# Puedo ayudar + DO / IO



## chutz

How can I determine if the following sentence need to use Direct or Indirect Object Pronoun?

What questions should I ask to check if D.O. or I.O. should be used? Thanks. 

------------------
Can I help you (formal-male)? 
Puedo ayudarte? or Puedo ayudarlo?

Who helps you? I 
Quien ayudas? Yo 

Whom do I help? You (formal) 
Aquien ayudo? Usted.

Is the sentence above using Direct or Indirect Object?


----------



## Rayines

*Hola:*



> Can I help you (formal-male)?
> Puedo ayudarte?*(informal)* or Puedo ayudarlo?*(formal)*
> 
> Who helps you? I
> Quien ayudas? Yo *(Subject)*
> 
> Whom do I help? You (formal) *Another crucial question to recognize the D.O.: "Who is helped by me?" (Passive Voice)*
> A qui*é*n ayudo? *A *usted. *(The same >>>>Passive Voice: "Quién es ayudado por mí?" "Usted") *
> 
> *The clue: when the sentence can be turned into Passive V., and the Object becomes its Subject, then it's Direct Object.*
> 
> *In your first question, it would be: "Can you be helped by me?" >>>>"Puedes (tú) ser ayudado por mí?"*
> 
> Is the sentence above using Direct or Indirect Object? *: In the first question: "Puedo ayudarlo?" / "Puedo ayudarte", lo (a usted) and te (a ti) replace the Direct Object.*


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

How can I determine if the following sentence need to use Direct or Indirect Object Pronoun? 





> What questions should I ask to check if D.O. or I.O. should be used?


 First of all look up the verb: Is it transitive? ayudar.(Del lat. adiutāre). 1. tr. Prestar cooperación. 2. tr. Auxiliar, socorrer.3. prnl. Hacer un esfuerzo, poner los medios para el logro de algo.4. prnl. Valerse de la cooperación o ayuda de alguien. 
Prestar cooperación (cfr. 1) or auxiliar, socorrer (cfr. 2) are the meanings we are looking for: Can I help you? = ¿Puedo prestarle mi ayuda?/¿Puedo socorrerle? (Depending on context). 
Next, if it is not transitive there won't be D. O.If it is, D. O. is the subject of the passive form. For example: Como una manzana. (= Una manzana is the D. O.)Una manzana es comida por mí. (= Una manzana is the subject). 





> Can I help you (formal-male)?


¿Puedo ayudarlo (a usted)? You may also use le for singular-male O. D.:¿Puedo ayudarle (a usted)? 





> ¿Puedo ayudarte (a ti)?


It is correct, but you asked for the serious way and this is the colloquial. 
Who helps you? I ¿Quién te ayudas (a ti)? Yo.
Whom do I help? You (formal) ¿A quién ayudo? A Usted.


> Is the sentence above using Direct or Indirect Object?


 The sentence is using a direct object. Look at it this way: who is helped? Who is the verb acting on directly? help someone -> Someone (DO) is helped.Give something to someone -> Something (DO) is given to someone(IO).


----------



## Rayines

*We agree, Pedro!!*


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Rayines said:
			
		

> *We agree, Pedro!!*


Sí  . Tú lo escribiste mientras yo hacía lo propio, pero al final mi texto, que estaba quedando muy bonito, perdió el formato  . Me niego a ponerlo en colorines de nuevo.  Si llego a saber que tú ibas a dar una explicación tan buena me ahorro el trabajo. jejejejej


----------



## Rayines

> Si llego a saber que tú ibas a dar una explicación tan buena me ahorro el trabajo. jejejejej


*No, está muy bien, porque vos agregás lo de transitivos e intransitivos, y reforzás lo de la voz pasiva.Y lo de los colorines....Bueno....son meses!!!*


----------



## mgarey

Buenas!
I agree with the explanations of Pedro and Rayines.  The passive voice construction will tell you whether or not the verb is transative (takes a direct object) or not.

