# La - Le - Lo



## MarX

Hello!

Why are *la*, *le*, and *lo* mixed up so much in Spain?
I'm not talking about the rules decided by RAE, but rather about the day to day practice, especially in the spoken language.

Does this intermingling have its origins in Latin?
Do other Latin languages have this?

Thank you!

Groetjes,


MarX


----------



## avok

"le" or "el"?

Anyway, Portuguese has "a" "o","-la" and "-lo"


----------



## Outsider

MarX said:


> Why are *la*, *le*, and *lo* mixed up so much in Spain?
> I'm not talking about the rules decided by RAE, but rather about the day to day practice, especially in the spoken language.


What do you mean?


----------



## palomnik

I presume MarX is referring to the pronoun object of the verb, especially when referring to living beings.

I'm not a native, and I'd be curious to hear the answer to this myself!


----------



## Outsider

Oh, when I read the question my first thought went to the articles!

I think it's not difficult to guess what happened: the personal _a_.  Other Romance languages do not have a personal _a_, so I suppose this must have been an innovation of Spanish. In Portuguese, it's usually easy to tell whether an object is direct or indirect: except for a few well-identifiable and rare cases, a direct object comes immediately after the verb, while an indirect object is preceded by the preposition _a_. This must have been the case in old Spanish, too, but then the personal _a_ gained popularity, and suddenly you had direct objects that were also preceded by an _a_. Some speakers must have started to mistake the prepositioned direct object for an indirect object, and hence refer to it with _le_ instead of _lo_.

This is probably not the whole story, though, since the same did not happen with the feminine pronoun _la_...


----------



## Joannes

MarX said:


> Does this intermingling have its origins in Latin?


No, on the contrary, the separation has its origins in Latin. *Lo* comes from *illum*, *la* from *illam* (both accusative forms of *ille*). *Le*, on the other hand, was derived from *illi*, the dative form.



Outsider said:


> This is probably not the whole story, though, since the same did not happen with the feminine pronoun _la_...


Or at least not with the same timing.

I agree that 'personal *a*' may well have something to do with it.


----------



## MarX

Thank you!



Outsider said:


> Oh, when I read the question my first thought went to the articles!
> 
> I think it's not difficult to guess what happened: the personal _a_.  Other Romance languages do not have a personal _a_, so I suppose this must have been an innovation of Spanish. In Portuguese, it's usually easy to tell whether an object is direct or indirect: except for a few well-identifiable and rare cases, a direct object comes immediately after the verb, while an indirect object is preceded by the preposition _a_. This must have been the case in old Spanish, too, but then the personal _a_ gained popularity, and suddenly you had direct objects that were also preceded by an _a_. Some speakers must have started to mistake the prepositioned direct object for an indirect object, and hence refer to it with _le_ instead of _lo_.


I've never thought of it, but you're right! This must have something to do with the *personal a*.



Outsider said:


> This is probably not the whole story, though, since the same did not happen with the feminine pronoun _la_...


It does happen with *her*.

Jealindgar from the Canarias posted this:


jealindgar said:


> Hola,
> siempre he tenido esta duda pq me lo machacaron mucho en el instituto. Es el tema del laismo.
> si estoy hablando de mi hermana, como digo? la quiero o le quiero (recuerdo q esta era el correcto)



And this is what Ryba and Javier said. Confirming your assumptions:


ryba said:


> Hola:
> 
> En primero y en segundo tuve clases con una profe de Gran Canaria que cometía leísmo personal hasta en plural, tratárase del plural _ellos_, _ellas_ (según la RAE, incorrecto*) o _ustedes_ (aceptado por la RAE).
> 
> * A mí me sonaba bien, pues se parecía al objeto directo en francés (les).
> 
> Bueno, les dejo con este tema tan pasionante y tratado con tanto afán y empeño en estos foros, me voy a la facultad. Que tengan un buen día.





javier8907 said:


> Sin embargo, el uso de "le" y "les" para el objeto directo (humano) de ambos sexos está extendidísimo en el País Vasco, mucho más que el uso considerado correcto. Me preguntaba en qué otras zonas se dice también así.
> 
> Por cierto, se me plantea otra pregunta. ¿Qué es lo correcto: "A mi hermana le pego mucho." o "A mi hermana la pego mucho"? A mí esta última me sale responderla con "¿Pero con celo o con pegamento?". Me refiero a darle golpes exclusivamente. Y una pregunta paralela: ¿cuál os suena mejor?


----------



## sokol

This mixing up of pronouns by native speakers is quite a nuisance for learners of Spanish who would have to struggle with them even if native speakers were consistent ... we had an argument in my Spanish course about that recently (with our teacher being Castilian, but I've already again forgotten what use is acceptable for her ...).

