Creer vs creerse
No lo creo vs no me lo creo, they both mean I don't believe him right? (or it or her)
Gracias.
Also, it's leísmo to say "no le creo" right, to mean him or her, because it's "no la / lo creo" or "no se lo creo" / no se le creo - these are just meaningless gibberish right?
Gracias.
5 Answers
yes, no lo creo and no me lo creo are the same thing. We don't use the construction "me lo creo" all that much on my side of the world, though.
No le creo is correct (him / her).
No lo creo means "I don't believe it"
(Edited) No la creo: I don't believe that story, that version. I don't believe she's capable of...
No se lo creo: "I don't believe what him/her is saying"
No se le creo is not correct. (Lazarus says it is, but I am waiting to see an example. This construction is utterly alien to me).
Ok so it's just le and not la or lo unless you mean "it". You know, it oftentimes seem really arbitrary which words use "le" by default and which use lo / la.
The verb creer has two constructions:
1) You believe a person (direct object)
2) You believe something (direct object) from someone (indirect object)
In the first construction, you are expected to say "lo creo (a él)" and "la creo (a ella)", using D.O. pronouns. This usage is more popular in some places than others; if I'm not mistaken, in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay it is very used. In the second construction you could omit the indirect object and say "no lo creo" (I don't believe it) or omit the direct object and say "No le creo (eso)".
¿Podrías por favor darme ejemplos de "la creo" y "se le creo"? No puedo pensaar en ninguno.
Del Diccionario panhispánico de dudas: «Lo dijo con tanta seriedad que todo el mundo la creyó» (Ocampo Cornelia [Arg. 1988])
Ok, I accept that one, of course. How about "no se le creo"?
Grammatically speaking, it is unacceptable (and to me it sounds bad), but who knows? Maybe it will become standard in the future.
The reflexive "se" in "creerse (algo)" means that something is completely believed, i.e. you believe every word of it, quite often without questioning it or in a naive way. A plain "creer" has no special connotations.
Also, it's leísmo to say "no le creo" right, to mean him or her, because it's "no la / lo creo" or "no se lo creo" / no se le creo - these are just meaningless gibberish right?
No, it is not "leísmo", because you can interpret it as "No le creo eso", where "eso" is the direct object, and the person to believe is the indirect object, which should be "le". In the other alternative, "No lo creo (a él)", the person to believe is the direct object.
Some comments about Gekko's post:
No le creo is correct (the direct object is omitted).
No lo creo means "I don't believe it" or "I don't believe him"
No la creo is correct, according to the 22 Academies and every single grammar book I own
No se lo creo: "I don't believe what him/her is saying"
No se le creo is correct, according to the Academies, although they point out that it is more commonly used in colloquial Spanish
How about "se le creo", though?
Grammars say no-no, and I have never heard it myself. That "se" cannot be a modified "le" (like in "le digo algo" - "Se lo digo"), because there is already another "le", so it would have to be a pronominal verb, but then, it should be "se cree", not "se creo". Unless I have missed a thrid possibility, it does not make sense syntactically speaking. At least, not for the moment -you can't predict how languages will change in the future.
Ok so it's just le and not la or lo unless you mean "it". You know, it oftentimes seem really arbitrary which words use "le" by default and which use lo / la.
I think just using le for all words and correcting to la / lo (for her / him) when the situation dictates is the way to go for now.
Gracias.
