# Se lo dije a María / Lo dije a María



## patotas07

¿Es necesario decir 'le' si incluyo una referencia clara al objecto indirecto?

*Se lo dije a María* vs. *Lo dije a María.*

Otro ejemplo-

*Se las di a los muchachos* vs. *Las di a los muchachos.*

¡Gracias!
p


----------



## Kangy

The "se" refers to the person you gave/said something to.
It's compulsory to use it, because it sounds incomplete, even when you have the "a..." (a María; a los muchachos) part, which might sound redundant in English, but is necessary in Spanish.

Here's another example:

I said it to you
You can think it is: Lo dije a tí 
The "te" is necessary, no matter if you say "a tí"
Thus: Te lo dije a tí.


----------



## patotas07

Gracias de nuevo, Kangy.


----------



## Jeromed

patotas, 
You don't always need the redundant IO pronoun. However, native speakers normally use them, whether necessary or not. You will find constructions without them (mainly, but not exclusively) in high registers, especially in written Spanish.

An example I always use to convince disbelieving natives is _Y Jesús dijo a sus discípulos_ (no _les_), which is a sentence that every Christian and their brother have heard in church.

In Kangy's example, the redundant pronoun is obligatory because the IO is a personal pronoun.


----------



## Milton Sand

Jeromed said:


> An example I always use to convince disbelieving natives is _Y Jesús dijo a sus discípulos_ (no _les_), which is a sentence that every Christian and their brother have heard in church.
> *My response:* _This way is too much formal and not usual in modern Spanish._


Hi!
Jeromed is right about the duplication of the indirect object (a noun and its corresponding pronoun), which he called redundance, but Patotas' question is an additional case to this topic.

Patotas asked about the pronoun "_se_" when it's used before an accusative (_lo, la,_ etc.) working as dative pronoun instead of "_le(s)_" in spite of mentioning the I.O., I mean, in those sentences that use the redundancy pronoun+noun:

_Spa: _[*Le*]*di las camisas* [al chico].* => Se las di *[al chico].
_Eng: _*I **gave the shirts *tothe boy *=> I gave them *tothe_boy*/him**.*

(The color code is my attemtp to link the words and the meanings: I.O. and D.O.)

This usage (mentioning the I.O.) becomes obligatory if you want your sentence to "taste" like natural Spanish and not to seem artificially elegant.

However, when the IO has been previously mentioned, it is not recommended to repeat it one more time, as shown in example No.1:

_1– Where are my dirty shirts?_
_Eng:_ The laundry boy came by, I saw your dirty shirts so I gave *them* *to him*.
_Spa:_ Pasó el chico de la lavandería, vi tus camisas sucias y *se* *las* di. _(No I.O. repetitions)_

_2– What?_
_Eng: _I said that, your shirts, I gave *them* to the laundry boy.
_Spa:_ Que tus camisas *se* *las* di al de la lavandería.

_3– What? To the laundry boy?_
_Eng: _Yes, I said I gave *them* to him.
_Spa:_ Sí, que *se* *las* di a él.

I'm sorry if my english grammar is not good enough, but I hope you'll get the idea.
Bye.


----------



## Jeromed

> _*My response: This way is too much formal and not usual in modern Spanish.*_


 
_Did I say otherwise? Please reread my post. You obviously didn't get my point.  _


----------



## Milton Sand

Jeromed said:


> _Did I say otherwise? Please reread my post. You obviously didn't get my point. _


Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't get it right. But, relax. I wasn't contradicting you either.
Although, I would have crossed out some words:


Jeromed said:


> ...constructions without them (mainly, but not exclusively) in high registers, especially in written Spanish.


Of course, I might be wrong. After more than three decades, I can tell I'm still learning Spanish.
Bye.


----------



## Jeromed

How about the sentence:

_Pedro donó 20 mil dólares a la Cruz Roja._

Does it sound very 'high-register' and exclusively 'written-language' to you_?_


----------



## Idiomático

Jeromed said:


> How about the sentence:
> 
> _Pedro donó 20 mil dólares a la Cruz Roja._
> 
> Does it sound very 'high-register' and exclusively 'written-language' to you_?_


 

It sounds very normal to me.


----------



## panjabigator

Jeromed said:


> How about the sentence:
> 
> _Pedro donó 20 mil dólares a la Cruz Roja._
> 
> Does it sound very 'high-register' and exclusively 'written-language' to you_?_



Pienso que me confunde un poquitín Jeromed, estás diciendo que en esta oración normalmente se pone un "le" antes del verbo?

¿Cómo os parecen estas oraciones?
_Pedro le donó 20 mil dólares a la Cruz Roja._
_Pedro donó 20 mil dólares a la Cruz Roja.

