Another question on indirect object pronouns.

Question

There are times when the object of the preposition acts as an adjective to modify the direct object of the verb rather than acting to clarify the actrion of the verb on the direct object. For example:

I see the dog under the table.

The prepositional phrase "under the table" acts as an adjective on the direct object, the dog. I'm guessing that i this case, no indirect object pronoun is needed, since even though it is a second object in a sentence with only one verb, it is not really an object of the verb.

Veo el perro bajo la mesa.

But

I bought a gift for Sara.

Le compré un regalo para Sara.

Even though Sara is the object of a preposition, she is still the reason I bought the gift, so whe is still the indirect object of the verb.

And

I gave my dog a bone.

Le di a mi perro un hueso.

Is this correct?

• le compré un regalo - Issabela Oct 27, 2009
• le di - Issabela Oct 27, 2009

Answer 1

You are correct in your conclusion that the prepositional phrase acting as an adjective is not a second object of the verb and no redundant, object pronoun is required for it. In the sentence "Veo el perro bajo la mesa." there is only one direct object of the verb:dog. That is why la mesa is called an object of the preposition rather than an object of the verb.

Answer 2

Él me compra una rosa para mí. (He buys a rose for me.)

The "me" in this sentence is what is referred to as the redundant, i.o.p. The reason that it is called redundant is because the para mí also tells us who the rose is bought for. (the prepositional phrase a mí, a Juan, para mí, etc.) is often referred to as the clarifier phrase as it usually tells you more about who the i.o.p. refers to.

Él le compró una rosa a María. (the clarifying prepositional phrase a María tells us specifically who the le refers to)

Él se la compró a María. ( the a María clarifies who the se refers to).

The i.o.p. is not called redundant because there is another i.o.p in the sentence. The mí in para mí is an object of a prepositional phrase. Note that in my examples where a María is the clarifying phrase there is no second pronoun but le/se would still be a redundant i.o.p. (again because the i.o.p. and the prepositional phrase both refer to the same person).

Note that this personal "a" is sometime translated and sometimes not.

Él se la dio a María.

He gave it to María. He gave Mary it (is awkward).

Él le compró la rosa para María.

Él le compro la rosa a María.

He bought the rose for Mary or He bought Mary the rose.

Él me compra una rosa para mí. (He buys a rose for me.) The direct and indirect object pronouns would be "me....

There is no direct object pronoun in this sentence.

Answer 3

I'm not positive I understand your question (sorry!), but as a grammatical note, if you use an indirect object pronoun in the sense of "for someone", you modify it with "a", not "para". Example: Le preparé la cena a mi hijo." (I made dinner for my son.) You are correct that in the sentence "I bought Sarah a gift", "gift" is the direct object and "for Sarah" is the indirect. I am really sorry if I missed the point of your question.

Answer 4

A direct object answers the question "what?" or "whom?" an action (verb) is directed at.

An indirect object answers the question "to whom?" or "for whom?" an action (verb) has been performed.

I gave the book to him.

gave = action (verb)

I gave what? book (book = direct object)

I gave to whom? him (him = indirect object)

In regards to your sentence: I see the dog under the table.

see = action (verb)

I see what? dog (dog = direct object)

There is no indirect object in this sentence.

"Under the table" answers the question "where?" and is a prepositional phrase.

• "To him" is also a prepostional phrase. - lorenzo9 Oct 28, 2009

Answer 5

My question is regarding the statement in the lessons that an indirect object always requires a pronoun, even if it doesn't replace the noun. It seems like there are sentences with a subject, single verb, two objects, and no indirect object pronoun that are grammatically correct. I am trying to figure out when this is the case, if ever.

Answer 6

You are correct in your conclusion that the prepositional phrase acting as an adjective is not a second object of the verb and no redundant, object pronoun is required for it. In the sentence "Veo el perro bajo la mesa." there is only one direct object of the verb:dog. That is why la mesa is called an object of the preposition rather than an object of the verb.

Here's an example fro the reference article on indirect object pronouns:

Él me compra una rosa para mí. (He buys a rose for me.)

The direct and indirect object pronouns would be "me", whereas "mí" is the form for the object of a preposition. However, the "redundant" indirect object pronoun "me" is still used and its absence would be incorrect.

I'm still confused on which objects of prepositions require the indirect object pronoun and which do not.

Answer 7

My confusion is this: sometimes objects of prepositions seem to be considered as indirect objects and therefore need a redundant indirect object pronoun, while sometimes they don't. I'm trying to understand when the redundant pronoun is needed and when it can be left out. My original thinking was that when the phrase functioned as an adjective modifying the direct object that no redundant indirect object pronoun was needed, but when it functioned as an adverb modifying the verb that the redundant pronoun was required. However, I'm not sure on this.

Answer 8

Él me compra una rosa para mí. (He buys a rose for me.) The direct and indirect object pronouns would be "me....

Quentin:

There is no direct object pronoun in this sentence.

• Are you saying that my remark is incorrect or the fact that there should be a redundant, d.o.p. in the sentence? - qfreed Oct 28, 2009

Answer 9

Consider the sentence "We threw the paint on John."

"on John" is a prepositional phrase.

Is John an indirect object because he is the recipient of the action, or is the prepositional phrase acting as an adverb telling where the action occurred?

What if "John" is replaced with "the floor"?

Now consider "I sent a package to Sam."

"to Sam" is a prepositional phrase.

Is Sam an indirect object because he is the recipient of the action, or is the prepositional phrase acting as an adverb telling where the action occurred?

What if "Sam" is replaced with "Italy"?

Sorry for belaboring this point, but it has been about 35 years since I studied grammar and this is a bit confusing to me right now.

Answer 10

Consider the sentence "We threw the paint on John."

indirect objects

Clipped from above article:

IN ENGLISH: The indirect object is often used right before a direct object and does not follow a preposition, as illustrated in the phrases above. If a preposition is used, then the word becomes the object of that preposition, as in the following, where to and for are prepositions and man and yourself are their objects:

I think this is going to confuse you more. I didn't want to complicate matters by getting into a discussion of whether the personal "a" is actually a preposition or not, especially since it is used with d.o. not i.o., but you may want to research it if it confuses you.

Answer 11

IN ENGLISH: The indirect object is often used right before a direct object and does not follow a preposition, as illustrated in the phrases above. If a preposition is used, then the word becomes the object of that preposition, as in the following, where to and for are prepositions and man and yourself are their objects:

This is precisely my problem: in Spanish, some objects of prepositions still require the use of the indirect object pronoun, while in other cases it seems to be incorrect to use them.

In English, the use of the preposition in many case is determined by word order:

She baked him a cake.

She baked a cake for him.

In both cases, "him" indicates "for whom" the action of the verb is taking place, and is therefore considered to be an indirect object in both cases. The presence of the preposition is irrelevant in this regards. In English, the determining factor for an object of a preposition to not be an indirect object is that the phrase functions as an adverb and the noun order cannot be reversed and put into a preposition free form. My question is if the same is true in Spanish.