I need help with Direct Object Pronouns!! Help!
For example
Tomas las maletas del reclamo de equipaje
would be changed to...
Si las tomo del reclamo de equipaje.
I have eight sentences that I need help with:
1.El agente de viajes ayuda a ustedes con los boletos?
2.Haces las maletas?
3.Tienes tu traje de bano?
4.Tus padres te acompanan al aeropuerto?
5.Ves a los otros pasajeros cuando haces cola?
6.Facturas el equipaje?
7.Recibes tu tarjeta de embarque antes de abordar?
8.Necesitas tu pasaporte para abordar el vuelo'
26 Answers
I should have finished the quote . . . didn't know anyone was that interested. Here it is.
Quentin said:
The simple indirect object is always a noun or pronoun. . . . An indirect object may be turned into a prepositional phrase using to or for: You show a hero to me, and I will write a tragedy for you.
(emphasis mine)
:
The simple indirect object is always a noun or pronoun. What do they mean by simple"? I hope not "common"
I gave food to the dog. The indirect object is the prepositional phrase "to the dog". Does that prepositional phrase serving as a noun fall under their "simple" definition because it surely is common.. Their own test for finding the indirect objects is to form a prepositional phrase using "to". If noun clauses or phrases are simple, what is not simple?
>
The simple indirect object is always a noun or pronoun.
What do they mean by simple"? I hope not "common"
I gave food to the dog. The indirect object is the prepositional phrase "to the dog". Does that prepositional phrase serving as a noun fall under their "simple" definition because it surely is common.. Their own test for finding the indirect objects is to form a prepositional phrase using "to". If noun clauses or phrases are simple, what is not simple?
Natasha said:
James Santiago said:
In ENGLISH GRAMMAR, as taught in schools, the terms are not used this way. When diagramming sentences, you can never diagram an indirect object without a direct one (even if it is implied).I must have been absent that day. Thanks for the info.
Part of the English/Spanish confusion going on here is because, of course, in English objective pronouns are the same whether they are used as direct objects, indirect objects, or objects of prepositions.Anyway, from the Bedford Handbook, 6th ed., p. 790:
:
The direct object of a transitive verb is sometimes preceded by an indirect object, a noun or pronoun telling to whom or for whom the action of the sentence is done . . . . The simple indirect object is always a noun or pronoun. To test for an indirect object, insert the word to or for before the word or word group in question. If the sentence makes sense, the word or word group is an indirect object. [Example given:] You show [to] me a hero, and I will write [for] you a tragedy.. . . Only certain transitive verbs take indirect objects. Common examples are ask, bring, find . . .
I realize this will not apply to Spanish grammar, but at this point we're crossing the line into a very linguistical discussion . . .
>
Natasha said:
I realize this will not apply to Spanish grammar, but at this point we're crossing the line into a very linguistical discussion . . .
Of course it doesn't apply. In Spanish, direct objects can be replaced by "lo", "la", los", "las", and indirect ones by "le", "les". Direct objects can (except in a small handful of verbs) become the subject of passive sentences, but indirect objects cannot (in English they can), except in one or two strange exceptions that I won't go into here. With quite a few verbs, although they are transitive, many Spanish speakers tend to use the indirect object pronouns instead of the direct ones, but they find the direct ones acceptable anyway.
Many Spanish verb accept, and even require, indirect objects, but not direct ones (e.g. Me gusta X); this is quite different from English.
lazarus1907 said:
Natasha said:
Thanks, that helps as far as llamar. I guess what I was wondering was how to tell what to do if a new verb comes up -- do you use lo/la or le? Maybe my problem is that I'm "thinking" in English. In English, you can say any of the following: I gave the dog some food. I fed the dog some food. I fed the dog. but the following is quite different:
I gave the dog [what''? or to whom''']
You have to just "know" what to do with each verb.
Unfortunately, the answer is yes. However, if you check any good dictionary, you'll be able to check whether it is transitive or not, and that sometimes help. For more info, you'll have to buy something more detailed (maybe in 50 years time, when I finish by book).
Let's check your sentences anyway:
I gave the dog some food. = Le di al perro un poco de comida.
The dog is the indirect object, and the food is the direct one. The indirect can be omitted in some uncommon cases if it is understood from the context (implicit), but the direct can't, so "Le di al perro." is wrong, like in English.
I fed the dog some food. / I fed the dog
What verb do intend to use to translate that? "Dar de comer" is a transitive phrase, where the animal or person who eats is the indirect object, and the food is the direct object. However, because you don't have to specify what exactly have you used to feed anyone, the direct object is often omitted, like in English "I fed the dog".
However, if you use "alimentar", the direct object is the animal or person, and the indirect object is not possible. You can specify what is being used to nourish someone, but you have to use a complement with "de" or "con". Bear in mind that "alimentar" is defined as "dar alimento", so you don't need to specify what do you give: you always provide "alimento" (nourishment).