_Y a respeto de lo que dijiste sobre la línea del Biblia, que tipo de sabor tiene estas frases hechas sin el O.I.?   Te suenan más formales o arcaicos? 

Un saludo
PG


----------



## lazarus1907

panjabigator said:


> Pienso que me confunde un poquitín Jeromed, estás diciendo que en esta oración normalmente se pone un "le" antes del verbo?


Si le he entendido bien, estaba diciendo justo lo contrario. Esa frase es normal sin el "le". De hecho, con el "le" suena casi mal.


----------



## Jeromed

lazarus1907 said:


> Si le he entendido bien, estaba diciendo justo lo contrario. Esa frase es normal sin el "le". De hecho, con el "le" suena casi mal.


 
Así es.  Gracias.


----------



## Jeromed

panjabigator said:


> Y a respeto de lo que dijiste sobre la línea del Biblia, que tipo de sabor tiene estas frases hechas sin el O.I.? Te suenan más formales o arcaicos?
> Un saludo
> PG


 
La usé simplemente para demostrar que no siempre se tiene que colocar el pronombre átono (o redundante) en las oraciones que tienen OI explícito, como argumentan muchos hispanohablantes.

En general, esas oraciones sin el pronombre átono sí se oyen más formales (por lo menos desde mi punto de vista). Empero, con el ejemplo de la Cruz Roja quise demostrar que en algunos casos no se trata de oraciones con un dejo literario, sino del día día--y que incluso se 'sienten' más idiomáticas sin ese pronombre.


----------



## Jeromed

Más oraciones sin pronombre átono:

_El camarero sirvió la cerveza a Pedro_
_Robaron el bolso a María_
_El atracador pegó una paliza a la dependienta_ 
_El acusado escribió una carta al juez_ 
_El médico curó la herida al torero, _etc
[DPD]

Ninguna es muy literaria, ¿verdad?


----------



## Milton Sand

Jeromed said:


> _El camarero sirvió la cerveza a Pedro. -> ¡Qué elegante! Bastante literaria._
> _El camarero le sirvió la cerveza a Pedro._
> _El atracador le pegó una paliza a la dependienta_.
> _El acusado le escribió una carta al juez._
> _El médico le curó la herida al torero, _etc
> Ninguna es muy literaria, ¿verdad?


Lo siento, Jeromed, pero si no suenan literarias es por que contienen nombres de cosas comunes. La verdad es que, sin el pronombre átono, resultan en algo grave para cualquier idioma: suenan artificiales o extranjeras.

La únicas que tal vez no lo parezcan son _El acusado escribió una carta al juez_ y _El camarero sirvió la cerveza a Pedro_; pero, escritas así, tienen un tono formalísimo.

Por otro lado, es importante reconcoer que no todos los verbos se prestan para quitar o poner el debatido pronombre.

Con todo, cabe recordar que la pregunta inicial no era por "le/les" sino por el "*se*" utilizado como dativo.
Chao.


----------



## SpiceMan

El se como dativo se da simplemente porque está el acusativo lo. O sea, para dilucidar cuando se puede omitir o no ese se, hay que saber cuándo se puede omitir el le.


----------



## Jeromed

Milton Sand said:


> Lo siento, Jeromed, pero si no suenan literarias es por que contienen nombres de cosas comunes. La verdad es que, sin el pronombre átono, resultan en algo grave para cualquier idioma: suenan artificiales o extranjeras.



Es un punto de vista comprensible.  Sin embargo, recuerda que las saqué del DPD.  Allí no las presentan como extranjeras o artificiales.


----------



## Milton Sand

¡Uy! Dame el vínculo. Quiero leerlo bien.
Lo que te puedo asegurar es que las frases se sí entienden y son gramaticalmente correctas, pero no suenan naturales. Especialmente ésta: "_El atracador pegó una paliza a la dependienta_", suena muy _gringo_.


----------



## oeset

Bueno, yo diría:
_El atracador le dió una paliza a la dependienta_
o bien
_El atracador pegó a la dependienta._

Pero no se suele oir mucho eso de 
_El atracador *pegó una paliza* a la dependienta_


----------



## Jeromed

Milton Sand said:


> ¡Uy! Dame el vínculo. Quiero leerlo bien.
> Lo que te puedo asegurar es que las frases se sí entienden y son gramaticalmente correctas, pero no suenan naturales. Especialmente ésta: "_El atracador pegó una paliza a la dependienta_", suena muy _gringo_.


