"Le ayudo ?" with transitive verb ayudar ?
Guys
I'm a Spanish newbie and this le/lo thing has caused me great headache. I know there is a big debate in the Spanish world about this but I'm at a loss as to what I should consider correct Spanish at this point so let me ask you this :
Apparently, knowing whether a verb is transitive or intransitive helps you figure out how to use it correctly. Yet when I take ayudar as an example I get this : My Collins dictionary has this to say about the word ayudar:
ayudar - vt to help,assist
First off I'm somewhat baffled by the lack of examples for this word but that aside it clearly states that this verb is transitive meaning it ONLY takes DOP's. Yet "Spanish for Dummies" and other books happily announce this:
Can I help you (formal) ? - Le ayudo ?
No explanation whatsoever ! I'd say purely grammatically speaking an IOP such as "le" has no business being used with a transitive verb ! Am I not correct ? This is where the whole le/lo/"personal a" thing comes in. Here is my problem.
I help Juan - Ayudo a Juan.
Yes, I understand that since Juan is a DO and a person I need to add the "personal a" BUT have I not just changed JUAN from a DO to an IO by adding the preposition "a" between the verb and the DO ? Isn't the whole point of a DO that it follows the verb directly and needs no preposition ? In other words isn't Juan actually an IO now ? In fact aren't all DO's that are people really IO's because of the forced "a" ? I'd accept that since it'd explain the use of IOP if you wanna replace them. Then again the rule should not be "If the DO is a person you must add an 'a' before it" but "There is no such thing as a DO that is a person. A person must always be an IO used with a personal 'a' !" So at this point I don't know whether :
- "a" is a preposition or just some silent, non-translatable word.
- Juan is a DO or IO.
If I knew that I could move on from there and say if Juan is and will always be a DO then I MUST replace it with a DOP !! However, if it's accepted that Juan is really an IO then clearly I'd have to replace it with am IOP.
I spoke to several Spanish speakers and they don't agree either. My buddy from Barcelona insists "Le ayudo" can be used for EVERYTHING (Can I help you/him/her ?) but you can also very well say "Lo ayudo - Can I help him/you ? and La ayudo - Can I help her ?. He says "le" is just more generic and not male/female. I asked him about the fact that it's an IOP and what justifies using that with a transitive verb and he had no answer but admitted that this was "interesting". Then I asked him whether I could just as easily replace "Le gusta" with "La gusta" and he said no way since gustar required the use of IOP's. Well as far as I know ayudar requires the use of DOP's ! Someone from El Salvador told me she'd always use "Lo ayudo for Can I help him ?, La ayudo - Can I help her ? and Le ayudo - Can I help you ?"
What I have not been able to confirm is the idea that this has something to do with only male persons, rather it appears to me that there is a special case to be made for you(Ud) since here we're addressing a person directly. Him/Her is an indirect addressing of a person.
What annoys me greatly is that nobody seems to have a proper answer and every book I've encountered seems to silently subscribe to any given theory without mentioning this massive debate.
How can I learn correct Spanish ??
Help !!
17 Answers
I haven't read through all of these but I have noticed that there is some confusion with transitive and intransitive. I apologize if this has already been mentioned.
A transitive verb means that it takes an object, whether that be direct, indirect, or both.
An intransitive verb does NOT take an object.
For example:
vt He called me.
vi. He died.
Some verbs can be used both ways.
vt She smelled the cat.
vi. The cat smells.
Hi stucky, there are at least 3 variables involved here:
1) Ayudar isn't considered transitive in the whole of the Spanish-speaking world, so in some parts (I don't know where), the "le" is the indirect object.
2) We have to take into account the leísmo used for male persons, especially used in Spain.
3) There's also the "leísmo de cortesía", used in lots of places, where "le" is used for "usted", even though it's used in a transitive context.
Saludos 
Welcome to the world of the leísmo, loísmo, and laísmo.
Throw in the use of the redundant, anticipatory pronouns and the "personal a" and the prepositional "a" used in clarifying prepositonal phrases.
Then to increase to the fun, add Spanish use of le rather than la/lo/las/los with certain verbs and you have the mess that you describe.
However, I think you're covering too many topics at one time and need to narrow the scope of your questions separating them into several discussions.
Buena Suerte
Very nice question. Wish I could give you a vote for each topic that you discussed.
First off I'm somewhat baffled by the lack of examples for this word but that aside it clearly states that this verb is transitive meaning it ONLY takes DOP's.
You have a few mistaken statements like this in your question.
Because the verb is transitive does not mean that i can ONLY take a DOP. It can also take a IOP as well.
No explanation whatsoever ! I'd say purely grammatically speaking an IOP such as "le" has no business being used with a transitive verb
Again, I follow your train of thought, but what you are saying is incorrect as a transitive verb can and often does have both a DOP and an IOP.
Turns out wikipedia has a very detailed article on that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_pronouns#The_use_of_le.2Fles
Someone explain to me how this is "not that complicated" !
Ok I think I've got it. Had the same question on wordreference.com and finally got this very satisfying answer I'm re-posting here for anyone who might come across this issue and is lost as well. Turns out there are not 1, not 2 but 3 different reasons why people replace "lo" with "le" at times.
