# lo  son / los son



## NewdestinyX

One of the tricky things for us non natives is the little two or three word combination:
«lo son» or «no lo son». Though I've learned how to use it I find myself often writing 'los' instead of the 'lo' because 'son' itself is plural. 

I've been taught that the 'lo' stands in for some adverb or adjective that describes something in the context -- and I'm wondering if there would ever be a time when 'los' there would make sense.

A mi mujer le aparecen muy guapos estos hombres pero a mi hermana no 'lo' son.
---now that 'lo' there is referring to the 'attractiveness' of the men. Right? Literally: no lo son = they aren't 'it' (guapos)

So in the following context where I mention '2' qualities of the men -- would 'los' be proper?

Mi mujer y mi hermana habían creido que estos hombres fueron famosos y ricos -- pero al final se enteraron de que no *los* fueron.

Is that correct? And the 'los' would refer to both characteristics of the men mentioned in the context?

Then of course I also wonder if 'la' or 'las' ever appears in this role.

Thanks in advance for any help you could offer,
Grant


----------



## dexterciyo

NewdestinyX said:


> One of the tricky things for us non natives is the little two or three word combination:
> «lo son» or «no lo son». Though I've learned how to use it I find myself often writing 'los' instead of the 'lo' because 'son' itself is plural.
> 
> I've been taught that the 'lo' stands in for some adverb or adjective that describes something in the context -- and I'm wondering if there would ever be a time when 'los' there would make sense.
> 
> A mi mujer le aparecen muy guapos estos hombres pero a mi hermana no 'lo' son.
> ---now that 'lo' there is referring to the 'attractiveness' of the men. Right? Literally: no lo son = they aren't 'it' (guapos)
> 
> So in the following context where I mention '2' qualities of the men -- would 'los' be proper?
> 
> Mi mujer y mi hermana habían creido que estos hombres fueron famosos y ricos -- pero al final se enteraron de que no *los* fueron.
> 
> Is that correct? And the 'los' would refer to both characteristics of the men mentioned in the context?
> 
> Then of course I also wonder if 'la' or 'las' ever appears in this role.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help you could offer,
> Grant



*Lo* doesn't stand for "the men". It stands for the characteristic of being _attractive_, in this case. I put the sentence in English so to make the comparison:

- My mother thinks these men are quite attractive -- for my sister they aren't (that).

*That* in English (even though it's omitted) refers to that characteristic of being _attractive_. Same as in Spanish does *lo*: _Ella no *lo* piensa / Ella no piensa *eso*_; _para ella no *lo* son / para ella, ellos no son *así*._ It cannot be plural in any case, nor femenine.


----------



## Arkantos

> So in the following context where I mention '2' qualities of the men -- would 'los' be proper?
> 
> Mi mujer y mi hermana habían creido que estos hombres fueron famosos y ricos -- pero al final se enteraron de que no *los* fueron.



No, no lo es. Porque el "lo fueron" se refiere a la cualidad de "ricos y famosos", a ser algo. Correctamente sería: "pero al final se enteraron de que no *lo* fueron" (ellos no lo fueron).


----------



## Jeromed

> _A mi mujer le aparecen muy guapos estos hombres, pero para mi hermana no *lo* son._
> 
> _Mi mujer y mi hermana habían creido que estos hombres fueron famosos y ricos -- pero al final se enteraron de que no *lo* fueron._


 
*Lo* is a substitute for an attribute or group of attributes mentioned earlier. It can be neither feminine nor plural


----------



## NewdestinyX

Thanks to all. That's clear now. I understood from the beginning that the 'lo' was standing for the 'attributes'. I mentioned that in my first paragraph. But I thought if there were 'multiple attributes' that the 'lo' would then be plural.

It is clear now that it can't.

Thanks!
Grant


----------



## Jeromed

Final comment, Newsdestiny:

_Los_ is never the plural of _lo (_which has no plural). 
_Los_ is the plural of _el_.


----------



## alfranco17

You can use "los".

Lo fui a llevar al aeropuerto. - I took him to the airport.
Los fui a llevar al aeropuerto - I took them to the airport.

If you use *them*, then use *los*. For anything else, use *lo*.

Mi mujer y mi hermana habían creido que estos hombres fueron famosos y ricos -- pero al final se enteraron de que no *los* fueron.