 
Aquí te va. Aparecen en el inciso 4.d)

Psssst. Lo de _gringo_ es mejor que no lo uses. Hay estadounidenses que se ofenden con ese término. ;-)


----------



## NewdestinyX

lazarus1907 said:


> Si le he entendido bien, estaba diciendo justo lo contrario. Esa frase es normal sin el "le". De hecho, con el "le" suena casi mal.


okay you guys are confusing me now. I thought the pull to the redundant IO pronoun was irresistible in Spanish in all cases. Is there any way to predict where it will Not be necessary when the IO is mentioned after 'a'?


----------



## Marias-espanol

Kangy said:


> The "se" refers to the person you gave/said something to.
> It's compulsory to use it, because it sounds incomplete, even when you have the "a..." (a María; a los muchachos) part, which might sound redundant in English, but is necessary in Spanish.
> 
> Here's another example:
> 
> I said it to you   Would this be equal to "I told you"="I said it to you"? Are these both said the same way in Spanish?  In English is sounds better to say, "I told you, (him, her, them.)"or "You told me, (him, her, us, them)"    ¡Gracias!
> You can think it is: Lo dije a tí
> The "te" is necessary, no matter if you say "a tí"
> Thus: Te lo dije a tí.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> Aquí te va. Aparecen en el inciso 4.d)
> 
> Psssst.  Lo de _gringo_ es mejor que no lo uses.  Hay estadounidenses que se ofenden con ese término. ;-)



Agreed. Genteel people should avoid that word all together in a multicultural forum.

Jero,
Your link is tied to the verb 'gustar' and has no 4d. 

Also I have to say that there are times when you and I as 'extranjeros' shouldn't pound our fists to the natives and tell them what they should accept as normal. I've learned that the hard way. They speak and write their language Way more than we do. The pull of the redundant IO pronoun is irresistible is 98% of the cases. In the Bible the 'register' is formal and archaic so it would be expected that a different form would be the case. In all of those sentences you posed the 'le' is way more common when you do Google searches and I asked a native friend of mine that also teaches Spanish and he even said the one with 'camarero' would still use the pronoun more commonly.

You know me by now that if the RAE says it (prescribes it) -- I want it to be known even if the natives say -- don't worry about it. -- But there are some horses we have to ride in the direction they are travelling and this is one of them. Despite the RAE's example of usage without it -- it's only in the halls of academia where that matters. Not in the everyday usage in all registers of society. My friend did agree with other native input here that you can add an air of formality or respect by leaving the redundant IO pronoun out. But you'd never speak that way to a friend, coworker, etc.

My $0.02,
Grant


----------



## Jeromed

NewdestinyX said:


> okay you guys are confusing me now. I thought the pull to the redundant IO pronoun was irresistible in Spanish in all cases. Is there any way to predict where it will Not be necessary when the IO is mentioned after 'a'?


 
LOL. _Irresistible_ is a pretty strong term, although very accurate, IMO. So accurate that even native speakers think it's _obligatory_ to use it, as you probably have read in this thread.

Lazarus, who is a grammar expert, can probably give you some rules. I'll mention just one:

When the regular IO is a personal pronoun, you must use the redundant IO.

Aside from that, AFAIK, the redundant pronoun is not at all obligatory, but it's so _irresistible_ to native speakers that they use it (almost) everywhere in everyday language. There are exceptions -which natives instinctively have a feel for- such as the Red Cross example: _Donó 20 mil dólares a la Cruz Roja_ definitely sounds better than _Le donó...._Students should not try to come up with these constructions on their own if they don't want to sound unusually 'foreign' to native ears.

In higher registers, it's more common to sometimes drop the IO than in everyday language. That's because it sounds more formal and elegant. But, as I have tried to point out in my posts here, it's not exclusively a characteristic of literary Spanish.

Hope I haven't confused you too much.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> LOL. _Irresistible_ is a pretty strong term, although very accurate, IMO. So accurate that even native speakers think it's _obligatory_ to use it, as you probably have read in this thread.
> 
> Lazarus, who is a grammar expert, can probably give you some rules. I'll mention just one:
> 
> When the regular IO is a personal pronoun, you must use the redundant IO.
> 
> Aside from that, AFAIK, the redundant pronoun is not at all obligatory, but it's so _irresistible_ to native speakers that they use it (almost) everywhere in everyday language. There are exceptions -which natives instinctively have a feel for- such as the Red Cross example: _Donó 20 mil dólares a la Cruz Roja_ definitely sounds better than _Le donó...._Students should not try to come up with these constructions on their own if they don't want to sound unusually 'foreign' to native ears.
> 
> In higher registers, it's more common to sometimes drop the IO than in everyday language. That's because it sounds more formal and elegant. But, as I have tried to point out in my posts here, it's not exclusively a characteristic of literary Spanish.
> 
> Hope I haven't confused you too much.