Therefore I did look this up in my grammar which says (Hueber Große Lerngrammatik: p. 187):
*- leísmo:* _le/les_ used instead of _lo/los_ or _la/las_ (= indirect object used when direct object is requested) which is 'not recommended' by the RAE (Real Academia Espanola) but 'allowed' for _le _instead of _lo _while the other substitutions are considered incorrect standard speech by the RAE

And the other two are considered not standard but colloquial speech in some regions, according to this grammar:
*- loísmo:* lo/los instead of le/les (direct instead of indirect, male)
*- laísmo:* la/las instead of le/les (direct instead of indirect, female)

 What I know for a fact is that even our teacher sometimes slips into her preferred colloquial speech versions (which I've forgotten already, as stated). And Outsider, when you say 'personal _a'_ you mean the use of 
a construction 'looking like' indirect object but 'being' direct? Like this ones:
_- conocer a X_ where X = a person
_- conocer algo_ = unpersonal

Another Spanish peculiarity also comes to my mind here (I don't know if this exists in other Romance languages, only that this is not the case in French, far as I know), the anticipation of an object in sentences like that (also from my Hueber Grammar, p. 191, this to make sure that the sentences indeed are correct):
- *Lo *sé todo.
- *Los *conozco a los cuatro.
In both cases the anticipated pronoun would be superfluous (and wouldn't be used) in French (if I remember correctly). Probably _leísmo _could be due to 'weakening' of the anticipated pronoun and then have spread from there?

Pronoun systems usually are rather stable, but if one instability occurs (like with these possibilities) the system itself may become unstable which possibly could cause _laísmo _and _loísmo _(for which no 'weakening' theory could apply).

But please accept these suggestions just as 'wild thinking' of what probably could be possible, I am no expert on _leísmo _and all the others, not at all.


----------



## Outsider

sokol said:


> This mixing up of pronouns by native speakers is quite a nuisance for learners of Spanish who would have to struggle with them even if native speakers were consistent ... we had an argument in my Spanish course about that recently (with our teacher being Castilian, but I've already again forgotten what use is acceptable for her ...).


As non-natives, the best we can do, so as not to get totally confused, is to pick one style and stick to it. As I speak Portuguese, it was easy for me: I kept using the pronouns as we would in Portuguese. I suppose if I spoke to many _leísta_ speakers, I might pick up their way of speaking.



sokol said:


> And Outsider, when you say 'personal _a'_ you mean the use of
> a construction 'looking like' indirect object but 'being' direct? Like this ones:
> _- conocer a X_ where X = a person
> _- conocer algo_ = unpersonal


Yes, that's it.



sokol said:


> Another Spanish peculiarity also comes to my mind here (I don't know if this exists in other Romance languages, only that this is not the case in French, far as I know), the anticipation of an object in sentences like that (also from my Hueber Grammar, p. 191, this to make sure that the sentences indeed are correct):
> - *Lo *sé todo.
> - *Los *conozco a los cuatro.
> In both cases the anticipated pronoun would be superfluous (and wouldn't be used) in French (if I remember correctly). Probably _leísmo _could be due to 'weakening' of the anticipated pronoun and then have spread from there?


You actually have two peculiarities there. In the second sentence, I think what you have is an instance of clitic doubling, which is a characteristic of other Romance languages, too (in slightly different conditions).

In the first sentence, you have the fact that certain verbs are only allowed to be used transitively. When their object is abstract, a mandatory dummy object must be added. This can be found in many languages (not always for the same verbs/circumstances), including English. To give a concrete example, if I'm looking for a book and I find it, in Portuguese I can say the equivalent of "I found!", but in English only "I found *it*!" is allowed.



sokol said:


> Pronoun systems usually are rather stable, but if one instability occurs (like with these possibilities) the system itself may become unstable which possibly could cause _laísmo _and _loísmo _(for which no 'weakening' theory could apply).


I have to say that pronoun systems don't seem so stable from the point of view of the Romance languages, what with all the _tú - vos - usted, voi - lei - loro_ variations and whatnot! 

I was wondering, after I made my previous post, if the change from _tú_ to _usted_ might also have had something to do with the appearance of _leísmo_...



sokol said:


> But please accept these suggestions just as 'wild thinking' of what probably could be possible, I am no expert on _leísmo _and all the others, not at all.


Same here.


