# a la madre pero no al hijo



## jonboyfixit

Hi all i was looking at a sentance with:      come a la madra pero no al hijo .

I think the* a la* and the* al *mean the same , but why do they use both and also why not just come la.

many thanks


----------



## micafe

That sentence doesn't make sense in Spanish. Sorry.


----------



## jonboyfixit

it is just a part of a sentence  . i was just trying to work out when you would use a la and al and weather they did mean the same thing. 
thanks


----------



## micafe

*"Al"* goes before a *masculine* noun. *"A la"* goes before a *feminine* noun. They both are translated "to the.." in English.


----------



## jonboyfixit

thanks for that .i understand that now . one last question on that sentence in the book is  : El padre come a la madre pero no al hijo. 

Question: Why do they say eats to the mother and not eats the mother ? . I know its a strange sentence but don't worry about that its a strange book.

Many thanks


----------



## Chasint

jonboyfixit said:


> *I*t is just a part of a sentence. *I* was just trying to work out when you would use a la and al and whether they did mean the same thing.
> thanks


Please use correct capital letters - thanks.


----------



## jonboyfixit

Sorry I will use capitals from now on . Thanks


----------



## micafe

"El padre come a la madre pero no al hijo" sounds terrible. I can tell it's a strange book.

The personal "a" needs to go before a person. 

You need to study more Spanish in order to understand more. We cannot teach you Spanish here.


----------



## jonboyfixit

Question: Why do they say* eats* *to the* mother and not* eats* *the *mother. Thanks


----------



## micafe

jonboyfixit said:


> Question: Why do they say* eats* *to the* mother and not* eats* *the *mother. Thanks



I suggest you take some Spanish lessons before asking those questions here. That's something we cannot do for you... Sorry.


----------



## jonboyfixit

ok sorry I'm a bit confused . I thought if you didn't understand a phrase  you might be able to help, no matter what someones level of understanding .
i am taking spanish lessons.
thanks


----------



## Peterdg

In short, in Spanish, when the direct object is a person (or persons), it is preceeded by the preposition "a".

This is very basic grammar; we're not really used to getting such basic questions so perhaps that's the reason for micafe's remark.


----------



## jonboyfixit

With all due respect for such a basic question no ones answered it properly . 

The question is this : Why in English do we say I eat the and in Spanish when it's a person they say I eat to the . That part an English person would say did not make sense . 

Thats the so called basic question that no one has answered . 

Thanks


----------



## Peterdg

jonboyfixit said:


> With all due respect for such a basic question no ones answered it properly .
> 
> The question is this : Why in English do we say I eat the and in Spanish when it's a person they say I eat to the . That part an English person would say did not make sense .
> 
> Thats the so called basic question that no one has answered .
> 
> Thanks


I did.


----------



## jonboyfixit

Sorry I appreciate you replying but you really haven't answered  it . Yes you put an a in front . I also understand what it says . But still no answer to why they put it that way .

I'm thinking now no one knows ?


----------



## Avispero

When you ask a question here, it's necessary to throw some context up with it otherwise it can be confusing. The example you give seems strange you would have to tell us what leads up to that sentence. The number 1 mistake that we all make when learning a second language is translating it word for word back to our language..it doesn't work like that and this is a great example of it. If I said to you in Spanish a ella no le gusta esa canción pero a mí sí. Someone who hasn't learnt the grammar in depth will ask: to her she doesn't like the song but to me yes....the grammar is different  and you could probably drop the sarcasm too


----------



## jonboyfixit

I wasn't being sarcastic . I know it doesn't work like that . 
Thanks anyway .


----------



## Bill Osler

It is never wrong to check the Rules before posting in a forum:
http://forum.wordreference.com/faq.php?faq=faq_forum_rules_header#faq_rules_faq
In this case, one relevant section follows:


> *Be clear and provide context.*
> *Asking questions:*
> Be descriptive, specific, and succinct in your posts, to avoid misunderstandings.
> Provide complete sentences and background information every time  you ask  a question. This allows us to understand your question and to help you  better.  Questions or answers with non-WR links must have a brief  summary of the link's content—do not post "bare" links to external  sites.
> Thread titles must include all or part of the word/phrase being discussed.  (Avoid phrases like "translation please", "how do I say this", "I'm new" and  similar expressions.)