I was writingback to you as you wrote this - but yes.. I agree -- the RAE endeavors to make the case that it's 'prescriptively' normal to drop the redundancy. This is just one of those issues that's 'up their crawl'. The really want to shove it down the throats of the natives that they're sounding 'provincial' by using it. The RAE is alone on this topic. The other grammars I have all refer to it as 'a rule' to add that pronoun in all cases -- where the Red Cross example you gave would be the 'rule-breaker'. There are a few issues where I have to take exception to the RAE as they are alone. Allowing 'con tal que' and 'en caso que' are other places where after the writing of the DPD the 'rules suddenly changed'. Time concordance in subordinate clauses is another area of change since the writing of the DPD. The DPD is the single most 'liberalizing' publication of the RAE since its inception. Many commonly held traditional views on correctness were thrown out the window in the DPD.

Can you tell I get 'stoked' about some of this.  --- 
Grant


----------



## Jeromed

Newdestiny,
My responses below in blue.

Your link is tied to the verb 'gustar' and has no 4d.
Thanks I've corrected it. 

Also I have to say that there are times when you and I as 'extranjeros' shouldn't pound our fists to the natives and tell them what they should accept as normal. 
I agree 100%. I believe I haven't done such thing. If I have, I apologize. My argument -which has been difficult to put across- is that 1) the redundant pronoun is not always obligatory (regardless of actual usage), and 2) that dropping it is not exclusively a characteristic of literary language. 

Another example: _Informamos a todos los presentes que la cafetería hoy cerrará a medianoche._


In all of those sentences you posed the 'le' is way more common when you do Google searches 
You are mistaken. I never did that. If you can show me where I did, please point it out to me so that I can edit it. I don't want to mislead anyone. 

Take care.


----------



## Ynez

Jeromed, creo que Newdestiny quiere decir que en sus búsquedas en google con verbos como "donar" o "informar" ha encontrado más casos con "le".

Los ejemplos que tú has puesto son correctos y normales Jeromed. En el caso de "donar" no se me ocurren ejemplos con "le". En el de "informar" sí.


----------



## Jeromed

Ynez said:


> Jeromed, creo que Newdestiny quiere decir que en sus búsquedas en google con verbos como "donar" o "informar" ha encontrado más casos con "le".
> 
> Gracias Ynez. No había entendido bien.
> 
> Los ejemplos que tú has puesto son correctos y normales Jeromed. En el caso de "donar" no se me ocurren ejemplos con "le". En el de "informar" sí.
> 
> De acuerdo, y gracias por el comentario.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> In all of those sentences you posed the 'le' is way more common when you do Google searches
> You are mistaken. I never did that. If you can show me where I did, please point it out to me so that I can edit it. I don't want to mislead anyone.



I don't understand your sentence structure in response to my statement. I didn't say 'you did' anything. I 'did' a couple of the Google searches myself and the versions with 'le' are in fact more common. And I mentioned other native input I'd received that supported that in each of the sentences you posed without the 'le' the 'le', for him, was more common and the versions without sounded "hi-falutin'". You've been consistent in your position and clear. I just disagree with your conclusion. My conclusion is that in each case where the CI is marked with 'a' and the direct object also mentioned, the redundant IO pronoun is way more common.

Grant


----------



## Jeromed

> In all of those sentences you posed the 'le' is way more common when you do Google searches


 
Sorry! The lack of a comma after _posed_ led me to misread your sentence as _In all of those sentences, you posed..._



> My conclusion is that in each case where the CI is marked with 'a' and the direct object also mentioned, the redundant IO pronoun is way more common.


We all agree on that. No one here has questioned that fact. At least I haven't.

Again, my point is about grammaticality, and about usage not being exclusively literary. I've always held that the redundant IO is by far the more common construction in Spanish. This is what I said in a recent post:



> Aside from that, AFAIK, the redundant pronoun is not at all obligatory, but it's so _irresistible_ to native speakers that they use it (almost) everywhere in everyday language.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> Sorry! The lack of a comma after _posed_ led me to misread your sentence as _In all of those sentences, you posed..._


 LOL! Amazing what the lack of a little comma can do to the communication. Sorry 'bout that. ;-)




> We all agree on that. No one here has questioned that fact. At least I haven't.
> 
> Again, my point is about grammaticality, and about usage not being exclusively literary. I've always held that the redundant IO is by far the more common construction in Spanish. This is what I said in a recent post:


Well okay --- but again the only reason I chimed in is that you posed several sentences that you stated were 'more common' and 'not literary sounding' without the redundancy. I disagreed as did my Google searches and other native input. I think there still is a disagreement on the table. In the 'general' you and I agree. in the 'specific' examples you gave - from my study, the 'le' would also be more common there and it 'does' sound a bit literary to leave it out in 'your specific examples'. I think we're in disagreement on that point aren't we?

