El ruido constante en la ciudad me asusta por la noche.

Constant noise in the city scares me at night.

Breakdown of El ruido constante en la ciudad me asusta por la noche.

• la noche: the night
• en: in
• me: me
• la ciudad: the city
• el ruido: the noise
• por: at
• constante: constant
• asustar: to scare

Questions & Answers about El ruido constante en la ciudad me asusta por la noche.

Why is there el before ruido? Could I just say ruido constante en la ciudad me asusta… or use the plural los ruidos?

In Spanish, you normally need an article before a singular countable noun used in a general sense.

• El ruido constante en la ciudad… = The constant noise in the city… (noise in general, as a kind of thing that exists in that environment).
• Saying ruido constante en la ciudad… (without el) sounds incomplete or too telegraphic in standard Spanish.
• You could say los ruidos constantes en la ciudad… but the meaning changes:
  • El ruido constante = a general, continuous background noise (all of it as one thing).
  • Los ruidos constantes = many separate noises that keep happening.

So el ruido is natural here because we’re talking about the overall background noise as a single phenomenon.

What’s the nuance of constante here? Is it literally “constant,” or more like “continuous / nonstop”?

Constante can mean both constant and continuous / nonstop, depending on context.

In this sentence:

• el ruido constante suggests:
  • It’s there all the time, or
  • It keeps happening so frequently that it feels nonstop.

Other possibilities and their nuances:

• el ruido continuo – very similar: continuous, unbroken.
• el ruido constante y fuerte – constant and loud.
• el ruido ocasional – occasional noise, the opposite idea.

So here constante emphasizes that it doesn’t really stop; it’s a persistent noise.

Could I say el constante ruido en la ciudad instead of el ruido constante en la ciudad? Does changing the position of constante change the meaning?

You can say el constante ruido en la ciudad, but:

• El ruido constante en la ciudad… is more neutral and common.
• El constante ruido en la ciudad… is more literary or emphatic; it foregrounds the adjective a bit more.

There is no big change in basic meaning, but in Spanish:

• Adjective after the noun (ruido constante) is the normal pattern for descriptive adjectives.
• Adjective before the noun (constante ruido) often sounds:
  • More expressive,
  • More subjective or emotional,
  • Or more literary.

So both are correct; el ruido constante is just more everyday Spanish.

Why is it en la ciudad and not de la ciudad? Could I also say el ruido constante de la ciudad?

Both en la ciudad and de la ciudad are possible, but they express slightly different relationships:

• El ruido constante en la ciudad…
  → Focus on location: the constant noise that is present *in the city (when you’re there).
  It answers *where there is constant noise.

• El ruido constante de la ciudad…
  → Focus on origin or belonging: the city’s constant noise / the constant noise *of the city.
  It answers *whose or from where the noise is.

Your original sentence uses en la ciudad to emphasize that, when you are in the city, there is this constant noise that scares you at night. De la ciudad would sound a bit more like a descriptive phrase about the city itself.

Why is it me asusta and not me asustan? In English it’s “the constant noise in the city scares me,” which feels plural.

In Spanish the verb agrees with the grammatical subject, not with what it feels like in English.

• Subject: el ruido constante en la ciudad
  → This is grammatically singular (one “noise”).
• Verb: asusta = 3rd person singular of asustar.
• me is the object pronoun (the person affected).

So:

• El ruido constante en la ciudad me asusta.
  = The constant noise in the city frightens me.

If the subject were plural, the verb would change:

• Los ruidos constantes en la ciudad me asustan.
  = The constant noises in the city scare me.

The choice between asusta and asustan depends only on whether ruido/ruidos is singular or plural.

What is the structure of asustar here? Is me a reflexive pronoun or an object pronoun?

In El ruido constante en la ciudad me asusta, asustar is being used as a transitive verb (“to scare”), and me is the direct object pronoun:

• El ruido = subject (the thing doing the scaring)
• me = direct object pronoun for a mí (the person who gets scared)
• asusta = verb (3rd person singular)

Compare:

• El ruido asusta a María.
  → The noise scares María. (a María = direct object)
• El ruido me asusta.
  → The noise scares me. (me replaces a mí)

So me is not reflexive here; it does not mean “I scare myself.” It just marks that I am the person affected by the noise.