I also want to mention that distinguishing between direct and indirect object pronoun application can be quite challenging for the following reasons:

1)  'leismo'  Many native speakers use the dative (indirect object pronoun) 'le' as a 
     substitute for the accusative (direct object pronoun) 'lo'  when a male is the    
     direct object of a sentence.  

     Pedro's example:  ¿Puedo ayudarle? and ¿Puedo ayudarlo? are interchangable
     Both 'lo' and 'le' function as direct objects in the preceeding examples.

2)  Certain verbs that require the indirect object pronoun in one language may 
     require the DOP in another language.

     Example:  Lo/La estoy escuchando (a usted).  (DOP en castellano)
                    I am listening to you.  (Indirect object pronoun en ingles).

3)  With certain transative verbs, the person receiving the action may be the direct 
     object but could be the indirect object in another context.

     Example:  1)  Lo/la llevare al aeropuerto mañana, ¿vale?  (Person=direct object)
                    2)  ¿Le llevo el equipaje (a Ud)? (Person=indirect) (equipaje=direct)

Like both Pedro and Rayines said, when you put the above sentences into the passive voice, the direct objects becomes clear.

1) Usted va a ser llevado al aeropuerto por mí.  (Ud. = DO)
2) El equipaje es llevado por mí. (Ud.=IDO)(equipaje=DO)

Bueno...that's my two cents worth.
Hasta luego!
Michelle


----------



## Terry Mount

Me gusta lo de probar cambiando la oración a voz pasiva....

Pero dígan me si esta prueba funciona con los verbos como gustar, encantar, importar, etc., que se usan con pronombre de i.o.

¡Gracias de antemano!


----------



## Rayines

> Me gusta lo de probar cambiando la oración a voz pasiva....


*La prueba es infalible, Terry Mount. Pero...claro, sólo si el objeto es directo. O sea que los verbos deben ser usados como transitivos. Por ejemplo:*
*"gustar": "Gustó el sabor de las nuevas carnes" (raro, no?, pero allí sí es usado como transitivo, y por lo tanto pasa a la voz pasiva: "El sabor de las nuevas carnes fue gustado por él"). Peeeeeeero, si dices: "Le gusté a mi nueva suegra", allí está usado como intransitivo, por lo tanto no hay voz pasiva que valga!*
*"Encantar": lo mismo: si dices:"Encantó a los invitados", bueno, es transitivo, por lo tanto lleva O.D., ergo, puedes pasarlo a voz pasiva.*
*En cambio si dices: "Le encanta el cine español", está usado como intransitivo, por lo tanto no rule.*
*"Importar": si te refieres a mercancías, es transitivo >>>>>voz pasiva.*
*Si te refieres a "dar importancia", "estar interesado en", es intransitivo.*
*En definitiva, tú mismo ya lo habías dicho:*


> Pero dígan me si esta prueba funciona con los verbos como gustar, encantar, importar, etc., que se usan con pronombre de i.o.


*Si el pronombre -efectivamente- reemplaza al O.I.- no hay prueba que valga!*


----------



## chutz

Gracias por su ayuda. For clarification, what is an active voice and passive voice? Please give some examples.


----------



## Terry Mount

Active voice ( subject does the action, the receiver of the action is the *direct objecto*):

Julio Cortázar escribió esa novela. (novela = *d.o.*)
Julio Cortázar wrote that novel.  (novel = *d.o.*)

Passive voice (subject receives the action):
Spanish uses "ser + past participle"; English uses "to be" +past participle.

Esa novela fue escrita por Julio Cortázar.
That novel was written by Julio Cortázar.


----------



## mgarey

Grammatically speaking, the passive voice is the combination of the verb 
'to be' (ser) +  a past participle (un participio pasivo).