We are in total agreement about the grammaticality issue. It is completely grammatical to leave out the redundancy though not advisable. 

We can 'agree to disagree' about what I've stated above but I wanted to present my case -- that's all.

For all practical purposes, students learning Spanish should learn to use it 'always' -- como si fuera la regla. 

And an interesting side note is the tendency all over the Spanish speaking world to use 'le' for 'les' in these redundancies when the IO, marked with 'a', is placed after the verb. Not before.

A las turistas *les* dimos mucha información sobre nuestro país.  -pero-
*Le* dimos mucha información sobre nuestro país a las turistas. (as if to say "to each one of them")

Grant


----------



## Jeromed

> I think we're in disagreement on that point aren't we?


No, we're not in disagreement. What I said was that they weren't particularly literary. I wouldn't dare argue that they are more common than the usual constructions, because they are not (except maybe for the Red Cross example).



> For all practical purposes, students learning Spanish should learn to use it 'always' -- como si fuera la regla.


I agree. 



> And an interesting side note is the tendency all over the Spanish speaking world to use 'le' for 'les' in these redundancies when the IO, marked with 'a', is placed after the verb. Not before.
> A las turistas *les* dimos mucha información sobre nuestro país. -pero-
> *Le* dimos mucha información sobre nuestro país a las turistas. (as if to say "to each one of them")


Yes, you sometimes hear it even from 'highly-educated' speakers! What's funny is that when they shorten the sentence, they'll use the correct pronoun:
*Les* dimos mucha información.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> We all agree on that. No one here has questioned that fact. At least I haven't.
> 
> Again, my point is about grammaticality, and about usage not being exclusively literary.



Jero -- I think I may have found the reason you are trying to pose for the 'le' being dropped and it's in that 4d you posted and in combination with the Cambridge article about English I think I am being swayed to your point in this aspect.

Some verbs have an obvious direct object that's akin to the verb's action. Like a 'doctor cures a hurt' -- We don't mention "the hurt" as the direct object every time. If the hurt is mentioned there the person WITH the hurt is the indirect object in Spanish. So when you drop 'the hurt' the person can become the direct object. The test for this in Spanish is if it can be transformed into classic passive and carry the same meaning.

El médico curó la herida(CD) al toro(CI). The doctored cured the injury of the bull.
El médico curó el toro(CD). The doctor cured the bull.
El médico lo(CD) curó. The doctor cured it. (the bull)
El toro fue curado por el médico.

It's with 'these types' of verbs that the elimination of the redundant IO pronoun can be commonplace without sounding literary. -- I think that's the middle ground here. Agreed?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> Yes, you sometimes hear it even from 'highly-educated' speakers! What's funny is that when they shorten the sentence, they'll use the correct pronoun:
> *Les* dimos mucha información.



Yes -- exactly. I notice that too in Spain.

Grant


----------



## Jeromed

NewdestinyX said:


> It's with 'these types' of verbs that the elimination of the redundant IO pronoun can be commonplace without sounding literary. -- I think that's the middle ground here. Agreed?


 
Also works with _donar_. 

Great conclusion! What an unusual collaboration between the RAE and Cambridge!

Let's mull it over and wait for others to chime in before etching it in stone. (Boy, am I chuck-full of trite expressions today!)


----------



## NewdestinyX

Jeromed said:


> Also works with _donar_.



Yes, of course -- and what do you usually donate? Money -- claro.. But hold on -- you can donate many things -- so the more I think about this the more I'm concluding that '_donar_' isn't an example of this at all. Here's why: The 'to the red cross' is actually what we discussed in other threads as a _Complemento de régimen_ or Prepositional complement. That 'to' there doesn't mark an indirect object but rather it's the 'destination preposition', 'a', = 'to'. Like 'to the store' is not an indirect object -- "to the Red Cross" is also not the indirect object of _donar_-- "red cross' is the object of the preposition 'to'. So actually 'le' in the sentence with donar and red cross would be impossible after all. So it's not really an example of our new found theory - I think. Someone could probably make the argument that the Red Cross is the 'beneficiary' of the donation.. but I've found that generally speaking 98% of all indirect objects are 'animate objects'; people/animals, etc. Could a 'store' be a beneficiary of a verb's action? Not really. These are 'destinations' which call for the preposition 'a'. Technically a 'person' is the _destination_ of a 'letter' but that's a stretch. The person receiving the letter is the beneficiary and the indirect object in such sentences. So my conclusions are expanding:

Le donó mucho dinero a la Cruz Roja. (ungrammatical)
Donó muicho dinero(CD) a la Cruz Roja(CR). (only choice; without the 'le')

It's a pretty common error (and even two advanced dudes like us may have gotten caught on this one) to consider that 'everything' following 'a' (except personal 'a') in Spanish is a marking of an indirect object. Too easy to forget that 'a' is a preposition, just like 'con' and 'de', and it marks many prepositional complements of 'destination'. "A" when acting as a prepositional marker of destination cannot be marker of indirect object - as seems to be the case with '_donar_' now that I think it thru more carefully.



