# No me le des caramelos al niño  (Le, Dative of Interest/Possession)



## NewdestinyX

In rereading the thread from 2005 about the Dative of Interest/Possession it created a confusion for me. Is the 'le' in this classic example a redundant IO or a Dative of Interest?

No me *le* des caramelos *al* niño.

Clearly the 'me' is a dative of interest or possession.
• It could bother 'me' -- which is dative of interest -or-
• it's my child - which is the dative of possession.

But is the 'le' simply the redundant IO pronoun for 'al niño'? I'm pretty sure that's how to parse the sentence -- but it confused me when I read this example with 'le' in the older thread.

"Roberto le complica la vida a mi hija."

The forero, Dale, was asserting that this is 'dative of possession'. I can see that -- but then the 'preposition' would be 'de' and not 'a'. I am wondering if 'datives possession' need the 'a' pronoun because of the pull of 'redundant IO' to the native speaker. Because I think this sentence -- if the context is the daughter's life -- could also be said, without the dative:

"Roberto complica la vida de mi hija."

That's a good sentence isn't it? 

It also occurred to me that it could be just another one of those Spanish verbs like 'gustarle' that has to take an indirect object so:

Complicarle algo a alguien - To complicate something 'for' somebody.
--in which case the 'le' is neither a dative of interest or possession. "Roberto complicates life for my daughter"

So *le*'s ability to be different types of datives gets more tricky for me.

Dative's of Interest, though not exclusively seem to be more 'dativo ético's' which grammars teach are more the 'speaker's' interest and therefore are most often 'me' or 'nos'. But I know Datives of Interest and certainly of Possession can be me,te,le,nos,os,les and even 'se' we learned in the other thread. So -- my biggest interest in this thread is to explore further if there are any 'markers' in these sentences that can define the role of 'le' for us.

Thanks in advance for your input,
Grant


----------



## Pitt

NewdestinyX said:


> In rereading the thread from 2005 about the Dative of Interest/Possession it created a confusion for me. Is the 'le' in this classic example a redundant IO or a Dative of Interest?
> 
> No me *le* des caramelos *al* niño.
> 
> Clearly the 'me' is a dative of interest or possession.
> • It could bother 'me' -- which is dative of interest -or-
> • it's my child - which is the dative of possession.
> 
> But is the 'le' simply the redundant IO pronoun for 'al niño'? I'm pretty sure that's how to parse the sentence -- but it confused me when I read this example with 'le' in the older thread.


 
En mi entender ME es un dativo de interés: Tengo un gran interés que el niño no come caramelos.
LE es simplemente la duplicación del complemento indirecto "al niño". El uso de LE es opcional y por tanto se puede omitir: No me des caramelos al niño.

Pitt


----------



## Dudu678

Yes, _le_ refers to the kid, so you got it right. As you know, in Spanish we duplicate the indirect object in certain cases which I'm not explaining here unless requested.

And you're right about _me_ too.

You got everything perfectly!


----------



## Pitt

Dudu678 said:


> Yes, _le_ refers to the kid, so you got it right. As you know, in Spanish we duplicate de indirect object in certain cases which I'm not explaining here unless requested.
> 
> And you're right about _me_ too.
> 
> You got everything perfectly!


 
Many thanks for the answer! 

Pitt


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Pitt said:


> En mi entender/Según lo entiendo yo, ME es un dativo de interés: Tengo un gran interés en que el niño no coma caramelos.
> LE es simplemente la duplicación del complemento indirecto "al niño". El uso de LE es opcional y, por tanto, se puede omitir: No me des caramelos al niño.


Así lo creo yo también.

Un saludo.

Pedro.


----------



## Pitt

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Así lo creo yo también.
> 
> Un saludo.
> 
> Pedro.


 
¡Muchas gracias por la respuesta y las correcciones!

Un saludo,
Pitt


----------



## Pitt

En este contexto tengo otro ejemplo:

Juan se ha llenado los bolsillos de caramelos.

En mi opinión en este caso no se trata del verbo intransitivo _llenarse_ sino del verbo transitivo _llenar_.
SE es un dativo de interés (se puede omitir SE) y "los bolsillos de caramelos" es el complemento directo. ¿Es verdad?

Pitt


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pitt said:


> En este contexto tengo otro ejemplo:
> 
> Juan se ha llenado los bolsillos de caramelos.
> 
> En mi opinión en este caso no se trata del verbo intransitivo _llenarse_ sino del verbo transitivo _llenar_.
> SE es un dativo de interés (se puede omitir SE) y "los bolsillos de caramelos" es el complemento directo. ¿Es verdad?
> 
> Pitt



Sí. Juan está claramente haciendo la acción en tu oración. El 'se' es dativo "expresivo" y no de "interés". Mira abajo.

llenarse: La sala se llenó con gente.

llenar; se pasiva: Su bosillo se llenó con caramelos.
--------------------------------------------------
Para los propósitos de nuestras conversaciones de este tema, por lo general, -- no voy a aceptar la nomenclatura 'dativo de interés' para expresar un 'se', a menos que sea un 'le' que se ha convertido en 'se'. La mayoría de los libros y artículos reservan el término, dativo de interés, para expresar el papel que desempeñan 'me,te,le,nos,os,les' en oraciones donde hay una 'persona' interesada (en alma) en la acción del verbo. Estos 'se' que hemos estado estudiando añaden expresión o énfasis al 'verbo' y no se refieren para nada a personas. Solo 'gente' puede tener "interés" -- no un verbo.

Pero a pesar de mi 'opinión' sobre 'nomenclatura', Pitt, creé este hilo para explorar el 'le' en estos tipos de oraciones y no el 'se' puesto que ya hay 2 o 3 hilos en los que podemos preguntar sobre el 'se' y sus papeles expresivos.

Gracias por entender mi enfoque en este hilo, chaval.. ;-)

¿Podrías empezar otro hilo sobre 'llenar/llenarse' para tu duda? - o añadirla al hilo de 'se ha llenado con tarta'?

Grant


----------



## Outsider

NewdestinyX said:


> In rereading the thread from 2005 about the Dative of Interest/Possession it created a confusion for me. Is the 'le' in this classic example a redundant IO or a Dative of Interest?
> 
> No me *le* des caramelos *al* niño.
> 
> Clearly the 'me' is a dative of interest or possession.
> • It could bother 'me' -- which is dative of interest -or-
> • it's my child - which is the dative of possession.
> 
> But is the 'le' simply the redundant IO pronoun for 'al niño'?


That would be my analysis, if nothing else because I've never seen _two_ datives of interest in the same clause.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Outsider said:


> That would be my analysis, if nothing else because I've never seen _two_ datives of interest in the same clause.



Well, in speech, the two datives of interest are more common (creating sometimes 3 clitics in a row). What is pretty common from my reading is a dative of interest and one of possession as follows.
_
No me le escribas en el cuaderno sin que ella te dé permiso._

me= dative of interest
le = dative of possession -- It's 'her' cuaderno (le).

Here's a nice search where the results are about 65% the syntax I'm showing here. "I think..."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=+"no+me+le+*+el"&btnG=Search


----------



## Pitt

NewdestinyX said:


> Well, in speech, the two datives of interest are more common (creating sometimes 3 clitics in a row). What is pretty common from my reading is a dative of interest and one of possession as follows.
> 
> _No me le escribas en el cuaderno sin que ella te dé permiso._
> 
> me= dative of interest
> le = dative of possession -- It's 'her' cuaderno (le).


 
Para evitar los dos dativos quisiera saber si simplemente se puede decir:

No escribas en su cuaderno sin que ella te dé permiso.

Pitt


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
        Re:"Is the 'le' in this classic example a redundant IO or a Dative of Interest?"
Aren't they the same thing at anything below (or is it perhaps "above") the level of abstract definitions.
The dative case is the resting place of the person for whose advantage or disadvantage the verb's action takes place. A minute's thought will reveal, I think, that that covers everything.
All the best
 Virgilio


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Pitt said:


> Para evitar los dos dativos quisiera saber si simplemente se puede decir:
> 
> No escribas en su cuaderno sin que ella te dé permiso.
> 
> Pitt


Por supuesto Pitt. En tal caso denotan lo mismo pero connotan cosas distintas, es decir, la que tú propones se ha visto privada de toda la carga emotiva y personal que poseía, pero dice asépticamente lo mismo.


----------



## Ivy29

Pitt said:


> En este contexto tengo otro ejemplo:
> 
> Juan se ha llenado los bolsillos de caramelos.
> 
> En mi opinión en este caso no se trata del verbo intransitivo _llenarse_ sino del verbo transitivo _llenar_.
> SE es un dativo de interés (se puede omitir SE) y "los bolsillos de caramelos" es el complemento directo. ¿Es verdad?
> 
> Pitt


 
*Llenarse* = es intransitivo del tipo inacusativo, el 'se' intransitiviza al verbo 'llenar' que es transitivo. Es un verbo de cambio de estado, su sujeto sintáctico (bolsillos) es el objeto nocional del verbo llenarse, y además el tema o paciente.

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Por supuesto Pitt. En tal caso denotan lo mismo pero connotan cosas distintas, es decir, la que tú propones se ha visto privada de toda la carga emotiva y personal que poseía, pero dice asépticamente lo mismo.



THis is an enormously helpful insight, Pedro. So you are saying that the one with the interest datives shows more 'personality' of the speaker? The speaker transmits that they are 'more' involved and 'invested in' what's happening?

Grant


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Ivy29 said:


> *Llenarse* = es intransitivo del tipo inacusativo, el 'se' intransitiviza al verbo 'llenar' que es transitivo. Es un verbo de cambio de estado, su sujeto sintáctico (bolsillos) es el objeto nocional del verbo llenarse, y además el tema o paciente.
> 
> Ivy29


Y dale. Tú sabes de sobra que el sujeto y el verbo concuerdan en número y persona. ¿De dónde te sacas que _bolsillos _(plural) puede ser sujeto de _ha llenado_ (singular)?

Juan se ha llenado los bolsillos de caramelos.

El sujeto (sintáctico) es Juan, que es el agente de la acción _llenar_. A nadie le cabe la menor duda de que fue él mismo el que abarrotó sus bolsillos de caramelos.