A few more examples:

I set the table.  Puse la mesa. (voz activa)
The table was set by me. La mesa fue puesta por mi. (voz pasiva)

Susana wrote the letters.  Susana escribio las cartas. (voz activa)
The letters were written by Susana. 
Las cartas fueron escritas por Susana. (voz pasiva)

The children ate the cookies. Los ninos comieron las galletas. (activa)
The cookies were eaten by the children.
Las galletas fueron comidas por los ninos. (pasiva)

Chau,
Michelle


----------



## stucky101

Guys

I'm a Spanish newbie and this le/lo thing has caused me great headache as well. Let me ask you this :
Apparently, knowing whether a verb is transitive or intransitive helps you figure out how to use it correctly. Yet when I take ayudar as an example I get this :
My Collins dictionary has this to say about the word ayudar:

ayudar - vt to help,assist

First off I'm somewhat baffled by the lack of examples for this word but that aside it clearly states that this verb is transitive meaning it ONLY takes DOP's.
Yet "Spanish for Dummies" and other books happily announce this:

Can I help you (formal) ?  - Le ayudo ?

No explanation whatsoever ! I'd say purely grammatically speaking an IOP such as "le" has no business being used with a transitive verb ! Am I not correct ? 
This is where the whole le/lo/"personal a" thing comes in. Here is my problem.

I help Juan - Ayudo a Juan. 

Yes, I understand that since Juan is a DO and a person I need to add the "personal a" BUT have I not just changed JUAN from a DO to an IO by adding the preposition "a" between the verb and the DO ? Isn't the whole point of a DO that it follows the verb directly and needs no preposition ?
In other words isn't Juan actually an IO now ? In fact aren't all DO's that are people really IO's  because of the forced "a" ?
I'd accept that since it'd explain the use of IOP if you wanna replace them.
Then again the rule should not be "If the DO is a person you must add an 'a' before it" but "There is no such thing as a DO that is a person. A person must always be an IO used with a personal 'a' !"
So at this point I don't know whether :

1. "a" is a preposition or just some silent, non-translatable word.
2. Juan  is a DO or IO.

If I knew that I could move on from there and say if Juan is and will always be a DO then I MUST replace it with a DOP !!
However, if it's accepted that Juan is really an IO then clearly I'd have to replace it with am IOP.

I spoke to several Spanish speakers and they don't agree either. My buddy from Barcelona insists "Le ayudo" can be used for EVERYTHING (Can I help you/him/her ?) but you can also very well say "Lo ayudo - Can I help him/you ? and La ayudo - Can I help her ?. He says "le" is just more generic and not male/female. I asked him about the fact that it's an IOP and what justifies using that with a transitive verb and he had no answer but admitted that this was "interesting". Then I asked him whether I could just as easily replace "Le gusta" with "La gusta" and he said no way since gustar required the use of IOP's. Well as far as I know ayudar requires the use of DOP's !
Someone from El Salvador told me she'd always use "Lo ayudo for Can I help him ?, La ayudo - Can I help her ? and Le ayudo - Can I help you ?"

What I have not been able to confirm is the idea that this has something to do with only male persons, rather it appears to me that there is a special case to be made for you(Ud) since here we're addressing a person directly. Him/Her is an indirect addressing of a person.

What annoys me greatly is that nobody seems to have a proper answer and every book I've encountered seems to silently subscribe to any given theory without mentioning this massive debate.

How can I learn correct Spanish ??

Help !!


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

stucky101 said:


> Yet "Spanish for Dummies" and other books happily announce this:
> 
> Can I help you (formal) ?  - Le ayudo ?
> 
> No explanation whatsoever ! I'd say purely grammatically speaking an IOP such as "le" has no business being used with a transitive verb ! Am I not correct ?


