Questions about lo

Question

Hi everyone,

I'm hoping that someone can explain some specific uses of the pronoun "lo" that I'm having trouble with. I came across these sentences while reading some stuff on spanish-learning websites, so I think they are accurate. Example number one:

"Tengo otra excusa: esta persona mayor es capaz de entenderlo todo, hasta los libros para niños." I have another excuse: this person is capable of understanding everything, including books for children.

Ok, I get the gist of the sentence, but I'm thinking that if I formed this sentence myself I would have written "entender", not "entenderlo". If I translate word for word, it seems that the sentence is saying "this person is capable of understanding (it) everything...". So my questions is, first, why is this correct (why is the lo needed, what does it refer to), and second, how do you know when to write entender and when to write entenderlo when forming a sentence on your own?

Second example:

"Su hermana es muy guapa pero él no lo es" - His sister is very good-looking, but he isn't . Basically the same question applies - why not just say "pero el no es?" From my english-speaking perspective this makes much more sense so I'm sure there's some grammatical quirk that I don't know about.

Just to review, I thought I understood how lo works. It can function as a masculine direct object pronoun, a neuter DO, a direct article like "Lo mejor", with "Lo que" or "lo cual", or in some other specific phrases. Clearly I don't understand how it is being applied in these instances though.

Answer 1

Regarding entenderlo todo...I am not certain, but I think that means "understanding it all" ... funny how it makes sense when todo = all but not when todo = everything (todo can also be an adjective meaning "each" or "every").

Regarding pero él no lo es...I AM certain that the lo is being used as a stand-in for guapo. In Spanish, lo can also be used as a pronoun for, get this, ADJECTIVES. What's more, I don't think Spanish likes to say just "He is" or "You are" when there is an implied adjective. Instead, you will more likely hear "Lo es" or "Lo estás" or whatever where lo is standing in for the implied adjective.

I heard something similar to the following conversation in a movie called Kung-Fu Panda. I played both the English and Spanish tracks. Po, the panda, is a student of kung-fu. His master is called Shifu.

In English:

• Po: Do you think I'm ready?
• Shifu: You are.

In Spanish:

• Po: ¿Creas que estoy listo?
• Shifu: Lo estás. (lo = listo, in this case)

.

We have a similar (though not exact) construction in English. It uses "that" to refer to a previously stated adjective.

• Farmer 1: Man, these melons are heavy!
• Farmer 2: That they are! (that = heavy)

.

• Farmer 1: ¡Vaya, los melones son pesados!
• Farmer 2: ¡Lo están! (lo = pesados)

Answer 2

webdunce,

I see that you read Heidita's reply in this thread

I had read something previously on Spanish's tendency to add lo in these brief sentences where an English speaker would not.

I wish that Heidita would expound on this usage.

Have you seen any grammar articles on this usage? It is an interesting concept of having the antecedent of a pronoun be an adjective, rather that a noun. But, then, Spanish used lo with adjectives to form nouns, so I'm wondering if the lo just isn't implying the repetition of the adjective to form a noun.

I would sure like to hear an expanded explanation.

---

I think that I found what I was looking for. This is from a grammar article on the uses of lo.

With ser and estar to refer to a preceding noun or adjective: This is especially common when answering questions:

* —¿Es nueva tu computadora?. —No lo es. "Is your computer new?" "It isn't."
* —¿Estaban felices?. —Sí, lo están. "Were they happy?" "Yes they were."

Note that they don't translate (lo) as the adjective nueva or felices. to comply with our poor English usage of omitting the complement. They don't translate it as Yes, they are happy (as it in implied in Spanish), but translate it as Yes, they were according to our English usage.

Interesting example anyway. The question is past tense. The reply is present tense. It is translated as past tense in both question and answer.

The tense shift could be an error. Perhaps they meant to write "lo estaban"? - webdunce, May 31, 2010

Answer 3

Actually, I deduced it solely from the conversation I saw in Kung-fu Panda. However, Marie-Claire linked to this article, which discusses it briefly. Also, my Spanish grammar book, A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish, discusses it and considers this usage to be a case of lo being used as a pronoun to refer to a previously stated action, idea, sentence, or other thing that has no gender. In the same section, the book states, "Spanish does not like to leave these verbs isolated, as English does..."

The grammar book's explanation helps me see why the lo is always singular...though I can't explain how or why...I only can say it helps me.

I think that I grasp the concept now. Thanks. I don't even believe native's explanations (take that Heidita) until I've seen confirmation. - 0074b507, May 31, 2010

Maria and I found the same article. I thought the web was infinite. Small world. - 0074b507, May 31, 2010