# Se me gusta



## Milo Maravillo

I really had fun with the pronominals.

In fact I still have a hangover.

To refresh: It all started with watching a lesson about two actors mentioning a third person. No other party is involved. And one of the characters there said "Se le ve preocupado." For me this is a hazy sentence. My first instinct is apply the rule I first learned - RID - dissecting this as SE for a reflexive pronoun and LE (for lo because of leismo, assuming this was produced in Spain). Should I treat it as a reflexive or impersonal? It brought me to more muddy translations. Google said "He looks worried.", a Library tutor dangerously told me the same and I didn't ask the locals here in my area for their quality of education is informal (sorry to say, laborers and campesinos or second generation Spanish speakers), a professor would be hard to come by since I am not into schooling. So I went to this site and it was eloquently answered by Sñr. Gabriel that this is not a reflexive since they can't be shattered by an object pronoun casually inserted. True! as tested by posing the question if "Me te veo preocupado." makes sense. All said that they never heard of that, and in fact it is bad grammar. Further research brought me to John Butt's book stating that reflexives can't be split.

So now, I am testing this rule. I chanced upon applying one rule to one construction "Me gusta la mochila." and "Se me olvidó la mochila." For me they look reversed, and they really are. But when I posed to another online tutor, he said , it doesn't follow! "Me gusta" is transitive while "Se me olvidó is a REFLEXIVE! So now I ask, why is this? I thought reflexives can't be split? But this one, a pronoun was able to sneaked in. Is it another case of exception to the rule?

By the way, my question is if "Se me olvidó" works (starting from the format "Se le ve preocupado." then literally translating the rule to the first one to "One forgot my backpack." to finally "I forgot my backpack.") can it work for "Se me gusta la mochilla."? (the analytical process starts from "One likes my backpack." eventually) translated to "I like my backpack."?

Let me know of whatever rule out there that I am not aware of.


----------



## donbeto

Wow. I feel your pain, but I don't know where to start. Actually, I know where to start but don't know if I can explain it all, so I'll just start with what I think your question is.

Gustar is not reflexive. It's just "reversed". Me gusta la mochilla. To me is pleasing the backpack. The backpack is pleasing to me. I like the backpack.

Ovildarse is pronominal. Se me olvidó la mochila. The backpack was forgotten by me. This is a slightly gentler way of saying "I forgot the backpack", which would be "olvidé la mochila". Olvidar in this case is not pronominal.

I'm sure that doesn't cover it all, but maybe a good start.


----------



## duvija

do you want a really 'surface' rule for ordering the clitics? It doesn't involve knowing the meaning. Just the order when you have more than one.
- 'se' is always first.
- anything with an 'l' is always last (la, le, lo, las, les, los)
- the others go in between, with a fixed order of: second person precedes first person.
- In the unlikely case of having three, the order works.
"Ay, Diosito, ¿por qué te me lo llevaste tan pronto?"


----------



## Milo Maravillo

Thanks Sñr. Donbeto I understand now that gustar can never be reflexive.

My big question is how to identify which are those confirmed reflexive verbs behave just like *olvidarse* wherein an object pronoun can be inserted in between to allow "se me olvidó" while *verse* can not behave like this that's why "me te veo" is not acceptable.

It seems the law is arbitrary.

It really makes me feel jaded that after trusting the RID rule, it does not apply to "me te veo". And the fact that now there is another rule to think about: the "se-te/os-me/nos-all the l's rule. So "Ay, Diosito (or any other name), ¿por qué me te lo llevé tan pronto?" is not grammatically correct if you want to say "...why did I not took him away from you..."?


----------



## duvija

Milo Maravillo said:


> Thanks Sñr. Donbeto I understand now that gustar can never be reflexive.
> 
> My big question is how to identify which are those confirmed reflexive verbs behave just like *olvidarse* wherein an object pronoun can be inserted in between to allow "se me olvidó" while *verse* can not behave like this that's why "me te veo" is not acceptable.
> 
> It seems the law is arbitrary.
> 
> It really makes me feel jaded that after trusting the RID rule, it does not apply to "me te veo". And the fact that now there is another rule to think about: the "se-te/os-me/nos-all the l's rule. So "Ay, Diosito, ¿por qué me te lo llevé tan pronto?" is not grammatically correct if you want to say "...why did I bring it to you..."?



