Para cenar, mi madre prefiere pescado a la plancha en lugar de carne.

For dinner, my mother prefers grilled fish instead of meat.

Breakdown of Para cenar, mi madre prefiere pescado a la plancha en lugar de carne.

• mi: my
• para: to
• cenar: to have dinner
• preferir: to prefer
• la madre: the mother
• la carne: the meat
• en lugar de: instead of
• el pescado: the fish
• a la plancha: grilled

Questions & Answers about Para cenar, mi madre prefiere pescado a la plancha en lugar de carne.

Why is para followed by cenar (an infinitive) instead of something like para la cena?

In Spanish, para + infinitive is the most common way to express purpose:

• Para cenar = in order to have dinner / for dinner (as an activity)

Here, cenar is a verb (to have dinner), and para cenar explains for what purpose the preference is being expressed.

You could also say:

• Para la cena, mi madre prefiere…
  This focuses more on the meal as an event: For dinner (the meal), my mother prefers…

Both are correct, but:

• Para cenar = highlights the action (to have dinner)
• Para la cena = highlights the meal/time (for dinner)

You cannot say ✗ para cena without the article; with the noun cena you need la: para la cena.

Is the comma after Para cenar necessary? Could I omit it?

The comma after Para cenar is stylistic, not strictly required.

• Para cenar, mi madre prefiere…
• Para cenar mi madre prefiere…

Both are grammatically correct.

Putting a comma is very common when you have an introductory phrase at the beginning of the sentence; it makes the sentence easier to read and slightly emphasizes that introductory part. In speech, it corresponds to a tiny pause.

Why prefiere and not something like gusta más? Are they equivalent?

Prefiere is the 3rd person singular of preferir (to prefer), so:

• Mi madre prefiere… = My mother prefers…

In meaning, you could also say:

• A mi madre le gusta más el pescado a la plancha que la carne.
  (My mother likes grilled fish more than meat.)

Differences:

• prefiere is a direct equivalent of English prefers and is slightly more neutral/formal.
• le gusta más literally means she likes X more, and is often more colloquial.

Both structures are very common and natural; the original sentence uses prefiere simply because it’s the straightforward verb to prefer.

Why is there no article before pescado or carne? Could I say el pescado or la carne?

In Spanish, when talking about things in general, especially food categories, you often omit the article:

• Prefiere pescado = She prefers fish (in general)
• Prefiere carne = She prefers meat (in general)

You can say:

• Prefiere el pescado a la plancha en lugar de la carne.

This is also correct, and it can suggest a slightly more concrete or specific idea, like the fish / the meat in a given context (for example, on today’s menu). But in everyday speech, omitting the article to talk in general terms is very natural.

So:

• With articles (el pescado, la carne) → often more specific or contextual.
• Without articles (pescado, carne) → more generic: fish/meat as types of food.

What is the difference between pescado and pez?

Both relate to fish, but they are used differently:

• pez = the living animal in the water

  • Veo muchos peces en el acuario. (I see many fish in the aquarium.)

• pescado = fish as food, once it’s been caught and is to be eaten

  • Me gusta el pescado a la plancha. (I like grilled fish.)

In your sentence, pescado a la plancha clearly refers to fish as a dish, so pescado, not pez, is the correct word.

What does a la plancha literally mean, and is it a fixed expression?

A la plancha is a very common food expression in Spain. It means:

• cooked on a griddle / flat hot plate with little oil, close to “grilled” in many menus.

Literally:

• plancha = iron / metal plate (the same word used for an iron for clothes)
• a la plancha ≈ “on the (metal) plate”

Some points:

• It’s used like an adjective after the noun: pescado a la plancha, calamares a la plancha, verduras a la plancha.
• The phrase a la plancha itself does not change form: you don’t say a lo plancho or similar; it always stays a la plancha, regardless of the noun’s gender or number.

So pescado a la plancha is a set culinary phrase: griddled fish / grilled fish.

Could I replace en lugar de with en vez de? Do they mean the same thing?

Yes, en vez de is a very common synonym of en lugar de. Both mean instead of:

• …pescado a la plancha en lugar de carne.
• …pescado a la plancha en vez de carne.

Both are correct and natural in Spain.

Nuances:

• en lugar de is slightly more formal or neutral.
• en vez de is extremely common in everyday speech.

There is also another possible structure without these phrases:

• Mi madre prefiere pescado a la plancha a la carne.
  (My mother prefers grilled fish to meat.)

Here the preposition a plays the role of to in prefer X to Y.

Why is it en lugar de carne and not en lugar de la carne?

Just like with pescado, omitting the article before carne makes it more general:

• en lugar de carne = instead of meat (in general)

If you say:

• en lugar de la carne

it often sounds more specific, as if you are talking about some particular meat that is known from context (for example, the meat option on a menu or the meat you usually have at home).

In many everyday contexts, speakers drop the article when talking about food types in a general way, so en lugar de carne is the most natural form here.

Does carne here mean beef specifically, or meat in general?

Carne can mean either, depending on context:

• In a strict sense, carne = meat in general (any animal flesh used as food).
• In everyday Spanish in Spain, if you oppose pescado and carne, people often understand:
  • pescado = fish
  • carne = usually meat other than fish, often defaulting to red meat, especially beef.

In this sentence, you can safely understand carne as meat (not fish), without specifying the animal. If needed, Spanish can specify:

• carne de ternera (beef/veal), carne de cerdo (pork), carne de pollo (chicken), etc.

Could I move para cenar to another position in the sentence?

Yes, Spanish word order is quite flexible. These are all natural:

• Para cenar, mi madre prefiere pescado a la plancha en lugar de carne.
• Mi madre, para cenar, prefiere pescado a la plancha en lugar de carne.
• Mi madre prefiere, para cenar, pescado a la plancha en lugar de carne. (more marked/emphatic)
• Mi madre prefiere pescado a la plancha en lugar de carne para cenar.

The differences are mostly about rhythm and emphasis. The version with Para cenar at the beginning is very common and clear, and it avoids any ambiguity that para cenar might modify pescado rather than the whole preference.

What is the difference between para cenar, mi madre prefiere pescado a la plancha and mi madre prefiere cenar pescado a la plancha?

Both sentences are correct but focus slightly differently:

• Para cenar, mi madre prefiere pescado a la plancha.
  Literally: For dinner, my mother prefers grilled fish.
  → Emphasis on what she prefers as the dinner dish.

• Mi madre prefiere cenar pescado a la plancha.
  Literally: My mother prefers to have grilled fish for dinner.
  → Emphasis on the action she prefers to do (to dine on grilled fish).

The overall meaning is effectively the same, and both are natural. The original sentence keeps cenar in the para + infinitive purpose phrase and uses prefiere + noun (pescado a la plancha) as the object.

Why is it cenar and not cena in para cenar?

Because cenar is a verb (to have dinner), and para + infinitive is the standard way to express purpose:

• para cenar = in order to have dinner / for dinner (as an activity)

Cena is the noun (the dinner, the evening meal). If you want to use the noun, you must add an article:

• para la cena = for dinner (the meal)
• para cenar = to have dinner

So:

• para cenar ✅ (correct)
• para la cena ✅ (also correct, slightly different focus)
• ✗ para cena ❌ (incorrect: missing the article)