> Los verbos inacusativos (por tanto intransitivos) denotan estados o eventos *sin agente* <<(...) como _existir, aparecer, llegar, florecer, crecer_, etc., cuyo _*único argumento*_ se interpreta como el elemento que recibe la acción o en el que se produce o manifiesta la eventualiad que denota el verbo (...)>>. Fuente.


En: _Juan se ha llenado los bolsillos_, el agente es Juan que llena sus propios bolsillos. Juan es el sujeto, los bolsillos el CD y ese _se_ es el complemento indirecto que completa el significado del verbo llenar, expresando que el destinatario o beneficiario de la acción es el mismo Juan, es decir, _se_ es el CI.

En: _Juan se ha llenado los bolsillos_, existen dos argumentos: Juan, que es el sujeto, y los bolsillos, que es el CD. La existencia de un único argumento es condición _sine qua non _para que pueda considerarse que un verbo es inacusativo.

Un uso inacusativo de llenar sería, por ejemplo:

La vida se llena de color cuando te miro.

Un saludo.

Pedro.


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

NewdestinyX said:


> THis is an enormously helpful insight, Pedro. So you are saying that the one with the interest datives shows more 'personality' of the speaker? The speaker transmits that they are 'more' involved and 'invested in' what's happening?
> 
> Grant


Sí. Si un profesor le dice en privado a otro: No suspendas a Mario Hernández, le transmite el concepto tal cual. Pero si le dice: No me suspendas a Mario Hernández le está diciendo que él siente una cercanía especial con ese alumno y que siente personalmente que le suspenda. No está siendo objetivo sino subjetivo.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Sí. Si un profesor le dice en privado a otro: No suspendas a Mario Hernández, le transmite el concepto tal cual. Pero si le dice: No me suspendas a Mario Hernández le está diciendo que él siente una cercanía especial con ese alumno y que siente personalmente que le suspenda. No está siendo objetivo sino subjetivo.



That is 'great' - they should be called datives of 'Personal Interest' or like that term Professor Lozano used in that article that Mhp gave us -- 'dativos emotivos'. But in her article she was dealing only with 'se'.

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> Re:"Is the 'le' in this classic example a redundant IO or a Dative of Interest?"
> Aren't they the same thing at anything below (or is it perhaps "above") the level of abstract definitions.
> The dative case is the resting place of the person for whose advantage or disadvantage the verb's action takes place. A minute's thought will reveal, I think, that that covers everything.
> All the best
> Virgilio



Sure Virg.. But when certain particles within a syntax, when changed, affect the entire meaning/semantic of the sentence then we have to resort to subcategories to explain the syntax and its resultant semantic. 

To say a dative is a dative is a dative is fine and correct. But it doesn't explain the syntax. I should have more precisely asked my question. Is it a dative "of interest". The issue here of course though le is always a dative -- sometimes it can removed from a sentence with no meaning changes and other times it can't. in that way -- though a dative -- it's not the 'same type of dative' in all settings. Does that make clearer what i'm driving at in this thread? Pitt already noticed that with a dative "of possession", when removed, you have to add back in a 'possessive pronoun' or you lose the intended meaning. Where the removal of a dative "of personal interest" doesn't change the meaning at all - it just changes the 'feel' as Pedro has pointed out. That's what I'm trying to get at here.

So yes! -- datives are indeed syntactically as you defined. But that doesn't explain what they do to 'meaning'. Knowing the primary syntactic categories is a fun thing for us who sit around reading grammar books or teach it. --but ultimately a student needs to know how to use these pieces of sentences to make communication happen. That's why I sometimes even leave behind the classic terms for things and reinvent them for the modern and post modern mind. My goal is to have names that explain "what it's there for". Even though it breaks half a dozen syntactic nomenclature conventions in doing so -- I call the Dative of Interest in my course -- the I/O Pronoun indicating personal interest/attachment. You would 'shriek' "foul" at every other paragraph as you would read my course -- since I am not usually all that interested in a word like 'dative' that has no external referential system outside of academia. My students and readers simply aren't interested in what a 'dative' is. And call me crazy -- but most end up using the [I/O Pronoun indicating personal interest/attachment] perfectly in dialogs in my tests after learning with my system. And they learn it fast. ;-)

Talk soon,
Grant


----------



## Pitt

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Juan se ha llenado los bolsillos de caramelos.
> 
> El sujeto (sintáctico) es Juan, que es el agente de la acción _llenar_. A nadie le cabe la menor duda de que fue él mismo el que abarrotó sus bolsillos de caramelos.
> 
> En: _Juan se ha llenado los bolsillos_, el agente es Juan que llena sus propios bolsillos. Juan es el sujeto, los bolsillos el CD y ese _se_ es el complemento indirecto que completa el significado del verbo llenar, expresando que el destinatario o beneficiario de la acción es el mismo Juan, es decir, _se_ es el CI.
> 
> En: _Juan se ha llenado los bolsillos_, existen dos argumentos: Juan, que es el sujeto, y los bolsillos, que es el CD. La existencia de un único argumento es condición _sine qua non _para que pueda considerarse que un verbo es inacusativo.
> 
> Un uso inacusativo de llenar sería, por ejemplo:
> 
> La vida se llena de color cuando te miro.
> 
> Un saludo.
> 
> Pedro.


 
¡Pedro, muchas gracias por la aclaración! En mi opinión estos ejemplos tienen la misma estructura gramatical:

Juan se (CI) lava las manos (CD).
Juan se (CI) ha llenado los bolsillos (CD) de caramelos.

En ambos ejemplos SE es un pronombre reflexivo en función de CI.

¡Es verdad?

Saludos,
pitt


----------



## Ynez

Pitt said:


> En mi entender ME es un dativo de interés: Tengo un gran interés que el niño no come caramelos.
> LE es simplemente la duplicación del complemento indirecto "al niño". El uso de LE es opcional y por tanto se puede omitir: No me des caramelos al niño.
> 
> Pitt


 
Ninguno hace falta:

No des caramelos al niño.

Pero lo que normalmente decimos es:

No le des caramelos al niño (y esto ni siquiera me parece informal, es simplemente lo que decimos siempre)

Así que yo aquí defiendo ese "le" que sobra....y al otro "me" lo tiro por una cuneta 

Espero que alguien más comente sobre esto, porque veo que ese "me" os tiene un poco confundidos


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> Well, in speech, the two datives of interest are more common (creating sometimes 3 clitics in a row). What is pretty common from my reading is a dative of interest and one of possession as follows.
> 
> _No me le escribas en el cuaderno sin que ella te dé permiso._
> 
> me= dative of interest
> le = dative of possession -- It's 'her' cuaderno (le).
> 
> Here's a nice search where the results are about 65% the syntax I'm showing here. "I think..."
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=+"no+me+le+*+el"&btnG=Search


 

You read Spanish Grammar books which are too thick It seems they comment about all the many things one can ever hear in Spanish.

That "me" is not normal at all, very few people use it, and it's considered incorrect. In fact, the normal way to express that sentence is:

No escribas en su cuaderno sin que ella te dé permiso. (También: No le escribas en el cuaderno sin que ella te dé permiso)

I know some people can use that "me" even knowing it is incorrect, but then, I think that's when one has to use it: after knowing all the rest of crazy uses of pronouns and then seeing in which circunstances one finds it suitable in one very informal conversation.


----------



## Ynez

Pitt said:


> En este contexto tengo otro ejemplo:
> 
> Juan se ha llenado los bolsillos de caramelos.
> 
> En mi opinión en este caso no se trata del verbo intransitivo _llenarse_ sino del verbo transitivo _llenar_.
> SE es un dativo de interés (se puede omitir SE) y "los bolsillos de caramelos" es el complemento directo. ¿Es verdad?
> 
> Pitt


 
Perfecto.

Y me he dado cuenta de una cosa: que "se" a veces personaliza. Al decir "se" expresamos la frase:

Juan se ha llenado los bolsillos de caramelos (es la forma más normal de decirlo)

Sin "se", al no estar ya personalizado, decimos:

Juan ha llenado SUS bolsillos de caramelos.


Se mete la mano en el bolsillo de atrás= Mete su mano en el bolsillo de atrás.

Se pinta los ojos de verde oscuro = Pinta sus ojos de verde oscuro

Y el único que parece reflexivo es "pintarse", ¿no?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> That "me" is not normal at all, very few people use it, and it's considered incorrect. In fact, the normal way to express that sentence is:


 I have read differently and heard from other natives differently. You're the first one to say they are 'incorrect'. 



> "No escribas en su cuaderno sin que ella te dé permiso."


 Pedro said that this sentence is, of course, perfect Spanish, but that it puts a distance between the speaker and listener 'personally'. Not at all as 'personal' (de nuestros amigos y familia) as the one with 'me'. I think there 'have to be 'regional differences in the usage of this 'me'. This usage doesn't fall into the category of a 'standard' spanish.



> (También: No le escribas en el cuaderno sin que ella te dé permiso)


 Yes.. this is the 'dative of possession'. And it would be redundant to say: No le escribas en 'su' cuaderno sin que.... - ¿verdad? Because the 'le' means 'her cuaderno'  -- ¿verdad?



> I know some people can use that "me" even knowing it is incorrect, but then, I think that's when one has to use it: after knowing all the rest of crazy uses of pronouns and then seeing in which circunstances one finds it suitable in one very informal conversation.


And that's exactly what I'm exploring here. Those 'informal' conversations. I frankly hear it 'all' the time in Spain and on the radio from Latin American countries. I just want to understand its 'informal' usage. I'm not interested in only the 'formal' --although I might give that impression. 

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pitt said:


> ¡Pedro, muchas gracias por la aclaración! En mi opinión estos ejemplos tienen la misma estructura gramatical:
> 
> Juan se (CI) lava las manos (CD).
> Juan se (CI) ha llenado los bolsillos (CD) de caramelos.
> 
> En ambos ejemplos SE es un pronombre reflexivo en función de CI.
> 
> ¡Es verdad?
> 
> Saludos,
> pitt



No. La diferencia es que el verbo "lavar" se puede usar como 'reflexivo'. Y el verbo 'llenar' no puede. Así que el papel que desempeña ese 'se' es diferente. Un 'se' que funciona en el papel de pronombre reflexivo en función de CI solo puede hacer así con un verbo reflexivo.


