Why does Gustar use Indirect Object Pronouns instead of Direct Object Pronouns?
So I know there's been a lot discussion about the complex nature of the verb gustar and I've done a lot of research into its usage and meanings, but I was not able to find an answer to the specific question that kept popping in my head.
Why does Gustar use Indirect Object pronouns and not Direct Object Pronouns?
Now the way its been explained to me is that in using the verb Gustar a sort of role reversal occurs in the sentence when translating from English to Spanish and vice versa, as a result of gustar translating not into "to like", but more accurately into "to please"
For Example, lets take the sentence: "He likes the movie"
Now I understand that in Spanish the correct way to say this would be: "A el le gusta la pelicula", or simply, "Le gusta la pelicula"
From what I've been told this doesn't literally mean "he likes the movie", but actually means "The movie pleases him".
I don't have an issue understanding that, but what I can't wrap my head around is If this is the case, why is Le used and not Lo
"The movie pleases him"
In this sentence him is a direct object, is it not? Who is the movie pleasing? Him, correct? He is the thing that is being pleased right? That would make it a direct object, no?
Am I missing something or am I overthinking it? Is this just an exception to the rule, or is the translation that I'm getting incorrect? All thoughts and insights are highly appreciated.
6 Answers
He likes the movie.
In Spanish it is :
La película le gusta a él. La película is the subject and " a él" is an indirect object" . We use the preposition "a ".
Of course due to the fact that Spanish is flexible we could also say:
La película le gusta a él. Le gusta a él la película. A él le gusta la película. (this one is the most common I think)
If it's I , you, , we , they like or he, she likes it would be
A mí me gusta la película.
A tí te gusta la película / A usted le gusta la película
A él le gusta la película
A ella le gusta la película
A nosotros nos gusta la película.
A ustedes les gusta la película./ A vosotros os gusta la película (in Spain)
A ellos les gusta la película.
In all the above cases the pronouns me, te,le nos, os or les can't be omitted.As you may see because of the verb (gusta) la película is always the same subject. In English the subjects could be I, you, he, she, it, we or they.unlike Spanish.
Yo enseño inglés. I teach English. Inglés is a direct object. Yo lo enseño. Yo enseño a Juan. I teach Juan. Juan is an indirect object. Yo le enseño.
It's true that in some regions we use la or lo instead of le but not in the case of gustar, encantar, fascinar, complacer, etc.
I think you are overthinking it 
sometimes it's better to accept that other languages don't work the same way your native language does. Some things don't have an exact translation into other languages.
Anyway, I've never given this a thought but now that you mention it, maybe it's because in Spanish you don't need to say the subject all the time (in English you do). But in Spanish you can tell who the subject is depending on the verb. However, in this case the pronoun is the one that makes a difference.
Le gusta la película.
Les gusta la película.
Nos gusta la película.
The verb doesn't change, but changing the indirect object pronoun does change the meaning of the sentence. In the first one you can may be talking about he, she or you (formal) but in the second one you know you are talking about them and in the third one, you know we are talking about we.
I hope this helps!
If you define gustar as "to like" it makes it a very strange animal, with special rules and questions like, "Why does it take an indirect object?" I contend you are looking at it incorrectly.
In English we say, "I liked the dinner." In Spanish they'd say,"Me gustó la cena" , but that doesn't literally mean "I liked the dinner." It literally means " The dinner appealed to me."
Las montañas me gustan. The mountains appeal to me.
Me gustan las montañas. The mountains appeal to me.
Look at it that way, and all the weirdness goes away. Gustar becomes like any other verb. And then you'll know why it takes an indirect object. Because the IO refers "to whom" the thing is appealing.
Without going into the etymology of the Spanish language and how it developed, I can tell you that besides "gustar" which takes indirect object pronouns, there is a group of others that also do it.
Importar, fascinar, encantar, molestar, aburrir, quedar, and a few others.
If you want to say "Charlie loves tacos" you use the verb "encantar" (which functions just like "gustar") and say "A Carlitos le encantan los tacos."
Here's SD's teaching article on the subject.