The part about context is absolutely imperative if you want a good response.  It would have reduced confusion somewhat if the original post had been a complete sentence.

As to the main question you are posing: Why use the "a"?  The best answer you are going to get is the one offered by Peterdg.  The word "a" in Spanish has uses that correspond to multiple words in English, depending on context.  
I hope I get all these right:
El hombre besa a su esposa.  The man kisses his wife.  The "a" has no equivalent English meaning, it is just a marker for the fact that the direct object is a person, the so-called "personal a".
Juan le da el libro a Julio.  Juan gives the book to Julio.  The "a" is a preposition equivalent to "to" in English.
El ladrón le roba el collar a la mujer.  The thief steals the necklace from the woman.  The "a" is a preposition more-or-less meaning "from" in some contexts.
If memory serves, there are other possible meanings.

Now, to your phrase:
I will try to explain it again, but this is basically the same explanation that you have already been offered.
come a la madre pero no al hijo
The "a" here is the "personal a" that is grammatically required before a direct object in Spanish in certain circumstances but for which there is no English equivalent.  You need to learn about that from a textbook or teacher as was noted before.  There are rules, and the rules sometimes have exceptions.  It is too complex to explain here.
In the second case, "al" is a contraction of "a el", one of the few contractions in Spanish.  The "a" appears here for the same reason as before: *la madre* is a direct object and *el hijo* is a direct object.
Why does Spanish use the "personal a"?  I don't know and it really does not matter.  They do use it, that's the rule.  You might as well ask why an English speaker says "I could care less" when he means "I could not care less".  It does not have to be logical.


----------



## Lurrezko

Bill Osler said:


> Why does Spanish use the "personal a"?  I don't know and it really does  not matter.  They do use it, that's the rule.  You might as well ask why  an English speaker says "I could care less" when he means "I could not  care less".  It does not have to be logical.





We just put it, jonboy, this is how Spanish grammar works. Why don't you put it in English?

Un saludo


----------



## k-in-sc

a + multiple personal direct object - grammar
a + personal direct object - grammar
A + personal direct object (non-specific person) - grammar
a + personal direct object + personal indirect object - grammar
a mujer bonita (A personal)... - grammar
a personal - grammar
a personal - as a label - grammar
a personal - buscar (a) un  profesor - grammar
a personal - buscar el polo opuesto / al polo opuesto - grammar
a personal - busco (a) una secretaria - grammar
A personal - encontrar (a) alguien - grammar
a personal - gustar - grammar
A personal - manipular (a) los ciudadanos - grammar
a personal - necesitar - grammar
a personal - tratar, atender - grammar
a personal (omission by Cortázar) - vi algunas mujeres - grammar
A personal / verbos con A - grammar
A personal con "gente", "familia" - grammar
a personal with animals - grammar


----------



## jonboyfixit

Thank you very much that's  a fantastic answer . I am now clear . Sorry about the confusion . 
Many thanks


----------



## Bill Osler

In regard to the larger philosophical question, there is also this:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1328522&p=6765738#post6765738
In the end it is better to just think of it as a rule you have to follow.


----------



## jonboyfixit

Thanks very much


----------



## SevenDays

jonboyfixit said:


> thanks for that .i understand that now . one last question on that sentence in the book is  : El padre come a la madre pero no al hijo.
> 
> Question: Why do they say eats to the mother and not eats the mother ? . I know its a strange sentence but don't worry about that its a strange book.
> 
> Many thanks



Because without "a" (_el padre come la madre pero no el hijo_), it could be interpreted that it is the mother who eats the father (and that the son doesn't eat the father). If this were the case, the structure would be direct object (_el padre_)-transitive verb (_come_)-subject (_la madre_). We reverse the expected order for stylistic effect. The preposition "a," then, makes clear just who eats whom: _el padre come *a* la madre pero no *al* hijo, _where the structure is what is expected: subject-transitive verb-direct object. All this, of course, would be extremely important among cannibals; otherwise, the family would be sitting around the dinner table wondering what to do. 
Cheers
Disclaimer: I haven't gone through all the links provided by k-in-sc; apologies if I'm duplicating what appears elsewhere.


