- Thread starter macocael
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
use of preterit and imperfect vis a vis 3 verbs
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
These two are incorrect.
Quisqueya said:A mi hermano le veo todos los d?as.
A mi hermana le veo todos los d?as.
macocael said:My grammar gives the following example:
"A Mar?a la vemos algunas veces."
The verb "ver" takes a direct object "la." However, as my grammar also notes, "Le" and "Les" are often used in Spanish instead of "lo" and "los" when referring to people, and it gives the following examples:
Le/lo encontraron en el cine (they met him at the cinema)
Les/los o?mos llegar. (we heard them coming)
So you see that while the direct object pronoun would be correct in the case you cite, you may also use the indirect object pronoun because you are referring to a person. That is how I understand it so far. However, Professor Lesley D has to weigh in here to give the final answer.
Again, judging from the example given by my grammar, which is a good one, (see above) the direct object pronoun is the way to go; but while I have never heard anyone say "le veo" I suppose that it could be all right, and the only thing mitigating against it is the dictates of usage.
Lo/La/Le and the Leismo
From my understanding of spanish, the incorrect one is the last one. 'Lo/La' is used for the indirect object but the use of 'Le' is allowed if the indirect object is a male but it cannot be used for a female. Since hermana is female, it should be 'A mi hermana la veo todos los dias'. I have been told that the 'leismo' is common even in spain and it can be common to hear people say 'Dila' for 'Tell her' instead of 'Dile'.
Also the 'a' in front of 'A mi hermano...' is just the use of the impersonal A when talking about an individual and it does not change the fact that it is still the indirect object. For example 'Veo John' will not be very correct but ' Veo a John' will be more correct. The use of the impersonal 'a' is normally used to cushion the effect of the verb on the name/individual.
'A maria la vemos algunas veces' can also be 'la vemos A maria algunas veces' but it will not be quite correct to say 'la vemos maria algunas veces' . The impersonal 'a' will be needed to cushion the effect of the verb ver on the name maria.
Just trying to be a good spanish student, so if some part of my analysis above is inaccurate, please correct me since my level is still far from advanced.
By the way, no soy mujer, soy hombre pero mi maestra de espa?ol es mujer.
Gracias
Sholly
Quisqueya said:Lesley D,
Yo lo veo = I see him
Yo la veo = I see her.
Yo lo veo = I see it . (una cosa)
A mi hermano lo veo todos los d?as.
A mi hermano le veo todos los d?as.
A mi hermana le veo todos los d?as.
(note one of the above is definitely incorrect and is absolutely a no no)
From my understanding of spanish, the incorrect one is the last one. 'Lo/La' is used for the indirect object but the use of 'Le' is allowed if the indirect object is a male but it cannot be used for a female. Since hermana is female, it should be 'A mi hermana la veo todos los dias'. I have been told that the 'leismo' is common even in spain and it can be common to hear people say 'Dila' for 'Tell her' instead of 'Dile'.
Also the 'a' in front of 'A mi hermano...' is just the use of the impersonal A when talking about an individual and it does not change the fact that it is still the indirect object. For example 'Veo John' will not be very correct but ' Veo a John' will be more correct. The use of the impersonal 'a' is normally used to cushion the effect of the verb on the name/individual.
'A maria la vemos algunas veces' can also be 'la vemos A maria algunas veces' but it will not be quite correct to say 'la vemos maria algunas veces' . The impersonal 'a' will be needed to cushion the effect of the verb ver on the name maria.
Just trying to be a good spanish student, so if some part of my analysis above is inaccurate, please correct me since my level is still far from advanced.
By the way, no soy mujer, soy hombre pero mi maestra de espa?ol es mujer.
Gracias
Sholly
personal 'a'
Yes, you are correct. It is the personal 'a'. Thanks for pointing it out.
Sholly
xamaicano said:The 'a' is personal not impersonal.
Yes, you are correct. It is the personal 'a'. Thanks for pointing it out.
Sholly
Sholly24 said:From my understanding of spanish, the incorrect one is the last one. 'Lo/La' is used for the indirect object but the use of 'Le' is allowed if the indirect object is a male but it cannot be used for a female. Since hermana is female, it should be 'A mi hermana la veo todos los dias'. I have been told that the 'leismo' is common even in spain and it can be common to hear people say 'Dila' for 'Tell her' instead of 'Dile'.
Also the 'a' in front of 'A mi hermano...' is just the use of the impersonal A when talking about an individual and it does not change the fact that it is still the indirect object. For example 'Veo John' will not be very correct but ' Veo a John' will be more correct. The use of the impersonal 'a' is normally used to cushion the effect of the verb on the name/individual.