'me te' is never correct.


----------



## neal41

The order 'me te' violates the order rule given by duvija in post #3.  For clarification I have a question.  Is it true that

"¿por qué te me lo llevaste tan pronto?

 means "Why did you carry it off so quickly in such a way as to affect me?"  The verb llevarse is pronominal and means to take away or carry off.  'Lo' refers to some masculine object like a book.  I was affected in some way by your action.

How then do you say, "Why did I carry it off so quickly in such a way as to affect you?"  Is it "¿Por qué te me lo llevé tan pronto?"

Then how do you say, "Why did he carry if off so quickly in such a way as to affect me?"  Is it "¿Por qué se me lo llevó tan pronto?"


----------



## neal41

The sentence "Se le ve preocupado" is an example of an impersonal construction.  It is characterized by the presence of 'se' and a *singular* verb.  The direct object pronoun 'le' refers to some male or female person.  Some dialects permit 'lo' or 'la', but most prefer 'le' in this construction.  It is not an example of _leismo_.  The sentence means "One sees him/her as being preoccupied/worried"

Se ve preocupado a Juan.
Se ve preocupada a María.
Se ve preocupados a Juan y María.
Se les ve preocupados.
A Juan se le ve preocupado.
A María se le ve preocupada.
A Juan y María se les ve preocupados.
Se te ve preocupado/a.

If you have _A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish_ by Butt and Benjamin, look at section 26.5.1.  I believe that the above sentence are correct.  If not, some native speaker of Spanish will probably tell us.


----------



## duvija

Answer to #5 and #6
- #5: Diosito... God (diminutive to show love, tenderness, or some other feeling, including humility)

_Dear God, why did you take him away so early_ - _and made me suffer for doing so_. Or even:_ Dear God, why did you take_ him _away from me so soon ... _(I've underlined all three pronouns)
(It's the 'me' similar to "I'm gonna buy me a little truck", where 'me' is allowed there for sentimental and not for really grammatical mandatory reasons)

- ¿Por qué se me lo llevó tan pronto?" - talking to the same God, but in the 'usted' respectful form, or (as in your question) referring to God in the third person. _Why did he take him away from me so soon._..

#6
I see tons of leísmo there.

Se ve preocupado a Juan.

Se ve *preocupada* a María.

Se ve preocupados a Juan y María.

Se *los* ve preocupados.

A Juan se le ve preocupado. A Juan se *lo* ve preocupado (that's the way I would say it)

A María se le ve preocupada. A María se *la *ve preocupada.

A Juan y María se les ve preocupados. A Juan y María se *los* ve preocupados.

Se te ve preocupado/a. (perfect)


----------



## duvija

I forgot: 'me te' is quite common in early childhood when the poor little humans didn't realize the prescriptive word order.


----------



## neal41

duvija:  It has been said in other threads that in some dialects, especially in the Southern Cone, that 'lo' and 'la' are preferable to 'le' in the impersonal construction.  I see your corrections as a confirmation that the basic structure of the sentences is correct.  I have corrected 'preocupado' relative to Maria.

I am repeating one of my questions:

Can "¿Por qué te me lo llevé tan pronto?" mean  "Why did I carry it/him off so quickly in such a way as to affect you?"


----------



## neal41

duvija said:


> .
> 
> #6
> I see tons of leísmo there.
> 
> )



I agree that it is _leismo_.


----------



## Milo Maravillo

n"Ay, Diosito, ¿por qué te me lo llevaste tan pronto?"[/QUOTE]

I checked with an online tutor who swears that she is not a native speaker (she must have credentials to qualify as a tutor) saying that your sentence is unusual because she has not seen three pronouns in a row - (te me lo) before. She declined to answer me.

For Duvija, If I may ask again, if we should all be subscribing to the *se-te/os-me/nos-all the remaining l's* rule, how would you now say:
     "_Oh [supply name], why did I take him from you so early_?"

