# no te me pongas triste



## fabio28

if this said no te pongas triste i would translate it as : don't become sad or something like that. however the way this sentence is constructed with the te & then me i find it very confusing. can someone please share with me if there is a rule for this and if possible show me some other examples using this kind of construction. thanks alott!!!!


----------



## temujin

hi

No me pongas triste = don´t make me sad.
No te pongas triste = don´t be (or become) sad.
As far as I know, only "te" or "me" is possible, and not both in the same phrase.

maybe the Spanish speakers have a different opinion. 
t.


----------



## Eustache

temujin said:
			
		

> hi
> 
> No me pongas triste = don´t make me sad.
> No te pongas triste = don´t be (or become) sad.
> As far as I know, only "te" or "me" is possible, and not both in the same phrase.
> 
> maybe the Spanish speakers have a different opinion.
> t.


 
sorry temunji.... pronombres personales are difficult to understand for a no native person... and it's difficult to me to explain it...

you can say "no te me pongas triste" = "no te pongas triste"

but when you use "me" you are expressing more feeling, you are indetifying with her/his feeling


----------



## Lutino

That's right, "no te me pongas triste" has an appreciative sense, it implies a close relationship between them.


----------



## Outsider

No te me pongas triste. = Don't you get sad on me.


----------



## Eustache

when a child bounces an ice-cream, and the child start to cry.... the mom cames and she says "se me le cayo el helado"

 se: because is your helado
 me: because you're my child (I feel your sadness too)
 le: bacause you don't bounce the ice-cream... the stupid ice-cream jumped from your hand to the ground!..


because if you say "you bounce your ice-cream or "botaste tu helado!" the child will cry forever....

sorry, maybe this explanation is confusing you.....


----------



## 22caps

Sorry, Eustache, but that was way confusing.  Could another native perhaps explain what he means better with the triple-pronouns, because never have I seen triple pronouns and whenever I've tried to ask a spanish professor about them they've replied "Never can you have three pronouns, reflexive, indirect, and direct, in front of one single verb."  Ayuda, por favor.


----------



## asm

If I see a mom saying: se me le cayo el helado, I would consider her an angry mother who cannot manage her mouth while scolding her kid.

A possible sentence: se te cayo el helado. Maybe what Eustache wanted to address is that sometimes we blame on the item (thing) instead of blaming on the person. We do not want to upset the child saying: Tu tiraste el helado.

Some critics say that Spanish does not like blaming on people directly.
Regarding the original question:
NO te me pongas triste is an incorrect way to stress that you are asking the other person not to become sad "in this exact moment I am with you." 
Some of us overuse those pronouns.

No te me vayas a confundir is a perfect example of the overuse of "me" (no te vayas a confundir should be enough).

ASM


----------



## sperdomo

pienso que eso se lllama dativo de interés. 

En _Inevsticaión de gramática_ por Lunn y DeCesaris,  los autores dice 

"Puede haber también otro participante el la situacion verbal:el complemento (u objecto) indirecto. Este particapante no incia la acción ni la recibe directamente, sino que se beneficiao se perjudica de alguna manera por medio de la situaciónverbal. En el caso más obvio, la entidad que desempena el papel de objecto indirecto llega a poseer o deja de poseer el objecto directo. 

Me robaron un millión de dolares (del hablante o para el hablante)

*El  beneficio o detrimento experimentado por el objecto indirecto, sin embargo no tiene ser concreto. Este particpante puede ser nada más que un interesado que se  encuentra en una relación periférica can respecto a la situación verbal. En estos casos, el objecto indirecto se denomina el dativo de interes.* La siguiente frase ejemplifica la relación literalmente indirecta que puede haber entre el objecto indirecto y la situación verbal. 

Se *nos* casó el nieto mayor con una estudiante universataria.

 El abuelo que dice esto se ve involucrado en el matrimonio de su nieto, y comunica esta relación por medio del complemento directo."

Mi profesor el semstre pasado nos dio muchos ejemplos como este en el examen final. usually he would translate the dativo de interes as "on me" like Outsider did. !Que dificil!


----------



## Edison49

Prefiero mil veces decir "no te pongas triste".  El "no te me pongas triste" suena como a frase de gente con poca educación y además suena terrible.  Saludillos.


