# Protegerlo /protegerle



## earicann22

Hola a todos, 

Espero que esté bien. Tengo una pregunta. ¿Qué pronombre debe usar con el verbo proteger? La frase es: The shield protects him from getting hurt. Quiero usar en lugar de "él". ¿Debe usar lo or le?

I do not want to use leísmo. I cannot figure out if it should be le or lo. I think it should be lo because it answers the question "who," but I would love input. 

Gracias


----------



## Agró

Protegerlo
El escudo lo protege...

It's a Direct Object, so "lo".


----------



## earicann22

Agró said:


> Protegerlo
> El escudo lo protege...
> 
> It's a Direct Object, so "lo".


Gracias. No tengo mucha confianza, y aprecio su ayuda.


----------



## Circunflejo

earicann22 said:


> I do not want to use leísmo.


In that case, as @Agró said, lo. However, leísmo would be accepted here (except by leísmo haters).


----------



## Cenzontle

> I think it should be lo because it answers the question "who," _because it's a direct object._


An *indirect *object ("le") might also answer "who?" or "to whom?"


----------



## User With No Name

Cenzontle said:


> An *indirect *object ("le") might also answer "who?" or "to whom?"


I think what the original poster is referring to is that learners of Spanish are regularly taught that direct objects answer the question "what?" or "whom?", while indirect objects answer the question "to whom"? It's oversimplified, and not perfect, but generally works pretty well. Certainly it works well when a student is trying to figure out a sentence like "I gave my friend a book."


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Circunflejo said:


> In that case, as @Agró said, lo. However, leísmo would be accepted here (except by leísmo haters).


it would be understood and tolerated by people of a certain culture, familiar with peninsular Spanish.


----------



## Circunflejo

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> it would be understood and tolerated by people of a certain culture, familiar with peninsular Spanish.


Leísmo de cortesía is used virtually all around the Spanish speaking world so most Spanish speakers would understand it; regardless whether in this case the leísmo is used as leísmo de cortesía or just as leísmo. To tolerate it depends on personal points of views but being accepted by the RAE (in both cases), just leísmo haters should have problems to tolerate it.


----------



## Dymn

But if it's "him" it cannot be _usted_ so that's certainly not a _leísmo de cortesía,_ right?


----------



## Circunflejo

Dymn said:


> But if it's "him" it cannot be _usted_ so that's certainly not a _leísmo de cortesía,_ right?


Right but if you make use of _le _on the Spanish sentence, there's no way to know if it's leísmo de cortesía or just leísmo because you don't have the him reference anymore (unless the broader context provided it). Therefore, it would be understood virtually all-around the Spanish speaking world. And, as I said above, both the leísmo de cortesía and the leísmo used to talk about a male human when the male human is the Direct Object of the sentence are accepted by the RAE.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Circunflejo said:


> Leísmo de cortesía is used virtually all around the Spanish speaking world so most Spanish speakers would understand it; regardless whether in this case the leísmo is used as leísmo de cortesía or just as leísmo. To tolerate it depends on personal points of views but being accepted by the RAE (in both cases), just leísmo haters should have problems to tolerate it.


Threads answers are (should be) about proper usage first, then regional peculiarities.
Not to repeat myself, but speakers being acquainted with some usage, being "used virtually all around the world" (not true BTW), the RAE "accepting" it, and it being proper language, are 4 very different things that you seem to use interchangeably.
And the repeated use of "hater" for some normative view you disagree with, doesn't add to the thread quality.

That all said, even for courtesy, the "leísmo" is a deviation from proper usage.


----------



## Peterdg

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> That all said, even for courtesy, the "leísmo" is a deviation from proper usage.


Says who? You? What kind of authority are you in comparison with the RAE?

The "leísmo", dear sir, used to be the standard Spanish norm in the 15th and 16th century (Cervantes, Quevedo, Calderón and more recently, María Moliner were "leísta"). It just happened to be that the the people who emigrated to Latin America were mainly coming from an area where they happened to use it differently.