> Great conclusion! What an unusual collaboration between the RAE and Cambridge!


Yes -- I love when that happens.

Good collaboration, Jero.. You cited two great sources and it got the gray matter movin'.. ;-) 

Thanks,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

A few examples of 'le donó' I found on Google were when a person is donating 'an organ' to another person. Then, of course, the recipient of the organ is the 'beneficiary' (animate) of it and therefore the 'indirect object'. 

Getting clearer all the time.. 

Grant


----------



## Forero

What a wonderfully consistent theory!  I have always thought of _donar_ as a synonym of _dar_.  Glad to see there is a difference.


----------



## Ynez

Usamos "donar" a instituciones, al menos esos son los ejemplos que se me ocurren. Cuando es a alguien en particular, decimos "dar" o "regalar".

Entiendo el tipo de ejemplo que comentas, Newdestiny, en el que alguien dona un órgano a alguien...pero eso debe ser algo excepcional, porque ese tipo de donaciones no suele ser personal, sino del tipo:

Donó todos sus órganos.


----------



## baz259

*Se lo dije a María* or *Lo dije a María*
Hi, even after reading all the replies I am still not sure what is the correct way to say it in normal day to day Spanish in Spain


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> Entiendo el tipo de ejemplo que comentas, Newdestiny, en el que alguien dona un órgano a alguien...pero eso debe ser algo excepcional, porque ese tipo de donaciones no suele ser personal, sino del tipo:
> 
> Donó todos sus órganos.


Gracias Ynez, ¿pero coincidirías conmigo en que resulta normal usar 'le' con una donación de órganos a alguien - pero no a una institución?

Donó algo de dinero a la institución.
Le donó su 'kidney' a su sobrino.

¿O sigues diciendo solo 'donó', sin 'le', con una donación de un órgano?


----------



## Ynez

baz259 said:


> *Se lo dije a María* or *Lo dije a María*
> Hi, even after reading all the replies I am still not sure what is the correct way to say it in normal day to day Spanish in Spain


 
Both are correct, as far as I know, but the normal way to say it is "Se lo dije a María".


----------



## Ynez

NewdestinyX said:


> Gracias Ynez, ¿pero coincidirías conmigo en que resulta normal usar 'le' con una donación de órganos a alguien - pero no a una institución?
> 
> Donó algo de dinero a la institución.
> Le donó su 'kidney' a su sobrino.
> 
> ¿O sigues diciendo solo 'donó', sin 'le', con una donación de un órgano?


 

Me resulta difícil decirlo con seguridad porque no es algo que se oiga con frecuencia. Creo que ninguna de las dos opciones resultaría muy chocante, pero a mí me parece más normal sin "le", seguramente por estar acostumbrada a oírlo así en el resto de casos.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ynez said:


> Me resulta difícil decirlo con seguridad porque no es algo que se oiga con frecuencia. Creo que ninguna de las dos opciones resultaría muy chocante, pero a mí me parece más normal sin "le", seguramente por estar acostumbrada a oírlo así en el resto de casos.



Anda.. tiene perfecto sentido.. Un nativo no considera las reglas cuando hablan sino el 'sentir' de cada frase -- y las situaciones en las que se usa más informarían la usanza en todas las situaciones. Con 'donar' es más rara oírlo con 'órganos' - por lo tanto -- suena más natural usarlo ahí de la misma manera aun si los gramáticos sugerirían el 'le'.

Un saludo,
Grant


----------



## Idiomático

baz259 said:


> *Se lo dije a María* or *Lo dije a María*
> Hi, even after reading all the replies I am still not sure what is the correct way to say it in normal day to day Spanish in Spain


 

I'm sorry about your confusion.  The most common way to say _I told María_ _that she is beautiful_ is _Le dije a María que es bonita_.  The most common way to say _I told/said it to María_ is _Se lo dije a María_.  _Dije a María que es bonita_ and _Lo dije a María_ are also correct but perhaps not as common in conversational Spanish.  I hope this helps.