Could I say me asusto instead, like El ruido constante en la ciudad me asusto por la noche?

No, El ruido constante en la ciudad me asusto por la noche is incorrect.

• me asusto is 1st person singular of the reflexive verb asustarse:
  • (yo) me asusto = I get scared / I become frightened.

Correct ways to use asustar vs asustarse here:

1. Causative with asustar (what we have):

   • El ruido constante en la ciudad me asusta por la noche.
     = The constant noise in the city scares me at night.

2. Reflexive with asustarse:

   • Me asusto con el ruido constante en la ciudad por la noche.
     = I get scared by the constant noise in the city at night.

Both are natural, but the grammar changes:

• With asustar: subject is the noise.
• With asustarse: subject is yo (understood in me asusto).

Why is the pronoun placed as me asusta, not asusta me?

In Spanish, unstressed object pronouns like me, te, lo, la, le normally go:

• Before a conjugated verb:
  • Me asusta.
  • Me mira.
  • Me llama.

They can go after only in specific cases:

1. Attached to an infinitive:
   
   • asustarme (to scare me)
2. Attached to a gerund:
   
   • asustándome (scaring me)
3. Attached to an affirmative command:
   
   • Asústame. (Scare me.)

With a simple present form like asusta, you must say me asusta, not asusta me.

What’s the difference between me asusta, me da miedo, and tengo miedo?

All three express fear, but with different structures and slightly different focuses:

1. El ruido constante en la ciudad me asusta.

   • Literally: The constant noise in the city frightens me.
   • Focus on the noise as the agent; it actively scares you.

2. El ruido constante en la ciudad me da miedo.

   • Literally: The constant noise in the city gives me fear.
   • Very common and natural; feels a bit more colloquial/neutral than me asusta, often less dramatic.

3. Tengo miedo del ruido constante en la ciudad.

   • Literally: I have fear of the constant noise in the city.
   • Focus more on your state (“I am afraid”) instead of the noise doing something to you.

All are correct. Your original sentence with me asusta sounds straightforward and a bit more direct about the noise causing fear.

Why is it por la noche and not en la noche or de noche? Are those wrong?

All three exist, but usage and preference differ by region and nuance:

• por la noche – very common in Spain:

  • Often means in the evenings / at night / during the night (general time period).
  • Here: me asusta por la noche = it scares me at night (in general).

• de noche – also very common:

  • Often means at night (as opposed to by day), more about “by night” as a condition:
  • Conduce peor de noche. = He drives worse at night.

• en la noche – more frequent in much of Latin America; in Spain it often sounds less natural:

  • Similar idea to “in the night,” but not the usual choice in Peninsular Spanish for a general habit.

In Spain, por la noche and de noche are the most idiomatic choices. In your sentence, por la noche is perfect for a habitual action.

Why is it la noche and not just noche after por?

In Spanish, time-of-day expressions with por normally use the definite article:

• por la mañana – in the morning
• por la tarde – in the afternoon / evening
• por la noche – at night

So:

• por la noche = standard, idiomatic expression.
• por noche (without la) would sound wrong in this sense of “at night.”

The la here doesn’t mean a specific, single night; it’s just part of the fixed pattern for these generic time expressions.

Can I change the word order, like Por la noche, el ruido constante en la ciudad me asusta? Does that sound natural?

Yes, that’s completely natural:

• El ruido constante en la ciudad me asusta por la noche.
• Por la noche, el ruido constante en la ciudad me asusta.

Both are fine. Spanish word order is flexible for emphasis:

• Starting with Por la noche emphasizes the time frame: At night, (this happens)…
• Your original version is more neutral, with the subject first.

Grammatically, both are correct; it’s mainly about what you want to highlight.

What tense is asusta, and how would I say “used to scare me” or “scared me yesterday”?

Asusta is:

• 3rd person singular, present indicative of asustar:
  • (él/ella/eso) asusta = he/she/it scares.

To change the time reference:

• El ruido constante en la ciudad me asustaba por la noche.
  → The constant noise in the city used to scare me at night / was scaring me at night (habitual or ongoing in the past).

• El ruido constante en la ciudad me asustó anoche.
  → The constant noise in the city scared me last night (one completed event).

So:

• asusta – now / in general (present).
• asustaba – used to / was (imperfect past).
• asustó – did, once / completed (preterite past).