Leísmo de cortesía
*g) *Otro caso de leísmo generalizado en todo el mundo hispánico es el llamado «leísmo de cortesía». Se trata del uso de _le(s)_ en función de complemento directo cuando el referente es un interlocutor al que se trata de _usted. _Este leísmo se justifica por el deseo de evitar la ambigüedad de sentido que acarrearía el uso de los pronombres de acusativo _lo(s), la(s), _ya que estos podrían referirse tanto a un interlocutor presente como a una tercera persona no partícipe en la conversación: _«Ande, y discúlpelo _[a él], _que yo en seguida le acompaño_ [a usted]» (MDíez _Expediente_ [Esp. 1992]); _«Que Dios le acompañe y le proteja. Yo aquí le espero»_ (Chao _Altos_ [Méx. 1991]);_ «¿Quiere que le acompañe?_ [Dirigido a una mujer]» (Rossetti _Alevosías_ [Esp. 1991]). No obstante, también se documentan ejemplos en los que no se da este tipo de leísmo, especialmente en el Perú y los países del Cono Sur: _«Lo acompaño, sargento» _(Scorza _Tumba_ [Perú 1988]). Aunque el «leísmo de cortesía» no está tan generalizado cuando el interlocutor es femenino, debe considerarse aceptable, especialmente en fórmulas fijas de saludo o despedida del tipo _Le saluda atentamente _y similares.
DPD.


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

stucky101 said:


> ... have I not just changed JUAN from a DO to an IO by adding the preposition "a" between the verb and the DO ?


No. "A Juan" es complemento directo en "ayudo a Juan" y en "miro a Juan" y en "amo a Juan", etc...


stucky101 said:


> Isn't the whole point of a DO that it follows the verb directly and needs no preposition ?


No. De hecho, hay casos en que la presencia de "a" ante complemento directo es forzosa, casos en que no debe utilizarse y casos en que puede aparecer o no. En el caso que nos ocupa, es obligado el uso  de la preposición "a" ante nombres propios de persona (o de animal): _Vi a Pedro en el cine; Dejé a Pluto en la perrera_. Por favor, lee lo referente al uso de la preposición "a" ante complemento directo en el diccionario panhispánico de dudas:
*
1.* *a *+* complemento directo.*


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

stucky101 said:


> I spoke to several Spanish speakers and they don't agree either. My buddy from Barcelona insists "Le ayudo" can be used for EVERYTHING (Can I help you/him/her ?) but you can also very well say "Lo ayudo - Can I help him/you ? and La ayudo - Can I help her ?. He says "le" is just more generic and not male/female. I asked him about the fact that it's an IOP and what justifies using that with a transitive verb and he had no answer but admitted that this was "interesting". Then I asked him whether I could just as easily replace "Le gusta" with "La gusta" and he said no way since gustar required the use of IOP's. Well as far as I know ayudar requires the use of DOP's !
> Someone from El Salvador told me she'd always use "Lo ayudo for Can I help him ?, La ayudo - Can I help her ? and Le ayudo - Can I help you ?"
> 
> What I have not been able to confirm is the idea that this has something to do with only male persons, rather it appears to me that there is a special case to be made for you(Ud) since here we're addressing a person directly. Him/Her is an indirect addressing of a person.


*Leísmo
e) * Otro grupo que ofrece confusión es el formado por verbos que han cambiado o están cambiando su régimen, esto es, que se construían habitualmente en el español medieval con pronombres de dativo, como en latín, y que hoy están pasando a construirse mayoritariamente con pronombres de acusativo, como es el caso de _ayudar _u_ obedecer_. Este proceso de cambio no se ha dado de manera uniforme en todas las áreas. Así, en las zonas no leístas del norte de España el régimen habitual es el dativo: _«Vidal le ayudó. Y entre los dos lograron acercarlo al desmonte»_ (Aparicio _Retratos_ [Esp. 1989]); en América está prácticamente generalizado el acusativo, sobre todo en los países del Cono Sur: _«Natí lo ayudó a subir»_ (RBastos _Hijo_ [Par. 1960]); Andalucía y Canarias son zonas de vacilación: _«Lo ayudó a subir»_ (CBonald _Noche_ [Esp. 1981]); _«Ella le ayudó a recostarse en un sofá»_ (Muñoz Molina _Invierno_ [Esp. 1987]).


stucky101 said:


> How can I learn correct Spanish ??


