Nunca le olvidaré VS Nunca lo olvidaré
Is this
Nunca le olvidaré
VS
Nunca lo olvidaré
I'll never forget him VS I'll never forget it. Because earlier I remember a thread in which Chileno said . that the LE / LO in that sentence was, him VS it. and that's how you knew when to use LE or LO because they corresponded to HIM or IT accordingly.
But this seems to a direct object with olividar, LE. (when a direct object would normally be LO and LE for indirect) But now that I think about it, comprar, decir, etc.. all seem to use LE (for direct objects when they are people) and if it's because of HIM / HER (people = LE) VS IT (LO for it) then that makes a heck of a lot of sense why some D.O's use LE. (so as to not confuse the LO which is an object VS the LE which is a person despite being a direct object) , when otherwise I just wouldn't have thought of why that LE is used when it would normally be LO since it's a direct object.
Is this right? I feel like I just had an epiphany. No somebody come in and tell me I am wrong or right. 
Nunca lo olvidaré - I'll never forget him.
Nunca lo olvidaré - I'll never forget it.
Gracias.
6 Answers
Lo is used for people as well, and is in fact the correct object pronoun to use when you want to replace a masculine singular direct object w/ a pronoun, be it a person or a thing. Le, as a matter of fact, should exclusively be just an indirect object pronoun, but leísmo makes it acceptable as a direct object pronoun (although grammarians & linguists would probably not encourage this.)
Lo amo. = I love him. Nunca lo olvidaré - I'll never forget him.
In a nutshel, really it should be lo, as this is a direct object, but we all say le over here at least, an accepted "leísmo".
(although grammarians & linguists would probably not encourage this.)
"Le" is accepted by the Academies when it refers to usted(es), and they add that this is used almost everywhere, but "lo(s)" is more common in South America, and specially frequent, in the South Cone.
Lo is used for people as well, and is in fact the correct object pronoun to use when you want to replace a masculine singular direct object w/ a pronoun, be it a person or a thing. Le, as a matter of fact, should exclusively be just an indirect object pronoun, but leísmo makes it acceptable as a direct object pronoun (although grammarians & linguists would probably not encourage this.)
Of course I know Dean, that LO is used for people (Been studying Spanish for quite sometime now lol) . but there are certainly cases where LE is used instead of LO for the direct object. Chileno and I were discussing this just the other day, but looking my threads I can not find the thread. He said, it was the difference between LE and LO, for HIM and IT in that particular sense. I can't remember the verb or the thread however so I suppose I will let this drop until I find it. Which may be never.
Truth is, if I saw that sentence without any context:
No lo olvidaré: I won't forget it.
No le olvidaré: I won't forget him.
This is the first thing that comes to mind.. We very seldom, not to say never, use "lo" for the person here.
I see, it is accepted, but not really frowned upon. But I would say that lo is still "preferred", or better yet, the more "correct" option. Right?
I mean we can't forget that using le is an accepted leísmo, so really, we are making a mistake, however, I would say the le for persons is the preferred option, as it leaves no doubt as to what or who you are talking about.
Pure leísmo is also common in some areas of Spain, but I personally think it is considered somewhat "paleto" (you often hear this in villages).
¿Te le doy? ¿Qué la doy? (example of laísmo, we hear this all the time in the market)
Sounds awful to me, but it can be heard over here.
