Help me fine tune my understanding of indirect object pronouns. Thanks.

Question

I found on the reference section, under grammar, indirect object pronouns... If there is an indirect object in a sentence, there MUST be an indirect object pronoun! You can also have the prepositional phrase "para nosotros" or "a Miguel" to add emphasis, but you can NOT only have the prepositional phrase.

following these rules... If I were to say "I have some contracts for you" would it be correct to say it in either of the two ways:

Yo te tengo unos contratos. AND/OR Yo te tengo unos contratos para ti.

The reason I ask, is I was told it would just be simply: Tengo contratos para ti. (Is that because that is a more conversational way to say the same thing, but not grammatically correct?)

Also, mountaingirl gave me the following answer about an hour ago: Don't add the "para" phrase to a "le"; that would be incorrect grammar. If you want to say "le tengo unos contractos a Ud." , that would be fine. OR "Tengo unos contractos para Ud."

Here are my NEW questions... So are you saying that "para ti" is for informal only... and use "para usted" for formal "Le tengo unos contratos para usted" (AIso I noticed you took the "le" off on your 2nd sentence. The grammar rule in the reference section states indirect obj pronoun must always be used. Is it true? or flexible? Is it considered incorrect grammar not to use it, since it states it must always be used?

Any thoughts out there on this? Thanks!

Answer 1

clipped from an about.com article on indirect object pronouns:

As some of the above examples indicate, an indirect-object pronoun is required whenever a sentence includes an indirect object. A further clause can be added for clarity or emphasis, but, unlike in English, an indirect pronoun is still required. For example, le escribí could mean "I wrote to him," "I wrote to her" or "I wrote to you," depending on the context. To clarify, we can add a prepositional phrase, as in le escribí a ella for "I wrote to her." Note that le is still required, even though a ella makes it redundant.

I read the "Tengo contratos para ti" thread also and was curious as to the reply saying no pronoun was needed. I didn't comment, because I have specifically read that when the a XXX clarifier is present then the redundant i.o.p. must be used. I wasn't sure if that held for other prepositions such as para. Time for some research, I see.

Prima facia, however, this statement and Paralee's lesson say that if there is an indirect object then the i.o.p. is needed and nothing is stated about any or which preposition is present.

from our Reference article on I.O.P.

When to Use the Indirect Object Pronoun If there is an indirect object in a sentence, there MUST be an indirect object pronoun! You can also have the prepositional phrase "para nosotros" or "a Miguel" to add emphasis, but you can NOT only have the prepositional phrase.

Reading this I would think thae question about para is answered.

However, here is an example sentence from the same article.

Él compró unos regalos para nosotros. (He bought some gifts for us.) - For whom? For us. Us = nos

Notice that we have an i.o. in the sentence (para nosotros) and NO redundant i.o.p. If you read the comments on this article you will see that I questioned this inconsistency. Since I've never received a reply, I've hesitate to say that para ti and a ti are treated the same.

Answer 2

I am also a bit confused with it, so would appreciate as full answer as possible.

Answer 3

"le tengo unos contractos a Ud." is a redundancy. Is like to say: "I have for you some contracts for you".

"tengo unos contratos para Ud." or "le tengo unos contratos" are both correct.

"I have some contracts for you" - "I have for you some contracts"

• Please read grammar rule for i.o.p. It even states it is redundant, but correct. Now, we are just trying to see if there is a different rule when using "para" as opposed to "a", or is i.o.p. always required regardless. Rule says always. comments anyone? - frances13 Oct 20, 2009