----------



## NewdestinyX

baz259 said:


> *Se lo dije a María* or *Lo dije a María*
> Hi, even after reading all the replies I am still not sure what is the correct way to say it in normal day to day Spanish in Spain


The main thing to remember is that in 97% of the cases the redundant IO pronoun is going to appear repeating what's after the ['a' + ind. object'].

It always has to be repeated when the IO is a mí, a ti, a él, a ella, a Ud, a nosotros, a vosotros, a ellos, a ellas, a Uds. 

In the above sentence the SE is a converted LE. 

What we discovered in this thread is that there are some verbs that have a common natural direct object that's understood and in those cases the contextually understood direct object is dropped and the indirect object can then become the direct object -- in those cases it would be more common to leave 'out' the redundancy of the IO pronoun. In all other the cases, though, it is correct to leave out the redundancy -- but it sounds formal or literary to do so.

Here's two examples of the exception to the rule where it's more common to leave out the redundancy.

_El doctor curó *a*l toro._ (not "'le' curó al..") -- With 'curar' the natural direct object would be 'the hurt'. And it was done for the benefit of 'el toro' -- the indirect obejct. But in this case the 'bull' naturally feels like the 'direct obejct' -- so in this case the redundancy is left out more naturally.

_El camarero sirvió *a* Pedro. _(no "'le' sirvió a..") -- With 'servir a alguien' the natural direct object is some food or drink -- so often that is dropped when context is known -- making the 'person served' the direct object. Again in this case the indirect object, marked with 'a' when a direct object is present, is more commonly expressed without the redundant 'le'. 

Another way to look at these exceptions is that the 'beneficiary' of the action, normally the indirect object, with these verbs has turned into the 'actual direct object' -- so it's marked with 'personal a' rather than prepositional 'a'. So surely an indirect object pronoun would not be necessary to duplicate the 'direct obejct'.

But again -- these are the exceptions. Always learn the 'rule' first.

Grant


----------



## Milton Sand

NewdestinyX said:


> Here's two examples of the exception to the rule where it's more common to leave out the redundancy.
> _El doctor curó *a*l toro._
> _El camarero sirvió *a* Pedro._


Hi, again.
Some considerations (I tried to write interpretations rather than translations):
El doctor curó (_rarely used_) = Doctor got well.
El doctor curó al toro = The doctor healed the bull.
El doctor curó la herida del toro = The doctor healed the bull's injury.
El doctor _*le*_ curó la herida *a*l toro = The doctor successfully treated the bull's injury.
El doctor curó cortadas y quemaduras = The doctor treated wounds and burns.
El camarero sirvió al plan de Pedro = The waiter was useful in Pedro's plan.
El camarero [_*le*_] sirvió a Pedro en su plan = The waiter resulted useful for Pedro in his plan.
El camarero _*le*_ sirvió vino a Pedro = The waiter poured Pedro some wine.

Those are the conventional ways we use. Note that, when metioning an IO, we use redundant "le/les". But not with all verbs, and even it depends on the verb's function as transitive or intransitive, like in the examples using "servir".

English speakers find that usage as redundant as Spanish speakers don't see the need of using "do" before "not" when denying.

If you say: El doctor curó la herida *a*l toro, you will be understood although won't sound naturally. It seems a confusion with El doctor curó la herida *de*l toro, in which the whole expression "la herida del toro" is taken as the direct object so we could say there's not an indirect object.

I hope you find this useful.
Bye.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Milton Sand said:


> Hi, again.
> Some considerations (I tried to write interpretations rather than translations):
> El doctor curó (_rarely used_) = Doctor got well. El doctor curó al toro = The doctor healed the bull. El doctor curó la herida del toro = The doctor healed the bull's injury. El doctor _*le*_ curó la herida *a*l toro = The doctor successfully treated the bull's injury. El doctor curó cortadas y quemaduras = The doctor treated wounds and burns. El camarero sirvió al plan de Pedro = The waiter was useful in Pedro's plan. El camarero [_*le*_] sirvió a Pedro en su plan = The waiter resulted useful for Pedro in his plan. El camarero _*le*_ sirvió vino a Pedro = The waiter poured Pedro some wine. Those are the conventional ways we use. Note that, when mentioning an IO, we use redundant "le/les". But not with all verbs, and even it depends on the verb's function as transitive or intransitive, like in the examples using "servir".
> 
> English speakers find that usage as redundant as Spanish speakers don't see the need of using "do" before "not" when denying.
> 
> If you say:  El doctor curó la herida *a*l toro, you will be understood although won't sound naturally. It seems a confusion with El doctor curó la herida *de*l toro, in which the whole expression "la herida del toro" is taken as the direct object so we could say there's not an indirect object.