Quote----- 1) In some Spanish-speaking areas, people use the verb "ayudar" as intransitive.
2) There is such a thing as leísmo: in some regions of Spain people commonly use "le" as a direct oblect instead of "lo". However, they don't use "le" instead of "la"; so they say "le veo" for "I see him" and "la veo" for "I see her".
3) And last but not least, there is the leísmo de cortesia: people use "le" as a direct object when referring to someone (either male or female) they normally address as "usted": "¿Le ayudo?", "Mucho gusto en conocerle", etc. This type of leísmo is very common both in Spain and many Latin American countries. It is a norm rather then an exception. So when your dictionary uses the phrase "¿Puedo ayudarle?" as an example of usage of a transitive verb, there is no error or self-contradiction in that.
----End quote
For me "leísmo de cortesia" makes the most sense so I'm adopting it !
"Lo ayudo - Can I help him ?" "La ayudo - Can I help her ?" and (drummroll) "Le ayudo - Can I help you (Ud) ?"
And I'm sticking to it !
PS : I'm still not happy about the fact that Grammar books are so not in touch with this debate ! They insist that the DO pronoun "lo" stands for :
it/he/you (Ud).
Does anybody have a book that has at least a footnote or something ?
HI porshia, no e-mails please.
Yeah, good one for a Spanish speaking person, but not for an English speaking person, as in English you can pass the indirect object to be the subject of the passive sentence
I gave my mother a book My mother was given a book.
so no way this can be applied to Spanish.
Hey guys ! I'm peruvian and I want you to know something :
This topic is not that complicated ! You've got to know some basic rules and focus on the verb and the preposition. e.g.
(I beg your pardon, but right now I'm kind of busy , so I'm gonna do it very quickly )
We say : ayudar a algn .
Ayudo a Pedro. Lo ayudo por que es mi hermano.
Now, the big deal is to know whether it's OD . To do that you just need to follow a few steps :
1 .There's the possibility to turn them into passives : Pedro es ayudado por José. ( something like : Pedro is helped by José , i'm not quite sure if you guys say the same thing in english, but anyway , this is the idea )
2.( maybe the easiest one) By seeking out the nature of the verb, so to speak. e.g AYUDAR A ALGUIEN ( due to the fact that you don't say "ayudar algo a alguien" - which is actually the form of the IO : ESCRIBIR ALGO A ALGN , LLEVAR ALGO A ALGN , etc )
Nevertheless , some verbs can be either Direct Complements or Indirect Complements . Let's have a look at it :
"Traer" algo a los niños . CI ( Complemento indirecto , in spanish)
Les traje un regalo.
"Traer " a algn en el coche. CD ( Complemento directo ) Lo traje en el coche. ........................... Examples of indirect objects
"Decir" algo a algn. Le dije : "Te adoro "
"Escribir" algo a algn. Le escribí una carta de amor. ....................
S0 , as you can see , it's not that complicated. Good luck!
PD : DO :: lo, los , la , las IO :: le , les
You're correct that few texts for beginning Spanish students ever mention leísmos. Notice that this site lists le as a possible DOP. Beyond what is accepted regionally you going to find people that just make mistakes so it's very common to see le used as a DOP even in places that don't normally use le for DOP. Also there are certain verbs that people prefer to use le rather than lo with as a DO. I'm afraid you're just going to have to learn this incrementally as it can get very complicated. That's probably why most student texts just teach you the basic rule and don't get into the exceptions to the rules.
Well that was my problem all along. The only "le" I know of is the IO pronoun. That's why I asked earlier if there is any other "le" that might exist that has nothing to do with the well known IO pronoun but nobody confirmed that. Let me quote myself from the earlier post
"Maybe if you're addressing a person directly as in this case you replace the lo/la with a "le" but it's not a regular le but a "silent or personal le" ? In other words it's not an IO le but a special "le" just like the special "se" in "se lo" which is really a "le" with the "l" replaced by and "s". Nothing to do with the IOP "le". Am I on to something here ?"
So you're saying replacing "lo/la" with "le" in this sentence has absolutely nothing to do with transitive or intransitive use of a verb correct ? In other words people argue that "le" can also be a DO pronoun now ? If not what is it ? A pronoun ? If yes what kind of pronoun ?
Anybody ?
Ayudar cannot be used intransitively therefore we can't use it with "le"
I don't know of many more ways to tell you that you are flat out wrong when saying that.
A verb does not have to used intransitively to use le.
It it perfectly normal for a transitive verb to use both le and lo/la. What do you think the rule about changing le la, le lo, etc. to se lo, se la, etc. is all about?l
That is a transitive verb using le.
Samdie
I understand how dictionaries are separated into sections but the problem remains that mine does not label "ayudar" as intransitive at all. I have a "Collins Spanish Concise Dictionary". It only has one single line dedicated to this word and it only says "vt". It's true that labeling a verb vt does not automatically make it impossible to use it intransitively but if the verb can take either a DO or IDO then this must be noted by labeling the verb vt AND vi which many other verbs are. Am I not correct in stating that a verb that is not labeled as intransitive by a dictionary cannot be used intransitively ? Again let's go back to the word "escuchar". It has 2 sections, one for vt and one for vi. "Ayudar" does not. As far as I see it that only leaves us with 2 options.