I would also like to re-post my biggest question in this thread before it gets diverted and forgotten: Is there any rule that specifies which reflexive verbs allow itself to be split by an object pronoun, and the same thing for the others which do not allow?

For Neal41 on #7, sorry I couldn't find that section, I only have the 2nd edition of Butt & Benjamin's, please try specifying the page, thanks.


----------



## duvija

Milo Maravillo said:


> n"Ay, Diosito, ¿por qué te me lo llevaste tan pronto?"



I checked with an online tutor who swears that she is not a native speaker (she must have credentials to qualify as a tutor) saying that your sentence is unusual because she has not seen three pronouns in a row - (te me lo) before. She declined to answer me.

I agree that it seems weird, and there are very few contexts where it would fit. Talking to God is one of them.

For Duvija, If I may ask again, if we should all be subscribing to the *se-te/os-me/nos-all the remaining l's* rule, how would you now say:
     "_Oh [supply name], why did I take him from you so early_?"

_Ay, Xx, por qué te me comiste los higos tan rápido/ te me los comiste tan rápido_ (a sentence I would use with no problem, when my husband polishes off all the fresh figs in the refrigerator).

The reverse is not pretty, but in theory it would be exactly the same because the syntax of the clitics trumps semantics (as it often happens).
I'm not comfortable, and it's possible it doesn't exist precisely for its weirdness, but it would be grammatically correct. I'm trying to think of a real context, but I'm miserably failing. One of those cases where a language simply chooses not to use a certain form. (I would say '_por qué me los habré comido tan rápido_')

I would also like to re-post my biggest question in this thread before it gets diverted and forgotten: Is there any rule that specifies which reflexive verbs allow itself to be split by an object pronoun, and the same thing for the others which do not allow?

_I don't know of a list._

For Neal41 on #7, sorry I couldn't find that section, I only have the 2nd edition of Butt & Benjamin's, please try specifying the page, thanks.[/QUOTE]


----------



## neal41

Milo Maravillo said:


> For Neal41 on #7, sorry I couldn't find that section, I only have the 2nd edition of Butt & Benjamin's, please try specifying the page, thanks.



I am not sure which edition I have.  Page numbers will vary more than section numbers between editions.  The reason you couldn't find it is that I made a mistake.  It is in Chapter 28, "Passive and Impersonal Sentences", not in Chapter 26.  It is 28.5 "Se + transitive verb + personal a".


----------



## neal41

duvija said:


> _Ay, Xx, por qué te me comiste los higos tan rápido/ te me los comiste tan rápido_ (a sentence I would use with no problem, when my husband polishes off all the fresh figs in the refrigerator).
> 
> The reverse is not pretty, but in theory it would be exactly the same because the syntax of the clitics trumps semantics (as it often happens).
> I'm not comfortable, and it's possible it doesn't exist precisely for its weirdness, but it would be grammatically correct. I'm trying to think of a real context, but I'm miserably failing. One of those cases where a language simply chooses not to use a certain form. (I would say '_por qué me los habré comido tan rápido_')


[/QUOTE]
There are situations in which I do something that has unfortunate consequences.  I then ask myself, perhaps in an anguished manner, "Why did I do that?"  A sentence like "¿Por qué te me lo llevé tan pronto?" might occur in such a context.  A possible reason that speakers of the language may not utter such sentences is that there may be an expectation that the first pronoun ('te') is associated with the verb.  That is the case with "¿Por qué se me lo llevó tan pronto?"  ("Why did he carry if off so quickly in such a way as to affect me?").  Note that I use 'may' to indicate that I am just making a conjecture.


----------



## neal41

Milo Maravillo said:


> Further research brought me to John Butt's book stating that reflexives can't be split.
> 
> So now, I am testing this rule. I chanced upon applying one rule to one construction "Me gusta la mochila." and "Se me olvidó la mochila." For me they look reversed, and they really are. But when I posed to another online tutor, he said , it doesn't follow! "Me gusta" is transitive while "Se me olvidó is a REFLEXIVE! So now I ask, why is this? I thought reflexives can't be split? But this one, a pronoun was able to sneaked in. Is it another case of exception to the rule?



