabajo. There will be time to
play after work;

Había una vez un príncipe apuesto. Once upon a time there was a handsome prince;

Ha habido mucho tráfico hoy en la ciudad. There has been a lot of traffic today in the city;

and the famous Si hubiera parque no estaría Usted aquí.  If there were ammunition, you wouldn’t be here (spoken by Gen. Anaya to U.S. Gen. Scott after the heroic defense of Churubusco in the Mexican-American war).

Where usage varies, and arguments can start if anyone is interested enough, is when the plural is involved in the conjugation.

There was room for three people, is había (or hubo) lugar para tres personas.

But, there were three people in the elevator can be expressed in two ways:

Había (hubo) tres personas en el elevador, or habían (hubieron) tres personas en el elevador.

There have been two world wars can be,  ha habido dos guerras mundiales, or han habido dos guerras mundiales.

The question is whether the verb applies directly to the people, or wars (then plural), or to the concept of there being (in which case, singular).

This writer’s preference is for the latter, on the grounds that it is simpler and more elegant – just like the word hay.

But so many native speakers and writers use the plural in such instances that it’s difficult to say that one or the other is the correct form.

When the verb haber is used to mean “should,” or “ought to,” then the plural form must be used for plural subjects.

El doctor habrá de venir mañana. The doctor should (or ought to) come tomorrow;

Han de ser camiones que hacen ese ruido. It must be trucks making that noise.

In these cases the verb haber has nothing to do with “there are” or hay, although it may explain why so many people use the plural form when it
does, since it is the same verb that is being conjugated.

Lastly, a translation tip.

If someone asks a shopkeeper: ¿habrá leche? it doesn’t mean “will there be milk?” but rather, “do you (happen to) have any milk?”

For tortillas, it would have to be either ¿habrá tortillas? or ¿habrán tortillas?

The choice is yours.

See Also: Learning Spanish

The decision is hardly surprising given the expectations that had been built up going into the tournament, what with Mexico’s record number of players currently in European club sides.

With a draw, a win (against what turned out to be a disastrous French team), and two losses, there wasn’t much room for construing the effort as a decorous one.

Aguirre was called back last year to rescue Mexico’s struggling bid to qualify against generally weak competition in the Concacaf region. He achieved that, but the real target was to reach the quarter finals of the World Cup, not to scrape through the group stage on goal difference and lose – yet again – in the round of 16.

Recriminations abound as they usually do when a country’s team does badly.

The worst thing about Aguirre’s strategy was that a number of promising young players – such as goalkeeper Guillermo Ochoa, midfielder Andres Guardado, and striker Javier Hernandez – weren’t given a proper chance to display their skills in soccer’s showcase event. Ochoa didn’t play at all. Instead Aguirre stuck to a number of older players whose careers are near an end and who – in the event – played poorly anyway.

And after this wasted opportunity, there are no signs emanating from the Mexican football hierarchy that anything is about to change radically. Mexican fans should probably be prepared for four more years of international mediocrity.

The first goal was a disgraceful decision by the referee and linesman to allow the goal to stand when it was clearly offside. The two consulted following protests from the Mexican players who could see the error on a screen at the stadium, but decided to award the goal anyway, even though play had not yet resumed.

After that a terrible defensive error, easily the worst of the tournament, led to Mexico being two goals down, and a third goal by Argentine striker Carlos Tevez put an end to Mexico’s hopes of reaching the quarter finals. A late goal by Javier Hernandez at least made the scoreline look respectable.

There will probably be an informal inquest – or a formal one, who knows – into the reasons for Mexico’s failure to advance further in the World Cup, but it’s unlikely that anything will come of it.

Mexico has reached the second round and lost there in every World Cup since 1994, so this wasn’t much different. It was, however, the country’s worst showing since the 1978 disaster, not including the 1982 and 1990 when the team didn’t make it into the tournament.

It was also the Mexican side that had the most ever  “European” players, that is, Mexicans who play for club teams in Europe. So much for that.

For a few minutes, with South Africa up 2-0 against a disastrous French side and Mexico looking far from equaliizing, there were even thoughts of a possible elimination on goal difference.

So far Argentina has proved the strongest team in the tournament, winning Group B with three victories – seven goals for and only one against.

The tie-up is a repeat of the 2006 World Cup when the two teams also met just after the group stage.

Brazil could also turn in three wins if they’re able to beat Portugal in their final group match.

For Mexico, however, Argentina has usually proved a tougher opponent than the Brazilians. Mexico has managed to beat Brazil in major tournaments – including in the 2007 Copa America – but has had worse results against the Albicelestes. Argentina knocked Mexico out in the
2007 Copa America semifinals (Mexico went on to take third place after beating Uruguay), and also came back from a goal down in their 2006 World Cup match to win 2-1 after extra time.

Somehow, though, Tuesday’s dismay turned to optimism in a matter of hours and now there’s no reason to think Mexico couldn’t pick it up again and produce the upset of the tournament.

Se vale soñar, goes the local expression.

The victory, which wasn’t quite as surprising as some may think, makes it difficult but not impossible for Mexico not to make it into the round of 16.

Mathematically, no one of the four teams is eliminated, although after going down 3-0 to Uruguay, South Africa would need to beat France and have Mexico or Uruguay lose to have a chance. Even then, the combined results would have to add up to five or six goals. Not a very probable outcome.

France will still have a chance if it wins by several goals and either Mexico or Uruguay lose – with a combined difference of four or five goals.

A draw between Mexico and Uruguay will send the two Latin American sides through with Uruguay ahead on goal difference.

