Learn Hardcore Spanish (Latin America): Mi papá hizo una promesa: si no peleamos en casa, vamos a tener una cena especial el domingo. - My dad made a promise: if we don’t fight at home, we’re going to have a special dinner on Sunday.

Mi papá = my dad (more informal, affectionate, common in everyday speech in Latin America).
Mi padre = my father (more formal, neutral, can sound a bit distant or serious in everyday speech).

In most spoken Latin American Spanish, people usually say mi papá when talking about their own father in a family context like this sentence.

Why does papá have an accent mark?

The accent in papá shows that the stress is on the last syllable: pa‑PÁ.

Without the accent, papa would be pronounced PA‑pa and actually means potato in many Latin American countries.
With the accent, papá means dad and is pronounced pa‑PÁ.

So the accent changes both the pronunciation and the meaning.

Why is it hizo una promesa and not something like hace una promesa?

Hizo is the preterite form of hacer (to do/make) and refers to a completed action in the past:

Mi papá hizo una promesa = My dad made a promise (at some specific moment in the past).

Hace una promesa would mean my dad makes a promise in the present (a general or current action), which doesn’t fit the context of a one-time promise he already made.

So the preterite hizo is correct because the promise was made at a specific time in the past.

Why is there a colon (:) after promesa?

In Spanish, a colon is often used:

Before directly quoting what someone says,
or to introduce an explanation or result of what was just mentioned.

Here:

Mi papá hizo una promesa:
What follows (the si… part) is the content of that promise.

It’s similar to English:
My dad made a promise: if we don't fight at home, we’re going to have a special dinner on Sunday.

Why is it si no peleamos (present tense) and not something like a subjunctive form?

This is a real/likely condition in the future, so Spanish normally uses:

Present indicative in the si-clause: si no peleamos
Future or ir a + infinitive in the main clause: vamos a tener

Pattern:

Si + present indicative, future / ir a
- infinitive.

Examples:

Si estudias, vas a pasar el examen. – If you study, you’re going to pass the exam.
Si no peleamos, vamos a tener una cena especial.

Subjunctive is used in other types of si-clauses (more hypothetical or contrary to fact), like:

Si no peleáramos, tendríamos una cena especial. – If we didn’t fight (but we do), we would have a special dinner.

But here the father’s condition is realistic, so present indicative: peleamos is correct.

What’s the difference between pelear and pelearse? Should it be si no nos peleamos?

Both exist and are used, and both can be correct depending on style and region.

Pelear (without se) = to fight, argue.
Pelearse (with se, reflexive) often emphasizes fighting with each other.

Compare:

Si no peleamos en casa… – If we don’t fight at home… (clear from context that it’s among family members)
Si no nos peleamos en casa… – If we don’t fight with each other at home…

In everyday speech, you’ll hear both. The sentence given is perfectly natural as is, but si no nos peleamos en casa would also be acceptable in many places.

Why is the subject “we” not written? Where is “we” in si no peleamos and vamos a tener?

In Spanish, the subject pronoun (nosotros = we) is often dropped because the verb endings already show who the subject is.

peleamos = we fight (1st person plural)
vamos and tenemos would be “we go” / “we have,” but here it’s vamos a tener (we are going to have)

So:

Si no peleamos… literally: If we don’t fight…
…vamos a tener una cena especial… literally: we’re going to have a special dinner…

Adding nosotros is optional and usually only for emphasis or clarity:

Si nosotros no peleamos, nosotros vamos a tener… (sounds heavier in normal conversation).

Why is it vamos a tener and not tendremos?

Both are grammatically correct:

vamos a tener = we are going to have (ir a + infinitive)
tendremos = we will have (simple future of tener)

In Latin American Spanish, ir a + infinitive (vamos a tener) is very common in spoken language for near or clear future, similar to English “going to”.

So:

Si no peleamos en casa, vamos a tener una cena especial…
sounds the most natural and conversational in Latin America.

Si no peleamos en casa, tendremos una cena especial…
is correct but can sound a bit more formal or bookish in many contexts.

Why is it en casa and not en la casa?

Both are possible, but they’re used slightly differently:

en casa = at home (general, no article)
- No peleamos en casa. – We don’t fight at home.
en la casa = in the house / in the home (more specific, refers to a particular house as a physical place)

In this context, the father is talking about family behavior at home in general, so en casa is the natural choice.

What does una cena especial imply? Is it just “a special dinner” literally?

Literally, una cena especial = a special dinner.

In context, it usually suggests something like:

a nicer-than-usual dinner,
maybe a treat, going out to a restaurant, or eating something fancy at home.

It doesn’t specify how it’s special; it’s just something more exciting or out of the routine compared to a normal dinner.

Why is there una before cena especial, but no article before domingo?

Una cena especial
- cena is a countable noun here (a specific dinner event), so Spanish uses an indefinite article:
- una cena = a dinner
- una cena especial = a special dinner
el domingo
- Days of the week in Spanish usually take the definite article el:
  - el lunes, el martes, el domingo.

So the full phrase:

una cena especial el domingo
= a special dinner on Sunday (the el is used before the day).

Could you change the word order of si no peleamos en casa? For example, si no peleamos en casa nosotros?

Yes, but some word orders sound more natural than others.

Most natural:

Si no peleamos en casa, vamos a tener…

Possible but less common / more emphatic:

Si nosotros no peleamos en casa, vamos a tener… (emphasizes we specifically)
Si no peleamos nosotros en casa, vamos a tener… (puts contrast or focus on we)

Putting nosotros at the very end (si no peleamos en casa nosotros) is grammatically possible but sounds unusual or overly marked in everyday speech. The original order is best for a neutral sentence.

Is there any difference in Latin America vs Spain for this sentence?

The sentence is perfectly understandable in both Latin America and Spain, but:

Latin America:
- Mi papá is very common.
- vamos a tener (ir a + infinitive) is especially common in speech.
Spain:
- Many people also say mi padre more often than mi papá, depending on region and family habits.
- tendremos might be heard more in some contexts, but vamos a tener is also used.

So for “Spanish (Latin America),” Mi papá… vamos a tener… is very natural.

Could we say this using prometer instead of hacer una promesa?

Yes, a very natural alternative is:

Mi papá nos prometió que, si no peleamos en casa, vamos a tener una cena especial el domingo.
= My dad promised us that if we don’t fight at home, we’re going to have a special dinner on Sunday.

Differences:

hizo una promesa: literally made a promise
prometió: promised (verb)

Both are correct; the original is slightly simpler and more direct for learners.

Why is domingo not capitalized like Sunday in English?

In Spanish, days of the week and months are not capitalized, unless they start a sentence:

lunes, martes, miércoles, jueves, viernes, sábado, domingo
enero, febrero, marzo, etc.

So domingo is lowercase in the middle of the sentence, even though English capitalizes Sunday.