Your sentence with 'olvidarse' is not reflexive.  'Reflexive' refers to doing something to yourself.  "Se mataron" can mean "They killed themselves" (reflexive) or "They killed each other" (reciprocal).  So I am not sure what you mean by 'reflexives can't be split'.  You said in your first post that John Butt's book says that reflexives can't be split.  Can you give us a citation?


----------



## Milo Maravillo

neal41 said:


> Your sentence with 'olvidarse' is not reflexive.  'Reflexive' refers to doing something to yourself.  "Se mataron" can mean "They killed themselves" (reflexive) or "They killed each other" (reciprocal).  So I am not sure what you mean by 'reflexives can't be split'.  You said in your first post that John Butt's book says that reflexives can't be split.  Can you give us a citation?




*Olvidarse as (Reflexive) Pronominal Verb*
I am going by George de Mello's book "*Español Contemporaneo*" published in 1974. His style of presentation is very easy to comprehend (unlike Butt & Benjamin's) so I use it as my easy-to-reach pocket book Spanish bible. Under the Topic "*Reflexive Verbs/Part VI*" on page 134 it deals with the topic "*Expressions such as "se me durmió la pierna*", I quote:

"_A combination of the reflexive - intransitive use (discussed in II) and an indirect object pronoun is found in such sentences as "Se me durmió la pierna - "My leg went to sleep on me." This construction is at times used when the speaker wishes, albeit unconsciously, to shift the responsibility of the action away from himself and toward the inanimate object to which he refers. Thus in the sentence `Se me olvidó hacerlo', the speaker is saying that "it slipped his mind," rather than stating the he simply forgot to do it_..."

This book is more than 40 years old and pronominals then were indistinguishably called Reflexives. But I think the thought stays.

So we just change the term from Reflexive to Pronominal.

*Pronoun Shifting (Before the Verb)*
I apologize, as a naive person on this topic, "inserting", I have a way of naming things as I first caught it because a co-member on this site, Gabriel, identified it as such but it is actually referred to by Butt & Benjamin as "pronoun shifting".

On page 137 of the 2nd Edition of Butts & Benjamin, it says:

"_Volverse 'to turn around' is a pronominal verb in its own right (discussed at 26.6.2 and 27.2), so one says 'Se volvio a mirarla' 'He turned to look at her' but not 'se la volvió a mirarla'. The latter is only possible if we take the 'se' to stand for 'le' and the verb to be 'volver' and not 'volverse', as in 'El médico volvió a mirarle la lengua.' 'The doctor looked at his tongue again.' 'Se le volvió a mirar' 'He looked at it again.'

Compare the following examples in which 'ver' and 'dejar' are not prenominal verbs and therefore allow pronoun shifting:

Nos ha visto hacerlo/Nos lo ha visto hacer  -  He saw us do it.
Os dejaron llamarla/Os la dejaron llamar  -  They let you ring her.

Other common prenominal verbs that do not allow pronoun shifting are: ponerse a (to begin), echarse a (to begin)..."_


----------



## neal41

I now know what you are talking about.  Pronoun shifting deals with the combination of a finite verb and a following infinitive and one or two object pronouns attached to the infinitive.  In some cases the pronouns can be placed in front of the finite verb. "_Voy a decírtelo_" become "_Te lo voy a decir_".  In general you cannot separate the pronouns, as in "T_e voy a decirlo_" 

Page numbers are more likely to change than section numbers.  In my copy of the book the discussion is on pages 145-48 in Section 11.14.4 "_Quiero verlo_ or _lo quiero ver_".  If the finite verb has a pronoun associated with it, as in the case of pronominal verbs, then shifting does not occur.  So in the case of the verb _volverse_ = to turn around, you say _se volvió a mirarla_ rather than _se la volvió a mirar_.  The underlined sentence in your post has an extra '_la_', which should not be there.  There are other cases in which shifting does not occur, and then the authors say, "It is difficult to explain why some verbal phrases allow pronoun shifting whereas others do not."  In Section 18.2.3 "Verbs followed by the inifinitive" those that permit pronoun shifting are marked.  It is a long list.