Cuenta con nosotros aquí, en WR .


----------



## Rayines

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> *http://buscon.rae.es/dpdI/SrvltGUIBusDPD?sourceid=Mozilla-search&clave=le%EDsmo&TIPO_BUS=3*.........................
> Cuenta con nosotros aquí, en WR .


¡Especialmente con personas como Pedro!


----------



## Pitt

stucky101 said:


> I spoke to several Spanish speakers and they don't agree either. My buddy from Barcelona insists "Le ayudo" can be used for EVERYTHING (Can I help you/him/her ?) but you can also very well say "Lo ayudo - Can I help him/you ? and La ayudo - Can I help her ?. He says "le" is just more generic and not male/female. I asked him about the fact that it's an IOP and what justifies using that with a transitive verb and he had no answer but admitted that this was "interesting".


 
According to the dictionary 'ayudar' is a transitive verb. But it is also used as an intransitive verb. Therefore both interpretations are possible:

Transitive use:
*I help him = LO/LE ayudo.*
LO/LE is a direct object. The use of LE instead of LO is acceptable for a masculine person.
*I help her = LA ayudo. *

Intransitive use:
*I help him/her = LE ayudo.*
LE is an indirect object.

Regards


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Pitt said:


> According to the dictionary 'ayudar' is a transitive verb. But it is also used as an intransitive verb. Therefore both interpretations are possible:
> 
> Transitive use:
> *I help him = LO/LE ayudo.*
> LO/LE is a direct object. The use of LE instead of LO is acceptable for a masculine person.
> *I help her = LA ayudo. *
> 
> Intransitive use:
> *I help him/her = LE ayudo.*
> LE is an indirect object.
> 
> Regards


.


----------



## dexterciyo

Siempre había dudado del uso del verbo _ayudar_: para mí, de toda la vida, me ha resultado de lo más natural decir y escuchar _yo siempre *le* ayudé (*a ella*) en todo momento_. Y, de hecho, creo que pocas veces lo uso como transitivo.

Me alegra saber que no es incorrecto su forma intransitiva.

Saludos.


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

dexterciyo said:


> Siempre había dudado del uso del verbo _ayudar_: para mí, de toda la vida, me ha resultado de lo más natural decir y escuchar _yo siempre *le* ayudé (*a ella*) en todo momento_. Y, de hecho, creo que pocas veces lo uso como transitivo.
> 
> Me alegra saber que no es incorrecto su forma intransitiva.
> 
> Saludos.


Es habitual utilizar el _le _cuando tratamos a alguien de usted.


----------



## dexterciyo

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Es habitual utilizar el _le _cuando tratamos a alguien de usted.



Sí, eso lo sé. Pero en mi ejemplo no es un _le de cortesía_.  Me refiero al uso del verbo *ayudar* como intransitivo.


----------



## Rayines

dexterciyo said:


> Sí, eso lo sé. Pero en mi ejemplo no es un _le de cortesía_.  Me refiero al uso del verbo *ayudar* como intransitivo.


Creo que es muy importante revisar el comentario de la RAE (ya traído en otra respuesta):

_Otro grupo que ofrece confusión es el formado por verbos que han cambiado o están cambiando su régimen, esto es, que se construían habitualmente en el español medieval con pronombres de dativo, como en latín, y que hoy están pasando a construirse mayoritariamente con pronombres de acusativo, como es el caso de ayudar u__ obedecer. Este proceso de cambio no se ha dado de manera uniforme en todas las áreas._

Creo que hay que tener en cuenta esa transición, y la preferencia de un uso u otro según regiones (siempre refiriéndonos a la 3ª persona, claro, y no al "leísmo de cortesía"). Por acá, por ejemplo, es siempre "lo/la ayudo", es decir, con un tratamiento de O.D. (ya lo dice la RAE  >>> Cono Sur ).