There is no scientific reason whatsoever to favour "protegerlo" over "protegerle" than 1) a personal preference because you are used to that usage and 2) some nostalgic longing to the Latin case system, which is, pardon me,  ridiculous.

Grammar doesn't work that way.

One can build a rule that describes some phenomenon, and that may seem beautiful to the people that use it that way, but that is only what it is. If there is a substantial user base that uses the language differently, the only option that is left is to admit that your rule is not perfect and that you have to include exceptions.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

@Peterdg
The standard pronouns for direct object in Spanish are* lo, la, los, las.*

Here is a simple diagram, for your reference Uso de los pronombres lo(s), la(s), le(s). Leísmo, laísmo, loísmo | Real Academia Española
(It is from the RAE, incidentally).

I am trying to leave aside the personal attacks (which comprise the majority of your grandiloquent, ranting answer) and stick to facts that might be of use for the forum:

The fact that 15th and 16th authors (occasionally) used leísmo in one way or another doesn't make it better, or standard, or a more adequate form to express the direct object. Those authors used many other constructions and vocabulary that would be incorrect in today's Spanish.

It is also not true that migration patterns might have determined the* le, la, lo, las* standard in isolation or only for a particular region.
For example, Mexicans do use courtesy "leísmo" widely, and they are part of Latin America.

(And it is still wrong )


----------



## Circunflejo

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> the RAE "accepting" it, and it being proper language,





MonsieurGonzalito said:


> the repeated use of "hater" for some normative view you disagree with, doesn't add to the thread quality.


Let's see, the normative, and therefore proper, language is the one accepted by the RAE. The RAE accepts both the leísmo de cortesía and the leísmo used to talk about a male human when the male human is the direct object of the sentence. Therefore I agree with the normative view. Leísmo haters are the ones who disagree with the normative view because they would wish that no form of leísmo was considered acceptable; but the RAE doesn't share their point of view.

As I said on my first post on this thread;


Circunflejo said:


> leísmo would be accepted here


And that's a fact. You just have to read what the RAE says about it (even on the link you provided on #13). However, I'm well aware that there's a bunch of leísmo haters that struggle to deal with that fact and that's why I also wanted to warn the OP about it and I said on that same post:


Circunflejo said:


> (except by leísmo haters)


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

[Context for the unaware: the RAE (Real Academia Española) formerly characterized for a strong, normative stance, has been abandoning it in the last 3,4 decades, in favor of a "usage consignment" stance akin to, say, the Merriam-Webster dictionary. End of context]

@Circunflejo, I guess at this point the OP has sufficient information to decide who is giving him true, concise information, and who uses the forum for personal kicks.


----------



## Circunflejo

Some more context for the unaware: One of the missions of the RAE is to take care to stablish and spread the criteries of propriety and correctness [of the Spanish language] (article 1 of its current statutes).

And some more context just in case someone thinks that RAE's acceptance of _leísmo _is something recent: a quote from page 181 of the article_ Le, lo y a personal en el Libro de Apolonio_ published in number 48 of Vox Romanica (year 1989): 





> El leísmo con objeto directo personal fue tan dominante en el S. XVIII que, en 1796, la RAE declaró que el uso de _le _era el único correcto en este caso.



Translation: _Leísmo _with a personal direct object was so overwhelming in XVIIIth century that, in 1796, the RAE stated that the use of _le _was the only correct one in that case.

Later, the RAE started to accept_ lo_ too until nowadays when accepts both of them (_lo _and _le_) but prefers _lo_.



MonsieurGonzalito said:


> @Circunflejo, I guess at this point the OP has sufficient information to decide who is giving him true, concise information, and who uses the forum for personal kicks.


Sure!

Edited to add the historical background.


----------



## Aviador

Circunflejo said:


> ... However, leísmo would be accepted here (except by *leísmo haters*).


Did somebody call my name?



Circunflejo said:


> ... Leísmo de cortesía is used virtually all around the Spanish speaking world so most Spanish speakers would understand it...