It appears to me that the whole topic is quite complicated.


----------



## Cenzontle

Just in case we haven't beaten this horse to death:
The "RID" rule is easy to learn and works most of the time (not 100%), but it was designed for beginners. 
It is now time for advanced students to graduate to duvija's (#3) explanation, which is fully reliable.

In #7 (referring to "Se le ve preocupado"—with "le" being a direct object), neal41 said "Some dialects permit 'lo' or 'la', but most prefer 'le' in this construction. 
It is not an example of _leísmo_."  (Sorry, I haven't mastered the quote box in this new software.)
I agree: It is independent of those phenomena that are usually called leísmo.
Wikipedia's articles (both in Spanish and in English) do a good job of sorting out the different degrees of leísmo and the "advice" of the Royal Academy about them.
"Se le ve" can be called leísmo only if this term is broadly defined as *any *use of "le" as a direct object.
But many speakers who are in no other way leístas nevertheless say "Se le ve".  Butt & Benjamin give examples of it in Sec. 28.5.2 (3rd ed.).
(Unfortunately both this section and the Sec. 26.5.1 referenced by neal41 (#7) 
are missing from the free samples of B&B—both the 4th edition and the 5th edition—offered online by Google Books.)
One source (I thought it was B&B—28.5.2, but didn't find it there) explained this particular replacement of direct-object "lo" with "le" as a way of avoiding ambiguity:  
"Se lo lee" can mean either "He (as an author) is read" or "He/she reads it to him/her."
"Se le lee" can only mean "He/she is read."


----------



## Milo Maravillo

To recap:

The issue here is if it is a confirmed reflexive verb, does it allow pronoun shifting? - The answer is some allow, others do not. There is no rule of thumb, there might be a long list. One must deal with each and every one of the thousands of verbs there are. One must immerse himself for years to get the grasp of it.

Here are the samples tested.
*Se le ve preocupado* : _*One sees him worried*_. Verb is '*ver*', not a reflexive pronominal (verse) rather Impersonal SE/Passive Pronominal and so allows pronoun shifting.

*Se ve preocupado a él.* : *He looks worried to him*. Verb is '*verse*', a reflexive pronominal and does not allow pronoun shifting.

*Se volvió a mirarla.* : _*He looked at it again*_. Verb is '*volverse*' a reflexive pronominal and does not allow pronoun shifting.

*Se me olvidó la mochila* : coloquially: _*I forgot my backpack.*_ Literally: My backpack slipped itself on me. >> My backpack slipped on me. Verb is '*olvidarse*', reflexive but allows pronoun shifting.

*Ay, Diosito, ¿por qué te me lo llevaste tan pronto?* : *Oh God, why did you take him from me so soon?* Verb is '*llevars*e', reflexive but allows pronoun shifting.

The other issue is, if it allows pronoun shifting, how is the order:

Usually it follows the RID rule: *Reflexive first, Indirect Object Pronoun second, Direct Object Pronoun third*.
This is what I learned in school and by most grammar books.

But from Sñra. Duvija it is not so (Post #15) "*syntax of the clitics trumps semantics (as it often happens)*"
She goes by this order: *Reflexive Pronoun first, then Second Person Object Pronoun second, First Person Object Pronoun third, and Third Person Object Pronoun last.*

The same thing is said by Butts and Benjamin's book, 2nd Edition, Section 11.12, page 134. Same goes to all the rest of the replies I have received.

This one is a confirmation from Sñr. Neil41, another poster:

_"There are situations in which I do something that has unfortunate consequences. I then ask myself, perhaps in an anguished manner, "Why did I do that?" A sentence like "¿Por qué te me lo llevé tan pronto?" _[not "¿Por qué me te lo llevé tan pronto?" to follow the RID rule]_ might occur in such a context. A possible reason that speakers of the language may not utter such sentences is that there may be an expectation that the first pronoun ('te') is associated with the verb." _

The instinctual notion that the first pronoun (a reflexive pronoun) is associated with the verb is now shattered.