'A maria la vemos algunas veces' can also be 'la vemos A maria algunas veces' but it will not be quite correct to say 'la vemos maria algunas veces' . The impersonal 'a' will be needed to cushion the effect of the verb ver on the name maria.
Gracias
Sholly
Quite right when it comes to the use of the "a" in front of names. One never says Veo John, or Veo Maria. Always "Veo a John." The "personal a" is used whenever the direct object of a verb is a person or a pet, except for the verb "tener":
Quiero mucho a mis hijos. Quiero mucho a mi gatito. Tengo dos hijos.
But you are incorrectly describing the object pronouns "lo" and "la" as indirect when they are in fact direct. The verb "to see" (ver) takes a direct object, not an indirect object. Let me try to explain in an English sentence for simplicity's sake: one says "I am writing a letter (direct object, the thing that the verb acts on directly or first) to John (indirect object. It is not the direct object of the verb because John is not the thing you are writing. YOu are writing something to or for him, he is secondary.)
Thus using pronouns, we would write, "I am writing it (d.o.) to him (I.o.)"
Same goes for Spanish. La and Lo are direct object pronouns and are used when the verb requires a direct object : Lo veo, or La veo. I see him, I see her. There is no indirect object in this sentence. In the case of letter writing the rule holds: Le estoy escribiendo una carta. write it another way and you will see the reason: "la estoy escribiendo a ?l." (I am writing it (the letter: fem. d.o.) to him."
"le" is the indirect object pronoun and it is in fact used for either male or female. Hence there are times in Spanish when one adds a phrase in order to clarify the gender of the indirect object: "le estoy escribiendo a ella."
If you look up in your grammar book under the section for Personal Pronouns you will find all the rules explained just so.
La/Lo and Le
Macocael,
Yes, you are quite right. Lo/La is used for the direct object and Le is used for the indirect object. What I wanted to say is that it can be allowed to use 'Le' for the direct object if the direct object is male but not if the direct object is female.
Thanks for correcting my error.
Sholly
Macocael,
Yes, you are quite right. Lo/La is used for the direct object and Le is used for the indirect object. What I wanted to say is that it can be allowed to use 'Le' for the direct object if the direct object is male but not if the direct object is female.
Thanks for correcting my error.
Sholly
My response to post #35-
I am not sure if there will be any further discussion regarding pronouns so I will just add my comments.
After reading all these posts I have come to the conclusion as I have many times that a quality grammar book is a wonderful and indispensable resource for knowledge when it comes to language learning. It's fruitful to have language discussions such as these because many people are unaware of the grammatical rules that govern concepts and as a result are unable to decipher erroneous colloquial forms from correct ones, grammatical errors etc. Not all colloquial forms of Spanish are incorrect but a strong grammar base or knowledge allows one to make the distinction.
I believe in rules and that governing bodies need to keep certain rules in place. Having governing bodies like la Real Academia does not mean a language can't evolve over time however, I believe and surely the governing bodies do as well, that some rules of language should not and can't be changed. If so we would end up with a secondary form of language and speech which will for sure have a negative effect or destroy the primary form overtime (use Spanglish as an example). Inspite of all the new forms and non standard grammar usage that have penetrated into the spoken language over the last decade +, Spanish is still one of most prestigious 'living languages' today (IMO) and that can be attributed to the governing bodies who strive daily to maintain standardization.
Just to comment briefly on pronouns, not all pronouns pose difficulty in understanding and usage in Spanish. As we can see here direct and indirect object pronouns are problematic. However, IMO the pronoun [se] poses the most difficulty because of its multi purpose grammatical function. Lo?smo, la?smo and le?smo usage has been occurring in Spanish for centuries. According to grammarians lo?smo although it's heard its usage is considered relatively low. La?smo (which I have yet to hear) is considered 'vulgar'. This term 'vulgar' as defined in linguistic terms as I have done in another thread (D?galo bien). Le?smo, although the usage is incorrect has 'acceptance' but it should be noted these forms are not recommended for those who are learning the language. They are noted in grammar texts just so that one can be aware of the forms in colloquial/popular speech (and now even in Literature (Peninsular & Latin American) some authors do use le?smo).
In my esteem this is where one who is learning via grammar texts, classroom study will always triumph over someone who is learning on the street or just by speaking with others. Once having understood the rules of grammar s/he can readily recognize erroneous forms and avoid using them.