----------



## Ynez

I think my Spanish compatriots are analysing the sentences syntactically, without seeing much the real sentence. Anyhow, I just hope they say something. If they say they use that "me",  I will be learning something new.


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> Yes.. this is the 'dative of possession'. And it would be redundant to say: No le escribas en 'su' cuaderno sin que.... - ¿verdad? Because the 'le' means 'her cuaderno' -- ¿verdad?
> 
> 
> *We can also say that really= No le escribas en su cuaderno
> 
> It is redundant, but also normal to hear. *
> 
> And that's exactly what I'm exploring here. Those 'informal' conversations. I frankly hear it 'all' the time in Spain and on the radio from Latin American countries. I just want to understand its 'informal' usage. I'm not interested in only the 'formal' --although I might give that impression.
> 
> Grant


 
Very good, and I tell you educated people can use it sometimes...not in particular like in this sentence, by the way  But then, when you use it, I want you to know it is incorrect 

typical uses: (please, beginners, close your eyes)

No te me enfades/no te me vayas a enfadar

No te me pongas nervioso

No te me vayas a ir ahora


I believe people may say this a bit jokingly


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
      No offence meant, you know that, I hope, by now, but aren't you and/or your students beginning to suffer from "subcategoryitis". Have your students really so little either grasp of basic syntax or personal imagination as not to be able to work out the force of such datives for themselves?
What, after all, do you add to a student's understanding by telling him in addition to explaining on day 1 the basic function of all datives (namely, to depict the person for whose *advantage or disadvantage* the verb's action takes place) that this particular one is a "dative of interest"?
Don't you (or they) think it likely that, if someone is acting to someone's advantage or disadvantage, that second "someone" might just be 'interested' in what's going on?

How old, I wonder, can your students be.

All the best
Virgilio


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Pitt said:


> ¡Pedro, muchas gracias por la aclaración! En mi opinión estos ejemplos tienen la misma estructura gramatical:
> 
> Juan se (CI) lava las manos (CD) _de porcelana_*.
> Juan se (CI) ha llenado los bolsillos (CD) de caramelos.
> 
> En ambos ejemplos SE es un pronombre reflexivo en función de CI.
> 
> ¡¡Es verdad??
> 
> *Para que realmente tengan la misma estructura.


Sí, así de sencillo. Hay CD y sin duda Juan es un sujeto agente. Ese _se_ hace que Juan se beneficie de/reciba su propia acción: Reflexividad (CI).

Un saludo.

Pedro.


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

NewdestinyX said:


> No. La diferencia es que el verbo "lavar" se puede usar como 'reflexivo'. Y el verbo 'llenar' no puede. Así que el papel que desempeña ese 'se' es diferente. Un 'se' que funciona en el papel de pronombre reflexivo en función de CI solo puede hacer así con un verbo reflexivo.


Pero bueno, qué os ha dado a todos hoy con el verbo llenar... ¡¿Por qué diantres no puede ser reflexivo?!
*
llenar**.* (De _lleno_).
* 1.     * tr. Ocupar por completo con algo un espacio vacío. U. t. c. prnl.

Me lavo la boca con pasta de dientes.
Me lleno la boca con pasta de dientes.

Un saludo.

Pedro.


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Ynez said:


> You read Spanish Grammar books which are too thick It seems they comment about all the many things one can ever hear in Spanish.
> 
> That "me" is not normal at all, very few people use it, and it's considered incorrect. In fact, the normal way to express that sentence is:
> 
> No escribas en su cuaderno sin que ella te dé permiso. (También: No le escribas en el cuaderno sin que ella te dé permiso)
> 
> I know some people can use that "me" even knowing it is incorrect, but then, I think that's when one has to use it: after knowing all the rest of crazy uses of pronouns and then seeing in which circunstances one finds it suitable in one very informal conversation.


Vamos a ver. Lo que choca _en cuanto al significado_ del ejemplo que se ha propuesto:

_No me le escribas en el cuaderno sin que ella te dé permiso.

_Es que resulta forzada. Como ha notado Ynez, usamos las piezas del puzle de la gramática y construimos un Frankenstein: dativo de posesión + dativode interés (sobre algo que no es nuestro). El permiso para escribir, encima, lo da "ella". Nos lo pasamos bomba, pero aunque gramaticalmente correcta, no es semánticamente coherente... y suena rara.

Frases parecidas que sí oigo o pronuncio a menudo:

-- Yo a mi madre--
Mamá, no *me* toques mis cosas, por favor te lo pido. (Las cosas son los libros de gramática, mal pensados ).

--Mi abuela a mi sobrino--
No *me* escribas en el cuaderno del tío, que son cosas de su trabajo, ¡anda!  

--Mi madre a mi hermana--
¡No *me *la saques así desnuda a la chica a la calle, hombre! (sic.).

Un saludo.

Pedro.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Pero bueno, qué os ha dado a todos hoy con el verbo llenar... ¡¿Por qué diantres no puede ser reflexivo?!
> *
> llenar**.* (De _lleno_).
> * 1.     * tr. Ocupar por completo con algo un espacio vacío. U. t. c. prnl.
> 
> Me lavo la boca con pasta de dientes.
> Me lleno la boca con pasta de dientes.
> 
> Un saludo.
> 
> Pedro.



Okay -- I have to withdraw my statement that 'llenar' can't be used reflexively. It can. Thanks. But -- here's the problem as I see it and have studied it. You can refer reflexively to a 'part of the body getting washed or even getting filled. But I'm pretty sure you can't refer reflexively to some piece of clothing, on the person. You can use what would seem to be the same syntax -- but it has to be the 'possession' dative (which would use 'le' in 3rd person not se)-- if it's the clothing getting filled with something -- as was the context in Pitt's example.

You can tell the difference if you take the example sentence to 3rd person.

Se lava las manos. (His own hands) -pero- 
Le lava la ropa. (His clothing) = Lava su ropa.  -- "His clothing" has to be referred to with 'le' not 'se'.

When you fill your pockets with something -- that's not a reflexive statement by the definitions I read. With 'me' in the example it's hard to tell since 'me' is both a reflexive pronoun and an indirect object pronoun. 

The DPD makes clear that a reflexive pronoun can only be a CI when used in with a verb that is being used 'reflexively' -- to and for oneself -- which is an essential quality of a reflexive verb. Their examples show that. I'm not doubting or refuting as ungrammatical Pitt's sentence nor 'llenar' being used in your example, Pedro -- I'm just saying I don't agree with yours and Pitt's analysis of the sentences. 

This is the correct analysis according to what I've read:
Me(CI) lavo la cara(CD) cada noche. -- Lavo mi cara cada noche. (incorrect in Spanish)

Me(Dativo de Posesión) lleno los bosillo(CD) con caramelos. = Lleno mis bosillos con caramelos.

And that's the real test if the verb is reflexive. If you can replace the pronoun before the verb with a possessive before the noun then the verb is *not* being used reflexively.

Regards,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> No offence meant, you know that, I hope, by now, but aren't you and/or your students beginning to suffer from "subcategoryitis". Have your students really so little either grasp of basic syntax or personal imagination as not to be able to work out the force of such datives for themselves?
> What, after all, do you add to a student's understanding by telling him in addition to explaining on day 1 the basic function of all datives (namely, to depict the person for whose *advantage or disadvantage* the verb's action takes place) that this particular one is a "dative of interest"?
> Don't you (or they) think it likely that, if someone is acting to someone's advantage or disadvantage, that second "someone" might just be 'interested' in what's going on?
> 
> How old, I wonder, can your students be.



Hard to offend me, Virg -- as I've told you.. But alas -- the students 'in these days' live in and learn in a soundbite society. They can bear only a few terms and once those terms are attached that's all the brains can bear. Which is why much of our nomenclature remains in academia only. Your definition of dative is perfect and accounts for "most" all 'dative' usage. I say 'most' because and 'interest dative' isn't really an advantage of the verb's action. You have to twist and contort in the explanation to make it fit into your definition. That's not bearable for students in the modern world.. And yes my focus is 30 and under. - the post modern. The term 'dative' again describes 'syntax' and not usage. THats why most of us need subcategories. What I like about your system is that it can be applied to other languages and syntax building is a less daunting task in as many languages as you want to take on. But person focussed on learning Spanish to fluency need only even associate one term, in my case, "indirect object pronoun" to the word 'le'. And though 'se' can be a dative too as we discussed in another thread -- we simply call it an Expressive/Emphatic SE in that other instance because that's "soundbite" like and refers to "what it does". It's an imperfect system and will fly in the face of man who needs all his ducks in a row -- like you seem to.. No offense of course. I like your single-minded focus. You see me wrestling with Pedro and Pitt here about 'llenar' -- though I so wish it was in another thread and not this one -- wrestling thru what the right name for 'se' is.. ;-)

Grant


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> This is the correct analysis according to what I've read:
> Me(CI) lavo la cara(CD) cada noche. -- Lavo mi cara cada noche. (incorrect in Spanish)
> 
> Regards,
> Grant



I don't think "Lavo mi cara cada noche" is incorrect at all Grant, it is just that the normal thing to say is "Me lavo la cara todas las noches".

I have thought of some uses of that "me" which are more normally used, but they are all with "me la", "me lo", not with "me le":

No me lo entretengas/No me entretengas al niño
No me la distraigas/No me distraigas a la niña

That "me" is still superfluous, and I would like to know if it's considered correct or not...but at least, I consider it more common.


----------



## virgilio

Ynez,
       You write:" That "me" is still superfluous, and I would like to know if it's considered correct or not"
How do you know that it's "superfluous"? How can you know that what someone else says is not what he really means to say? "Superfluous" seems a little prescriptive to me.

How could it possibly be "incorrect"? - "incorrect", if you please!

Let's not invite in the thought-police just yet!

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Ynez

I perfectly understand what you mean virgilio 

But one thing is if a native speaker is speaking, and something different is if we are here commenting on normal standard use.

And I truly wanted to know if that "me la" is correct or not just to know it, I will keep using it whenever I find it appropiate. In fact, I am remembering about all this grammatical aspects now in the forum, I had left all that behind for a long time.