But this construction of using object pronouns in front of the verb is more like street language and most strict grammarians do not use this style. In fact, Butt and Benjamin said that (Section 11.8, Under 'Notes', page 132, 2Ed) the predominant users of this construction are Latin Americans and specifically Mexicans. Etc..

A lot of anecdotal references to arrive at a 'good grammar' on Butt & Benjamin's book was based on their surveys by their informants. They always say to the effect (not verbatim, I might be misinterpreted) that 60% of people from Spain do not like to hear it in the way Peruvians uttered it (something like a nail scratch on the blackboard) or 80% of Argentinians find it pleasing to the ear while 16% of Mexicans feel it doesn't sound good.

Spanish, which achieved its musical tone and 'pleasantness' unlike other languages, might have been achieved because people played on it not on the basis of an iron clad rule but rather on how pleasing it is to the ear.


----------



## neal41

Milo Maravillo said:


> To recap:
> 
> The issue here is if it is a confirmed reflexive verb, does it allow pronoun shifting? - The answer is some allow, others do not. There is no rule of thumb, there might be a long list. One must deal with each and every one of the thousands of verbs there are. One must immerse himself for years to get the grasp of it.
> 
> Here are the samples tested.
> *Se le ve preocupado* : _*One sees him worried*_. Verb is '*ver*', not a reflexive pronominal (verse) rather Impersonal SE/Passive Pronominal and so allows pronoun shifting.
> 
> *Se ve preocupado a él.* : *He looks worried to him*. Verb is '*verse*', a reflexive pronominal and does not allow pronoun shifting.
> 
> *Se volvió a mirarla.* : _*He looked at it again*_. Verb is '*volverse*' a reflexive pronominal and does not allow pronoun shifting.
> 
> *Se me olvidó la mochila* : coloquially: _*I forgot my backpack.*_ Literally: My backpack slipped itself on me. >> My backpack slipped on me. Verb is '*olvidarse*', reflexive but allows pronoun shifting.
> 
> *Ay, Diosito, ¿por qué te me lo llevaste tan pronto?* : *Oh God, why did you take him from me so soon?* Verb is '*llevars*e', reflexive but allows pronoun shifting.
> 
> Pronoun shifting, as defined by B&B, requires a finite verb and a following infinitive.  At most one of your examples satisfies that requirement, but when _volver a_ means to do again, it is not pronominal.  _Volvió a mirarla_ could be _La volvió a mirar_ because according to the list in 18.2.3 _volver a_ does permit pronoun shifting.  _Volverse_, meaning to turn around, is an exception to pronoun shifting of the sort covered by 11.14.4(a).
> 
> This one is a confirmation from Sñra. Duvija:
> 
> _"There are situations in which I do something that has unfortunate consequences. I then ask myself, perhaps in an anguished manner, "Why did I do that?" A sentence like "¿Por qué te me lo llevé tan pronto?" _[not "¿Por qué me te lo llevé tan pronto?" to follow the RID rule]_ might occur in such a context. A possible reason that speakers of the language may not utter such sentences is that there may be an expectation that the first pronoun ('te') is associated with the verb."
> 
> Actually I wrote the above._
> 
> The instinctual notion that the first pronoun (a reflexive pronoun) is associated with the verb is now shattered.
> 
> But this construction of using object pronouns in front of the verb is more like street language and most strict grammarians do not use this style. In fact, Butt and Benjamin said that (Section 11.8, Under 'Notes', page 132, 2Ed) the predominant users of this construction are Latin Americans and specifically Mexicans. Etc..
> 
> In my edition the authors say that when pronoun shifting is possible the shifted and unshifted forms are equally acceptable in ordinary speech in Spain but that in Latin America the shifted forms appear to be strongly preferred in ordinary speech.  The suffixed forms are everywhere preferred in formal writing.
> 
> A lot of anecdotal references to arrive at a 'good grammar' on Butt & Benjamin's book was based on their surveys by their informants. They always say to the effect (not verbatim, I might be misinterpreted) that 60% of people from Spain do not like to hear it in the way Peruvians uttered it (something like a nail scratch on the blackboard) or 80% of Argentinians find it pleasing to the ear while 16% of Mexicans feel it doesn't sound good.
> 
> What most people routinely hear is the speech of people who speak the same dialect that they speak.  If they hear something routinely, it sounds good; if they do not hear it routinely, it does not sound good.  I don't think intrinsic pleasantness or musical tone has much to do with it.  All languages have dialects, which by definition are different one from another.
> 
> Spanish, which achieved its musical tone and 'pleasantness' unlike other languages, might have been achieved because people played on it not on the basis of an iron clad rule but rather on how pleasing it is to the ear.


