Cada mando tiene un color diferente para que no los confundamos.

Each controller has a different color so that we don’t confuse them.

Breakdown of Cada mando tiene un color diferente para que no los confundamos.

• tener: to have
• un: a
• nosotros: we
• el color: the color
• cada: each
• diferente: different
• no: not
• los: them
• para que: so that
• el mando: the controller
• confundir: to confuse

Questions & Answers about Cada mando tiene un color diferente para que no los confundamos.

What does mando mean in this sentence, and is it specific to Spain?

Here mando means remote control (for a TV, console, etc.) or controller (e.g. a game controller).

In Spain:

• mando or mando a distancia = remote control
• In much of Latin America you’re more likely to see control remoto.

So the sentence is very natural European Spanish:
Cada mando tiene un color diferente… = “Each remote (control) has a different color…”

Why is it cada mando tiene and not cada mandos tienen?

Because cada (each) is always followed by a singular noun and takes a singular verb:

• cada
  • singular noun → cada mando
• Verb agrees with the singular noun → cada mando tiene

Examples:

• Cada persona es diferente. (not cada personas son)
• Cada coche tiene su matrícula.

So cada mando tiene is grammatically required; cada mandos tienen is incorrect.

Why is it un color diferente and not un diferente color?

In Spanish, most adjectives normally go after the noun:

• un color diferente = a different color
• un libro interesante = an interesting book
• una casa grande = a big house

You can sometimes put adjectives before the noun for special nuance (more subjective, emotional, or stylistic), but diferente almost always goes after the noun in everyday speech.
Un diferente color is grammatically possible but sounds unusual and marked; learners should stick to un color diferente.

Why is diferente singular here and not diferentes?

Diferente agrees with the word it describes:

• The noun here is color, singular: un color
• So the adjective must also be singular: diferente

If you made the noun plural, then the adjective would also be plural:

• Los mandos tienen colores diferentes.
  “The remotes have different colors.”

In the original sentence, the structure is:

• Cada mando (each remote) → tiene un color diferente (has a different color)
  Each one only has one color, so un color diferente is correct.

What does para que mean here, and how is it different from just para?

In this sentence:

• para que introduces a subordinate clause of purpose:
  para que no los confundamos = so that we don’t mix them up / to prevent us from confusing them.

Key points:

• para + infinitive: same subject for both actions
  
  • Pintamos los mandos de colores distintos para no confundirlos.
    “We paint the remotes different colors in order not to mix them up.”
    Both actions done by us.
• para que + subjunctive: usually introduces a different or emphasized subject, or it’s a more formal/purpose-clause structure
  
  • Les damos colores diferentes para que no los confundamos.
    “We give them different colors so that we don’t mix them up.”

In practice, para + infinitive is more direct, while para que + subjunctive is the standard pattern for explicit “so that…” clauses.

Why is confundamos in the subjunctive and not confundimos?

Because para que (when it means so that / in order that) requires the subjunctive.

• para que
  • subjunctive = expresses purpose or intention:
    • …para que no los confundamos.
      “…so that we don’t mix them up.”

Using the indicative (confundimos) after para que would be incorrect in standard Spanish here.

Pattern to remember:

• para que → subjunctive (when it introduces purpose)
  • para que no te olvides
  • para que lo entiendan
  • para que no los confundamos

What does los refer to in para que no los confundamos, and why is it los and not ellos?

Los is a direct object pronoun that stands for los mandos (the remotes/controllers):

• los mandos (masculine plural) → los (masculine plural direct object pronoun)

So:

• no los confundamos ≈ “let’s not confuse them / mix them up (the remotes).”

We don’t use ellos here because:

• ellos is a subject pronoun (“they”), not an object pronoun.
• After confundir you need an object (“confuse who/what?”), so you use los, not ellos.

You could spell it out instead of using the pronoun:

• …para que no confundamos los mandos.
  But that’s longer and less natural than just no los confundamos when the context is clear.

Why is it no los confundamos and not los no confundamos or no confundamos los?

Spanish has a fixed order for negation + object pronouns + verb:

1. no (negation)
2. object pronoun(s) (me, te, lo, la, los, las, etc.)
3. verb

So the correct order is:

• no + los + confundamos → no los confundamos

Examples:

• No lo entiendo. (not lo no entiendo)
• No me mires. (not me no mires)

You also can’t put los after the conjugated verb in this structure:

• no confundamos los is wrong; you would either say
  
  • no confundamos los mandos (full noun phrase), or
  • no los confundamos (pronoun).

Could we say para no confundirlos instead of para que no los confundamos? What’s the difference?

Yes, you can say:

• Cada mando tiene un color diferente para no confundirlos.

Both versions are correct, but there’s a nuance:

1. para no confundirlos (para + infinitive):

   • More direct and slightly more informal.
   • Often used when the subject is clearly the same in both clauses (we give them colors / we don’t confuse them).

2. para que no los confundamos (para que + subjunctive):

   • The textbook purpose-clause structure, equivalent to “so that we don’t confuse them.”
   • Feels a bit more explicit and often slightly more formal or careful.
   • Emphasizes the intended result.

In everyday speech, both are used; para que + subjunctive is the classic “so that” construction.

Why isn’t it para que no se confundan or para que no nos confundamos?

Those are different structures with different meanings:

1. para que no se confundan

   • Literally: “so that they don’t get confused.”
   • Here se confundan is reflexive / passive-ish: the remotes themselves “become confused,” which doesn’t really make sense.
   • Could work if “they” were people:
     Les explico todo bien para que no se confundan.
     “I explain everything well so that they don’t get confused.”

2. para que no nos confundamos

   • “So that we don’t get confused (ourselves).”
   • Focuses on us being confused, rather than confusing the remotes with each other.

3. para que no los confundamos

   • “So that we don’t confuse them (the remotes).”
   • Focuses on our action of mixing up the remotes, which matches the context best.

So the original version is chosen because the idea is not mixing up the controllers with each other, not “us getting confused.”

Could we omit los and just say para que no confundamos?

Normally, no. Confundir is a transitive verb: you “confuse” something/someone.
If you just say para que no confundamos, it feels incomplete: “so that we don’t confuse…” (what?) You need either:

• a direct object pronoun: para que no los confundamos, or
• a stated object: para que no confundamos los mandos.

You can only drop the object if it’s extremely obvious from context and you’re being very colloquial, but grammatically, it’s better to keep los.

Is there any difference between mando and mando a distancia here? Which is more natural in Spain?

In Spain, both are common:

• mando (by itself) = very common, everyday word for remote control.
• mando a distancia = literally “distance control,” also standard but a bit longer.

In many contexts people shorten mando a distancia to just mando in casual speech:

• Pásame el mando. = “Pass me the remote.”

In this sentence, Cada mando tiene un color diferente… is completely natural and idiomatic in Spain.