se lo explico todo a mi jefe

i dont understand the point of putting ''se lo ''

cannat i pass what i try to say on people without putting ''se lo''

''Explico todo a mi jefe'' is it wrong accordining to first sentence?

se is the preposition for su jefe and lo is the preposition
for the thing you explained to him, hope this makes sense.
Ken

se lo explico todo a mi jefe

i dont understand the point of putting ''se lo ''

cannat i pass what i try to say on people without putting ''se lo''

''Explico todo a mi jefe'' is it wrong accordining to first sentence?

In actual fact I believe the se lo in this instance, is in fact "le lo", it to him, where the le is the indirect object and the lo is the direct object. However, instead of saying le lo , the Spanish change it to se lo. Also if a direct and an indirect object pronoun both occur the indirect must precede the direct.

se is the preposition for su jefe and lo is the preposition

for the thing you explained to him, hope this makes sense.

Ken

These are object pronouns.

Hola me llamo Teresa se lo means it

se lo explico todo a mi jefe

i dont understand the point of putting ''se lo ''

cannat i pass what i try to say on people without putting ''se lo''

''Explico todo a mi jefe'' is it wrong accordining to first sentence?
You're actually asking two questions: What are the functions of the "se" and the "lo"? and "Are they necessary for communicating your intended meaning'" The answer to the first question is complicated (though you've received a a "bare bones" explanation i.e. they are, respectively, the indirect and direct object pronouns for the verb). The answer to the second question is easier: if you omit them, you will usually be understood (just as you would if you were to say "I tell boss all.") but you will be speaking "broken Spanish".

In fact, this kind of construction is very common is Spanish and, if you have any hopes of ever communicating smoothly in Spanish, you will need to learn to understand (and use) this pattern.

''Explico todo a mi jefe'' is it wrong accordining to first sentence?

That sentence is acceptable (but not common) if you want to say "I explain ALL to my boss", since "todo" is "all", but not if you want to say "I explain IT to my boss", with "lo "being "it". That should solve the mistery of that "lo": the words "it" and "all" do not mean the same thing all the time.

Now let's explain that "se". But first, please explain this to me: why do you say "It is surprising to see what they do"? Why can't you simply say "Is surprising to see what they do"? That's how we'd say it in Spanish. Or what about "To see what they do is surprising", again without that "it". Why using that "it" at all? That "it" is called anticipatory, and it simply prepares the listeners (or readers) for something else coming later in the sentence related to this "it". In Spanish we use this "le" (which changes to "se" in front of "lo", "la", "los" or "las") to prepare the listeners for what is about to come, which is also related to this "le". You simply have to accept it, since it is what native speakers like both in English with "it" and in Spanish with "le"/"se".

I have explained this countless times in this forum. I suggest you read some of my old posts regarding this anticipatory "le".

i am grateful to ones who help with my sentences,,thx so much