So, This Is My Understanding. Nuance Is Key. The Difference Between "maestro Espaol" And "maestro De

So, this is my understanding. Nuance is key. The difference between "maestro español" and "maestro de español" is that "español" can mean either a Spanish person or the Spanish nationality, and that "de" can be translated to "of". By using "maestro español", I'm describing the teacher as Spanish, thus making "español" a descriptor of the person's origins. But by using "maestro de español", the "de" literally turns it into "teacher of Spanish", implying that "español" is about the language than regarding the person.

Is this correct? I hope so, because I'm not too confident in how I understand this...

Maybe I'm dumb, but I'm having issues using Spanish descriptors. When is the right time to add "de" and when is it not? I would have "restaurante mexicano", but then my head would spin at "maestro de español". I know this is a stupid question, but I don't like how confused I am... is there some rule that denotes when "de" is appropriate to indicate a descriptor, like how you explained "cual" and "que" to me?

With this particular example it's about the nationality and how it comes across

If you said restaurante de México it would be "a restaurant from Mexico" as if the restaurant had originally been in Mexico (which could happen for foreign chains)

And if you said maestro español it would sound like "a Spanish teacher" as in the teacher is from Spain

(el) español is "the Spanish language", but español / española is "Spanish" or "Spaniard", so it becomes a different thing

...This can be especially useful if you don't know the gentilicio "demonym" of what someone is called when they're from a place - like there's a city in Spain called Huelva - someone from there is called onubense ... so un hombre onubense = un hombre de Huelva ; that's an irregular one though, a lot of them are generally straight-forward but still

It also helps if you don't know the nationality like danés/danesa is "Dane/Danish" but then the country is Dinamarca "Denmark"

You may also run into some cities/states/etc where it could be like un restaurante chico "a small restaurant" vs. un restaurante de Chico "a restaurant from (or potentially "in") Chico"

...

But for your example, it's especially important for genders - say you have una maestra francesa "a French teacher" as in "a female teacher who is French" vs. una maestra de francés "a French teacher" as in a "female teacher who teaches French"

Same idea with de inglés "English-related" vs. inglés/inglesa "English" the nationality; or un profesor/una profesora de literatura inglesa "an English literature teacher" for example has nothing to do with their nationality at all

Subjects in school are generally considered nouns, but especially in something where you could confuse someone's nationality with the subject they teach

-

In general if you're talking about adjectives by themselves they don't usually need a de

The adjectival phrases with de are normally de + noun (person, place, or thing)

Sometimes with nationalities it's a bigger difference like above

Other times it can be sort of whichever one you feel like - as in una camisa roja "a red shirt" vs. una camisa de color rojo is "a red-colored shirt" [lit. "a shirt of red color"; where de color (algo) is an adjectival phrase]

-

You will sometimes see de + adjective + noun or de + noun + adjective; same general idea as the other it's just a longer phrase

As an example - de primera is understood as "first-rate", probably de primera categoría ...as de segunda is "second-rate" or sometimes understood as "second class (citizen)" probably again de segunda categoría

But that's different from something like de primera mano "first-hand" where it is specifically "first + hand", and again de segunda mano would be "second-hand" which would mean like a thrift store or "second-hand" clothes etc.

-

Again, not really a set rule aside from a few where it's very important to make a distinction

[Also, side note, de + algo is sometimes referred to as "genitive" in case systems but it's - "of" or "belonging to", where it can also be property/possession in some cases; like la casa de mi amigo "my friend's house" vs a simple su casa "his house" which is much simpler but vague, as it could be "her house" or "their house" too - de + pronoun can be used to indicate clear ownership when something could be vague....... still considered a kind of adjectival phrase, but not the kind of adjective you'd immediately think of]

-

If you have any other specific examples you want me to go over, just message me it can be sort of hard to generalize when some examples come up but I hope that sort of helps

First, for sure. I've met my clone. They're not that bad.

This is so true it hurts

This is what's happening to me right now lol.

Because, as Thomas Astruc said himself, Chloe is pure evil and has no redemption..... while showing either bs evidence or no evidence at all as to why.

i know the whole reason for Chloe (in the show) to not have any real good!aligned character growth was because the creators said that not every person you meet will become a better person or grow to be a better person, and that’s part of reality, Chloe will always be a villain.

and yeah, ok, true, some people just never change, for better or worse,

but this is also a kid’s show, and while it’s good to show kids “hey, this person won’t change, but you dont have to be like them.” why not show them the person changing for the better? actually developing? is doesn’t have to be a full Amity from TOH development, where she went from mean girl to good person aligned with our heroes to one of the heroes. And it also doesn’t have to end the same way it did with Amity, it could end with Chloe just being a better person to only those she cares about, she could still despise Marinette and Alya but be nicer to Sabrina or Zoe in her own weird Chloe-way.

Maddie from Every Witch Way started out in a very Chloe way, but she wasn’t the main villain, ever, just for a few episodes in the first season because she was also a bully to the main character. After that however, she was still shown to be spoiled, vain, material-obsessed, and driven by popularity. But that didn’t stop her from caring about her friends, from only helping the mains bc her friends were in trouble. She got a boyfriend in s2 (a very nice one at that) and he helped her develop into a better person as well. Maddie wasn’t about to start doing things for the goodness of her heart or other people, she did good things for people she cared about which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If anything she was more like an anti-hero.

This show wasn’t even a huge hitter on Nickelodeon (though we did get it to four seasons). So, why can’t they just do a similar thing to Chloe rather than keep her at this cartoon-level villain? I know it’s a cartoon but that’s never stopped ATLA, TLOK, SVFOE, Adventure Time, Steven Universe, or The Owl House to have nuanced, genuine, developed characters that don’t all have to be 100% aligned with good or start out that way.

When Gabriel is mad at Nathalie:

When Nathalie is mad at Gabriel: