"Lo" or "los" - what's the difference here?

Question

I've been practicing some grammar excercises and come along this example: (I am suppoused to put pronouns such are se, lo, la, los, las).

Le han hecho los agujeros en las orajas? No, no se los han hecho. Se los vamos a hacer?

So, my question is: why can't I use "lo" instead of bolded "los"? (in the key they say that los is correct). But, as "lo" is sometimes used in the function of "it, that" I was almost sure that I can use it in this way.

So, my sentance, when translated, would mean: Are we going to do that? (lo= that).

Please help

Answer 1

HI stefke, welcome to the forum

You need to match the pronouns in number and gender to the noun they refer to.

los agujeros = los

el agujero = lo

• He could be awarded a special prize for "El Hombre Más Guapo en el Sitio!" (Sorry, Eddy...) - 0057ed01 Nov 28, 2009
• I'll correct your typo rather than sigh. - qfreed Nov 28, 2009

Answer 2

When you use the plural have to write "los", but if you mean one thing (singular) or a specific event that you do, you must use "lo"

examples:

"Hemos puesto los discos en su sitio" (discos está en plural) "lo ha realizado con éxito" (se refiere a un hecho que has realizado)

Answer 3

Stefke, you're absolutely correct in that it seems that your bolded "los" refers to the act of inserting the agujeros, but that makes the resulting sentence confusing. In English we would probably say "Shall we do it" not "Shall we do them" (although that would also be correct). This is a nuance of Spanish that I still haven't mastered, but I completely trust Heidita.

• I don't think you are "doing" anything. You are "making" holes. - qfreed Nov 28, 2009
• Shall we make them? - qfreed Nov 28, 2009

Answer 4

Le han hecho los agujeros en las orejas? No, no se los han hecho. Se los vamos a hacer?

Off topic, but it reminds me of a thread that we had here yesterday. Notice the use of the i.o.p. to show ownership (whose ears) or ears are treated as a person. Other than for that reason it seems out of place. Do they do that for all body parts?

If I were to get a shot in the arm would the "arm" be treated as an indirect object, requiring a redundant, i.o.p.?

Answer 5

Thanks everyone

However, I'm still little confused about this. Does this mean that pronoun lo cannot be used to denote particular action?