----------



## neal41

Cenzontle said:


> One source (I thought it was B&B—28.5.2, but didn't find it there) explained this particular replacement of direct-object "lo" with "le" as a way of avoiding ambiguity:
> "Se lo lee" can mean either "He (as an author) is read" or "He/she reads it to him/her."
> "Se le lee" can only mean "He/she is read."



Look at 12.6.3(1).  12.6.3 is "Preference for _le/les_ after impersonal or reflexive _se_".


----------



## neal41

This is a question for duvija:

Would you say the following?

Se lo ve preocupado a Juan.

Se la ve preocupada a María.

Se los ve preocupados a Juan y María.

In most dialects a direct object *after* the verb does not allow a redundant object pronoun, but in some dialects, especially in the Southern Cone, such redundancy is allowed.


----------



## Milo Maravillo

My apologies Neil41, I edited my post.


----------



## Sibutlasi

Milo Maravillo said:


> <...>  one of the characters there said "Se le ve preocupado." <...> My first instinct is <...> dissecting this as SE for a reflexive pronoun and LE (for lo because of leismo, assuming this was produced in Spain). Should I treat it as a reflexive or impersonal?
> 
> Sibutlasi: You should treat it as an 'impersonal' _*se*_ (which is in fact a generic 3rd. person SUBJECT). Impersonal _se_ *must* be a subject (no other _se_ can be a subject); as a consequence, if it occurs, it must precede any other clitics the sentence may contain and, of course, blocks any other subject. As to the _*le*_ clitic, it is a *masculine accusative 3rd person singular pronoun* that many native speakers prefer to *lo *when it refers to a male human being*, *it functions as the direct object that _ver_ requires, and it agrees with the passive participle _preocupad*o*_ (sometimes analysed as an 'attribute of the object', or as a 'secondary predicate') in gender and number.
> 
> <...>  Further research brought me to John Butt's book stating that reflexives can't be split.
> 
> Sibutlasi: With all due respect to John Butt, reflexives *can* be separated from their verb by non-reflexive clitics. In _Mi hija *se* (me) viste como un putón_/_*se* (me) sube a las barbas/*se* (me) duerme a todas horas_, etc. all the *se*s are reflexive direct objects and can be separated from the finite verb by 'ethical datives/datives of interest' like _me_, in these examples. And, of course, indirect object reflexives can also be separated from the finite verb by direct object clitics, as in _Mi hija *se* los pone_ (ponerse leggings), _Mi hija *se* las pinta de negro_ (pintarse las uñas), etc., where the _*se*_s may refer to the subject (and, therefore, qualify as reflexives), but also to somebody else, which makes those verbs transitive/ditransitive, but non-pronominal at the same time.
> 
> So now, I am testing this rule. I chanced upon applying one rule to one construction "Me gusta la mochila." and "Se me olvidó la mochila." For me they look reversed, and they really are. But when I posed to another online tutor, he said , it doesn't follow! "Me gusta" is transitive while "Se me olvidó is a REFLEXIVE! So now I ask, why is this? I thought reflexives can't be split? But this one, a pronoun was able to sneaked in. Is it another case of exception to the rule?
> 
> Sibutlasi: You are right that in _Me gusta la mochila_ and _Se me olvidó la mochila, _the subject is postponed,_ la mochila. _The verb _gustar, _however, is *not* really transitive, because it governs a *dative* object but cannot govern an accusative one. This is obvious when the non-subject argument happens to be a feminine pronoun (Nominative: _ella(s),_ accusative: _la(s)_, dative: _le(s)_): _A ella(s), le(s) gustan los chicos malos_ is fine, but _*A ella(s) la(s) gustan los chicos malos_ is terrible_. _Although in this case the opposition between indirect and direct object is neutralised (they do not alternate, nor cooccur), the non-subject argument of _gustar_ looks rather more like an indirect object than like a direct object. As to _olvidarse,_ it is a so-called 'pronominal verb'; strictly speaking, however, the _se_ of so-called 'pronominal verbs' must be co-referential with the subject of the clause, i.e., _la mochila_ in your example, and, therefore, qualifies as a reflexive clitic. As to the _me_ in _Se me olvidó la mochila_, if you apply the same test I suggested above and replace _me_ with a third person feminine pronoun, you will see that it cannot be a direct object, because the accusative feminine pronouns are wrong: _Se le(s) olvidó la mochila_ are both OK, but _*Se la(s) olvidó la mochila_ are both wrong. And, of course, the reflexive _se_ can be separated from its verb in this case, too (pace Butt).
> 
> By the way, my question is if "Se me olvidó" works (starting from the format "Se le ve preocupado." then literally translating the rule to the first one to "One forgot my backpack." to finally "I forgot my backpack.") can it work for "Se me gusta la mochila."? <...>
> 
> Sibutlasi: No, it does not, first because a) the two _*se*_s of _Se me olvidó_ and _Se le ve preocupado_ are very different (the latter is an impersonal subject, the former is a reflexive DO incorporated in the 'pronominal' verb), and then because b) the 'argument structure' of _olvidárseme/te/le/nos/os/les + _[Subject] and _gustarme/te/le/nos/os/les_ +[Subject] is also different. *_Se me gusta la mochila_ (= _*The backpack likes itself to me, *The backpack likes me itself_) is impossible because _gustar_ (just as English _like_) is never *ditransitive *(it never takes *three* arguments). It is dyadic (it takes only two arguments), an 'experiencer' (expressed by a dative object, _me_, here) and a 'stimulus' (expressed by the subject, _la mochila_, here). If you add a third argument, it must stay 'dangling' without any interpretation; there is no role for it to play, and the sentence is syntactically wrong and semantically uninterpretable.
> 
> <...>.