----------



## dexterciyo

Rayines said:


> Creo que es muy importante revisar el comentario de la RAE (ya traído en otra respuesta):
> 
> _Otro grupo que ofrece confusión es el formado por verbos que han cambiado o están cambiando su régimen, esto es, que se construían habitualmente en el español medieval con pronombres de dativo, como en latín, y que hoy están pasando a construirse mayoritariamente con pronombres de acusativo, como es el caso de ayudar u__ obedecer. Este proceso de cambio no se ha dado de manera uniforme en todas las áreas._
> 
> Creo que hay que tener en cuenta esa transición, y la preferencia de un uso u otro según regiones (siempre refiriéndonos a la 3ª persona, claro, y no al "leísmo de cortesía"). Por acá, por ejemplo, es siempre "lo/la ayudo", es decir, con un tratamiento de O.D. (ya lo dice la RAE  >>> Cono Sur ).



 Sí, sí, lo he leído bien. Como dice que en Canarias se suele usar indistintamente el régimen dativo como el acusativo, quería corroborarlo. Incluso añadir que suena más a mis oídos, e incluso yo usaría más, el dativo que el acusativo.


----------



## stucky101

Amigos/Amigas

Gracias para sus respuestas ! Lamentablemente, sólo empiezo aprendar el español.
Por eso no puedo comprender todas las respuestas de ustedes. Lo siento !
Pueden hablar inglés por favor ?

That's the best I can do for now but here are some news.
I poked around in the bookstore and out of 5 dictionaries I finally found one that lables "ayudar" as "vt" AND "vi" - yey (Oxford Spanish Desk Dictionary)

I still don't understand this:
1. One out of five ? Am I supposed to believe that the other 4 were written by ignorant scholars ?
I find that hard to believe yet, clearly, most scholars do not seem to think this word deserves the intransitive label despite its common intransitive use. Why ?

2. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole thing. I thought a verb that is transitive takes a direct object and a verb that is intransitive takes an indirect object. Some verbs can be both but if a verb is not labled as one or the other it means it cannot be used that way.
Why else would I have the labels in the first place ?
Yet most dictionaries say : Ayudar - vt. to help. En qué puedo ayuradle ? Can I help you ?

Q1. Why do they mark this verb as transitive and, at the same time, give you an example of how to use it intransitively (by using an IO pronoun instead of a DO pronoun) ?
Q2. Why not label it "vi" instead and everything would start making sense to me.

There must be a reason that most dictionaries do not label it "vi" and only one does.
Am I misunderstanding this whole "vt" versus "vi" thing ?
Again, I totally understand that any given verb could be both so they're not mutually exclusive but if a dictionary fails to label it "vi" arent' they trying to say "You cannot use this verb intransitively meaning with IO's and therefore IO pronouns (like 'le')" ?

Someone in another forum said "Just because a verb is only transitive does not mean that you cannot use 'le' with it". Well then what does it mean and what else is the purpose of labeling it at all cause I thought that's exactly what it means.

Necesito ayuda !


----------



## stucky101

Sabes qué?

I've been poking around through your answers again.
Have I been reading this right  -  there are actually not one but TWO different, non-related reasons why a "lo" might be changed to a "le " ???

Reason 1.

You want to use ayudar intransitively despite of the fact that most dictionaries fail to condone that. In this case "le" is truly an IO pronoun as I know it.

Reason 2.

There is such a thing as a "courtesy le" ? This is a "le" that is used when addressing a formal you directly (usted) and has NOTHING to do with the intransitive "le" ?
This "le" is in fact accepted as another DO pronoun eventhough no Grammar book I've seen mentiones that ?

Pueden lo confirmar ?


----------



## Valvs

stucky101 said:


> ....there are actually not one but TWO different, non-related reasons why a "lo" might be changed to a "le " ???