Don't you think it is also interesing for you to know if a sentence is normal or not normal, considered correct or incorrect? I think that information is useful


----------



## virgilio

Ynez,
       Before I start worrying about whether someone finds a word or an expression "correct" or "incorrect", I want to know what credentials or authority he has to make such judgements. Language is inherited by everyone at birth and I am immediately suspicious of anyone who tries to prescribe what his fellow citizens shall say.
 I would no more accept that a usage was "incorrect" from an untested person (still less from a website) than I would allow a man into my house simply because he said he had come to read the meter. I would ask to see his credentials first.

Let's not become too gullible.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

NewdestinyX said:


> You can use what would seem to be the same syntax -- but it has to be the 'possession' dative (which would use 'le' in 3rd person not se)
> 
> You can tell the difference if you take the example sentence to 3rd person.
> 
> Se lava las manos. (His own hands) -pero-
> Le lava la ropa. cross:His clothing) = Lava su ropa.  -- "His clothing" has to be referred to with 'le' not 'se'.


Not at all:

Él le lava la ropa (=He wash somebody's clothes).
Él se lava la ropa (=He wash his own clothes).
Él me lava la ropa (=He wash my clothes).
Él te lava la ropa (=He wash your[sg.] clothes).
Él nos lava la ropa (=He wash our clothes).
Él os lava la ropa (=He wash your [pl.] clothes).
Él les lava la ropa (=He wash their clothes).



NewdestinyX said:


> This is the correct analysis according to what I've read:
> Me(CI) lavo la cara(CD) cada noche. -- Lavo mi cara cada noche. (incorrect in Spanish). *It's not incorrect but emphatic.*


.



NewdestinyX said:


> Me(Dativo de Posesión) lleno los bosillo(CD) con caramelos. = Lleno mis bosillos con caramelos.


El dativo simpatético o posesivo tiene un valor exclusivamente semántico. *Sintácticamente es un complemento indirecto.*



NewdestinyX said:


> And that's the real test if the verb is reflexive. If you can replace the pronoun before the verb with a possessive before the noun then the verb is *not* being used reflexively.


_Me lavo las manos_, means the same as: _Lavo mis manos_, and _lavar_ is being used reflexively. Me lavo las manos is the usual way to say that you wash your hands. On the other hand in:

Me pongo los zapatos.

Me means where you put your shoes, not whose shoes are:
Me significa en dónde recae la acción de ponerse los zapatos no de quién son los zapatos:

Pongo mis zapatos... Where you put your shoes!?
...en la estantería. 

Creo que esa regla es un poco traicionera, ¿dónde la has leído?

Pedro.


----------



## Ivy29

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Pero bueno, qué os ha dado a todos hoy con el verbo llenar... ¡¿Por qué diantres no puede ser reflexivo?!
> 
> *llenar**.* (De _lleno_).
> *1. *tr. Ocupar por completo con algo un espacio vacío. U. t. c. prnl.
> 
> Me lavo la boca con pasta de dientes.
> Me lleno la boca con pasta de dientes.
> 
> Un saludo.
> 
> Pedro.


 
No es reflexivo pues el *afectado* es el bolsillo que se llena con dulces. antes de comerlos por el dueño del bolsillo.

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Okay -- I have to withdraw my statement that 'llenar' can't be used reflexively. It can. Thanks. But -- here's the problem as I see it and have studied it. You can refer reflexively to a 'part of the body getting washed or even getting filled. But I'm pretty sure you can't refer reflexively to some piece of clothing, on the person. You can use what would seem to be the same syntax -- but it has to be the 'possession' dative (which would use 'le' in 3rd person not se)-- if it's the clothing getting filled with something -- as was the context in Pitt's example.
> 
> You can tell the difference if you take the example sentence to 3rd person.
> 
> Se lava las manos. (His own hands) -pero-
> Le lava la ropa. (His clothing) = Lava su ropa. -- "His clothing" has to be referred to with 'le' not 'se'.
> 
> When you fill your pockets with something -- that's not a reflexive statement by the definitions I read. With 'me' in the example it's hard to tell since 'me' is both a reflexive pronoun and an indirect object pronoun.
> 
> The DPD makes clear that a reflexive pronoun can only be a CI when used in with a verb that is being used 'reflexively' -- to and for oneself -- which is an essential quality of a reflexive verb. Their examples show that. I'm not doubting or refuting as ungrammatical Pitt's sentence nor 'llenar' being used in your example, Pedro -- I'm just saying I don't agree with yours and Pitt's analysis of the sentences.
> 
> This is the correct analysis according to what I've read:
> Me(CI) lavo la cara(CD) cada noche. -- Lavo mi cara cada noche. (incorrect in Spanish)
> 
> Me(Dativo de Posesión) lleno los bosillo(CD) con caramelos. = Lleno mis bosillos con caramelos.
> 
> And that's the real test if the verb is reflexive. If you can replace the pronoun before the verb with a possessive before the noun then the verb is *not* being used reflexively.
> 
> Regards,
> Grant


 
Lavo mi cara
Cepillo mis dientes
Lavo mis manos
Using the possessive (which is natural and logical parts of the body) is correct and used in standard conversation.
llenarse is not reflexive.
Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

Ynez said:


> I don't think "Lavo mi cara cada noche" is incorrect at all Grant, it is just that the normal thing to say is "Me lavo la cara todas las noches".
> 
> I have thought of some uses of that "me" which are more normally used, but they are all with "me la", "me lo", not with "me le":
> 
> No me lo entretengas/No me entretengas al niño
> No me la distraigas/No me distraigas a la niña
> 
> That "me" is still superfluous, and I would like to know if it's considered correct or not...but at least, I consider it more common.


 
You are right, Ynez, still superfluous the 'me', dropping it keeps the semantic of sentence so it is *correct*.

Ivy29


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> No. La diferencia es que el verbo "lavar" se puede usar como 'reflexivo'. Y el verbo 'llenar' no puede. Así que el papel que desempeña ese 'se' es diferente. Un 'se' que funciona en el papel de pronombre reflexivo en función de CI solo puede hacer*se* así con un verbo reflexivo.


 
Llenarse, is not reflexive, that 'se' as Pitt put it in another post and thread as a 'possessive' pronoun in this particular sentence.

Ivy29


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Algunos gramáticos prefieren distinguir la función de dativo de la de complemento indirecto. ¿Qué dicen estos gramáticos de las siguientes frases?

*Se* lo está pensando.
*Me* gano la vida así.
*Se* jugó el dinero a la lotería.
Dicen que sin duda, en estos casos, los pronombres: me, se, [te, nos y os] se refieren al sujeto de la oración, por lo que poseen valor semántico reflexivo.
No consideran que dichos pronombres sean componentes (morfemas) de un verbo pronominal (pues muchas veces puede eliminarse el pronombre, y esto no puede hacerse con los verbos pronominales como _quejarse). _
Estos dativos no pueden sustituirse por le, les, lo, la, los y las, ni acompañarse de ellos. Tampoco pueden sustituirse por sustantivos o grupos nominales.
Nunca aparecen duplicados junto con el pronombre personal tónico correspondiente, es decir, _me_ no puede aparecer junto con _a mí_, _te _junto con _a ti_, _se_ junto con _a sí mismo_, _nos_ junto con _a nosotros_ ni _os _junto con _a vosotros_.
Además, consideran que hay diferencias de importancia entre estos dativos y los complementos indirectos, por lo que no los llaman CI sino dativos concordados [con el sujeto].
Efectivamente:

*Se* lo está pensando _(4) a sí mismo.
_*Me* gano ___(4) __a mí_ la vida así. **_(3) _*Le* gano la vida así.
*Se* jugó ___(4) __a sí mismo _el dinero a la lotería. _**__(3) __*Le*_ jugó el dinero a la lotería.

Pero este no es el caso de:

*Se* llenó los bolsillos de caramelos.

_(3) _*Le* llenó los bolsillos de caramelos (a su amigo).
_(3)_ *Se* llenó _a sí mismo_ los bolsillos de caramelos.

Respecto al dativo de posesión fijaos en que no son lo mismo:

[Él]* Se* llenó los bolsillos de caramelos.
_He filled his pockets up with sweets._

Sujeto : Él.
CD: los bolsillos.
CI: se.

Se *le* llenaron [a él] los bolsillos de caramelos. (=Se llenaron *sus* bolsillos de caramelos).
_His pockets were filled up with sweets._

Sujeto: los bolsillos.
CI: le.
Núcleo del predicado: tr. en la activa, llenaron.
Indicador de pasiva refleja: se.

------- EDITADO:

Antes de que venga Ivy con el hacha levantada, he de decir que dado que el sujeto de esta última (los bolsillos) no tienen carácter de agente comparte puntos en común con la voz media. Es decir, que ese _se _puede interpretarse como un _intransitivador con sujeto no voluntario_, siempre y cuando se considere que no existe un agente voluntario que _le llene los bolsillos_. El análisis sería como sigue:

Se *le* llenaron [a él] los bolsillos de caramelos. (=Se llenaron *sus* bolsillos de caramelos).
_His pockets were filled up with sweets._

Sujeto: los bolsillos.
CI: le.
Núcleo del predicado: intr. se llenaron (inacusativo).
Intransitivador con sujeto involunario: se.


Un saludo.

Pedro.


----------



## Ivy29

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Algunos gramáticos prefieren distinguir la función de dativo de la de complemento indirecto. ¿Qué dicen estos gramáticos de las siguientes frases?
> Pero este no es el caso de:
> 
> *Se* llenó los bolsillos de caramelos.
> 
> _(3) _*Le* llenó los bolsillos de caramelos (a su amigo).
> _(3)_ *Se* llenó _a sí mismo_ los bolsillos de caramelos.
> 
> Respecto al dativo de posesión fijaos en que no son lo mismo:
> 
> [Él]* Se* llenó los bolsillos de caramelos.
> _He filled his pockets up with sweets._
> 
> Sujeto : Él.
> CD: los bolsillos.
> CI: se.
> 
> Se *le* llenaron [a él] los bolsillos de caramelos. (=Se llenaron *sus* bolsillos de caramelos).
> _His pockets were filled up with sweets._
> 
> Sujeto: los bolsillos.
> CI: le.
> Núcleo del predicado: tr. en la activa, llenaron.
> Indicador de pasiva refleja: se.
> 
> ------- EDITADO:
> 
> Antes de que venga Ivy con el hacha levantada, he de decir que dado que el sujeto de esta última (los bolsillos) no tienen carácter de agente comparte puntos en común con la voz media. Es decir, que ese _se _puede interpretarse como un _intransitivador con sujeto no voluntario_, siempre y cuando se considere que no existe un agente voluntario que _le llene los bolsillos_. El análisis sería como sigue:
> 
> Se *le* llenaron [a él] los bolsillos de caramelos. (=Se llenaron *sus* bolsillos de caramelos).
> _His pockets were filled up with sweets._
> 
> Sujeto: los bolsillos.
> CI: le.
> Núcleo del predicado: intr. se llenaron (inacusativo).
> Intransitivador con sujeto involunario: se.
> Un saludo.
> Pedro.