_Mi wife and sister had thought this men were rich and famous - but later discovered they were not (it)._

A mi mujer le aparecen muy guapos estos hombres pero *para* mi hermana no 'lo' son.

_My wife thinks these men are handsome but my sister does not think they are._

However, it gets a little more complicated, because you sometimes have to use *los* and at other times, *les*. I'd say *for them* translates as *les.*

Los acusé. - I told on them.
Los llevé al aeropuerto - I took them to the airport.

Les llevé un paquete al aeropuerto - I took a package to airport for them.


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> I understood from the beginning that the 'lo' was standing for the 'attributes'. I mentioned that in my first paragraph. But I thought if there were 'multiple attributes' that the 'lo' would then be plural.


When used as an article, _lo_ is invariable for number. In such cases, it always refers to an abstraction.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> Final comment, Newsdestiny:
> 
> _Los_ is never the plural of _lo (_which has no plural).
> _Los_ is the plural of _el_.



That's only the case as an 'article', Jero. As an object, though, 'los' is the plural of 'lo'. For 'him/it' -- For 'them'.

In this syntax I had felt the 'lo' had more 'object' qualities. Hence my confusion. But an 'abstraction' can't have a plural.

This is just like 'lo de'... which also could never be plural.

Thanks,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> When used as an article, _lo_ is invariable for number. In such cases, it always refers to an abstraction.



"Lo" is not an article here, Outs. If it were it would have to match the number of the verb. "Lo es" and "Lo son" are both possible therefore it couldn't be an article. I can't tell you what it is -- which is an odd feeling for me -- but I know it's not an article for the reason I just stated.

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

alfranco17 said:


> Les llevé un paquete al aeropuerto - I took a package to airport for them.


Wouldn't this sentence be more natural as:
Llevé un paquete al aeropuerto para ellos. 

¿¿??

Thanks,
Grant


----------



## Jeromed

NewDestiny,
In those sentences, _lo_ is not an object, since _ser_ and estar _cannot_ have objects (they're copulative verbs). 
But, you're right, it's not an article. It's a neutral pronoun which stands for a predicative complement (_Esbozo_ 3.10.5d)
As a neutral pronoun, _lo_ cannot have plural or feminine forms. According to the _Esbozo_, it does not always refer to a single term; it often refers to a set of ideas mentioned before (3.10.5.e)


----------



## Jeromed

> *Newdestiny wrote:*
> _Les llevé un paquete al aeropuerto - I took a package to airport for them._
> Wouldn't this sentence be more natural as:
> _Llevé un paquete al aeropuerto para ellos._


 
No, not at all. The first one sounds native; the second one does not.


----------



## Outsider

Yes, I'm afraid the syntax of the second "smells" of English influence.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> NewDestiny,
> In those sentences, _lo_ is not an object, since _ser_ and estar _cannot_ have objects (they're copulative verbs).
> But, you're right, it's not an article. It's a neutral pronoun which stands for a predicative complement (_Esbozo_ 3.10.5d)
> As a neutral pronoun, _lo_ cannot have plural or feminine forms. According to the _Esbozo_, it does not always refer to a single term; it often refers to a set of ideas mentioned before (3.10.5.e)



Thanks, Jero -- the Esbozo citation makes it very clear!

I was just responding to your overarching statement that 'los' is not the plural of 'lo'. You didn't say "in this case". I just wanted to be clear that it can be the plural of 'lo' --in 'some' cases.

Thanks again,
Grant


----------



## Mr. Chaz

¿Es incorrecto esto?

Carvalho sostuvo que la estrategia financiera del Ente está dedicada a trabajar en la mejora de la conectividad y acceso a los lugares con difícil acceso *como los son* las rutas y las localidades más alejadas.


----------



## Outsider

Creo que tiene que ser así:

Carvalho sostuvo que la estrategia financiera del Ente está dedicada a trabajar en la mejora de la conectividad y acceso a los lugares con difícil acceso como *lo* son las rutas y las localidades más alejadas.​


----------



## Jeromed

Sí, está equivocado. It should be:

_Como lo son._


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> No, not at all. The first one sounds native; the second one does not.