----------



## Lurrezko

SevenDays said:


> All this, of course, would be extremely important among cannibals; otherwise, the family would be sitting around the dinner table wondering what to do.



 El protocolo en la mesa es fundamental.


----------



## jonboyfixit

Seven days that's a great answer very clear thank you so much .


----------



## micafe

Lurrezko said:


> El protocolo en la mesa es fundamental.



Naturalmente.


----------



## jonboyfixit

Hi micafe , I understand what you say but not sure what you mean by it . ?  Thanks


----------



## k-in-sc

Just making fun of your original


----------



## loudspeaker

El padre se puede comer a la madre (a besos)  sin problema, aunque no sé si al hijo le gustará que lo besuqueen. 

Edit:
Parece que no le gusta porque al final el padre no se lo come (a besos).


----------



## Chasint

SevenDays said:


> Because without "a" (_el padre come la madre pero no el hijo_), it could be interpreted that it is the mother who eats the father (and that the son doesn't eat the father). If this were the case, the structure would be direct object (_el padre_)-transitive verb (_come_)-subject (_la madre_). We reverse the expected order for stylistic effect. The article "a," then, makes clear just who eats whom: _el padre come *a* la madre pero no *al* hijo, _where the structure is what is expected: subject-transitive verb-direct object...


What about if all the participants were spiders?

How would you remove the ambiguity?


----------



## k-in-sc

Well, if they were praying mantises, it would be "la hembra se come al macho." 
But spiders could be different. I think some dialogue would help


----------



## Chasint

k-in-sc said:


> Well, if they were praying mantises, it would be "la hembra se come al macho."
> But spiders could be different. I think some dialogue would help


So mantises take the personal "a"?


----------



## Lurrezko

Biffo said:


> What about if all the participants were spiders?
> 
> How would you remove the ambiguity?





Biffo said:


> So mantises take the personal "a"?



Es una pregunta interesante. Yo pondría la *a* en todos esos casos. Es decir, cuando no hablamos especificamente de animales sino de parentescos o sexos: madre, hijo, macho, hembra, etc.

_La mantis hembra se come *al* macho._
_El antílope cubre *a* la hembra en época de celo._
_La osa protege *a* sus cachorros._

Un saludo


----------



## k-in-sc

Well, machos and hembras do. But I'm still holding out for the spider he-said, she-said ...


----------



## Chasint

Lurrezko said:


> Es una pregunta interesante. Yo pondría la *a* en todos esos casos. Es decir, cuando no hablamos especificamente de animales sino de parentescos o sexos: madre, hijo, macho, hembra, etc.
> 
> _La mantis hembra se come *al* macho._
> _El antílope cubre *a* la hembra en época de celo._
> _La osa protege *a* sus cachorros._
> 
> Un saludo


Okay - thanks.


----------



## micafe

k-in-sc said:


> Well, machos and hembras do. But I'm still holding out for the spider he-said, she-said ...



La araña hembra se come *a* la araña macho.
_
"Ya llegó la hora de comerme a mi marido. Saludos, Viuda Negra". _


----------



## SevenDays

Biffo said:


> What about if all the participants were spiders?
> 
> How would you remove the ambiguity?



Precisely with the use of the preposition "a," which is not really functioning as a personal "a" (though it might be, if you feel close to the spiders) but rather as an element that removes ambiguity.  "A" primarily marks the indirect object, but it also identifies the direct object in cases or personalization and ambiguity.
Cheers


----------



## flljob

El padre come a la madre pero no al hijo

¿Tiene un sentido sexual o de simpatía?


----------



## micafe

flljob said:


> El padre come a la madre pero no al hijo
> 
> ¿Tiene un sentido sexual o de simpatía?



Quizá sea literal...


----------



## flljob

Si fuera literal, debería haber un dativo aspectual: el padre *se* come a la madre pero no al hijo.


----------



## micafe

flljob said:


> Si fuera literal, debería haber un dativo aspectual: el padre *se* come a la madre pero no al hijo.



¿Y de la otra forma no?

Como no sé qué es dativo aspectual, no opino.


----------