Gustar and verbs like gustar
The way gustar works with an indirect object, without even the possibility of a direct object (since it is an intransitive verb) is certainly different from English. But that doesn't make it illogical. Spanish just has its own logic in its grammatical structure. If you want to initially change around your English thinking so you can construct something similar in English you can think of it like this.
A él le gusta bailar = Bailar le da gusto a él.
Dancing gives pleasure to him. or Dancing gives him pleasure.
Admittedly, with gustar, there is no actual mention of dar gusto, but, considering the fact that an indirect pronoun is used, to us English speakers, it is as if there was.
Now, even for an English grammatical purist, him is an indirect object, pleasure is the direct object (which is necessary in an English sentence in order to have an indirect object.)
I actually like this little exercise, primarily because it provides a good introduction to all of the many, many ways that Spanish uses dar where, in English, we would never use "to give."
Le da pena.
It gives him pain, He is sorry.
Le da miedo.
It gives him fear. He is afraid.
Le da susto.
It gives him a scare. It scares him. He's scared.
And then you can progress to the slightly more complicated uses of the indirect object.
Le duele la cabeza.
The head gives him pain. The head hurts him. His head hurts. He has a headache.
¡No te me mueras! Don't you die on me! (I need you in my life. If you die it will greatly affect me.)
Se le ha muerto la madre. (from the SD dictionary)
His mother has died. (SD dictionary translation, but note my "improved" version below)
The "le" in this case = him. The se relates to his mother as a reflexive pronoun.
So, the above sentence really "means"
His mother has died and this is really affecting him now.
Le is totally optional in this case. The English translation in the SD dictionary does not do justice to the shade of meaning that is created by its optional inclusion.
After you get used to the fact that indirect pronouns are going to show up a lot more in Spanish than in English, you will appreciate the flexibility that this feature gives the language. By using an indirect object instead of a preposition and a prepositional pronoun, or additional phrases, you can pack more meaning into fewer words and shorter sentences in some cases.
Embrace the use of indirect objects in Spanish. They are an incredible feature of the language.
P.S. The only problem, in my opinion, with the explanations that say that one should just think:
Le gusta bailar = Dancing appeals to him or Dancing is pleasing to him.
is that in English, for many grammarians, the "him" in "to him" is not an indirect object. It is an object of a preposition. (Just as in Spanish para ti or por ti should not be replaced by an indirect object.) That's why I use the following to explain it to an English speaker:
Bailar le da gusto. (o placer) Dancing gives him (IOP) pleasure.
However, it doesn't really matter that much. It is easy enough to learn how things are typically said in Spanish without having to understand all the intricacies of Spanish Grammar, let alone how to reconcile them with English grammar.
By the way, I don't want to debate whether "to him" is an indirect object in English or not.
There are two school of thought on this. Some grammarians take a strict approach For them the pronoun can only be an indirect object if there is no preposition used. "I read him a book" has an IOP. "I read the book to him" does not have an IOP. It has on object of a preposition. Unlike Spanish, objects of prepositions take the same form as indirect objects.
Other grammarians take more of a functional or some would say practical approach. They would say that there is an IOP in both sentences because in both cases he is indirectly receiving the benefit of the action. I don't care one way or the other and I can understand both points of view.
I mean you'd have to go back into the Spanish roots and figure that one out. I'd like to get out of the way that languages are different and you can express some things more clearly to some people in certain ways than you can others. Also history gives credence to setting preferential treatment to the subject in some societies.
Latin uses Indirect Object Pronouns and I believe Ancient Greek does as well. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dative_case
Unless you're looking into Linguistics I wouldn't worry too much about it. There is no specified pattern other than it exists and you won't get much insight into what verbs use it or not. I've found it's mostly towards 'basic' verbs that you use a bit more regularly. The more contemporary verbs don't seem to have it at all, so I'd imagine it's a left-over from early Vulgar Latin. Again it may be normal to other languages in the Indo-European family and maybe worldwide, but if you're interested in Spanish maybe check out Latin, or ancient Greek by extension, for this one.
Edit: In large part, most languages are very illogical considering they encompass many many different revisions over centuries ( and truly millenia if you don't get bogged down with Proper Nouns ). You're not going to find a one mindset fits all on some things in another foreign language. If you're looking for something like that I recommend Esperanto.