Hmm.. Okay -- I'll take your word.. I had an extensive research period with the natives at my forum to try to dispel the notion in the English authored text books about Spanish that state the indirect object is most often 'to' or 'for' someone or something. We tested many sentences where 'for' was the preposition and in most cases 'para' was the only choice. We found the most cases where 'to' was the preposition in English and even a bunch where 'of', 'at' and 'from' were the prepositions but only a 'few' where 'for' was the preposition and even in those 'para' was better and didn't sound anglicized. So I'm surprised by that response. We concluded that 'from' was used way more often than 'for' in the English to express the indirect object pronoun counterpart in the Spanish and concluded the text books in English were just not correct to imply that 'for' was as common the translation as 'to'.

I think we found "To buy 'for' someone" would definitely use 'le' in the Spanish -- and I forget the others. I will add this one to the list.

To take something somewhere 'for' a person = Llevarle algo a alguien.

But I think that also is used to express" To take something 'to' somebody. Wouldn't it?

Grant


----------



## Mr. Chaz

Jeromed said:


> Sí, está equivocado. It should be:
> 
> _Como lo son._


 

OK, pero lo encontré aquí.


----------



## Jeromed

And I found this in your link:



> ...aumentaron las redes que vinculan al Uruguay, con los nodos de Internet del mundo, obteniendo mayor acceso por distintos puntos claves, *como lo son* la frontera con Argentina y Brasil.


 
The first one must have been a typo. Or just a grammar mistake. *Los son* and *lo son* sound practically the same, especially in dialects with s-aspiration, like Uruguay's.


----------



## Outsider

Probably a typo. A few paragraphs down in the same article there's another sentence that ends with:

[...] obteniendo mayor acceso por distintos puntos claves, como lo son la frontera con Argentina y Brasil.​P.S. Jeromed got here first.


----------



## Jeromed

NewdestinyX said:


> To take something somewhere 'for' a person = Llevarle algo a alguien.
> But I think that also is used to express" To take something 'to' somebody. Wouldn't it?


 
Yes, native Spanish speakers apparently don't see, or don't care to see, a difference between the two. I'm sure that, if they want clarification, they'll just ask.

Your research may very well be correct. However, in this particular case, the construction _Les llevé..._ is the more natural one. In any case, the second one is not incorrect, IMO.


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:
			
		

> To take something somewhere 'for' a person


How common is that construction in English? I can't seem to recall finding it before...


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> How common is that construction in English? I can't seem to recall finding it before...



I took it there for my sister (on her behalf).
I took the book to my sister. (to her house)

They're both common -- though they mean something different in English. I would think they mean something different in Spanish too. So how could you tell the difference if both use the 'llevarle algo a alguien' construction?

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> Yes, native Spanish speakers apparently don't see, or don't care to see, a difference between the two. I'm sure that, if they want clarification, they'll just ask.
> 
> Your research may very well be correct. However, in this particular case, the construction _Les llevé..._ is the more natural one. In any case, the second one is not incorrect, IMO.



Yeah. The other one that takes foreigners off guard is 'comprarle algo a alguien' which means both: Buy 'off of'(from) someone -- or Buy 'for 'someone'. 

Don't know how NSS keep that one straight.

Grant


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> I took it there for my sister (on her behalf).
> I took the book to my sister. (to her house)


Wouldn't you normally use "to bring", at least in the second sentence? Sorry about my insistence, but something doesn't quite "click" for me in that pair of sentences.



NewdestinyX said:


> They're both common -- though they mean something different in English. I would think they mean something different in Spanish too. So how could you tell the difference if both use the 'llevarle algo a alguien' construction?


Context is often enough to clarify whether you're taking something _to_ someone, or on their behalf. If not, make it explicit: go ahead and say "on her behalf".


----------



## Jeromed

Oh. I see what you're getting at.

I brought the book there for my sister -- _Le llevé el libro allí/allá a mi hermana_.
I brought the book to my sister -- _Le llevé el libro a mi hermana._

Still, there is room for ambiguity in both sentences.


----------



## Jeromed

NewdestinyX said:


> Yeah. The other one that takes foreigners off guard is 'comprarle algo a alguien' which means both: Buy 'off of'(from) someone -- or Buy 'for 'someone'.
> 
> Don't know how NSS keep that one straight.


 
_Le compré el auto a Sebastián_ can mean you bought the car for or from Sebastian;  context will usually clarify the meaning.  If the context still leaves room for ambiguity, then you can say _Compré el auto de Sebastián._


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> _Le compré el auto a Sebastián_ can mean you bought the car for or from Sebastian;  context will usually clarify the meaning.  If the context still leaves room for ambiguity, then you can say _Compré el auto de Sebastián._


yep makes sense.. Thanks for the input.. I really get 'lo son' now. Ooh.. Is that 'lo' before a copulative verb common with other verbs than 'ser'?