Quisqueya's examples are classic displays of incorrect usage or le?smo. There are three incorrect forms in post #35 (phrase 3, 5 & 6). Number three is an example of lo?smo, number five is an example of le?smo (considered correct) and number six is le?smo, however incorrect (because [le] is used instead of [la]-). IMO these forms should be avoided at best and le?smo is only common with certain verbs, thus the reason not to adopt the usage of substandard forms.
I also agree with Quisqueya that learning Spanish pronouns should be done without using examples from another language especially English primarily for two reasons. Spanish allows for more sentence structure flexibility and pronouns in Spanish don't always require a preposition as they do in English.
For example:
1) No llores por m?= don't cry for me
*2) No me llores
This is one aspect of Spanish that is so beautiful IMO. Not only is the second form an example of beautiful syntax but English does not have an equivalent sentence structure. Therefore it's not logical to compare the two languages although I understand sometimes there are parallel or equivalent forms.
In conclusion, the best way to empower oneself in language is by studying. I know of many who prefer to go the so-called 'easy route' which is to learn off the street or by communication with others however, it always has its drawbacks. One may learn how to speak however, IMO and experience their knowledge is always at par with those from whom they learn. As well, I have always noticed those who don't pursue formal study at some point can't teach others fully (because they can't explain grammar concepts that are always asked when one is learning and/or lack vocabulary). Mistakes become embedded when speaking and writing unless someone points it out.
Anyway I have written enough in this thread that can easily be the preface and chapter of a book. However, all in good faith and hopefully my comments have been as helpful as some of you have mentioned.
All for now.
-LDG.
I am not sure if there will be any further discussion regarding pronouns so I will just add my comments.
After reading all these posts I have come to the conclusion as I have many times that a quality grammar book is a wonderful and indispensable resource for knowledge when it comes to language learning. It's fruitful to have language discussions such as these because many people are unaware of the grammatical rules that govern concepts and as a result are unable to decipher erroneous colloquial forms from correct ones, grammatical errors etc. Not all colloquial forms of Spanish are incorrect but a strong grammar base or knowledge allows one to make the distinction.
I believe in rules and that governing bodies need to keep certain rules in place. Having governing bodies like la Real Academia does not mean a language can't evolve over time however, I believe and surely the governing bodies do as well, that some rules of language should not and can't be changed. If so we would end up with a secondary form of language and speech which will for sure have a negative effect or destroy the primary form overtime (use Spanglish as an example). Inspite of all the new forms and non standard grammar usage that have penetrated into the spoken language over the last decade +, Spanish is still one of most prestigious 'living languages' today (IMO) and that can be attributed to the governing bodies who strive daily to maintain standardization.
Just to comment briefly on pronouns, not all pronouns pose difficulty in understanding and usage in Spanish. As we can see here direct and indirect object pronouns are problematic. However, IMO the pronoun [se] poses the most difficulty because of its multi purpose grammatical function. Lo?smo, la?smo and le?smo usage has been occurring in Spanish for centuries. According to grammarians lo?smo although it's heard its usage is considered relatively low. La?smo (which I have yet to hear) is considered 'vulgar'. This term 'vulgar' as defined in linguistic terms as I have done in another thread (D?galo bien). Le?smo, although the usage is incorrect has 'acceptance' but it should be noted these forms are not recommended for those who are learning the language. They are noted in grammar texts just so that one can be aware of the forms in colloquial/popular speech (and now even in Literature (Peninsular & Latin American) some authors do use le?smo).
In my esteem this is where one who is learning via grammar texts, classroom study will always triumph over someone who is learning on the street or just by speaking with others. Once having understood the rules of grammar s/he can readily recognize erroneous forms and avoid using them.
Quisqueya's examples are classic displays of incorrect usage or le?smo. There are three incorrect forms in post #35 (phrase 3, 5 & 6). Number three is an example of lo?smo, number five is an example of le?smo (considered correct) and number six is le?smo, however incorrect (because [le] is used instead of [la]-). IMO these forms should be avoided at best and le?smo is only common with certain verbs, thus the reason not to adopt the usage of substandard forms.
I also agree with Quisqueya that learning Spanish pronouns should be done without using examples from another language especially English primarily for two reasons. Spanish allows for more sentence structure flexibility and pronouns in Spanish don't always require a preposition as they do in English.
For example:
1) No llores por m?= don't cry for me
*2) No me llores
This is one aspect of Spanish that is so beautiful IMO. Not only is the second form an example of beautiful syntax but English does not have an equivalent sentence structure. Therefore it's not logical to compare the two languages although I understand sometimes there are parallel or equivalent forms.
