Need more help with an indirect object pronoun

Question

Hi. I came across this sentence in a lesson. I can't understand why the "le" is used here: "Es un policía muy corrupto; no le hables." (He is a very corrupt policeman, don't speak to him.)

(you) understood subject speak - verb ?? - direct object him- indirect object.

Thanks

Answer 1

I do think the "to him" qualifies as an indirect object pronoun in this case.

In Spanish those prepostional phrases are indirect objects since Spanish requires to, for, by to state its indirect object.

In English, however, these are not indirect objects. They are objects of a preposition. I know that is a subtle distinction and one mostly glossed over by basic Spanish grammar articles, but one that should be recognized when translating Spanish to English.

The English meaning of a direct object (not the same as Spanish):

English indirect object

An indirect object is always a noun or pronoun which is not part of a prepositional phrase.

English indirect object 2

the indirect object is often used right before a direct object and does not follow a preposition, as illustrated in the phrases above.

English indirect object 3

An indirect object is always a noun or pronoun which is not part of a prepositional phrase.

one dissenter

Sometimes, the indirect object will occur in a prepositional phrase beginning with to or for.

The distinction here is somewhat subtle, but there is a grammatical difference that exists between the dative of languages like Latin, the indirect object and these objects of the preposition.

It's probably not worth going into (which may be why Spanish grammar articles gloss over it), but it makes your reply about the "to" making this an indirect object "specious". It answers the question, but it may not be grammatically correct.

Grammatically:

Le dio el libro a él. Should be translated into English as: I gave him the book; not I gave the book to him.

Most of the Spanish grammar articles would say that either are correct because they are trying to match English and Spanish uses of a i.o.

In Spanish the to him would be the more appropriate definition of the i.o.p., but that conflicts with our English usage.

Ignore my comment. All of this is too technical to be of any significance.

I don't wish to ignore it. It explains an important distinction which was confusing the heck out of me. - territurtle, Jan 14, 2012

Answer 2

Would I also need a indirect object pronoun for the sentence: "I need to speak to Jennifer." Necesito hablar con Jennifer?

If you use "con" then I don't think you need the "le". but if you wrote. Necesito hablarle a Jennifer. Then the "le" is needed.

Well said. - 0074b507, Jan 14, 2012

That makes sense to me. Gracias! - crabbycat, Jan 14, 2012

Answer 3

Would I also need a indirect object pronoun for the sentence: "I need to speak to Jennifer." Necesito hablar con Jennifer?

I'm sorry. I sidetracked your answer when we should have been discussing the possible leísmo or the tendency of Spanish to use in i.o. where English would use a d.o. with certain verbs (especially those of communication: hablar, decir, llamar, et al.) [regional usages]

I'm going to shut-up and let someone answer your question.

You needn't apologize to me! I just learned the word "leísmo," among other things!! ;)) - territurtle, Jan 14, 2012

Answer 4

Hi:

"Necesito hablar con Jenifer.

-´Lo siento, ella no está.

-´Pero es importante que hable con ella.

-´Ella estará aquí en la tarde. Regrese usted a las 3 y podrá hablarle.

-´¡Oh gracias! Volveré en la tarde para hablarle, a Jenifer.

-´Adiós."

En español, hablamos a alguien, o con alguien, o de alguien, o por alguien, o para alguien...(indirect)

No es posible hablar alguien (direct).

Answer 5

Soooooo, I guess it's ok to put it in or leave it out in this sentence? Geesh, I hate these things (IDO)

No, the le is needed there and the sentence is correct. Was your original problem about having an indirect object without a direct object? Spanish allows that. Kevin was correct when he said this was an indirect object, I was just quibbling about his - 0074b507, Jan 14, 2012

reasons for why it was an i.o. - 0074b507, Jan 14, 2012

Answer 6

Specious reasoning grammatically. That is not even an i.o. in English. It may explain why the personal "a" in not usually translated, however.

Hmm, a little touchy this morning?

From SpanishDict's own reference section:

Notice that the English definition for each indirect object includes "to/for" since they always indicate where the object is going.

I'm not a grammar expert, but I do think the "to him" qualifies as an indirect object pronoun in this case. He would be receiving my speech. If I were speaking the truth or speaking lies, then the truth or lies would be the direct objects. If I were speaking the truth to him, the truth would be the direct object and he would be the indirect object. Do I have that wrong?

Answer 7

no le hables = don't speak to him. The "to" makes it an indirect object, so you need an indirect object pronoun, le.

Specious reasoning grammatically. That is not even an i.o. in English. It may explain why the personal "a" in not usually translated, however. - 0074b507, Jan 14, 2012

Answer 8

What would the direct object be in that sentence? " Don't speak to him."

Would I also need a indirect object pronoun for the sentence: "I need to speak to Jennifer." Necesito hablar con Jennifer?

I'm confused.

qfreed is obviously much better at this grammar stuff than I am, but I don't see a direct object in the Spanish sentence. - KevinB, Jan 14, 2012

Spanish does not require a direct object to have an indirect object as does English. - 0074b507, Jan 14, 2012

This is a good example showing how Spanish uses a prepostion (con) to state the receiver of the verbs action without using an i.o. - 0074b507, Jan 14, 2012