Grant


----------



## Mr. Chaz

¿Estás enfermo, Jaime?

Sí, lo estoy.


----------



## sendai

Generalmente son botes de lata, pero también los hay de plástico.
Yo no soy tonto, aunque lo parezca.


----------



## NewdestinyX

sendai said:


> Generalmente son botes de lata, pero también los hay de plástico.
> Yo no soy tonto, aunque lo parezca.



We had determined that in this construction, Sendai, only 'lo' could stand in for the 'attribute(s)' mentioned earlier in the context. Is your first example dealing with a different syntax since you are using 'los hay'. ? Or was that a typo?

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Mr. Chaz said:


> ¿Estás enfermo, Jaime?
> 
> Sí, lo estoy.



Gracias, Mr. Chaz. Muy bien.

Grant


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> A mi mujer le aparecen muy guapos estos hombres pero a mi hermana no 'lo' son.


 
A mi mujer le parecen muy guapos estos hombres, pero a mi hermana no.

A mi mujer le parecen muy guapos estos hombres, pero a mi hermana no se lo parecen.

Those men would be on TV, because I don't think you'd say such a thing in front of them...

If they are not on TV, *esos* would be better than *estos*.


This looks like a really difficult topic. I was reading the thread and thought of several things to comment about.


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> That's only the case as an 'article', Jero. As an object, though, 'los' is the plural of 'lo'. For 'him/it' -- For 'them'.
> 
> In this syntax I had felt the 'lo' had more 'object' qualities. Hence my confusion. But an 'abstraction' can't have a plural.
> 
> This is just like 'lo de'... which also could never be plural.
> 
> Thanks,
> Grant


 
You'll have to give examples of what you mean with that in red, because I can think of many examples with "los de".


----------



## Ynez

sendai's sentences are both correct:

_Hay balones de plástico y también los hay de goma._

_Hay cinturones de cuero, y los hay de metal._

_Hay personas buenas y también las hay malas._


*Hay *is especial, and it takes no subject, so probably we can consider it different from the rest of cases.

In all the examples before, "lo" seemed to me the subject of the sentence:

_Esto es así, si no es así...lo parece._


I am not sure of that last statement, but *Hay* is especial. Let's see if someone else can explain better


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> You'll have to give examples of what you mean with that in red, because I can think of many examples with "los de".



Good point, Ynez. I was referring to the 'lo de' in sentences like:

"_Lo de María, creo que todo saldrá bien_." Where 'lo' = las cosas sobre las que charlábamos.

That 'lo' could never be a 'los'. ¿verdad?

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> sendai's sentences are both correct:
> 
> _Hay balones de plástico y también los hay de goma._
> 
> _Hay cinturones de cuero, y los hay de metal._
> 
> _Hay personas buenas y también las hay malas._
> 
> 
> *Hay *is especial, and it takes no subject, so probably we can consider it different from the rest of cases.
> 
> In all the examples before, "lo" seemed to me the subject of the sentence:
> 
> _Esto es así, si no es así...lo parece._
> 
> 
> I am not sure of that last statement, but *Hay* is especial. Let's see if someone else can explain better



Yes, I agree - "hay" is special.. and the contents after 'hay' is the 'predicate' of the sentence -- which can have plurality. 'Lo' is never a subject of a sentence unless it's with a preposition complement and even then the 'lo' itself is not the subject.

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> In all the examples before, "lo" seemed to me the subject of the sentence:
> 
> _Esto es así, si no es así...lo parece._
> 
> 
> I am not sure of that last statement, but *Hay* is especial. Let's see if someone else can explain better



So are we concluding that the 'lo', referring to an attribute/set of attributes aforementioned in the context, only works with the copulative verbs SER and ESTAR?

Sí, lo son.
Sí, lo estamos.

Grant


----------



## Loob

Surely also with other copular verbs like "parecer"....

Loob


----------



## Jeromed

Parece feliz. Sí, lo parece.
Parece un payaso.  Sí, lo parece
Semeja un planeta.  Sí, lo semeja.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Loob said:


> Surely also with other copular verbs like "parecer"....
> 
> Loob



Claro que sí.. The issue is copular verbs. Makes sense!