- Ayudar cannot be used intransitively therefore we can't use it with "le"
- My dictionary is just no good since it fails to mention the intransitive option for this verb.
What do you guys' dictionaries say ?
Why does a dictionary bother to label every verb as either vt, vi or vr or any combination of them when it doesn't matter at all ?
Firstly, it does matter because it reflects the ways in which a verb can be used. Secondly, dictionaries typically divide their discussions of the uses of a word according to its grammatical nature (because it simplifies the discussion to deal with one case at a time).
Consider the (English) dictionary treatment of a word such as "walk" which can be a noun, a transitive verb or an intransitive verb. Normally each usage is treated in a separate sub-section (with an explanation and example sentences). At the very least, if they were to intermingle the uses, then each of the examples would need some sort of indication of which use was being illustrated. Whereas by separating the uses, they can say something like "vt-" and then provide several examples (without the need to label each as a transitive use). Similarly with "vi-" and with "n." Furthermore, it is entirely possible that someone would consult the dictionary wishing to know only about the transitive use of "walk" (perhaps, because he already knows about "walk" as a noun or as an intransitive verb) and it would be extremely tedious to have to pick through all of the examples to find those that apply to the verb when used transitively.
Yes I am aware of the personal vs. prep a. (Veo a Juan vs. vamos a Madrid). Actually, that's not too confusing since personal a's only appear when the DO is a "person or beloved animal" (That cracks me up btw..so my cat would definitely require such an "a" but the squirrel outside doesn't deserve one huh ?
I think you are missing the personal "a" versus the clarifying prepositional phrase "a" contrast.
Le di el libro A Juan.
(the le here is what I referred to as the redundant, anticipatory IOP. )
The prepositional "a" here is used to introduce a phrase clarifying who the le refers to.
libro, of course, is th DO
Ayudé A Jaun (The personal "a").
Yes, this is a peculiar rule that you include animals that you have feeling for along with people. This may be one of those instances where the language used gives you some cultural insights. Personally, I'd rather run over a cat than a squirrel, so I won't use the "a" with "Fluffy". 
Veo a Juan. Congratulo a Juan. Ayudo a Juan. But: Pego a Juan. Leo a mi madre todas las noches. Escribo a Juan.
Heidita:
I'm not asking what is grammatically correct. With these types of sentences would you normally see them written with redundant pronouns (not worrying about whether DO or IO pronouns would be used)?
Lo/le veo a Jaun.
Le/lo escribo a Juan.
Guys
Wow what a good forum ! Thank you guys for taking the time ! Here are my thoughts after reading your answers.
- Why does a dictionary bother to label every verb as either vt, vi or vr or any combination of them when it doesn't matter at all ?
To me labeling a verb transitive means it can only be used that way - otherwise it'd be labeled vt AND vi.
For example look at "escuchar"
vt - to listen to vi - to listen
Makes sense to me since I can listen to somebody (vi) or I could just listen (vt) so I don't agree with what you said about that. Otherwise what would be the point of labeling "escuchar" differently from "ayudar" if they can be used the same way anyway ? This seems to take away the entire point of transitive vs. intransitive usage of a verb and as I read somewhere this whoe vt/vi business is supposed to have only one purpose - tell me how I can use the verb. Thoughts ?
- Yes it had occurred to me that maybe Spanish speakers are really trying to say
"Can I be of help to you ?"
but looking back at point 1. the dictionary seems to explicitly forbid the intransitive use of that word. It also means that you just replaced the verb "help" with the noun "help" at least in English so it's an entirely new construct now anyway. If you're trying to say something like "Can I help you with something" I still believe "you" is a DO. Where does the action of the verb go ? - "you". Then again my Spanish buddy said something similar like "Well..you cannot just help somebody - you have to help them with something..." but don't see how that justifies the "le".
At this point we need to ask this : Is this really a leismo/loismo thing ? Or is it simply the intransitive use of a transitive verb meaning "help to you" ?
The reason I threw in the "personal a" is simply cause I thought it might be related to this issue. My Spanish buddy once said "Well cause Ud - you're addressing a PERSON !" so I came up with the idea of a "personal le" not unlike the "personal a". Maybe if you're addressing a person directly as in this case you replace the lo/la with a "le" but it's not a regular le but a "silent or personal le" ? In other words it's not an IO le but a special "le" just like the special "se" in "se lo" which is really a "le" with the "l" replaced by and "s". Nothing to do with the IOP "le". Am I on to something here ? I think I took this theory too far and again, the dictionary doesn't play nice with that idea.
At least we can agree that a personal a does not transform a DO to an IO - good I can put this to bed. Yes I am aware of the personal vs. prep a. (Veo a Juan vs. vamos a Madrid). Actually, that's not too confusing since personal a's only appear when the DO is a "person or beloved animal" (That cracks me up btw..so my cat would definitely require such an "a" but the squirrel outside doesn't deserve one huh ?)
Let's keep this very interesting and helpful discussion going !