And there’s the rub.

The runner-up of Group A will play the winner of Group B, and all indications are that it will be Argentina. The winner of Group A will almost certainly meet Greece or South Korea, although Nigeria could still scrape through.

So Mexico, which lost 2-1 to Argentina in the 2006 round of 16, will be battling all out for victory over Uruguay. The match promises to be a tough one, as playing for a draw would be a big risk for the South Americans.

In its quest for that elusive “fifth game,” the quarter final which, FIFA and other rankings aside puts a country in the world’s top eight, Mexico should come out blazing on June 22.

Goalkeeper. Portero is the most common word. Also used is arquero, and Cancerbero, this last the mythological Cerberus – keeper of the gates of Hades.

Among the defenders – defensas – are usually two centrales, who tend to be the taller players expected to head away danger from high crosses (among other things). The wing defenders are called laterales.

Some laterales are known for attacking down the wing, complementing the work of the forwards, and they are occasionally referred to as carrileros – (rail runners?).  Some pundits object to the word.

The position of sweeper, a defender who plays behind to catch any loose balls or attackers, is known in Spanish as líbero, although most teams now prefer to use the offside trap and it’s seldom played or heard.

In midfield are the medios — of which there are several types. Medio escudo isn’t half a shield, nor even a small coin of the realm, but a defensive midfield player who, presumably, acts as a shield against oncoming attacks. It’s hard to differentiate between the medio escudo and the contención, a midfielder whose purpose is to nip attacks in the bud, containing the opposition as the name suggests. The contenciones are also expected to get the ball back after the forwards have lost it. You may also hear them referred to as medios de recuperación.

Medio creativo is a midfield player who thinks up interesting passes to foil sturdy defenses (on a good day), and who also joins the attack and scores goals. You may also hear commentators refer to a player as “un diez nato” – a natural-born No. 10. That is, an attacking midfielder, or slightly hanging-back forward, who either wears or ought to be wearing the No. 10 shirt. Presumably the shirt number harks back to the heydey of Argentina’s Diego Maradona, since Pele, who also wore No. 10, was more predominantly a striker, although he did all those other things and more in his illustrious career.

The traditional forwards are the centro delantero – center forward or striker – whose sole purpose is to score goals. This player is supposed to be fed the ball, and his job is to evade his markers and get into the right positions. Consequently, much of the work done by the centro delantero goes unseen even on people’s wide, flat, high-definition etc. screens, and these players are often unfairly accused of laziness.

The wingers are laterales. They mostly play down the side of the pitch. A good lateral should be fast, agile, and able to send in accurate crosses out of the reach of the opposing goalkeeper. Wingers are often found  “dribbling”–running with the ball apparently stuck to their feet, but keeping it moving enough so that defenders can’t get it off them. A dribbler is called “caracolero” which derives from “caracolear” – to prance about, like a showhorse – and not “caracol” – snail.

The referee is most commonly called el árbitro (the Spanish often say el colegiado) or réferi, and the linesmen are abanderados (flag carriers). This last term is still used although political correctness has crept in to football and they may more often be called “árbitro asistente.”

Now all they need is a ball.

After dominating the first half, the Mexicans found themselves a goal down on a break by the home team, which ended with Siphiwe Tshabalala firing smartly into the top corner of the net.

The equalizer came with just over 10 minutes left to play at the feet of veteran Rafael Marquez who beat the offside trap to coolly pull down a cross from Andres Guardado and shoot home from close range.

Mexicans won’t be happy with their opening result, but might take comfort from the performance of their next two rivals – France and Uruguay.

The 1-1 draw puts Mexico and South Africa ahead of France on number of goals scored, which is the third tie-breaking criterion after points and goal difference.

This may seem insignificant, although in close groups it can be the difference between advancing and going home after three matches.

In 1994, Mexico won its group ahead of Italy, Ireland and Norway thanks to its three goals for (and three against) after all four teams ended with a win, a draw, and a loss, four points, and a goal difference of zero.

With just hours to go before the kick-off, the millions of Mexican would-be “coaches” are mostly wondering which goalkeeper will be chosen to start against the African side.

People are becoming more and more convinced that favorite Guillermo Ochoa will be sidelined for the more experienced but less agile Oscar “El Conejo” Perez.

There are plenty of reasons for thinking this will be the case. The current coach, Javier Aguirre, played Perez in the 2002 World Cup in Japan and South Korea, and surprised a few people when calling him up for this year’s event. In Mexico’s recent European warm-up tour, Perez was picked for the matches against England and Italy. (Mexico lost the former 3-1 and won the latter 2-1)

Another reason is that Perez was given the No. 1 jersey, which doesn’t necessarily guarantee the position but was headline news in Mexico.

A number of explanations are offered by the pundits. One is “Aguirre prefers experience over youth,” a charge easily countered by pointing to the number of young players in the squad.

Another is that El Conejo “the Rabbit” (you’ll see why if you watch the game) is a player of Aguirre’s “confianza,” or trust, which can mean just about anything.

Ochoa fans who aren’t restricted in their opinions because they are private opinions, expressed over beers rather than airwaves, have a simpler explanation: El Conejo is Aguirre’s buddy.

Aguirre was asked about this when he first took over a Mexican side struggling to qualify for the World Cup and pooh-poohed it immediately. If he had picked a side made up of his friends, he said, chances of qualifying would be pretty slim (or something like that).

Of course, both goalkeepers are quite capable of playing a World Cup, and the armchair team-pickers — including the present writer — were still calling the line-ups when Mexico was a few games away from missing its first World Cup since 1990.