Three, in fact. 
1) In some Spanish-speaking areas, people use the verb "ayudar" as intransitive.
2) There is such a thing as _leísmo_: in some regions of Spain people commonly use "le" as a direct oblect instead of "lo". However, they don't use "le" instead of "la"; so they say "le veo" for "I see him" and "la veo" for "I see her".
3) And last but not least, there is the _leísmo de cortesia_: people use "le" as a direct object when referring to someone (either male or female) they normally address as "usted": "¿Le ayudo?", "Mucho gusto en conocerle", etc. This type of leísmo is _very_ common both in Spain and many Latin American countries. It is a norm rather  then an exception. So when your dictionary uses the phrase "¿Puedo ayudarle?" as an example of usage of a transitive verb, there is no error or self-contradiction in that.


----------



## elianecanspeak

stucky101 said:


> Yes, I understand that since Juan is a DO and a person I need to add the "personal a" BUT have I not just changed JUAN from a DO to an IO by adding the preposition "a" between the verb and the DO ? Isn't the whole point of a DO that it follows the verb directly and needs no preposition ?
> In other words isn't Juan actually an IO now ? In fact aren't all DO's that are people really IO's  because of the forced "a" ?
> I'd accept that since it'd explain the use of IOP if you wanna replace them.
> Then again the rule should not be "If the DO is a person you must add an 'a' before it" but "There is no such thing as a DO that is a person. A person must always be an IO used with a personal 'a' !"
> So at this point I don't know whether :
> 
> 1. "a" is a preposition or just some silent, non-translatable word.
> 2. Juan  is a DO or IO.



My understanding :

1.  *Personal “a”* is used for direct object only, when the object is a person or is personified, as with a pet with a name.  

The "personal a" is similar to the “et” particle in Hebrew that alerts you to the fact that the following word is a direct object, but the scope is more limited, since, as noted, it is only used before a person or something that is personified. 

¿Conoces *a *_Miguel_?  [person]  v ¿Conoces _Barcelona_? [not a person or personified]
Do you know Miguel?                               v      Do you know (are you familiar with) Barcelona?


2.  The *“a”* used with a noun or pronoun in parallel relation to indirect objects is a *preposition meaning “to" or “for” *and the noun or pronoun is the *object *of that preposition.

Los colores _(subject)_ *me* _(IO)_ gustan *a* _(preposition "to")_ *mí *_(pronoun object of preposition)._

My understanding is that these are, as you say, in the first case *"just some silent, non-translatable word"* and a *preposition* in the second case.

[If anyone feels this is incorrect or too anglicized an explanation, please tell me.]


----------



## stucky101

Valvs said:


> Three, in fact.
> 1) In some Spanish-speaking areas, people use the verb "ayudar" as intransitive.
> 2) There is such a thing as _leísmo_: in some regions of Spain people commonly use "le" as a direct oblect instead of "lo". However, they don't use "le" instead of "la"; so they say "le veo" for "I see him" and "la veo" for "I see her".
> 3) And last but not least, there is the _leísmo de cortesia_: people use "le" as a direct object when referring to someone (either male or female) they normally address as "usted": "¿Le ayudo?", "Mucho gusto en conocerle", etc. This type of leísmo is _very_ common both in Spain and many Latin American countries. It is a norm rather  then an exception. So when your dictionary uses the phrase "¿Puedo ayudarle?" as an example of usage of a transitive verb, there is no error or self-contradiction in that.



So "_leísmo" _and "_leísmo de cortesia" _aren't the same things either ? WOW must be the most debated thing in the history of any language !

Thanks very much for the clarification ! I'm beginning to get the gist of this and I'm now able to form an opinion of my own. I just wish the leismo's had created a brand new pronoun instead of borrowing one that already had a different meaning and thereby hurting the head of every new learner.

