Indirect and Direct Object Pronouns
I probably shouldn't have put that as my subject!
I have a question. I've been learning about IDOP's & DOP's. I'm slowly getting the hang of it. However, this I don't get:
¿Vas a escribirles una carta a tus padres?
Why is 'les' attached to escribir? I don't see why "vas a escribir....." isn't sufficient for "I'm going to write......."
I do however understand why the IDOP and DOP are needed here: "Se la voy a escribir a ellos". Se replaces tus padres and la replaces una carta.
Can anyone explain why les is needed in the first sentence? Thanks!
13 Answers
This is from "A new Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish":
Absence of the redundant pronoun in such cases depersonalizes the indirect object and would be natural in official documents or business letters when a formal tone is required: escriba una carta al Ministerio de Hacienda 'write a letter to the Ministry of Finance',
Why is 'les' attached to escribir? I don't see why "vas a escribir....." isn't sufficient for "I'm going to write......."
Suffice to say that it prepares the listener for what it is coming up next. English does the same using "it" in sentences like "I like it when you hug me.", which seems unnecesary to Spanish natives, as we always construct that sentence without the pronoun.
However, in that sentence is not needed. This pronoun can be added almost in every case, and it is only necessary whenever the IDOP is used before the verb, or whenever it is a pronoun itself, i.e. mí, ti, él, ella, nosotros, vosotros, ustedes, ellos, ellas.
Well... that page has not been written by a Spanish native anyway, but there is a good reason for giving that rule: in most occasions -probably- people prefer to include the redundant pronoun, and there are only some very rare cases where you cannot use it. Also, there are many situations where its omission is grammatically wrong, or the sentence doesn't sound very normal in daily spoken Spanish (the omission sometimes is a bit too literary), so statistically speaking, it is the best bet. You can hardly go wrong by using it all the time, but you can easily make funny or wrong sentences if you omit it.
Now the norm: according to the most prestigious grammarians from all Spanish speaking countries, unless certain conditions are met, its omission is entirely a matter of personal taste, although they also mention that the preferred option is its inclusion in spoken Spanish.
According to the 'Real Academia Española', El clítico no es obligatorio con los verbos que llevan CInd': Lola (le) dio la manzana a Pablo.
En el 24.3.3 se observó que los verbos con complementos indirectos de tipo CInd' pueden optativamente aparecer reduplicados por un pronombre clítico. Esto se ilustra en: Juan escribió una carta a su novia. Juan le escribió una carta a su novia.
The 'Diccionario panhispánico de dudas? says 'En el caso del complemento indirecto, la coaparición del pronombre átono es normalmente opcional y suele ser lo más frecuente, especialmente en la lengua oral: No (LES) da importancia A LOS PROBLEMAS; (LES) he contado nuestro secreto A UNOS AMIGOS; (LE) han denegado la beca A JUAN; (LE) he dicho la verdad A MI MADRE.'['] En general, suele ser necesaria la duplicación en los verbos cuyo complemento indirecto designa, no al destinatario de la acción, sino al que la experimenta, como ocurre con los llamados verbos de «afección» (psíquica o física),
It is not an easy topic, I know.
Everyone confused about indirect object pronouns and when they are necessary should read this old thread from 2008.
You guys are the best. Thank you for attacking my question with such gusto! It makes perfect sense now actually - ¡perfecto! I'll leave it in - it's good practice anyway.
Thanks for the detailed reply. This was never discussed in the textbooks I have used, probably because it is such an advanced level. It might be simpler for learners just to say that the rule is to include the redundant pronoun.
Well, if you're correct, then I'm not the only one confused. Here is a site discussing Spanish grammar rules, which says the following (see boldface).
Yo le doy una boleta.
"But wait!", you say, "the "le" was already there!" The sample sentence was "Yo le doy una boleta al chofer loco!" This is because Spanish uses redundant object pronouns to specify the person to whom the speaker is referring. In English, we either use the pronoun or name the indirect object but not both:
"You give the money to Thomas." or "You give the money to him." But not: '"You give him the money to Thomas" .
I have to replace Thomas' name with the pronoun in English - I can't use both in English.
But we can use both the pronoun and the indirect object in Spanish!
In fact, even when you identify the person by name, you still use an Indirect Object pronoun:
Yo le doy el dinero a Tomás.
We cannot say ' Yo doy el dinero a Tomás. We still need to use "le".
The "a Tomás " calarifies to whom you are referring specifically: we know that Le (him) refers to Tomás.
Yes, it is correct without it.
I disagree! To me "¿Vas a escribir una carta a tus padres'" sounds perfectly natural, and it is grammatically correct. In spoken Spanish, including the 'le' is often the preferred option, but that doesn't make it the only one.
See my post above, where I said, "but it's necessary in Spanish."
You cannot omit les from your sentence. No more than you can omit "it" from "It is raining."
Wait, are you saying 'les' really isn't needed in ¿Vas a escribirles una carta a tus padres? And that the sentence is correct with or without 'les''
That's a good example, Lazarus. Another is "It's raining." Why do we have to say "it"? What is it, anyway? Languages are just like this.
BTW, in "However, in that sentence is not needed" there is something missing, perhaps that pesky little "it."
This is a common problem for English speakers learning Spanish. It seems redundant from an English viewpoint, but it's necessary in Spanish. It will start to sound natural to you as you learn more. Some texts even call it the "redundant indirect object pronoun" to stress this to learners.