Does it help?
It helps! Now if only I had a memory like a steel trap . . .
James Santiago said:
In ENGLISH GRAMMAR, as taught in schools, the terms are not used this way. When diagramming sentences, you can never diagram an indirect object without a direct one (even if it is implied). I must have been absent that day. Thanks for the info.
Part of the English/Spanish confusion going on here is because, of course, in English objective pronouns are the same whether they are used as direct objects, indirect objects, or objects of prepositions.
Anyway, from the Bedford Handbook, 6th ed., p. 790:
:
The direct object of a transitive verb is sometimes preceded by an indirect object, a noun or pronoun telling to whom or for whom the action of the sentence is done . . . . The simple indirect object is always a noun or pronoun. To test for an indirect object, insert the word to or for before the word or word group in question. If the sentence makes sense, the word or word group is an indirect object.
[Example given:] You show [to] me a hero, and I will write [for] you a tragedy.
. . . Only certain transitive verbs take indirect objects. Common examples are ask, bring, find . . .
I realize this will not apply to Spanish grammar, but at this point we're crossing the line into a very linguistical discussion . . .
Natasha said:
Thanks, that helps as far as llamar. I guess what I was wondering was how to tell what to do if a new verb comes up -- do you use lo/la or le? Maybe my problem is that I'm "thinking" in English. In English, you can say any of the following: I gave the dog some food. I fed the dog some food. I fed the dog. but the following is quite different:
I gave the dog [what''? or to whom''']
You have to just "know" what to do with each verb.
Unfortunately, the answer is yes. However, if you check any good dictionary, you'll be able to check whether it is transitive or not, and that sometimes help. For more info, you'll have to buy something more detailed (maybe in 50 years time, when I finish by book).
Let's check your sentences anyway:
I gave the dog some food. = Le di al perro un poco de comida.
The dog is the indirect object, and the food is the direct one. The indirect can be omitted in some uncommon cases if it is understood from the context (implicit), but the direct can't, so "Le di al perro." is wrong, like in English.
I fed the dog some food. / I fed the dog
What verb do intend to use to translate that? "Dar de comer" is a transitive phrase, where the animal or person who eats is the indirect object, and the food is the direct object. However, because you don't have to specify what exactly have you used to feed anyone, the direct object is often omitted, like in English "I fed the dog".
However, if you use "alimentar", the direct object is the animal or person, and the indirect object is not possible. You can specify what is being used to nourish someone, but you have to use a complement with "de" or "con". Bear in mind that "alimentar" is defined as "dar alimento", so you don't need to specify what do you give: you always provide "alimento" (nourishment).
Does it help'
Loved that episode, but is the analogy relevant. Since the phrase "To Serve Man" isn't a complete sentence "Man" may be neither an indirect nor direct object. It could be made into part of a noun clause serving as the subject..
To serve man is our ultimate goal. That in essence is my argument. You can't look at the part of speech that a word serves in a different sentence (I fed food to my dog) and draw the conclusion that the word dog must therefore serve as the same part of speech in a different sentence (I fed my dog). In one it is the indirect object and in the other it is a direct object.
James Santiago said:
Natasha wrote:In ENGLISH, Quentin is right, because prima facie an indirect object cannot exist without a direct object.Really? In "I serve him," there is no direct object (dinner, etc.) specified, but isn't the "him" is an indirect object pronoun? (There was a famous Twilight Zone episode called "To Serve Man," in which there was book of that title brought by aliens to Earth. Everyone thought it meant that the aliens were benevolent, but it turned out that it was a cookbook.)Of course, "him" above could be replaced with a noun, such as "my father," but the result is the same.
>
lazarus1907 said:
Natasha said:
I would like to know what the explanation is in Spanish. (I'm still confused by Lazarus' "la llamo" vs. "le llamo".)
What explanation? If it is regarding "le/la llamo", it goes like this:
If you are calling someone's name, or someone on the phone, the person you are calling is the direct object: "Lo llamé", "La llamé". In some areas and countries like Spain people use sometimes the indirect one: "Le llamé", which is accepted for telephone calls, for some reason.
If you are giving someone a name, it is the same, but you add another complement to specify the name of the person: "Lo llaman Speedy González". Many countries and regions use "le" here as well, because there has never been a clear consensus about what pronoun to use (in Latin the construction was different), but syntactically it makes more sense with direct objects (lo, la,...).
The 22 Academies of Linguistics from countries all over the world advise on the use of "lo", "la" in any case.
Thanks, that helps as far as llamar. I guess what I was wondering was how to tell what to do if a new verb comes up -- do you use lo/la or le? Maybe my problem is that I'm "thinking" in English. In English, you can say any of the following:
I gave the dog some food.
I fed the dog some food.
I fed the dog.
but the following is quite different:
I gave the dog [what''? or to whom''']
You have to just "know" what to do with each verb.