Thanks,
Grant


----------



## lazarus1907

Este "lo" se usa con valor de atributo, es decir, solo con verbos *copulativos* (como los que se mencionaron antes). A diferencia del complemento directo, siempre es "lo", para ambos géneros y números:

Es tonto -> Lo es.
Es tonta -> Lo es.
Son tontos -> Lo son.
Son tontas -> Lo son.

El verbo copulativo por excelencia es "ser", seguido de "estar". También son frecuentes "parecer", "resultar", y en menor medida, otros tantos en ciertos contextos.


----------



## ieracub

Hola: 





NewdestinyX said:


> Claro que sí.. The issue is copular verbs. Makes sense!


Pues han dado en el clavo.

_Lo_ reemplaza al atributo en oraciones copulativas (verbos _ser_, _estar,_ _parecer _y algún otro) y es invariable, siempre en masculino singular.

Juan *es* feliz -> Juan *lo* es.
María *está* contenta -> María *lo* está.
Juan y María *parecen* felices -> Juan y María *lo* parecen.

Es variable cuando reemplaza o duplica un complemento directo [CD]:

_Hay cinturones de cuero, y *los* hay de metal. (__cinturones de cuero = los = CD)_
_Hay correas de cuero, y *las* hay de metal. (correas de cuero = las = CD)_

Saludos.

Edito: Me fui a tomar un café mientras escribía y, como ven, lazarus ya había contestado....


----------



## Jeromed

Ya lo habíamos dicho desde el mensaje #12.


----------



## Loob

I found these sites useful: verbos copulativos and verbos semicopulativos.

Loob


----------



## lazarus1907

Jeromed said:


> Ya lo habíamos dicho desde el mensaje #12.


¡Es que es una discusión demasiado larga como para leer todos los mensajes!  Después de leer uno de los últimos mensajes de Grant parece como si fuera un descubrimiento; yo puse mi granito de arena, y ieracub puso lo mismo sin leer lo que yo puse.

¡Cada uno a su bola!


----------



## ieracub

Jaromed said:
			
		

> Ya lo habíamos dicho desde el mensaje #12.


Je je. Parece que mi café fue muy largo. 

Bueno, al menos a nadie deberían quedarle dudas. 

Saludos.


----------



## ieracub

lazarus1907 said:


> Después de leer uno de los últimos mensajes de Grant parece como si fuera un descubrimiento


  ¡Exacto!


----------



## NewdestinyX

Gracias a todos.

In English the only way we have of saying the same thing can't be expressed in writing except as what would appear, to a foreigner, as an incomplete sentence.

Lo es. = It* is*.
Lo son. = They *are*.
Lo estoy. = I *am*.

We never translate that 'lo' in English. But it has to be the emphasized syllable to carry meaning.

It seems that :
Lo/La/Los/Las hay de = They're made of/It's made of

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

lazarus1907 said:


> ¡Es que es una discusión demasiado larga como para leer todos los mensajes!  Después de leer uno de los últimos mensajes de Grant parece como si fuera un descubrimiento; yo puse mi granito de arena, y ieracub puso lo mismo sin leer lo que yo puse.
> 
> ¡Cada uno a su bola!



Everyone's eager to help. That's all. I like that.

What was not discussed early in the thread is with which verbs it appears. That was a discovery in the 2nd half.

Grant


----------



## Loob

NewdestinyX said:


> It seems that :
> Lo/La/Los/Las hay de = They're made of/It's made of
> 
> Grant


 
I think the reason "hay" works differently is because it's not a copular verb: it is, after all, a form of _haber_.

Loob


----------



## Jeromed

Iera y Lazarus:

Ese Newdestiny como que no presta mucha atención a lo que le dicen...  Le puse las explicaciones del _Esbozo_, se las transcribí al inglés para que no le cupiera duda alguna, le pasé las secciones exactas donde podía encontrarlas_._ Y, ¿para qué? 30 mensajes después exclama _'eureka'_. Por Dios santísimo, ¿adónde vamos a parar?  

Jejeje (es una broma nada más). 

Lo importante como dices tú, Iera, es que los alumnos lo entiendan. O, ¿no lo es?


----------



## Jeromed

NewdestinyX said:


> What was not discussed early in the thread is with which verbs it appears. That was a discovery in the 2nd half.