----------



## PABLO DE SOTO

El leísmo y el laísmo tienen que ver con la tendencia a la simplificación.
Al desaparecer los casos del latín y quedar sólo para los pronombres, en Castilla los hablantes dejaron de diferenciar los pronombres por caso y empezaron a hacerlo por género, la para el femenino y le para el masculino.
La di un regalo ( a ella)/ le di un regalo ( a él).
La vi en el parque (a ella)/ le vi en el parque.( a él).
El sistema para las personas es el mismo que en inglés ( her/ him)
Lo que importa es el género, claramente identificable para un hablante, no el caso, mucho menos identificable.
De hecho a los hablantes leístas o laístas es difícil explicarles cuándo deben usar uno u otro pronombre porque la idea de dativo y acusativo se ha perdido. Hay que recurrir a las ideas de objeto directo e indirecto que no vienen inmediatamente a la cabeza.
Esta tendencia no prosperó más allá de ciertas zonas de Castilla y áreas limítrofes con lo cual es claramente minoritaria en el ámbito hispano, razón clave para que sea considerada incorrecta.
Sin embargo el leísmo de persona está tan arraigado en España (no toda España) desde hace siglos, presente en la literatura etc. que la Real Academia optó por declararalo admitido.
Los leístas auténticos, zona de Valladolid, Burgos aplican el leísmo también para los objetos en función del género ( el coche le compré ayer). En otras zonas como Madrid se sigue usando "lo" para los objetos de género masculino en el objeto directo y "le" para las personas, según la versión admitida por la Academia.
En ambas zonas, el laísmo es común, aunque al no estar admitido, las personas de cierta cultura lo evitan.


----------



## pickypuck

Just to add that in Spanish there are verbs that can be both transitive and intransitive. It's up to the speaker to consider them one or the other case, so it's up to the speaker to use direct or indirect pronoun objects.

For example:

Ayudar (to help)
Obedecer (to obey)
Servir (to serve)

Etc.

So you can say ¿en qué puedo ayudarla/le/lo? Neither of the three cases are a case of laísmo, leísmo or loísmo. 

The Panhispanic Dictionary of Doubts says that these verbs were built with dative in Latin and like this they passed to the Spanish language. But some speakers started to use them following the rules they used for other verbs. So maybe this is another reason why some Spanish speakers have such a gazpacho  to differenciate when a pronoun is correct and when it is not.

In my opinion, the confusion became a nightmare when the RAE admitted leísmo for certain situations 

Cheers.


----------



## jazyk

> Does this intermingling have its origins in Latin?


I don't think so.



> Do other Latin languages have this?


It seems to be happening a lot in Brazil, which really gets on my nerves. A lot of times people use lhe instead of o/a when they are talking to someone using você and I've even seen lhe being used as o/a in reference to a third speaker. And the worst thing is that this _leísmo de cortesía _seemed confined to the Northeast, but then all of a sudden it looks as though (almost) everybody is using it, no matter where they are from.


----------



## darnil

Even though the explanation offered by Pablo de Soto is perfect, I'd try to explain it in other way:

There are two norms and several variants to the second one: 

a.The *etymological *one: It differentiates first _case,_ second _gender,_ (but only in Acc.)_:_Accusative (CD, direct object): I see *him*/*her*/*it*: _*lo* / *la* / *lo* veo. (lo _from _illum, la _from _illam, lo _from _illud)_
Dative (CI): I gave *him* / *her* / *it* a kiss: _*le / le / le *di un beso_ (all them from _illi_)​This is the general use in Spanish (Spain south of Castilla, Canary Islands and almost all of América), and the one recommended by the RAE.

b. The "*leísta*" one: It differentiate first gender and then case:Accusative (CD, direct object): I see *him*/*her*/*it*: _*le* / *la* / *lo* veo. _
Dative (CI): I gave *him* / *her* / *it* a kiss: _*le / le / le *di un beso_ ​ But this deserves several remarks:

In the leísta norm the use of _le _instead of _lo_ in Acc. is generally used only with animate beings (i.e., people and some animals), while when speaking of things, we use _lo_. : ¿Has visto a Juan? -Sí, _le_ he visto. / ¿Has visto mi coche? -Sí, _lo_ he visto.
In this norm, the tendency is to mark _only_ gender (animacy) and not case, so you can find:
¿Has visto a Juan? -Sí, _le_ he visto.
¿Has visto a María? -Sí, _la_ he visto.
¿Has visto eso? -Sí, _lo_ he visto.

And even in Dative (considered as vulgar):

A Juan *le* doy un beso todos los días (correct for all speakers)
A María *la* doy un beso todos los días
A mi coche le/*lo* (rare) doy un beso todos los días (even more rare, but you can kiss who/whatever you want . Jazyk: remember the animate vehicles in Slavic languages?)
So, there are in Castilian Spanish two tendencies interferring: the one which keeps etymological case differences and the one which tries to get rid of the only remainders of case and to use gender instead.