In ENGLISH GRAMMAR, as taught in schools, the terms are not used this way. When diagramming sentences, you can never diagram an indirect object without a direct one (even if it is implied).
I must have been absent that day. Thanks for the info.
Natasha said:
I would like to know what the explanation is in Spanish. (I'm still confused by Lazarus' "la llamo" vs. "le llamo".)
What explanation? If it is regarding "le/la llamo", it goes like this:
If you are calling someone's name, or someone on the phone, the person you are calling is the direct object: "Lo llamé", "La llamé". In some areas and countries, like in many parts of Spain, people use sometimes the indirect one: "Le llamé", which is accepted for telephone calls, for some reason, but subject to many restrictions in other cases.
If you are giving someone a name, it is the same, but you add another complement to specify the name of the person: "Lo llaman Speedy González". Many countries and regions use "le" here as well, because there has never been a clear consensus about what pronoun to use (in Latin the construction was different), but syntactically it makes more sense with direct objects (lo, la,...).
The 22 Academies of Linguistics from countries all over the world advise on the use of "lo", "la" in any case, so you cannot go wrong if you do that, and just accept that some people will prefer the use of "le", but won't be able to correct you.
If you want an explanation about any other sentence, please ask, but give me one in Spanish, since many constructions are different in both languages, and different rules apply.
By the way, in Spanish there are countless verbs that take indirect object, but not a direct one (some of them don't even accept one).
James Santiago said:
Natasha wrote: In ENGLISH, Quentin is right, because prima facie an indirect object cannot exist without a direct object.
Really? In "I serve him," there is no direct object (dinner, etc.) specified, but the "him" is an indirect object pronoun. There was a famous Twilight Zone episode called "To Serve Man," in which there was book of that title brought by aliens to Earth. Everyone thought it meant that the aliens were benevolent (with "man" being the indirect object), but it turned out that it was a cookbook (with "man" being the direct object).
Of course, "him" above could be replaced with a noun, such as "my father," but the result is the same.
James, you're thinking in terms of linguistic grammar.
In ENGLISH GRAMMAR, as taught in schools, the terms are not used this way. When diagramming sentences, you can never diagram an indirect object without a direct one (even if it is implied).
I would like to know what the explanation is in Spanish. (I'm still confused by Lazarus' "la llamo" vs. "le llamo".)
Natasha wrote:
In ENGLISH, Quentin is right, because prima facie an indirect object cannot exist without a direct object.
Really? In "I serve him," there is no direct object (dinner, etc.) specified, but isn't the "him" an indirect object pronoun? (There was a famous Twilight Zone episode called "To Serve Man," in which there was book of that title brought by aliens to Earth. Everyone thought it meant that the aliens were benevolent, but it turned out that it was a cookbook.)
Of course, "him" above could be replaced with a noun, such as "my father," but the result is the same.
Quentin said:
I believe you're overthinking this. I shot her. The direct object can be a who; not a what. "her" is the direct object of the verb. Of course, I didn't shoot her. I shot a gun or a bullet into her, but that doesn't make "her" an indirect object in THAT sentence. I don't think grammar rules allow for that amount of "implication".
Everything depends on whether we are discussing English grammar, or Spanish grammar. In English you could easily say that in "I shot her", she is the direct object, but in Spanish you have to say "Le disparé", and she would be the indirect object (the bullet is the direct one). "La disparé", using the direct object, is plain wrong.
If everything is about English grammar, I am not that confident, but I can always dive into my newly acquired Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, for crazy people, like me.
I believe you're overthinking this. I shot her. The direct object can be a who; not a what. "her" is the direct object of the verb. Of course, I didn't shoot her. I shot a gun or a bullet into her, but that doesn't make "her" an indirect object in THAT sentence. I don't think grammar rules allow for that amount of "implication".
The point was, however, that I didn't understand the statement that the direct object "completes the meaning" of the verb. I do not feel comfortable even with his alternative that it completes the meaning of the predicate. I might accept that it does in very simple sentences.
James Santiago said:
Quentin wrote:If the verb is a transiitive verb (action verb) the direct object receives the verb's action. I fed my dog. The direct object "dog" receives the action of the verb (to feed).I've been mulling over what you say above, and I'm not sure if I agree or disagree. I can see what you mean, but to me, "dog" here is the indirect object, while the food would be the direct object. For instance, in the sentence "I fed some meat to my dog," the direct and indirect objects are obvious, but the verb is the same, isn't it? After all, the dictionary definition of "to feed" is "to give food to," which implies to me that the recipient of the food would be the indirect object in a sentence.What do others think? I'm just curious.Le di a comer carne a mi perro.
>
I don't think "dar a comer" is right
Yes, thanks. That was a typo, or a brain freeze. I was thinking about the A in "a mi perro," and my fingers got ahead of me. Sort of a fingerfehler (chess term).
But I was more interested in the English grammar.