 
Estamos cada vez más cerca, Pedro, me gustaría leyeras estas precisiones de Nebrija-Bello y me dieras tus comentarios.

1.- Los verbos inacusativos de ‘cambio de estado o ubicación’ como florecer, levantar/se, hervir, palidecer, crecer, secar/se, hundir/se, romper/se que pueden tener variantes ‘transitivas’. El sujeto sintáctico es objeto nocional o semántico.
El verbo llenar es un verbo con variante transitiva y pronominal y ‘cambio de estado’ Según María Moliner. tr.*Ocupar una cosa cierto.‘El agua llena la tubería’. ¤ («con, de») tr. y prnl. Ocupar[se] un ÷espacio con cierta cosa: ‘Llenar un colchón con lana. *Se llenó el bolsillo de caramelos*. El cielo se llenó de nubes. El cántaro se ha llenado’. ¤ («con, de») tr. *Hartar de comida a ÷alguien. ¤ prnl. Hartarse de comida alguien: ‘Llenarse de patatas fritas’. ¤ tr. *Escribir en un ÷impreso, en los huecos destinados a ello, los datos que corresponden: ‘Llenar un boleto para las quinielas’. Ô Rellenar. Þ *Lleno.
*Se llenó el bolsillo de caramelos *
*Se llenaron los bolsillos de caramelos*
*Bolsillos* es sujeto sintáctico y nocional de objeto directo (afectado) pues el bolsillo cambia de vacío a lleno.
*Nebrija Bello]verbos de cambio de estado que expresan eventualidades de causa externa verbos derivados de adjetivos sin prefijos como estrechar, secar, calentar, vaciar, **llenar, oscurecer, etc. Que aparecen en construcciones transitivas e inacusativas. Estos verbos sufren un proceso de ‘detransitivzación’ Nebrija-Bello, página 1590, numeral 25.2.1.1.*
2.- Todos los verbos que aparecen en construcciones inacusativas con ‘se’ pueden aparecer en construcciones con’se’ pasivas y no al revés.
3- también hay relaciones entre oraciones inacusativas y oraciones reflexivas. En estas el sujeto es agente o experimentante y tema. Una interpretación similar se puede aplicar a las oraciones inacusativas con el sujeto como causa y tema. Las construcciones inacusativas asociadas a verbos que participan en la alternancia causativa es fundamental el concepto de ‘causa’
Juan rompió la mesa ( agente=Juan)
El hacha rompió la mesa (instrumento=causa)
La mesa se rompió= se rompió la mesa. (inacusativa)
Juan se sentó y rompió la mesa ( Juan no es agente) es decir no es un agente con volición de romper la mesa. Pero sí la causa. ( su enorme peso)
La diferencia entre ‘agente’ estriba en que (=implica volición, intención) y ‘causa’ noción neutra , lo mismo ocurre con verbos como hundir, hinchar, purificar, vaciar, calentar.
se abrió la puerta
Se hundió el barco
Son a la vez tema y causa del evento que expresa el predicado. Estas construcciones ‘inacusativas se asemejarían a las reflexivas’
Se abrió la puerta (por sí sola) /*a sí misma.
Se hundió el barco (por sí solo/* a símismo
Juan se odia (a sí mismo/*por si solo). (experimentante y tema)
María se plagió (a si misma /* por si sola). ( agente y tema).
Gracias

Ivy29


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Ivy29 said:


> Estamos cada vez más cerca, Pedro, me gustaría leyeras estas precisiones de Nebrija-Bello y me dieras tus comentarios.


Está todo muy bien, estoy de acuerdo con todo.

Un saludo.

Pedro.


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Lo único es que _llenar_ como inacusativo, típicamente está en frases como:

Los cielos se llenaron de estrellas.

Hablar de:

Los bolsillos se llenaron de caramelos. 

Como inacusativo, es (según mi opinión) algo forzado. Lo natural es considerarla como pasiva (refleja), porque me es muy difícil imaginar cómo unos bolsillos pueden llenarse sin que haya un agente que los llene... salvo en el País de las Maravillas (que es de Alicia).

Un saludo.

Pedro.


----------



## Ivy29

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Lo único es que _llenar_ como inacusativo, típicamente está en frases como:
> 
> Los cielos se llenaron de estrellas.
> 
> Hablar de:
> 
> Los bolsillos se llenaron de caramelos.
> 
> Como inacusativo, es (según mi opinión) algo forzado. Lo natural es considerarla como pasiva (refleja), porque me es muy difícil imaginar cómo unos bolsillos pueden llenarse sin que haya un agente que los llene... salvo en el País de las Maravillas (que es de Alicia).
> 
> Un saludo.
> 
> Pedro.


Aquí también se necesita al mago MERLIN.

Es igual a : 
se hundió el barco
Se ahogó el nadador.
Se cerraron las puertas

El verbo cocer inacusativo de cambio de estado o ubicación :
Juan coció las papas ( transitivo)  Juan causa.
Se cocieron las papas ( No se menciona la causa) Papa sujeto-tema) Inacusativo.
las papas han sido cocidas  ( paráfrasis de pasivo)

Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Llenarse, is not reflexive,


I know 'llenarse' isn't reflexive. I've asserted that all along. Lavarse is. Lavarse and Llenarse don't work the same way. 




> that 'se' as Pitt put it in another post and thread as a 'possessive' pronoun in this particular sentence.
> 
> Ivy29


That wasn't Pitt's original assertion. And I told him is was a possessive. That's been my position all along. But my grammars say that the 'possession datives' in the 3rd person can only be 'le,les'. Are you saying that 'se' can be a possesive dative as well?? If so 'how'? And how can the student tell when to use 'le' or 'se' as the 3rd person possessive dative?

Grant


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> I know 'llenarse' isn't reflexive. I've asserted that all along. Lavarse is. Lavarse and Llenarse don't work the same way.
> *Correct. But you were swinging between yes and no about llenarse.*
> 
> That wasn't Pitt's original assertion. And I told him is was a possessive. That's been my position all along. But my grammars say that the 'possession datives' in the 3rd person can only be 'le,les'. Are you saying that 'se' can be a possesive dative as well?? If so 'how'? And how can the student tell when to use 'le' or 'se' as the 3rd person possessive dative?
> 
> Grant


 


> Of course. Read this, El _dativo simpatético_ o _posesivo_expresa, por el contrario, una participación indirecta en la acción del sujeto, o del objeto de la narración. Por ello el _dativo simpatético_ puede sustituirse por el _pronombre posesivo_ que correspondería al personal: _Se rompió el brazo _(= _su brazo_).»
> [Marcos Marín, Francisco: _Curso de gramática española__. _Madrid: Cincel, 1980,  p. 341-342.



Ivy29


----------



## Jeromed

NewdestinyX said:


> I know 'llenarse' isn't reflexive. I've asserted that all along. Lavarse is. Lavarse and Llenarse don't work the same way.
> 
> 
> That wasn't Pitt's original assertion. And I told him is was a possessive. That's been my position all along. But my grammars say that the 'possession datives' in the 3rd person can only be 'le,les'. Are you saying that 'se' can be a possesive dative as well?? If so 'how'? And how can the student tell when to use 'le' or 'se' as the 3rd person possessive dative?
> 
> Grant


 
What????? 
What are your sources?
It's actually the other way around.
I agree with Ivy.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Of course. Read this,





> El _dativo simpatético_ o _posesivo_expresa, por el contrario, una participación indirecta en la acción del sujeto, o del objeto de la narración. Por ello el _dativo simpatético_ puede sustituirse por el _pronombre posesivo_ que correspondería al personal: _Se rompió el brazo _(= _su brazo_).»
> [Marcos Marín, Francisco: _Curso de gramática española__. _Madrid: Cincel, 1980,  p. 341-342.


I think I'm nearing one of the most major breakthroughs in my Spanish learning with this whole topic. Now tell me, Ivy -- Do the 'dativo simpatéticos' usually use the IO pronouns or the reflexive pronouns?

Here's where I'm stuck. There is 'possession' that is also shown with 'le'.

No le escribas en el cuaderno = No escribas en 'su' cuaderno.

So removing that 'le' changes the semantic of the sentence unless you change the 'el' to 'su'. So how does this harmonize with the role of the dativo simpatético?

Grant


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

NewdestinyX said:


> Here's where I'm stuck. There is 'possession' that is also shown with 'le'.
> 
> No le escribas en el cuaderno = No escribas en 'su' cuaderno.
> 
> So removing that 'le' changes the semantic of the sentence unless you change the 'el' to 'su'. So how does this harmonize with the role of the dativo simpatético?


Una y otra vez no veo dónde está tu duda... Pareces entenderlo bien: removing that 'le' changes the semantic of the sentence unless you change the 'el' to 'su'.


> So how does this harmonize with the role of the dativo simpatético?


 Eso es, precisamente, el dativo simpatético o posesivo (una cuestión semántica no gramatical). Creo que lo he escrito 5 o 6 veces en esto u otro hilo.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Una y otra vez no veo dónde está tu duda... Pareces entenderlo bien: removing that 'le' changes the semantic of the sentence unless you change the 'el' to 'su'.
> Eso es, precisamente, el dativo simpatético o posesivo (una cuestión semántica no gramatical). Creo que lo he escrito 5 o 6 veces en esto u otro hilo.



Lo siento Pedro -- to the non-native student -- we see the indirect object pronouns and the reflexive pronouns as having separate and unique roles in syntax. They are never substituted for each other. They are distinct even though you can only tell the difference in the 3rd person. This is how we are taught and how the grammar books are written. So I'm asking you to look at something probably very obvious to you as a native and help me understand how you can know when to use 'le' and when to use 'se' when the possessive pronoun would be 'su' -- '3rd person' in the version of the sentence with the the possessive pronoun. In other words when converting a sentence that 'can' be expressed with the possessive pronoun to a sentence with a dativo simpatetico -- how do you know when to use 'le' or 'se'???