Thanks Milton. Couple of points. The RAE themselves gave the example of "El doctor curó la herida AL toro." I can't imagine the RAE themselves using an example that is not natural. I will paste their entry below. But I am noticing now that they use 'torero' not 'toro'. Don't know if that makes a difference though.

There is a difference between English's use of 'do' and Spanish's use of the redundant IO pronoun. In English it is ungrammatical to leave out the 'DO' in negation. In Spanish it is not ungrammatical to leave it out; just uncommon. 

Here's the example from the DPD showing the sentence with 'AL toro'. From DPD (Leísmo 4d.)
*4d) * Hay verbos que se construyen con complemento directo de cosa e indirecto de persona: _El camarero sirvió la cerveza a Pedro; Robaron el bolso a María; El atracador pegó una paliza a la dependienta;_ _El acusado escribió una carta al juez;_ _*El médico curó la herida al torero*, _etc. Con muchos de estos verbos es frecuente omitir el complemento directo por estar implícito o sobrentendido. Cuando esto ocurre, el complemento de persona, antes indirecto, pasa a funcionar como complemento directo si es posible la transformación en pasiva y el enunciado pasivo mantiene el mismo significado que el activo: _El médico curó al torero /_ _El médico lo curó_ (admite la pasiva sin cambio de significado: _El torero fue curado por el médico_). Si no es posible la pasiva, o si el enunciado pasivo implica un cambio de sentido con respecto a la oración activa, el complemento de persona sigue funcionando como complemento indirecto: _Escribí a mi hija / Le escribí_ (ya que no es posible la pasiva *_Mi hija fue escrita por mí)_; _Abrió a su vecino / Le_ _abrió_ (no es posible la pasiva *_Su vecino fue abierto _sin que implique un cambio de sentido).


----------



## Milton Sand

Well, we all have some complaints to RAE in spite of the great job they do.

Those examples seem generated by a computer, far from a modern writting and even further from every day speech. But I think they keep on being there because they're still gramatically correct and they are written in a *simple gramatical way* just in order to make the paragraph _4d)_'s goal easier to achieve: to clarify that the use of "le" as IO, when no DO is mentioned, is not a _leísmo_ case : _[Le] _abrió_ [la puerta]_ a su vecino _=>_ *Le* abrió _[la puerta]._ When hispanic speakers read those examples, they get the right idea that each example says but knowing how to say it naturally.

But, of course, I can't make you not to use them.

_¡Ah!_, Newdestiny, I agree the "le" stuff and the use of "do not" are not the same type of subjetc. Thanks for helping me realize that. 

Bye.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Milton Sand said:


> Well, we all have some complaints to RAE in spite of the great job they do.
> 
> Those examples seem generated by a computer, far from a modern writting and even further from every day speech. But I think they keep on being there because they're still gramatically correct and they are written in a *simple gramatical way* just in order to make the paragraph _4d)_'s goal easier to achieve: to clarify that the use of "le" as IO, when no DO is mentioned, is not a _leísmo_ case : _[Le] _abrió_ [la puerta]_ a su vecino _=>_ *Le* abrió _[la puerta]._ When hispanic speakers read those examples, they get the right idea that each example says but knowing how to say it naturally.
> 
> But, of course, I can't make you not to use them.
> 
> _¡Ah!_, Newdestiny, I agree the "le" stuff and the use of "do not" are not the same type of subjetc. Thanks for helping me realize that.
> 
> Bye.



Thanks Milton. I know how to use the 'le' properly in my Spanish too. When I am amongst Colombians I use 'lo' and when amongst Spaniards I use 'le'.

Lo que tratábamos de descubrir era si hay ciertos verbos en los que la omisión del pronombre redundante suena 'natural' y no literaria cuando el complemento de persona lo mencionan. Parece que sí hemos encontrado algunos. 'curar', 'servir' (cuando significa servir alguien) y otros donde el complemento de persona puede convertirse en complemento directo. Con tales verbos la omisión del pronombre redundante es posible sin que suene formal o literaria --donde en "Da el regalo a Maria" sí es posible, gramaticalmente, pero suena formal. Dale el regalo a María suena más natural (más correcto). 

Creo que hemos establecido eso.

Un saludo,
Grant


----------



## Milton Sand

NewdestinyX said:


> I know how to use the 'le' properly in my Spanish too. When I am amongst Colombians I use 'lo' and when amongst Spaniards I use 'le'.


Hey, I hope you didn't think I was insinuating that you don't know how. Because I wasn't! I was just saying that speakers of any other language may get confused when reading this kind of RAE's explanations.
Bye.


----------

