Sobre la y lo y le
Esa profesora habla muy rápido. No le/la comprendo.
In my book ,it says le and la both are correct to fill here, but I wonder what are the differences between them? And the book says this is called leismo.
I think LE and LA here in this sentence are both Direct Object.
1A Carlos lo encontré en la puera del cine.
2.A Carlos le encontré en la puerta del cine.
3.A Ana le encontré en la puerta del cine.
4.A Ana la encontré en la puerta del cine.
In my book ,it says , the NO. 3 is wrong, the rest 1.2.4. all correct. So now I am confused.
If for the Direct Object could be used the same as LE, then why the 3rd one is wrong then??
Someone told me before, as for Direct Object , as for Female is always LA, never LE, but for Male as Direct Object or Indirect Object can use LO and LE both.
But from those two books, seems the answer is different. I am so confused now.1.
16 Answers
So, to sum up, can I understand it this way?
As for male, direct object, le and lo both can be used.
As for female,direct object, only can use la.
Is this understanding correct?
If this is correct, then why in my book , it says ”Esa profesora habla muy rápido. No le/la comprendo.“
The book says in this above sentence, le and la both are correct here. And here, the professor is a female, not a male, but why here le can be used?
3.A Ana le encontré en la puerta del cine.
Le is incorrect here, we call the accepted "le vi" only for masculine leísmo, however if it is used for usted, it is called, leísmo de cortesía.
It cannot be used for female nouns.
This is so widely used here, that if you should say:
Lo he visto.
referring to a man...people will correct you and say: LE he visto.
Thanks Heidita, but how about this one?
Esa profesora habla muy rápido. No le/la comprendo.
This sentence comes from another book of mine, it says this is correct, Esa profesora is female, not male, but why here Le can be used?
It may depend on where the textbook is written or what period in history that they are discussing. Notice the definition of leísmo given in this article:
El leísmo es la sustitución del pronombre personal lo / la por le en la posición de complemento directo y en los verbos que tradicionalmente rigen el caso acusativo (también llamados verbos transitivos) en español:
- (Forma leísta) Juan le ha visto.
- (Forma estándar) Juan lo ha visto.
Even though, the examples above show using le for lo to be the leísmo and if you read the description of the "current" leísmo it is only used for masculine persons:
. El dictamen académico se ha moderado recientemente, y se considera aceptable la forma leísta exclusivamente cuando el complemento directo de la acción es una persona de sexo masculino
somewhere or at sometime the leísmo allowed substituting le for la. As a matter of fact, if you read the entire article it would leave you to believe that just about every possible permutation of use has been tried. I particularly like this one:
La influencia del guaraní en el español paraguayo, del quechua en el español andino o del euskera en País Vasco y Navarra llevan en algunos casos a la supresión completa de la diferenciación entre pronombres de dativo y de acusativo, sustituyendo todos los casos por le.
I vote for that one. Use le for everything 3rd person (d.o.p. or i.o.p).
But Heidita's description of the "current" use of the leísmo is how I see it used in other grammar articles.
Notice that the article lists several types of Leísmos including the Leísmo de cortesia that Heidita mentioned.
Here is another interesting comment from that article:
Así, el uso del dativo para el verbo ayudar en latín, se ha sustituido por el acusativo en francés (Je l'aide), algo que también se produjo en algunas regiones de lengua castellana.
Here they are discussing the use of the leísmo with the particular verb ayudar. I have seen it mentioned in other articles that usage of the leísmo can vary depending on the particular verb that it is being used with (especially transitive verbs that imply a direct object.) I told him. Him is seen as dative rather than acusative. It is implied that you told him something which is seen as the d.o.
Why not A ella la gusta ?
this should be a song called "A Ella Le Gusta El Dembow" and there are quite a lot of mixed usage of la/le lo/le .... you may also see a lot when in facebook
Le is used, as has been mentioned before, as a form to substitute the masculine "lo". It could also be used to state a higher degree of respect, as I assume is the case being the teacher, and hence, by addressing Ana by her name, there is no higher respect that justifies the use of "le". In addition, "le" is also used in a bit of an impersonal form, I'm not sure this is the right word to describe what I mean though, for example: ya le llamaste? No, le llamo mañana
It is a bit complicated to describe in English, since both le and lo would be written the same in this language and also by the fact that Spanish could do fine without the use of explicit subject
Have a good one
Mahoma
you can also get some infor from yahoo
hope you broaden your horizon
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????153????????female is only la, never le? ?????????????????????????????????????
??? songleishiyu? ???????????????152?153????? ???????????? ?????????????????male is le and lo, ??female is la only. ???????????153???????Esa profesora?????le and la both are correct,??esa profesora is female, so I am confused now.
Can you answer this question ? Or is this book wrong?
? ??? ???????????? ??????????????????????????? la?le lo?el ??? ??????? ?????????????????152?????? ?153???? ???????
hope this can help you
In China, facebook is banned, I can't access to it. 
My teacher told me lo/la are direct object pronouns and le is indirect. So you are going to write HER a letter, LE vas a escribir una carta. If you have already written one letter, ya LA has escribiste.
So qfreed, as what you wrote "I vote for that one. Use le for everything 3rd person (d.o.p. or i.o.p)."
So, do you mean, lo/le, could be the same usage for male. la/le could be the same usage for female?
But in my book ,it says
"1A Carlos lo encontré en la puera del cine.
2.A Carlos le encontré en la puerta del cine.
3.A Ana le encontré en la puerta del cine.
4.A Ana la encontré en la puerta del cine."
The 3rd one is wrong.
The article you gave me is all in Spanish, I can´t read. 
