Les or Los. Help with the indirect object pronouns.
¿Creen que eso les hace más machos? - Do they think that makes then more of a man?
I originally wrote "los hace" and was corrected. I'm wondering why you use "les" (indirect object pronoun) instead of the direct object pronoun which I used.
Thanks a million!
7 Answers
Forget the main clause (they believe) and just consider the dependent clause.
That makes them more manly.
What is being made?....more manly quality.
Who is being made more manly?. Them. (les)
You are not making them. You are making the more manly quality.
The direct object is the what/who that the verb does. (to make isn't much of an action verb here so it sounds kind of awkward).
The indirect object is who that receives the direct object.
I originally wrote "los hace" and was corrected. I'm wondering why you use "les" (indirect object pronoun) instead of the direct object pronoun which I used.
Whoever corrected you is wrong. Your sentence is perfect with "los", although it should say "machos".
This verb has caused a lot of confusion for centuries, even among natives, for different reasons. In this case, people must have thought that the structure was a typical "I give [something: CD] [to someone: CI]", then assumed that "macho" was the direct object, and therefore "les" (to them) should be the indirect object.
However, that analysis is flawed. In "Los hace [algo]", that "[algo]" is not an object, or at least, not a direct or indirect one, but one which you probably have never heard before, called "(complemento) predicativo". Direct and indirect objects do not agree with other parts of the sentence, but this kind of complement (just to avoid the term object) agrees with either the subject and the verb, or the direct object, which is what happens here.
Further tests: "Los hice felices" and "Hice felices a los hombres" are both perfect, but unlike indirect objects, the duplication sounds wrong: "Les hice felices a los hombres" (????) But even a better one: if "felices" is the direct object, why "Les hice felices" cannot be replaced with "Se los hice"? Because "felices" is not a direct object, and "los" is not an indirect one.
While leísmo is these cases is understandable, the correct analysis is the one I gave above, and use the proper direct object pronouns is the advisable thing to do here.
EDIT:
I can see some people raising their eyebrows and wondering whether I am making things up, so I'll provide some examples. The first one, from the ex-chairman of the RAE, of the most purists of the language who could find fault in almost every native speaker:
Para lo cual, está claro, son necesarias las ventanillas en aldeas, pedanías y lugarejos, pero ello no los bancariza: sencillamente, los hace más felices.
Now, from the dictionary Manuel Seco, a member of the RAE:
hacer
Convertir [a una pers. o cosa (cd)] en [algo (predicativo)]. Frec con compl. refl. Tb fig. Lo que nos hacía más cómplices era sentir...
Now a Spanish writer: Francisco Umbral, a philosopher, writer and essayist.
...el ejercicio repetido y rutinario de las capacidades cerradas las hace más fáciles, más seguras,
Many more examples on demand. Remember: "le(s)" in these cases is pretty common, but you cannot say that "lo/la/los/las" is wrong, when it is not.
Vale.
This is what's going through my mind as to why it should be les, but I'm not sure if you or anyone at all would get it (or even give a damn). It may be because I'm totally wrong or that I didn't state it well enough (both happen a lot of times). Anyway, here goes:
Les, discounting leísmo, is clearly an indirect object pronoun.
If we'll state the sentence differently, say, as a command:
Make them more manly. Is it: Hazles más machos vs Hazlos más machos?
Based on the correction, it should be les. But clearly they are those who are being made more manly. So I believe the object must really be an indirect object in order for the use of "les" to have merit. So changing the phrase a bit:
Make them look more manly. Hazles (a ellos) "que parezcan" más machos.
Is que parezcan (or a subordinate clause) implied here, and thus, omitted? That's the only way I can justify the use of les. Otherwise, los would make more sense.
Other variations:
Make it (say, a room, or someone's appearance) more manly = Hazlo más macho?
Make him more manly. = Hazle más macho?
If this is so, then the only difference is that the first one is an object while the 2nd one is a person, which I highly doubt, because lo & la also are also direct objects used for persons.
P.S. This probably is just rambling, but I hope you don't mind if I myself try to make some sense out of this here in your thread. I had similar questions in one of heidi's exercises (I believe it's the passive "se" one). Just disregard this if you fully accept Q's answer.
one of my favorite explanations
The indirect object is often used right before a direct object and does not follow a preposition, as illustrated in the phrases above. If a preposition is used, then the word becomes the object of that preposition, as in the following, where to and for are prepositions and man and yourself are their objects:
Just keep that explanation in mind. I don't want to confuse you, but that is a fundamental difference between Spanish and English. I won't get into it now.
Just know that: In English the i.o. cannot follow a prepostion while in Spanish the i.o. must follow a prepostion (usually to/for). When you get into the d.o. and i.o. of Spanish and the use of the redundant object pronouns and clarifying/emphasizing phrases it becomes important.
"Los desafían" gets more hits than "les desafían". What is the difference in meaning in all those contexts, then? 
Just know that: In English the i.o. cannot follow a prepostion while in Spanish the i.o. must follow a prepostion (usually to/for).
?!?!?!?
I gave it to him. 'to' preposition and 'him' indirect object' (albeit, indistinguishable from the direct object pronoun). "I did it for him." / "I went with him." (grammatically the same construction).
What is leísmo?