Grant


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Lo siento Pedro -- to the non-native student -- we see the indirect object pronouns and the reflexive pronouns as having separate and unique roles in syntax. They are never substituted for each other. They are distinct even though you can only tell the difference in the 3rd person. This is how we are taught and how the grammar books are written. So I'm asking you to look at something probably very obvious to you as a native and help me understand how you can know when to use 'le' and when to use 'se' when the possessive pronoun would be 'su' -- '3rd person' in the version of the sentence with the the possessive pronoun. In other words when converting a sentence that 'can' be expressed with the possessive pronoun to a sentence with a dativo simpatetico -- how do you know when to use 'le' or 'se'???
> 
> Grant


 
Very simple when it is part of your body or clothing use 'se'
Se manchó la camisa=  manchó su camisa
Se rompió el brazo= se rompió su brazo
No le escribas en el cuaderrno= No escribas en su cuaderno.

Ivy29


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

NewdestinyX said:


> In other words when converting a sentence that 'can' be expressed with the possessive pronoun to a sentence with a dativo simpatetico -- how do you know when to use 'le' or 'se'???


You cannot reconstruct the sentence backwards:

Both:
Juan se ha roto el traje.
Juan le ha roto a María su traje.

Are translated into:
Juan ha roto su traje.

In these cases you need _su propio_ when transforming _se_ to remove the ambiguity:

Juan se ha roto el traje.
Juan ha roto su _propio_ traje.

Juan le ha roto a María su traje.
Juan ha roto su traje (a María).


Remember, you cannot say:

Juan se ha roto el coche.
Juan ha roto su (propio) coche.

Since the car is not a part of Juan.

Regards,

Pedro.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Not at all:
> 
> Él le lava la ropa (=He wash somebody's clothes).
> Él se lava la ropa (=He wash his own clothes).
> Él me lava la ropa (=He wash my clothes).
> Él te lava la ropa (=He wash your[sg.] clothes).
> Él nos lava la ropa (=He wash our clothes).
> Él os lava la ropa (=He wash your [pl.] clothes).
> Él les lava la ropa (=He wash their clothes).



Aha!!!! Okay -- so when the subject is the 'owner' of the 'ropa' -- that's when we use 'se' as the dativo simpatético/posesivo and when the owner of the ropa is someone other than the subject then it's 'le'???? Is that it????

That unlocks the mystery for me. I think. Muchísimas gracias por vuestra paciencia conmigo.



> El dativo simpatético o posesivo tiene un valor exclusivamente semántico.


 Okay I think I can agree with that if it works as I think. 





> *Sintácticamente es un complemento indirecto.*


So we agree with virgilio's definition then that datives/CI exist for the advantage or disadvatage of the verb's action?



> _Me lavo las manos_, means the same as: _Lavo mis manos_, and _lavar_ is being used reflexively. Me lavo las manos is the usual way to say that you wash your hands. On the other hand in:
> 
> Me pongo los zapatos.
> 
> Me means where you put your shoes, not whose shoes are:
> Me significa en dónde recae la acción de ponerse los zapatos no de quién son los zapatos:
> 
> Pongo mis zapatos... Where you put your shoes!?
> ...en la estantería.
> 
> Creo que esa regla es un poco traicionera, ¿dónde la has leído?
> 
> Pedro.



Wow that adds some complexity.. But I think I'm getting closer and closer to understanding how 'se' works here compared to 'le'. Thanks for your patience.

Grant


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

NewdestinyX said:


> Aha!!!! Okay -- so when the subject is the 'owner' of the 'ropa' -- that's when we use 'se' as the dativo simpatético/posesivo and when the owner of the ropa is someone other than the subject then it's 'le'???? Is that it????


Exactly.


> Okay I think I can agree with that if it works as I think. So we agree with virgilio's definition then that datives/CI exist for the advantage or disadvatage of the verb's action?


The dative in Spanish is almost ever an IO. You know that in both cases it completes the verb meaning.


> Wow that adds some complexity. But I think I'm getting closer and closer to understanding how 'se' works here compared to 'le'. Thanks for your patience.


Poner siempre necesita un complemento regido por _en _para completar su significado: Se pone algo en algún sitio. El dativo posesivo nos sirve para indicar en este caso que el destino es _alguien: _Me pongo los zapatos (Yo me los pongo). Te pongo los zapatos (Te los pongo a ti). Se pone los zapatos (Se los pone él mismo). Pero si eliminas el dativo ya no es obvio dónde los pones. Llenar sólo necesita un CD (llenar algo) para tener sentido (aunque no digas con/de qué lo llenas). Por eso no se produce ambigüedad cuando eliminas el dativo posesivo. Te lleno el vaso. (=Lleno tu vaso). Te pongo(1). Te pongo los zapatos (en los pies: ¡es obvio!).  Pongo tus zapatos. (Ya no es obvio que sea en tus pies, puedes ponerlos en otro sitio).

Espero que se entienda.

Pedro.

P.D.: (1) En España, alguien _te pone_ cuando te excitas sexualmente al pensar en él/ella:

María me pone. (=Me excito sexualmente cuando pienso en María).
Te pongo. (=Te excitas cuando piensas en mí).


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Very simple when it is part of your body or clothing use 'se'
> Se manchó la camisa=  manchó su camisa
> Se rompió el brazo= se rompió su brazo
> No le escribas en el cuaderrno= No escribas en su cuaderno.
> 
> Ivy29



Very helpful Ivy -- both you and Pedro are helping me to see this. But can I ask you in your second example -- wouldn't it be more consistent with your other examples to say:  Se rompió el brazo = se Rompió su brazo. I don't think the 'se' can take on both the role of 'dativo simpatetico' and 'se intransitiva' -- can it?

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Exactly.
> The dative in Spanish is almost never an IO. You know that in both cases it completes the verb meaning.


 I don't understand that statement, because syntactically speaking from what I've learned "all indirect objects are datives - but not all datives are indirect objects". So I don't follow that statement.



> Poner siempre necesita un complemento regido por _en _para completar su significado: Se pone algo en algún sitio. El dativo posesivo nos sirve para indicar en este caso que el destino es _alguien: _Me pongo los zapatos (Yo me los pongo). Te pongo los zapatos (Te los pongo a ti). Se pone los zapatos (Se los pone él mismo). Pero si eliminas el dativo ya no es obvio dónde los pones.


 Entiendo -- pero se nos enseña que ponerse a alguien algo de ropa es "como" un verbo pronominal en que sin el pronombre el sentido cambia. Por ello lo enseño que poner = to put, y ponerse a alguien = to put on. Por alguna razón 'ponerse los zapatos' es mucho más fácil de entender que esto de 'llenar los bolsillos'. 



> Llenar sólo necesita un CD (llenar algo) para tener sentido (aunque no digas con/de qué lo llenas). Por eso no se produce ambigüedad cuando eliminas el dativo posesivo. Te lleno el vaso. (=Lleno tu vaso). Te pongo(1). Te pongo los zapatos (en los pies: ¡es obvio!).  Pongo tus zapatos. (Ya no es obvio que sea en tus pies, puedes ponerlos en otro sitio).


 De nuevo -- ponerse algo = put on something -- y el pronombre demuestra el dueño. ¡Pero gracias por el análisis comparativo, Pedro!

So is it a good thing to summarize that the Dativos Posesivos/Simpatéticos can be: me, te, le, se, nos, os, les. ? 
me=my (mi)
te=your (tu)
le=someone else's (su)
se=his/her/its/their "own" (su propio/sus propios)
nos=our (nuestro)
os=your [pl.] (vuestro)
les=their (sus)

¿Y todos ahí desempeñan el papel de un CI?

Right?

¿Hay unos verbos (tipos de verbos) que no pueden llevar dativos posesivos? ¿O te es más fácil de decirme qué tipos de verbos llevan dativos posesivos?

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

A great mystery of the Spanish dative usage has been solved for me in the past few days. Or I think I understand it. To all who've participated in this post I feel like scales are falling off my eyes and I thank you very much for all the help. I think I can explain this better to students now and I will share updates to my course to reflect these insights for you all to check and see if I really understand it. I always state strongly what I've learned in the past 'first' and then as you all explain to me my shortcomings and show me sources I am happy to change my thinking. I hope I have not confused too much here. I have realized that I have made too staunch a separation between the 'indirect object pronouns' and the 'reflexive pronouns' in Spanish. But our favorite little particle 'se' has again shown its amazing flexibility to take on so many roles in the language of Cervantes. I have also learned in this thread that the term 'reflexive' verb is less and less helpful to the foreign student. It is more of a hindrance than a help. Verbs in Spanish are, at their core: Transitivo, Intransitivo, Sustantivo, Auxiliar or Pronominal. The term "reflexive" is a 'role' a transitive verb can play based on the type of action the verb has. If the transitive verb is a kind of action that happens mostly to 'self' then it can be labeled 'reflexivo'. But that doesn't help us understand syntax only 'semantic role'. 

I also have learned that I have too strictly 'limited' my understanding of the word 'dative'. I accept Virgilio's/Latin's idea of 'existing for the advantage or disadvantage of something or someone'. Though for the definition to really nail it for me I'd love to see 'possession' in there -- since possession isn't about advantage or disadvantage in its essence.

I'm still grappling with how an 'indirect object' as a dative, differs from a 'dativo simpatético' as a dative -- syntactically speaking. Or is the difference only semantic?

And can 'le' ever be a "dativo enfático/ético" or "emotivo" -- or is the only 3rd person choice: 'se'?

Thanks for all I've learned so far!