How about "lu" (amalgamation of "lo and "usted" )...haha just kidding. I'll follow "_leísmo de cortesia" _from now on because :

1. It is widely accepted/used - even by the Academy (right ?).
2. It makes sense to try and distiguish between addressing a person indirectly or directly to create more courtesy and "lo" alone just can't take care of that.
3. I don't have to sit there and try to figure out how one uses "help" intransitively.

Works for me. Thanks for everybodies input ! Let's just hope there aren't more debates like this coming my way since I'm fearing for my sanity...haha


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Valvs said:


> Three, in fact.
> 1) In some Spanish-speaking areas, people use the verb "ayudar" as intransitive.
> 2) There is such a thing as _leísmo_: in some regions of Spain people commonly use "le" as a direct oblect instead of "lo". However, they don't use "le" instead of "la"; so they say "le veo" for "I see him" and "la veo" for "I see her".
> 3) And last but not least, there is the _leísmo de cortesia_: people use "le" as a direct object when referring to someone (either male or female) they normally address as "usted": "¿Le ayudo?", "Mucho gusto en conocerle", etc. This type of leísmo is _very_ common both in Spain and many Latin American countries. It is a norm rather  then an exception. So when your dictionary uses the phrase "¿Puedo ayudarle?" as an example of usage of a transitive verb, there is no error or self-contradiction in that.


4) Otro grupo que ofrece confusión es el formado por verbos que han cambiado o están cambiando su régimen, esto es, que se construían habitualmente en el español medieval con pronombres de dativo, como en latín, y que hoy están pasando a construirse mayoritariamente con pronombres de acusativo, como es el caso de ayudar u obedecer. 
[DPD]
4) Another confusing group is composed of the verbs that changed (or are changing) their government, that is, the verbs that were usually followed by dative in medieval Spanish, as they were in Latin, and are largely  followed by accusative nowadays, i.e. _ayudar _or _obedecer_.


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

stucky101 said:


> So "_leísmo" _and "_leísmo de cortesia" _aren't the same things either ?


 A _leísmo de cortesía_ is, obviously, a leísmo, but not every _leísmo _is a _leísmo de cortesía_.


----------



## Pitt

stucky101 said:


> Yet most dictionaries say : Ayudar - vt. to help. En qué puedo ayudarle ? Can I help you ?
> 
> Q1. Why do they mark this verb as transitive and, at the same time, give you an example of how to use it intransitively (by using an IO pronoun instead of a DO pronoun) ?
> Q2. Why not label it "vi" instead and everything would start making sense to me.


 
Both interpretations are possible:

Transitive use (normal):
*En qué puedo ayudarlo/la?*
*En qué puedo ayudarle?*
The use of LO/LA as direct object is correct.
The use of LE as direct object instead of LO/LA is acceptable (leísmo de cortesía).

Intransitive use (regional):
*En qué puedo ayudarle?*
LE is an indirect object.


----------



## stucky101

Thanks Pitt. That was exactly the kind of answer I had been fishing for.
Now I just have a political problem :

How long has the "courtesy le" been accepted as a DO ? I assume many years right ? Then how can a brand new grammar book on pronouns not mention this ?

I still see this:

DO pronouns
me
te
lo/la
nos
os
los/las

when I SHOULD see this :

me 
te
lo/la/le(leismo de cortesia - accepted throughout the Spanish speaking world)
nos
os
los/las

My homeland (Germany) changed a whole lot of grammar rules officially as well.
The difference is it is now reflected in all grammar books. 
If the "courtesy le" is in fact accepted by the Academy then what keeps any book from incorporating it ?


----------



## Pitt

stucky101 said:


> Thanks Pitt. That was exactly the kind of answer I had been fishing for.
> Now I just have a political problem :
> 
> How long has the "courtesy le" been accepted as a DO ? I assume many years right ? Then how can a brand new grammar book on pronouns not mention this ?
> 
> If the "courtesy le" is in fact accepted by the Academy then what keeps any book from incorporating it ?


 
¡De nada! A ver que dicen los nativos.


----------