In conclusion, the best way to empower oneself in language is by studying. I know of many who prefer to go the so-called 'easy route' which is to learn off the street or by communication with others however, it always has its drawbacks. One may learn how to speak however, IMO and experience their knowledge is always at par with those from whom they learn. As well, I have always noticed those who don't pursue formal study at some point can't teach others fully (because they can't explain grammar concepts that are always asked when one is learning and/or lack vocabulary). Mistakes become embedded when speaking and writing unless someone points it out.
Anyway I have written enough in this thread that can easily be the preface and chapter of a book. However, all in good faith and hopefully my comments have been as helpful as some of you have mentioned.
All for now.
-LDG.
Last edited:
Quisqueya said:Yo lo veo = I see him
Yo la veo = I see her.
Yo lo veo = I see it . (una cosa)
A mi hermano lo veo todos los d?as.
A mi hermano le veo todos los d?as.
A mi hermana le veo todos los d?as.
Ok. To recap this so everyone can see. Lesley D, here are the original examples in sequential order. You state in your last post that
"There are three incorrect forms in post #35 (phrase 3, 5 & 6). Number three is an example of lo?smo, number five is an example of le?smo (considered correct) and number six is le?smo, however incorrect (because [le] is used instead of [la]-). IMO these forms should be avoided at best and le?smo is only common with certain verbs, thus the reason not to adopt the usage of substandard forms."
So number three is incorrect because while it refers to a thing, that thing is still gendered: "una cosa" for example is feminine, so I would say, "la veo" (I see it, the thing). There is no neuter form, except, as my grammar notes, when "referring to an idea or information contained in a previous statement or question." For example, "?Va a venir Mar?a?" "No lo se."
So much for Three. Now five is wrong for the same reason that i noted above. Ver takes a direct object which in this case is masculine, and while sometimes "le" is used with certain verbs when referring to people, that is not the case with Ver. So only number four is correct. Finally Number six is incorrect again for the same reason. Le?smo is only found in use with certain verbs, such as in the examples I gave in post 39 (Le/Lo encontraron en el cine.) So is it true that "le," in those cases where it is used instead of the direct object pronoun, is only used to substitute "lo" and never "la"? Interesting.
Btw, vis a vis using grammars, I highly recommend Collins Gem Spanish Verb Tables and Grammar. It is no bigger than a cigarette pack, you can travel with it everywhere, has durable plastic covers, and contains practically all the grammar info you could ask for. It is a very useful little edition.
Macocael-
Yes, just to clarify in example #3. The fact that Quisqueya wrote 'una cosa'. If one replaces that noun with a pronoun it would have to be 'la'.
If Quisqueya meant to convey anything else such as the neuter concept I think his phrase would have been (or should have been) different. For example if someone just explained something to you and you reply 'I see' as in 'I understand' you may reply 'entiendo' which is a simple and appropriate response or by choice incorporate the neuter usage.
However, I did not interpret #3 as a neuter phrase or as understanding a concept or idea. I interpreted it as (literally) seeing 'una cosa'. Quisqueya will have to clarify that (which could change my response).
-LDG.
Yes, just to clarify in example #3. The fact that Quisqueya wrote 'una cosa'. If one replaces that noun with a pronoun it would have to be 'la'.
If Quisqueya meant to convey anything else such as the neuter concept I think his phrase would have been (or should have been) different. For example if someone just explained something to you and you reply 'I see' as in 'I understand' you may reply 'entiendo' which is a simple and appropriate response or by choice incorporate the neuter usage.
However, I did not interpret #3 as a neuter phrase or as understanding a concept or idea. I interpreted it as (literally) seeing 'una cosa'. Quisqueya will have to clarify that (which could change my response).
-LDG.
Last edited:
Wow Lesley D., that is a dynamite, and I'm sure a very accurate explanation about proper use of verbs.
But while in the DR one would to say, Hab?a tres hombres en el parque ayer-- rather than Hubo tres hombres... (at least that's what a native speaker told me.)
But while in the DR one would to say, Hab?a tres hombres en el parque ayer-- rather than Hubo tres hombres... (at least that's what a native speaker told me.)
Azabache-
Hab?a tres hombres en el parque ayer....
There is no problem (grammatically) with that phrase however, it's a question of matices (nuances) and what the speaker wishes to convey vs using hubo.
Monsoon68's post #19 sums of the difference in usage with these tenses and a past tense marker such as ayer perfectly.
-LDG.
Hab?a tres hombres en el parque ayer....
There is no problem (grammatically) with that phrase however, it's a question of matices (nuances) and what the speaker wishes to convey vs using hubo.
Monsoon68's post #19 sums of the difference in usage with these tenses and a past tense marker such as ayer perfectly.
-LDG.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.