De niño odiaba el brócoli, pero ahora me gusta su textura cuando lo mezclo con sopa de calabaza y un poco de limón agrio.

Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Spanish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Spanish now

Questions & Answers about De niño odiaba el brócoli, pero ahora me gusta su textura cuando lo mezclo con sopa de calabaza y un poco de limón agrio.

Why does the sentence start with De niño instead of Cuando era niño or Cuando yo era niño?

De niño is a very common, compact way to say “as a child / when I was a child.”

You could also say:

  • Cuando era niño odiaba el brócoli…
  • Cuando yo era niño odiaba el brócoli…

All are correct. Differences:

  • De niño is shorter and sounds very natural in speech.
  • Adding yo (Cuando yo era niño) emphasizes the I, for contrast (e.g. I, unlike others).

So De niño = As a child, with the subject yo understood from context.

Why is there no yo in odiaba el brócoli and cuando lo mezclo? Would yo odiaba or cuando yo lo mezclo be better?

Spanish usually drops subject pronouns when the verb ending already shows the subject.

  • odiaba → could be yo odiaba or él/ella odiaba, but we know from context it’s yo.
  • mezclo → the -o ending clearly shows yo.

You can say:

  • Yo odiaba el brócoli…
  • …cuando yo lo mezclo…

These are grammatically correct, but adding yo is normally for emphasis or contrast, not just for stating who does the action. The original sentence sounds more natural and less heavy.

Why is it odiaba and not a past form like odié?

Odiaba is the imperfect tense; odié is the preterite.

  • Imperfect (odiaba): describes a habit, repeated action, or general state in the past.
    De niño odiaba el brócoli = As a child I used to hate / generally hated broccoli.

  • Preterite (odié): would describe a completed, specific moment.
    Un día odié el brócoli would sound like One day I hated broccoli (a single event), which is odd here.

Because this is about a long-lasting attitude in childhood, the imperfect (odiaba) is the natural choice.

Why do we say odiaba el brócoli with el? Can we say odiaba brócoli?

In Spanish, you normally use the definite article (el, la, los, las) when talking about things in general, especially foods:

  • Odiaba el brócoli = I hated broccoli (as a general category).
  • Me gusta el café.
  • No como la carne.

Saying odiaba brócoli is possible but it sounds informal/colloquial and much less standard. For a learner, it’s safer and more natural to keep the article:

  • odiaba el brócoli
Why is it me gusta su textura and not gusto su textura or yo gusto su textura?

Gustar works very differently from “to like” in English.

  • Literally, gustar means “to be pleasing”.
  • The thing that is liked is the subject.
  • The person who likes it is an indirect object with me / te / le / nos / les.

So:

  • Me gusta su textura
    → literally: Its texture pleases me.
    → natural translation: I like its texture.

You never say yo gusto su textura to mean I like its texture. That would sound wrong.

Patterns:

  • Me gusta el brócoli. = I like broccoli.
  • Me gustan las sopas. = I like soups.
    (Verb agrees with what is liked: gusta
    • singular, gustan
      • plural.)
Why is it su textura instead of la textura del brócoli? Do they mean the same thing?

Both are correct and mean essentially the same:

  • Su textura = its texture (referring to el brócoli).
  • La textura del brócoli = the texture of broccoli.

Differences:

  • Su textura is shorter and more fluid in speech.
  • La textura del brócoli explicitly repeats broccoli, which is clearer but a bit heavier.

In context (we just mentioned el brócoli), su textura is perfectly clear and very natural.

In cuando lo mezclo con sopa de calabaza, what does lo refer to, and why is it lo and not la or le?

Lo is a direct object pronoun and here it refers back to el brócoli.

  • el brócoli → masculine, singular
  • direct object pronoun for masculine singular → lo

So:

  • …su textura cuando lo mezclo con sopa de calabaza…
    = …its texture when I mix it (the broccoli) with pumpkin soup…

Why not la?

  • la would be for a feminine singular noun (e.g. la sopala).

Why not le?

  • le is indirect, used for people mostly (to him/her) or with some verbs.
    Here, broccoli is the thing being mixed (direct object), so lo is correct.
Why is it mezclo con and not mezclo en or mezclo a?

With the verb mezclar (to mix), you normally use con to say what you combine something with:

  • Mezclo el brócoli con sopa de calabaza.
    = I mix the broccoli with pumpkin soup.

Compare:

  • mezclar algo con algo = mix something with something
  • mezclar en can appear, but usually means to mix (something) in (a container/place):
    • Mezcla el azúcar en el tazón. = Mix the sugar in the bowl.

Mezclar a isn’t used in this context.

So mezclar con is the standard pattern for combining ingredients.

What exactly does sopa de calabaza mean? Is calabaza always “pumpkin”?

Sopa de calabaza literally means “pumpkin/squash soup”.

In Latin America, calabaza can vary a bit by country:

  • Often refers to pumpkin or a similar orange squash.
  • In everyday speech, people may use calabaza for several kinds of squash in the pumpkin/butternut family.

So:

  • sopa de calabaza = a soup made from pumpkin or that kind of squash.
  • The de here is the same idea as English “X soup” / “soup made with X.”
Why is it un poco de limón agrio and not just un poco de limón or un poco limón agrio?

Breakdown:

  • un poco de = a bit of / a little (amount) of
  • limón agrio = sour lemon/lime (in much of Latin America limón is what English speakers call lime)
  • de is required before a noun when using un poco.

So:

  • un poco de limón agrio = a bit of sour lemon/lime.

Structures:

  • un poco de agua = a bit of water
  • un poco de sal = a bit of salt
  • un poco de limón agrio = a bit of sour lemon

Un poco limón agrio (without de) is incorrect.

You could say un poco de limón without agrio if you don’t care about specifying “sour,” but limón is usually already understood as sour, so agrio here is just emphasizing that characteristic.

Why does the adjective agrio come after limón instead of before it?

In Spanish, adjectives normally come after the noun:

  • limón agrio = sour lemon
  • sopa caliente = hot soup
  • textura suave = smooth texture

Putting the adjective before the noun is possible but usually changes the tone, emphasis, or meaning and is less neutral, especially with basic descriptive adjectives like sour, hot, cold.

So limón agrio follows the standard neutral order: noun + adjective.

Why is it limón agrio (masculine) and not limón agria (feminine)? How does agreement work here?

Adjectives must agree in gender and number with the noun they describe.

  • limón is masculine singular: el limón.
  • So the adjective also must be masculine singular:
    • agrio (masculine singular)
    • agria (feminine singular)
    • agrios (masculine plural)
    • agrias (feminine plural)

Examples:

  • el limón agrio (masc. sing.)
  • la sopa agria (fem. sing.)
  • los limones agrios (masc. pl.)
  • las sopas agrias (fem. pl.)

So limón agrio is the correct agreement.