And about confusions, I'd say that the speakers of any dialect don't have any problem when using this. Problems only arise when trying to adapt yourself to the _other_ norm. For example, when you are a Castilian and are told that you are not speaking correctly or when you are a non-Castilian and come to Madrid...



pickypuck said:


> In my opinion, the confusion became a nightmare when the RAE admitted leísmo for certain situations
> Cheers.


 
The RAE admitted the _leísmo de persona_ as a _mal menor (¿?)_ for these stupid and stubborn Castilians who don't know anything better, but has never said that this should be extensive for all speakers.

By the way, "these stupid Castilians" include Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Quevedo... and some "foreign" people as Galdós, Unamuno, Baroja... So, as you can guess, no offense intended. In fact, I am myself Castilian _and_ leísta.


----------



## avok

jazyk said:


> I don't think so.
> 
> 
> It seems to be happening a lot in Brazil, which really gets on my nerves. A lot of times people use lhe instead of o/a when they are talking to someone using você and I've even seen lhe being used as o/a in reference to a third speaker. And the worst thing is that this _leísmo de cortesía _seemed confined to the Northeast, but then all of a sudden it looks as though (almost) everybody is using it, no matter where they are from.


 

Can you give an example? Is it like saying "Eu lhe amo" instead of "eu amo voce"?


----------



## jazyk

Yes, that's it.


----------



## pickypuck

I've just come across an interesting post in the Spanish language forum, which may contribute to this one. It is the so-called "pronominal alternance with affective verbs"... well, maybe there's a technical term for this. According to the post by forera muycuriosa, there are times that "le" is preferred (and in fact it acts as an direct object) with certain affective verbs. This is considered an apparent leísmo but not a real one. So this together with what I mentioned before about the verbs that are transitive or intransitive at the same time, may be another reason of the appearance of the la-le-lo shift phenomenon.

Bye!


----------



## avok

jazyk said:


> Yes, that's it.


 
Thanks for the short answer  Is it that common in Brazil? Is "le" the Spanish "lhe"?


----------



## jazyk

It wasn't common until some time ago (I'm talking about my region) but now you seem to find it anywhere, anytime. 

Yes, lhe corresponds to le.


----------



## Outsider

However (to continue the tangent) Brazilians who speak that way use _lhe_ for all direct objects.


----------



## Montesacro

pickypuck said:


> Ayudar (to help)
> Obedecer (to obey)
> Servir (to serve)
> 
> Etc.
> 
> (...)
> 
> The Panhispanic Dictionary of Doubts says that these verbs were built with dative in Latin and like this they passed to the Spanish language.


 
 
This in not true, of course.
Ayudar comes from latin _adiuvare_ (or maybe from a late vulgar form _adiutare_) , a *transitive* verb which is in turn derived from _ad – iuvare_: to be of use/help for (somebody).
In other romance languages the verbs corresponding to Spanish _ayudar_ are transitive as well (I’m thinking for example of Italian _aiutare_).


----------



## pickypuck

Montesacro said:


> This in not true, of course.
> Ayudar comes from latin _adiuvare_ (or maybe from a late vulgar form _adiutare_) , a *transitive* verb which is in turn derived from _ad – iuvare_: to be of use/help for (somebody).
> In other romance languages the verbs corresponding to Spanish _ayudar_ are transitive as well (I’m thinking for example of Italian _aiutare_).


 
This is what the Panhispanic Dictionary of Doubts (from the Royal Academy of the Spanish language) says particularly:

*ayudar(se)*. [...] En ciertas zonas no leístas, sin embargo, se mantiene su uso como intransitivo, *conservando el dativo con que se construía en latín* (lat. _adiutare_): _«Su hijo Leoncio le ayuda _[a ella] _a vivir» _(_Hoy_ [El Salv.] 30.1.97)

If you think they are mistaken, you should let them know. They acknowledge all the feedback they receive.


----------



## jazyk

> Ayudar comes from latin _adiuvare_ (or maybe from a late vulgar form _adiutare_) , a *transitive* verb which is in turn derived from _ad – iuvare_: to be of use/help for (somebody).
> In other romance languages the verbs corresponding to Spanish _ayudar_ are transitive as well (I’m thinking for example of Italian _aiutare_).



I second this, Latin adiuvare/adjuvare isn't constructed with the dative, but with the accusative (at least classic Latin). And I also agree that all other Romance languages have the accusative with this verb: Portuguese/Catalan ajudar, French aider and Romanian ajuta, for instance. So maybe should contact the RAE and point it out to them.


----------



## Outsider

I've started a new thread about the analysis of that sentence.


----------