----------



## Cenzontle

neal41 said:


> Look at 12.6.3(1). 12.6.3 is "Preference for _le/les_ after impersonal or reflexive _se_".


Thank you neal41.  The book needs a cross-reference.

Milo, where you said 





> "Se le ve preocupado" [with] LE (for lo because of leismo, assuming this was produced in Spain)


I want to say it's *not *the leísmo that we associate with Spain.  It's a separate phenomenon, linked to the impersonal SE, and used on both sides of the pond.


----------



## duvija

Answer to #23: It's used very commonly in Argentina but not so much in Uruguay (I was going to say 'never in Uruguay', but ...).


----------



## Milo Maravillo

Cenzontle said:


> Thank you neal41.  The book needs a cross-reference.
> 
> Milo, where you said
> I want to say it's *not *the leísmo that we associate with Spain.  It's a separate phenomenon, linked to the impersonal SE, and used on both sides of the pond.



Thanks Sñr. Cenzontle. As you can see, I am groping and I use what initial information I get wind of, which is later subjected to road test from all of you. Thank you though for your very insightful and exhaustive explanation. I've got a lot of digesting to do.


----------



## ZSThomp

Milo Maravillo,

I learned Spanish many many years ago via school and reading many grammar books.  I learned almost all there was to grammar.  I only felt comfortable using all the "pronombres átonos" though after living in México and speaking Spanish daily.  Because all your questions deal with different aspects of Spanish grammar, I can see how it is a headache.  By looking at your most recent post, it seems you now have a really firm handle on it.

Z


----------



## ZSThomp

> I want to say it's *not *the leísmo that we associate with Spain. It's a separate phenomenon, linked to the impersonal SE, and used on both sides of the pond.



I agree with that totally.  For instance, I would say "*se le respeta* mucho a la Madre Teresa."

Z


----------