 
This is what I wrote back in post #12:

_In those sentences, lo is not an object, since ser and estar cannot have objects (they're copulative verbs). 
_
_But, you're right, it's not an article. It's a neutral pronoun which stands for a predicative complement (Esbozo 3.10.5d)_

Only copulative verbs have predicative complements_._


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> This is what I wrote back in post #12:
> 
> _In those sentences, lo is not an object, since ser and estar cannot have objects (they're copulative verbs).
> _
> _But, you're right, it's not an article. It's a neutral pronoun which stands for a predicative complement (Esbozo 3.10.5d)_
> 
> Only copulative verbs have predicative complements_._



Jero, be careful with the sarcasm, please. In none of your posts does it expressly say that ONLY 'copulative verbs' have predicate complements. You just said that only NOW. You are very advanced -- probably a teacher -- but don't assume everyone here knows 'all' the lingo. We each have areas of expertise. What you wrote only explains why 'ser' and 'estar' can't have objects. It says nothing about what other verbs are copulative. Each new question I asked -- I assure you was 'not' addressed in previous posts. Of course that would be ludicrous to do. Read the thread again. You'll see why I kept asking questions.

Now -- several people only read post #1 and then started to give me the basic answer that all of you did in the early part of the thread. I know that's a temptation here to post the answer simply because we know it without reading the whole thread first. That indeed happened here and made it longer.But each new question I asked was 'not' answered in your post.

Thanks -- though that post 'was' very helpful albeit incomplete for 'all' my needs on this topic.

Grant


----------



## Loob

Here's my effort at a tentatative summary:

The attribute can be replaced by "lo" with 4 copular verbs: _ser, estar, parecer, semejar._

With other copular/semicopular verbs like _andar,_ _ponerse, resultar, quedarse, encontrarse, sentirse, volverse,_ the attribute cannot be replaced by "lo".

Is that right?

Loob


----------



## Ynez

Loob, I have been thinking of examples and with the second line of verbs I could think of "los": _se los pone, se los encuentra, se los queda_...

I mean, I think you are right with your summary...but I am not sure. We would need to think a lot and see many examples 


I guess "andar" as a semicopular verb would be in this sense:

_Se lo andaba buscando_ = _He/she was looking for it _(and it implies trouble)

But then we start talking about colloquial, idiomatic sentences, when it's hard to distinguish if something is right according to RAE or not


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> Good point, Ynez. I was referring to the 'lo de' in sentences like:
> 
> "_Lo de María, creo que todo saldrá bien_." Where 'lo' = las cosas sobre las que charlábamos.
> 
> That 'lo' could never be a 'los'. ¿verdad?
> 
> Grant


 
Right, that example is perfect as it is, and it is the way you are explaining :

_Lo de María_ = el asunto de María = las cosas de las que charlábamos referentes a María.


But if the conversation is like this, for instance:

- _Mis hijos son muy traviesos, en cambio *los de María* son my tranquilos._
_- Mis tortillas están muy buenas, pero *las de María* están aún mejor._

it would work normally.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Loob said:


> Here's my effort at a tentatative summary:
> 
> The attribute can be replaced by "lo" with 4 copular verbs: _ser, estar, parecer, semejar._
> 
> With other copular/semicopular verbs like _andar,_ _ponerse, resultar, quedarse, encontrarse, sentirse, volverse,_ the attribute cannot be replaced by "lo".
> 
> Is that right?
> 
> Loob



Good list Loob. Using Google though I''m looking for some exceptions. I'll share what I find.

But Jeromed's input, as well as the rest of yours, have isolated the issue to 'copular verbs' which is something that makes it easy to teach to the Intermediate student. And that the 'lo' in these instances refers to an attribute defined in the context either earlier in the sentence or recently in the paragraph. And that it can never be plural or feminine.

Good stuff!
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> Right, that example is perfect as it is, and it is the way you are explaining :
> 
> _Lo de María_ = el asunto de María = las cosas de las que charlábamos referentes a María.
> 
> 
> But if the conversation is like this, for instance:
> 
> - _Mis hijos son muy traviesos, en cambio *los de María* son my tranquilos._
> _- Mis tortillas están muy buenas, pero *las de María* están aún mejor._
> 
> it would work normally.



Yes, Ynez. The second group of sentences are simple possessive expressions and they are clear to me.

Thanks for your help,
Grant


----------

