Impersonal vs. Passive Reflexive and "Se les conoce."
I realize that this subject has been discussed on this forum several times already, and I have read through most of those articles, but I have a question that presents a slight twist on this topic.
I have recently started reading through Genesis (Nueva Versión Internacional) in order to brush up on my Spanish, and at the same time, to brush up on some of those famous Old Testament stories. For the most part, I am just reading for comprehension and practice, so I am not stopping to grammatically analyze every sentence. But in the second chapter I ran into something that seems so simple that it is bothering me that I cannot understand it. Verse 19 reads, "El hombre les puso nombre a todos los seres vivos, y con ese nombre se les conoce." Now, if I were to translate this sentence into English, it would read, "The man gave a name to all the living beings, and by this name they are known." But what is bothering me is that last bit, "se les conoce."
It is obviously come kind of passive/impersonal formation. Now to the best of my understanding, they both convey the same thought in a subtly different way, and in fact are constructed in exactly the same way when in reference to a singular noun, e.g.
Impersonal: Se habla español en Uruguay. (They speak Spanish in Uruguay.)
Passive: Se habla español aquí. (Spanish is spoken here.)
(These two examples are taken directly from the article on this site titled, "Impersonal Se vs. Passive Se.")
In the first example, the subject (and the agent performing the action) "They/One/People" is unspecified and omitted. In the second, "español" is the subject, but the acting agent is still unspecified and omitted. But with the same verb, the same singular noun, and nearly the same context, you could not definitively determine either one of those sentences to be either passive or impersonal. Moreover, the meaning is the same in either case, so there would be no cause to do so.
It seems to me that the difference in construction appears when the noun to which the verb refers is plural. In the impersonal conjugation, the unspecified subject is always singular and therefore the corresponding verb must also be singular, regardless of the plurality of the noun to which it refers. This is in contrast to the impersonal, in which the noun is the subject and must agree in number with the verb. Regardless, the message being conveyed is the same in both cases. e.g.
Impersonal: Se habla inglés y francés en Canadá. (They speak English and French in Canada.)
Passive: Se hablan inglés y español aquí. (English and Spanish are spoken here.)
Question 1: Am I correct so far?
Now in the context of my reading, "se les conoce" is referring to "todos los seres vivos." Thus, if this were a passive conjugation, the verb "conocer" would have to be conjugated in the plural in order to agree with the subject of the sentence. This, it seems to me, would look something like this: "...con ese nombre se conocen." (...by this name they are known.) The message that I am trying to convey here could also be expressed like this: "...con ese nombre están conocidos."
Question 2: Are these also valid/grammatically correct expressions?
Since the verb "conocer" does not agree in number with "todos los seres vivos," this must be an impersonal "se." In this case, excluding the indirect object pronoun "les," the phrase, "se conoce" would mean something along the lines of, "one/people/they know." In the context of the sentence, though, "people" know "them" (todos los seres vivos). I feel that in this case, the correct pronoun would not be the indirect object pronoun "les," but the masculine plural direct object pronoun "los."
In other words, I would have written, "... y con ese nombre se los conoce." (...and by this name people know them.)
Question 3: Why is the indirect object pronoun used in this phrase "se les conoce" to refer to the the direct object/recipient of the action?
I am sorry to have been so wordy with my question. I have never had a clear understanding of the difference between the passive and impersonal forms or why they are even differentiated when their meanings are the same same and their formations in a sentence are often the same. Generally, I just put it out of my mind am satisfied with comprehension, but this one bothers me for some reason. I really want to understand why it is written the way that it is.
Are there any "se" experts or pronoun experts out there who can shed some light on this sentence?
Thanks so much!
Billy
2 Answers
I agree with your conclusions, however, there isn´t any reflexive usage here.
y con ese nombre se les conoce.
I would translate this as: .... and with that name one knows them. This is considered impersonal, although a more common and contemporary structure in spoken usage is to use third person plural: y con ese nombre les conocen.
Also note that, other than in certain legal terminology, conocer is a transitive verb, which must act on a direct object. Le/les is only an indirect object, although many times used incorrectly as a direct object, so the sentences should be: los conoce(n).
I can´t say how grammatical structures were when this version of the Bible was written, but most languages have changed enough from that time to cause confusion.
Hi, Billy:
The problem is not with the reflexives--and it seems that you have a thorough understanding of them, the problem is with "les" In older writings when referring to people "les" and "le" are used instead of "los" or "lo" especially when referring to males.
If I were to speak to you formally and say "I don't understand you" I can say; "No le entiendo" instead of "No lo entiendo" People who prefer "le" as a direct object pronoun are called "leístas" Those who prefer "lo" are called "loístas"
Como soy española, prefiero el uso de "le y les" Soy leísta.
No te preocupes por lo de los reflexivos, los entiendes perfectamente.
