Indirect object use - Spanish / English difference ?

Question

When translating from English to Spanish we need to identify indirect objects because in Spanish the indirect object pronoun is necessary. Normally most sentences including an indirect object take the form "to [indirect object]" eg. "I give it to him" or the implicit "to" in "I give him it." In Spanish the same is true. ej. "Se lo doy a él."

However, in English we can also have a "for [indirect object]" eg. "I made it for him" or the implicit "for" in "I made him it." "He" is still the indirect object in English, but am I right in saying this sentence does not translate with an indirect object pronoun in Spanish? Ej. Not "Se lo hice a él" but instead "Lo hice para él." ?

Answer 1

"Le" can mean, "for him" "to him" "from him" etc.

One of the sentences in our textbook is: 'Necesito comprarle un nuevo suéter a mi hijo."

Which translates to "I need to buy a new sweater for my son.

Here's another. A mí me robó el dinero el ladrón. The thief stole my money from me.

So,"Se lo hice a él." is correct.

NOW:

There is an alternative. Forget "se" If you say "Lo hice para él" That is correct.

Also "Necesito comprar un nuevo suéter para ml hijo" is correct.

Sometimes these things can be said without using the indirect object construction. But It would take a whole lot of "splainin' " to do so.

But I love your "splainin" Dani :) Anyway, what I gather from your answer is sometimes English indirect object sentences just don't translate to Spanish as such (the "made" example) and vice versa (the "stole" example) ? - jellonz, May 26, 2016

Oh wow, sorry Dani. I misread. So "Se lo hice a él" is also ok. Gracias. - jellonz, May 26, 2016

Why do you need "a mí" Daniela in this sentence: A mí me robó el dinero el ladrón? Also could I say mi dinero instead of el dinero? - Ramonaspiker, May 27, 2016

Mí* - Ramonaspiker, May 27, 2016

I think the "A mi" is just used for clarification/emphasis of the indirect object. As the IO pronoun is "me" here no clarification is needed so I'm guessing it is included only for emphasis. - jellonz, May 30, 2016

As far as "mi dinero" goes I think it is ok in the form "El ladrón robó mi dinero" but when the IO pronoun is introduced the definite article is used as opposed to the possessive. Dani gave me a great explanation once. If I find it I'll post a link. - jellonz, May 30, 2016

Found it: http://www.spanishdict.com/answers/270283/why-an-indirect-object-pronoun-in-ella-le-toc-el-hombro - jellonz, May 30, 2016

Answer 2

In addition to Dani´s answer, the indirect object pronoun is absolutely necessary: Se lo hice a él.

What is not necessary is the clarifier a él. We can say simply "Se lo hice" and it is correct, but the clarifier helps avoid confusion.

Gracias Julian. Shouldn't "se" be highlighted as the indirect object pronoun? - jellonz, May 27, 2016

You´re right, I´ll change it. Thanks - 005faa61, May 27, 2016

De nada Julian. Dani is still right that the form without the IO pronoun "Lo hice para él" is ok though isn't she? Between this and the "Se lo hice" form which would be more common? - jellonz, May 27, 2016

In California, "Lo hice para él" is more common. I can't get my Mexican-American students to do it the other way. (big sigh!) - Daniela2041, May 27, 2016

Gracias Dani. - jellonz, May 27, 2016

Jellonz, yes it´s correct because the indirect object comes after the verb in this case. It´s mandatory only when it comes before the verb, ie: "A él se lo hice". In Mexico it´s very common to use the IO pronoun even when it´s not required - 005faa61, May 27, 2016

Gracias Julian. - jellonz, May 30, 2016