Except that in this particular case _leísmo de cortesía_ is not possible since the original sentence talks about a *third person*: _The shield protects *him* from getting hurt_. _Leísmo de cortesía_ is only possible when directly addressing somebody: _The shield protects *you* from getting hurt_.
Therefore, the translation of the original sentence has to be with the accusative pronoun _*lo*_ (or dative _le_ in the _leísta_ version).



Peterdg said:


> ... There is no scientific reason whatsoever to favour "protegerlo" over "protegerle" than 1) a personal preference because you are used to that usage and 2) some nostalgic longing to the Latin case system, which is, pardon me,  ridiculous...


There is a third option: coherence. From the point of view of promotion a solid coherent linguistic system in the Spanish language, a total systematic coherence in the use of clitics is better. My humble opinion.


----------



## Circunflejo

Aviador said:


> Did somebody call my name?


No, it was just a general statement. I'm sorry if you feel disappointed.


Aviador said:


> Except that in this particular case _leísmo de cortesía_ is not possible since the original sentence talks about a *third person*: _The shield protects *him* from getting hurt_. _Leísmo de cortesía_ is only possible when directly addressing somebody: _The shield protects *you* from getting hurt_.
> Therefore, the translation of the original sentence has to be with the accusative pronoun _*lo*_ (or dative _le_ in the least version).


You are right but it seems that you didn't read post 10 because I already talked about this question there.


----------



## merquiades

earicann22 said:


> Hola a todos,
> 
> Espero que esté bien. Tengo una pregunta. ¿Qué pronombre debe usar con el verbo proteger? La frase es: The shield protects him from getting hurt. Quiero usar en lugar de "él". ¿Debe usar lo or le?
> 
> I do not want to use leísmo. I cannot figure out if it should be le or lo. I think it should be lo because it answers the question "who," but I would love input.
> 
> Gracias


A concise answer:  if you want to say _protect him_ you can say and write both _protegerle_ and _protegerlo_.  Both are equally correct in this case.  If you want to avoid using _le_, this is fine, use _protegerlo_.


----------



## Peterdg

MonsieurGonzalito said:


> I am trying to leave aside the personal attacks (which comprise the majority of your grandiloquent, ranting answer)


If you consider my contribution to be a personal attack, then how do you rate your blunt statement that "protegerle" is wrong in the face of millions of Spanish speakers who do use it that way, while its use is considered to be perfectly correct by the RAE? And, the "Nueva gramática" of the RAE is not a merely peninsular Spanish  monopoly anymore: it was agreed upon by the language academies of all Spanish speaking countries.

And I'm not going to spill more words on it.


----------



## Dymn

Is _leísmo _(barring _leísmo de cortesía_) used anywhere in the Americas?


----------



## Peterdg

This is what the NGLE says about it (screen snapshot):


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Dymn said:


> Is _leísmo _(barring _leísmo de cortesía_) used anywhere in the Americas?


Not that I know. In Argentina for sure not. Anywhere.


----------



## Peterdg

Although I said I was not going to spend more words on the subject, I'd like to point the interested reader to *this post*. It is not mine, but it does reflect perfectly my point of view on the subject. 

PS. The whole thread is worth reading.


----------



## merquiades

There are serious studies not just carried out by the RAE but university researchers all over the world that show that leísmo is used in some capacity in Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Argentina, Guatemala, Puerto Rico and Mexico.  This study even has maps showing where it is common.  It is considered a correct variant referring to a human man in the singular in any context, but not women, animals, objects or any plurals.  Anyone is free to use it if they choose in this context, or not at all, or even alternating with _lo_.  _Leísmo de cortesía_, instead of _a Usted_, is even more widespread and is also considered correct.  Use it always or never at your discretion.  It is as simple as that.
If you want to say the _le_ is never used in Latin America though, and is deplored, you cannot just decree it, or say it is what you've always heard in some place or another, you have to prove it with your own study.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

@merquiades 
Let's put it this way:
If it were a mainstream phenomenon, pertaining to the core grammar of the language, instead of a semantically "marked" phenomenon, it would not deserve any studies, don't you think?


----------

