Guidelines for using the redundant i.o.
I just read this by Gfreed:
Since the object of the verb is located in front of the verb rather than following it, as commonly located, it takes a redundant object pronoun.
The redundant pronoun is required when the actual direct or indirect object precedes the verb.
I never knew that as a rule, but have often wondered about guidelines for using the "redundant" or "anticipatory" indirect object.
The example was "Al amor le estaba leyendo."
Any other guidelines for when to use the redundant i.o.? Periodically I use it and someone tells me I shouldn't have. Is there a rule for when it is optional, and when you should not use it? Or is Gfreed's explanation the only rule that applies? And what about a redundant direct object pronoun?
Thanks,
J
4 Answers
After digesting all of the quoted material below properly.. I found it cleared things a bit for me. I hope it's ok to post it, given that I think it is taken from an old comment made by (a) Lazarus (?!) on a different forum.
El complemento indirecto solo puede ir introducido por «a», y nunca por «para». Los complementos con «para» son circunstanciales, y son necesarios a veces para evitar ambigüedades, sobre todo cuando aparece la persona de quien se adquiere («a») y la que lo recibe («para»):
- (Le) compré un regalo a mi madre. -> Suponemos que se lo vamos a dar a ella.
- (Le) compré un regalo al vendedor ambulante. -> Suponemos que este vendedor me lo vendió.
- (Le) compré una cosa a Jose. -> ¿Jose nos lo vendió, o se lo regalamos a Jose?
El complemento circunstancial puede aparecer junto al complemento indirecto, o solo:
- Le compré un reloj al hombre para mi madre -> No hay ambigüedad.
- Compré un regalo para mi madre -> No hay ambigüedad (ni complemento indirecto)
El complemento indirecto (con «a») puede sustituirse por le -con el cual concuerda-, pero el circunstancial (con «para») no:
Le Compré un regalo para mi madre.
Les compré un reloj al hombre para mis padres.
Les compré un reloj a los hombres para mi padre.
Les compré un reloj a los hombres para mis padres.
El complemento indirecto requiere el pronombre le(s) cuando precede al verbo; el complemento circunstancial con «para» solo puede aparecer junto al pronombre le(s) si este último es un complemento indirecto que indica la persona de quien se adquiere algo, y que no tiene nada que ver con el complemento con «para».-----
Regretfully, I seem to be unable to put it into quotations, so this is all a bit messy. :(
Another thing - I'm guessing that if I want to say "I bought the present for my mother", (as mentioned above in my comment on Gfreed's answer) ie I bought it 'in her place', because she was unable to buy it, would that be simply:
Compré el regalo por mi madre.
and so, if I want to say "I bought Susanna's present for "(instead of my mother buying it) my mother", will that be:
Compré un regalo para Susanna por mi madre. or
Le compré a Susanna un regalo por mi madre.
-
I think that I recall a thread where it was mentioned that with para the anticipatory (grammar articles often refer to it as redundant even though that is probably a misnomer) i.o.p., le/les is not always used depending on the sentence context. There may be similar prepositons, but with "a" it is usually used.
Le compré el regalo para María. (I bought the gift to give to María, the recipient) As explained in comments and articles below this is incorrect.
Compré el regalo para María. (I bought the gift for María as a favor . She may not be the recipient)
Le di el regalo a María.
Or is Gfreed's explanation the only rule that applies?
I'm still waiting to come across a grammar "rule" in Spanish that doesn't have 15 exceptions to it or 5 other rules that contradict it in some situation or another.
I would tend to avoid words like always when discussing grammar rules.
By the way, that 2nd sentence is not mine. I clipped it from a grammar article which is why it was highlighted as a citation.
If you read it carefully it mentions "redundant" direct object pronouns.
Here is the article, if you wish to read it.
My understanding is, from Paralee's lesson and other sources, that the Indirect Object Pronoun should always be used even when the Indirect Object itself is included in the sentence, although this was discussed in a post a while back and apparently it isn't always, always used! I don't think it's ever wrong to use it, though.
As for the Direct Object Pronoun, I definitely see it in the cases mentioned by Gfreed, and also where 'todo' is used as a pronoun, eg
Lo perdieron todo. (They lost everything)
Te lo di todo. (I gave you everything)
I'll follow this one, it takes a lot of brainpower for me not to forget or misunderstand it. 