Grant


----------



## virgilio

NDX,
       Yes, but aren't you perhaps searching for tress in a forest? You write:".. possession isn't about advantage or disadvantage in its essence."
So, if you "possess" a car or a house, we're not really talking about any advantage (or disadvantage ) you enjoy (or suffer). Really, Grant, you sometimes seem to speak in riddles.
Several languages (besides Latin) have expressions equivalent to "there is for me a car" meaning "I have a car". Where's the problem?
If someone gives *me* a book, "me" (dative) is the person deriving advantage (if it's a good book) or disadvantage (if it's rotten) from the action of the verb and whether you label "me" a "dative of advantage",or "dative of interest" or "possessive dative" or "ethic dative" or whatever, tells much more about the grammarian than about the grammar.
For goodness' sake let's keep the thing simple - for our students' sake, if not to avoid going completely crazy.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Pitt

NewdestinyX said:


> And can 'le' ever be a "dativo enfático/ético" or "emotivo" -- or is the only 3rd person choice: 'se'?


 
El *dativo de interés* sólo se usa con los pronombres *me, te, se, nos, os,* pero nunca con los pronombres *le* y *les*.

Un saludo,
Pitt


----------



## virgilio

Pitt,
      Re your:"El *dativo de interés* sólo se usa con los pronombres *me, te, se, nos, os,* pero nunca con los pronombres *le* y *les*."

Ah yes but not in the South, I understand.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

NewdestinyX said:


> But can I ask you in your second example -- wouldn't it be more consistent with your other examples to say:  Se rompió el brazo = se Rompió su brazo. I don't think the 'se' can take on both the role of 'dativo simpatetico' and 'se intransitiva' -- can it?


¡No me quitéis el sujeto de las frases que lo liamos todo! Si ya es difícil de explicarlo no lo liemos más, por favor os lo pido. Vamos paso a paso. A ver si soy capaz de explicarlo con precisión meriadiana:
*Juan se rompió el brazo.* (Se reflexivo (CI): dativo de posesión; Equivale a: Juan rompió _su *(propio)*_ brazo).
Juan broke his arm.​
*Juan se rompió su brazo.* (Se reflexivo (CI): Expresión aún más enfática, haces hincapié en el hecho de que rompió el suyo propio. No es muy natural, para enfatizar es suficiente: Juan rompió _su *propio* _brazo).
Juan broke his own arm.​________________________________________________________________

Si eliminamos el sujeto "Juan": 

_SE_ puede ser *indicador *de *pasiva refleja* u *oración impersonal *en cuyo caso *el sujeto pasa a ser el brazo*.
*Se rompió el brazo.* (No sabemos o no importa quién lo rompió ni a quién se lo rompió. En nuestra mente el hueso del brazo se rompe ¡Crash!).
The arm broke. The arm was broken.​No obstante, el orden habitual de la frase sería:
*El brazo se rompió.*
O, mejor:
Un brazo se rompió. (La indeterminación de _un _apoya la idea de impersonalidad).
An arm broke. An arm was broken.​________________________________________________________________

SE accidental (acción no intencionada):

Introducimos un pronombre (CI), detrás del _SE_, que indica quién es el afectado:
Se *me* rompió el brazo. (Se accidental, me=CI, el brazo=Sujeto).
Unintentionally, I broke my arm.​
Se *me* rompió mi brazo. (Aquí _mi brazo _es sujeto, debe ser _el brazo_).



NewdestinyX said:


> PPCM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dative in Spanish is almost never an IO. You know that in both cases it completes the verb meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand that statement, because syntactically speaking from what I've learned "all indirect objects are datives - but not all datives are indirect objects". So I don't follow that statement.
Click to expand...

Lo que quise decir es: El dativo en español es casi siempre un CI. Quizá debí escribir _almost always_ en vez de _almost ever_.


NewdestinyX said:


> Entiendo -- pero se nos enseña que ponerse a alguien algo de ropa es "como" un verbo pronominal en que sin el pronombre el sentido cambia. Por ello lo enseño que poner = to put, y ponerse a alguien algo = to put on. Por alguna razón 'ponerse los zapatos' es mucho más fácil de entender que esto de 'llenar los bolsillos'.


Es una buena manera de verlo. La diferencia que hay entre las entradas pronominales (prnl. en el DRAE):
*
poner*
* 35.     * prnl. Vestirse o ataviarse. _Ponte bien, que es día de fiesta.
_
Y las que tienen la marca de U. t. c. prnl.:

*poner** 1.     * tr. Colocar en un sitio o lugar a alguien o algo. U. t. c. prnl. _Te lo pongo en la estantería. [Ejemplo propio]._

Es que en las primeras: "El verbo    necesita ese pronombre, no tiene una función en la oración pero no se puede    prescindir de él. El verbo es indivisible del pronombre (de ahí que lo    llamemos verbo pronominal), y este pronombre no tiene una función en la    oración". Fuente. Es lo que en otro hilo llegamos a la conclusión de que era un pronominal _en sentido estricto_.

En cambio en las segundas el pronombre es bien CD o CI, o bien aspectual (matiza el significado, como en: _me duermo_ o _me voy_).



NewdestinyX said:


> So is it a good thing to summarize that the Dativos Posesivos/Simpatéticos can be: me, te, le, se, nos, os, les. ?
> me=my (mi)
> te=your (tu)
> le=someone else's (su)
> se=his/her/its/their "own" (su propio/sus propios)
> nos=our (nuestro)
> os=your [pl.] (vuestro)
> les=their (sus)
> 
> ¿Y todos ahí desempeñan el papel de un CI?
> 
> Right?


Right.


NewdestinyX said:


> ¿Hay unos verbos (tipos de verbos) que no pueden puedan llevar dativos posesivos? ¿O te es más fácil de decirme qué tipos de verbos llevan dativos posesivos?


La verdad es que no lo sé Grant. Los uso sin pensar... Supongo que siempre que quieras indicar posesión (donde pueda haber un mi, mis, tu, tus, su, sus).


Un saludo.

Pedro.


----------



## NewdestinyX

virgilio said:


> NDX,
> Yes, but aren't you perhaps searching for tress in a forest? You write:".. possession isn't about advantage or disadvantage in its essence."
> So, if you "possess" a car or a house, we're not really talking about any advantage (or disadvantage ) you enjoy (or suffer). Really, Grant, you sometimes seem to speak in riddles.
> Several languages (besides Latin) have expressions equivalent to "there is for me a car" meaning "I have a car". Where's the problem?
> If someone gives *me* a book, "me" (dative) is the person deriving advantage (if it's a good book) or disadvantage (if it's rotten) from the action of the verb and whether you label "me" a "dative of advantage",or "dative of interest" or "possessive dative" or "ethic dative" or whatever, tells much more about the grammarian than about the grammar.
> For goodness' sake let's keep the thing simple - for our students' sake, if not to avoid going completely crazy.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio



LOL!! That is indeed my cry - keep it simple. Look there, Virg -- you had to take a whole paragraph to explain how possession in an 'advantage' and I, a Master's Student in Grammar, am not the least bit convinced. Another one of those contortions to make 'all of something' fit into one definition. Looks good on paper (well not really) -- Sorry friend. No sale.


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Very helpful Ivy -- both you and Pedro are helping me to see this. But can I ask you in your second example -- wouldn't it be more consistent with your other examples to say: Se rompió el brazo = se Rompió su brazo. I don't think the 'se' can take on both the role of 'dativo simpatetico' and 'se intransitiva' -- can it?
> 
> Grant


 

El barbero le afeitó el bigote
'LE' = a él (CI) = su DATIVE of possession)
El barbero afeitó su bigote ( could be ambiguous) could be his own mustache (BARBER )or the customer's= to avoid this ambiguity 
El barbero le afeitó su bigote.
'LE' = DATIVE OR INDIRECT pronoun, could also indicate either an INDIRECT OBJECT or a dative of possession.
Rompió su brazo = could also imply that he caused it as agent not as patient. To avoid this ambiguity is better to keep the 'se'.
In BRIEF = 'se' in romper could be 'se' a morpheme fo the verb = romperse, a marker of ' inacusatividad' ( change of state), a marker of possession= su.


Ivy29


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Right.
> La verdad es que no lo sé Grant. Los uso sin pensar... Supongo que siempre que quieras indicar posesión (donde pueda haber un mi, mis, tu, tus, su, sus).



Wow.. That was an enormously helpful post, Pedro. I was trying to point out that Ivy sort of 'gave an example' that was 'changing' the subject a bit. I know the various ways SE could be understood in that sentence. I was just hoping he would keep the examples consistent. Though it's unnatural and sounds like it was 'on purpose' it is grammatical to say "Rompió su brazo (sin querer)."

But everything you wrote there makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks for taking the time to post it all.

--> And 'almost ever' is not grammatical in English. We say: "Almost never" or "Almost always"


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> El barbero le afeitó el bigote
> 'LE' = a él (CI) = su DATIVE of possession)
> El barbero afeitó su bigote ( could be ambiguous) could be his own mustache (BARBER )or the customer's= to avoid this ambiguity
> El barbero le afeitó su bigote.
> 'LE' = DATIVE OR INDIRECT pronoun, could also indicate either an INDIRECT OBJECT or a dative of possession.
> Rompió su brazo = could also imply that he caused it as agent not as patient. To avoid this ambiguity is better to keep the 'se'.
> In BRIEF = 'se' in romper could be 'se' a morpheme fo the verb = romperse, a marker of ' inacusatividad' ( change of state), a marker of possession= su.
> 
> 
> Ivy29


Yes I'm aware of all of that. I just wanted you to keep your examples consistent. It is easier to follow as student when the teacher keeps the examples consistent and doesn't introduce another concept in the middle of teaching one thing.

Thanks,
Grant


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

NewdestinyX said:


> But our favorite little particle 'se' has again shown its amazing flexibility to take on so many roles in the language of Cervantes.


 _SE_ is really painful. 


NewdestinyX said:


> I have also learned in this thread that the term 'reflexive' verb is less and less helpful to the foreign student. It is more of a hindrance than a help. Verbs in Spanish are, at their core: Transitivo, Intransitivo, Sustantivo, Auxiliar or Pronominal. The term "reflexive" is a 'role' a transitive verb can play based on the type of action the verb has. If the transitive verb is a kind of action that happens mostly to 'self' then it can be labeled 'reflexivo'. But that doesn't help us understand syntax only 'semantic role'.


.


NewdestinyX said:


> I'm still grappling with how an 'indirect object' as a dative, differs from a 'dativo simpatético' as a dative -- syntactically speaking. Or is the difference only semantic?


Dativo simpatético/posesivo = IO. This "dativo" is just a sematic issue.
Dativo de interés/ético is _not_ an IO. If it doesn't agree with the subject dative is _expletivo _or_ pleonástico, _otherwise it could be or not.


