I am so lost in Direct/Indirect Object Pronouns

Question

Hello all,

I was studying lesson 2.3 last night I have one specific question. The regular sentence is: Juan da el pastel a Jaime. Placing the direct object pronoun it becomes: Juan lo da a Jaime. We take out el pastel. Placing the indirect object pronoun it becomes: Juan se lo da a Jaime.

This is the part where I don't understand. Isn't this sentence something like: Juan gives it to him, Jaime

Later Paralee says if I wanna make it short I can do Juan se lo da.This version makes perfect sense without repeating Jaime with "se".

I don't understand how it is possible to use Juan se lo da a Jaime when we already have "se" referring to " a Jaime".

Answer 1

I don't understand how it is possible to use Juan se lo da a Jaime when we already have "se" referring to " a Jaime"

Hi Neslita,

You're looking at it backwards. The reason that we have se in this sentence is that the sentence has an indirect object- a Jaime. If a sentence has an indirect object, it MUST have an indirect object pronoun.

One doesn't HAVE to include "a Jaime"- if that part is already understood. But either way, the se must be there.

Now let me caution you about something on that video that is very confusing. The part about changing the L to S on the IOP whenever both pronouns begin with an L is not correct. She should have said that you change the IOP to se in every case. Thus le becomes se, but les also becomes se. This is clear if you look up the article in the Reference section.

Answer 2

One question though, according to what Goyo say will Daniel's sentence be correct as :

Velma sacó una galleta de su bolsillo y se la lanzó a Jaime. (In the case where se is obscure?)

You still need the "se" -- "a Jaime" is optional. Let's say Jaime had been introduced in the preceeding sentence then "a Jaime" could be omitted and the "se" would be understood to be Jaime.

If Jaime had not been clearly idendified in previous sentences then "a Jaime" can/should be included for clarity.

Answer 3

Here are a couple of many examples from my notebook:

---

IO's & DO's Together:

• No se lo tengo. (I don't have it for you) {se = you, IO; lo = it, DO}

• Ellos me los dan. (They give them to me.) {me = me, IO; los = them' DO}

• Ella te la vende. (She sells it to you) {la = it, IO; te = you, DO}

• Velma sacó una galleta de su bolsillo y se la lanzó. (Velma took a cracker [Scooby Snack] from her pocket and toosed ot to him.) {se la lanzó =she tossed it to him; la = it; se = him}

• No, pero me siento mejor si se lo digo. (No, but I feel better if I say it to him.) {se = him, IO; lo = it; DO}

Thanks so very much! - neslita, Feb 11, 2010

Answer 4

Goyo,

You made my day! It is actually more clarifying than confusing!! Because I had the same question in mind changing L to S whenever there are two IOP starting with L,and I was thinking that les will be ses!! ))

And the rule you stated which is every Indirect Object MUST have and IOP clears it all!!

I am still not quite sure when translating it mode to mode but I don't need to do that,I'll accept this rule just as it is.

Awww, thank you. You would have found out when you did the written portion of the lesson, because there is a question where you would (incorrectly) write "ses". I did and got it wrong! :) - Goyo, Feb 11, 2010

Hahahah:) thanks for going through that! - neslita, Feb 11, 2010

Answer 5

One question though, according to what Goyo say will Daniel's sentence be correct as :

Velma sacó una galleta de su bolsillo y se la lanzó a Jaime. (In the case where se is obscure?)

Answer 6

When I did this lesson I thought it seemed redundant to have the indirect object pronoun and then also have the noun at the end. The only explanation I can think of is if it is not clear who Juan is giving the cupcake to then adding "a Jaime" should make it clear.