NewdestinyX said:


> And can 'le' ever be a "dativo enfático/ético" or "emotivo" -- or is the only 3rd person choice: 'se'?


Never. It would not make sense... When _emphatic dative _doesn't agree with the subject, i.e.: No te _me_ manches, hijo mío; It is always referred to the _speaker_. When _emphatic dative _agrees with the subject, i.e.: _Me_ gano la vida vendiendo casas, or: _Se_ jugó el dinero a la lotería; It is always referred to the sentence's subject. There is no place for 3rd person if not reflexive. It would make no sense at all.

Pedro.


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

NewdestinyX said:


> --> And 'almost ever' is not grammatical in English. We say: "Almost never" or "Almost always"


Thank you, Grant.


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

virgilio said:


> Pitt,
> Re your:"El *dativo de interés* sólo se usa con los pronombres *me, te, se, nos, os,* pero nunca con los pronombres *le* y *les*."
> 
> Ah yes but not in the South, I understand.


Not in the South? Intringuing. What do you mean?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Dativo simpatético/posesivo = IO.


 This is not what my grammars teach. All IO pronouns need to be able to accept 'a mí, a ti, etc.. And I don't believe the Dativo simpatético/posesivo can accept that -- I think the Dativo Posesivo is a CI but not an IO which are different things. All IO's are CI's but not all CI's are IO. And as we've learned in this 'struggle' -- not all CI's use the IO pronouns me,te,le,nos,os,les.


> This "dativo" is just a semantic issue.


 I agree with that. But the IO can never be semantic only -- an IO is always a matter of syntax. That I'm sure of. But we could be mixing up terms that are used differently by different grammarians, Pedro.



> Dativo de interés/ético is _not_ an IO.


 This is what my books teach. 


> If it doesn't agree with the subject, the dativeis _expletivo _or_ pleonástico, _otherwise it could be an IO or not. (This sentence was hard to understand in English? It could be 'what' or not?


 I don't understand what you mean here.



> When _emphatic dative _doesn't agree with the subject, i.e.: No te _me_ manches, hijo mío; It is always referred to the _speaker_. When _emphatic dative _agrees with the subject, i.e.: _Me_ gano la vida vendiendo casas, or: _Se_ jugó el dinero a la lotería; It is always referred to the sentence's subject.


 This is the revelation I have received most in this thread and it is almost perfectly clear -- but not quite. 



> There is no place for 3rd person if not reflexive. It would make no sense at all.


 I'm sorry but I don't see this yet. I'm sure you're correct -- but I've been thinking of these things a certain way for a very long time and I need to make some adjustments. Your English is SO GOOD, Pedro and you are doing a great job, Maestro mío, but I need to ask questions in my own way and summarize it back to you before it's going to 'mover dentro'. ;-) It would also seem that if the Interest Datives are always showing the interest of the speaker then it could only ever be 'me' and 'nos'.

Can I assume that all these terms are interchangeable: Dativo de Interés, Dative Emphático, Dativo de Énfasis, Dativo Ético, Dativo Emotivo, Dativo Expletivo. Are they all different ways of referring to the same thing? Now some sources you've cited say that the pronouns that can be used for all those cases are: me, te, se, nos, os. And you say that they are focussed on the 'speaker' of the sentence and not the subject of the verb. My question. How can 'se' show a speaker's focus/interest? Please give me an example in Spanish and its closest English counterpart.

Additionally the grammars state that they are all removable with no change in meaning/semantic except in certain instances like Total Consumption. 

Let me ask that one question for now.

Grant


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

NewdestinyX said:


> This is not what my grammars teach. All IO pronouns need to be able to accept 'a mí, a ti, etc.. And I don't believe the Dativo simpatético/posesivo can accept that -- I think the Dativo Posesivo is a CI but not an IO which are different things. All IO's are CI's but not all CI's are IO. And as we've learned in this 'struggle' -- not all CI's use the IO pronouns me,te,le,nos,os,les.


I assumed that the Spanish word "CI" was transated into English as "IO". On the other hand:


			
				Gramática didáctica del español. Gómez Torrego said:
			
		

> Dativo simpatético
> Algunos gramáticos llaman dativo *simpatético *o* posesivo *a aquel pronombre átono que tiene valor de posesión. Pero se trata de un valor exclusivamente semántico. Ejemplos:Se *me* ha roto el vestido. -> Se ha roto *mi* vestido.
> Se *le* iluminaron los ojos. -> Se iluminaron *sus* ojos.​Sintácticamente, son complementos indirectos.​


The possesive dative admits the duplication: _a mí_, _a ti_, etc.


NewdestinyX said:


> I agree with that. But the IO can never be semantic only -- an IO is always a matter of syntax. That I'm sure of. But we could be mixing up terms that are used differently by different grammarians, Pedro.


Yes. I've mixed things up. I presumed it was the translation of CI. For you, IO is a dative, isn't it? 


NewdestinyX said:


> PPCM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it doesn't agree with the subject dative is _expletivo _or_ pleonástico, _otherwise it could be or not.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you mean here.
Click to expand...

If it doesn't agree with the subject, the dative is _expletivo _or_ pleonástico _[removable]_, _otherwise it could be [removable] or not.
_Si el pronombre no concuerda con el sujeto, el dativo [ético] es expletivo o pleonástico (se puede quitar), si no concuerda con el sujeto no puede decirse a priori si es eliminable.
_


NewdestinyX said:


> ...but I need to ask questions in my own way and summarize it back to you before it's going to 'mover dentro'/interiorizarse. ;-)


Las cosas de palacio van despacio ;-).


NewdestinyX said:


> Can I assume that all these terms are interchangeable: Dativo de Interés, Dativo Enfático, Dativo de Énfasis, Dativo Ético, Dativo Emotivo, Dativo Expletivo. Are they all different ways of referring to the same thing?


Yes, nevertheless, I don't like the "dativo expletivo" denomination. Some _dativos éticos_ are not _expletivos_ at all. They are removable for sure only when they don't agree with the subject.


NewdestinyX said:


> Now some sources you've cited say that the pronouns that can be used for all those cases are: me, te, se, nos, os. And you say that they are focussed on the 'speaker' of the sentence and not the subject of the verb. My question. How can 'se' show a speaker's focus/interest? Please give me an example in Spanish and its closest English counterpart.


_Me_ and _nos_ are used referred to the speaker, but the others are possible, indeed, as dativos éticos:
 *No te me manches.* {It is important for me that you} don't staint.
 *No te nos despistes.* {It is important for us that you} don't get distracted/lost.

 *¡No te/os compres/compréis eso!* C'mon, don't you buy that! {It is not of interest for you.}
 *coloq. Juan se te quiere follar.* John want to fuck you. {He is so interested! }.
Regards,

Pedro.

EDITADO:le/les no puede ser un dativo ético... Este ejemplo está en la frontera entre CI y dativo ético:*
coloq.* *No te le/s vayas a escapar, ¿eh? * You won't run away {from him/her/them}, will you?


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Wow.. That was an enormously helpful post, Pedro. I was trying to point out that Ivy sort of 'gave an example' that was 'changing' the subject a bit. I know the various ways SE could be understood in that sentence. I was just hoping he would keep the examples consistent. Though it's unnatural and sounds like it was 'on purpose' it is grammatical to say "Rompió su brazo (sin querer)


 
Here again  you do not get the *semantics* of the sentence.
*Rompió su brazo sin querer*: is ambiguous, I do repeat it  could mean his own arm or he caused it to another person. That's the reason you must keep the 'se' pronoun as reflexive.
Se rompió su brazo sin querer ( no ambiguity)

Ivy29


----------



## Jeromed

Ivy29 said:


> Here again  you do not get the *semantics* of the sentence.
> *Rompió su brazo sin querer*: is ambiguous, I do repeat it  could mean his own arm or he caused it to another person. That's the reason you must keep the 'se' pronoun as reflexive.
> Se rompió su brazo sin querer ( no ambiguity)
> 
> Ivy29



Or rompió su *propio* brazo sin querer.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> Here again  you do not get the *semantics* of the sentence.
> *Rompió su brazo sin querer*: is ambiguous, I do repeat it  could mean his own arm or he caused it to another person. That's the reason you must keep the 'se' pronoun as reflexive.
> Se rompió su brazo sin querer ( no ambiguity)
> 
> Ivy29



I understand the semantics perfectly, Ivy. But we need to keep variables in example sentences consistent when we're clarifying a topic where questions (dudas) still remain. If removing ambiguity  is that important you could just as easily have said -- Rompió su 'propio' brazo. The 'se' is not the only way to dispel the ambiguity. When we present examples here it's important that we try as much as possible not to change too many variables. The whole purpose of the list of choices was to show how the dativo simpatético converts to the possessive pronoun without the dative. Nada más.

Equally -- Se rompió su abrazo" is pretty redundant and would less commonly be said in daily speech unless there was 'emphasis'. The infinitely more common way to say -- "Rompió su propio brazo sin querer" is: "Se le rompió el brazo." (non fault se).

But again I thank you for the list and helping me through this step. 

Grant


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> I understand the semantics perfectly, Ivy. But we need to keep variables in example sentences consistent when we're clarifying a topic where questions (dudas) still remain. If removing ambiguity is that important you could just as easily have said -- Rompió su 'propio' brazo. The 'se' is not the only way to dispel the ambiguity. When we present examples here it's important that we try as much as possible not to change too many variables. The whole purpose of the list of choices was to show how the dativo simpatético converts to the possessive pronoun without the dative. Nada más.
> 
> Equally -- Se rompió su abrazo" is pretty redundant and would less commonly be said in daily speech unless there was 'emphasis'. The infinitely more common way to say -- "Rompió su propio brazo sin querer" is: "Se le rompió el brazo." (non fault se).
> 
> But again I thank you for the list and helping me through this step.
> 
> Grant


 

The *standard Spanish* = *se rompió el brazo*, different from English where the possessive is germane with body parts. Technically is  a'FRACTURE'.

Ivy29


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

Ivy29 said:


> Technically is  a'FRACTURE'.


Ivy, you really got to nonplus me!


----------



## Ivy29

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:


> Ivy, you really got to nonplus me!


 

May I know why)

Ivy29


----------