----------



## Outsider

Edison49 said:
			
		

> Prefiero mil veces decir "no te pongas triste".  El "no te me pongas triste" suena como a frase de gente con poca educación y además suena terrible.


Pero es muy expressiva.


----------



## araceli

Expresiva.
Concuerdo con Outsider.
Saludos.


----------



## Artrella

No te *me* pongas triste!

*Me* >>> because you are mine, because I love you so much that you are part of me now, so you belong to me and if you are sad part of me is sad!!!


----------



## ceirun

Sí.  En inglés sería algo así como "Don't you get sad on me"... como ha dicho Outsider.


----------



## Phryne

Artrella said:
			
		

> No te *me* pongas triste!
> 
> *Me* >>> because you are mine, because I love you so much that you are part of me now, so you belong to me and if you are sad part of me is sad!!!


 
Artrella is right, but I don't believe this is proper Spanish. It doesn't sound right in all cases and if were a student, I would avoid it by all means. 

Also, I would like to add that "*se me le cayo el helado*"  is considered incorrect in some Spanish speaking countries. I would say "*se me cayó el helado*"   Much simpler and proper!


----------



## Artrella

Phryne said:
			
		

> Also, I would like to add that "*se me le cayo el helado*"  is considered incorrect in some Spanish speaking countries. I would say "*se me cayó el helado*"   Much simpler and proper!




Yes, it is not correct Spanish (well it seems to be correct according to Sperdomo and Leo ), but it's affectionate! 

But "se me le cayó el helado"  would be "se le cayó el helado" and not "se me cayó el helado"


----------



## Leopold

I absolutely agree with sperdomo. This is called dativo or complemento de interés.
And I have to say that this used is absolutely correct Spanish. But you have to be smart and know when to use it... as always, you shouldn't use a vulgar term or a colloquial one if you're in a formal writing and want to keep it formal, unless you are reflecting about this kind of language.
It is not vulgar, and I don't think it is specifically colloquial. I would say it expresses closeness, and for this reason cannot be used in any context.

Leo



			
				sperdomo said:
			
		

> pienso que eso se lllama dativo de interés.
> 
> En _Inevsticaión de gramática_ por Lunn y DeCesaris,  los autores dice
> 
> "Puede haber también otro participante el la situacion verbal:el complemento (u objecto) indirecto. Este particapante no incia la acción ni la recibe directamente, sino que se beneficiao se perjudica de alguna manera por medio de la situaciónverbal. En el caso más obvio, la entidad que desempena el papel de objecto indirecto llega a poseer o deja de poseer el objecto directo.
> 
> Me robaron un millión de dolares (del hablante o para el hablante)
> 
> *El beneficio o detrimento experimentado por el objecto indirecto, sin embargo no tiene ser concreto. Este particpante puede ser nada más que un interesado que se encuentra en una relación periférica can respecto a la situación verbal. En estos casos, el objecto indirecto se denomina el dativo de interes.* La siguiente frase ejemplifica la relación literalmente indirecta que puede haber entre el objecto indirecto y la situación verbal.
> 
> Se *nos* casó el nieto mayor con una estudiante universataria.
> 
> El abuelo que dice esto se ve involucrado en el matrimonio de su nieto, y comunica esta relación por medio del complemento directo."
> 
> Mi profesor el semstre pasado nos dio muchos ejemplos como este en el examen final. usually he would translate the dativo de interes as "on me" like Outsider did. !Que dificil!


----------



## Artrella

Leopold said:
			
		

> I absolutely agree with sperdomo. This is called dativo or complemento de interés.
> And I have to say that this used is absolutely correct Spanish. But you have to be smart and know when to use it... as always, you shouldn't use a vulgar term or a colloquial one if you're in a formal writing and want to keep it formal, unless you are reflecting about this kind of language.
> It is not vulgar, and I don't think it is specifically colloquial. I would say it expresses closeness, and for this reason cannot be used in any context.
> 
> Leo




Leo, entonces "no te me pongas triste" es correcto... y la del helado "se me le cayó el helado", también es correcta?

Gracias!


----------



## Leopold

Desde mi punto de vista no, creo que tres pronombres son verdaderamente demasiados y se pierde la referencia. Pero supongo que eso se debe al verbo en cuestión "caerse" que ya de por sí requiere un pronombre extra (me/te/le/nos/os).

Él se casa - sujeto = él -> Él se NOS casa -> Nos = dativo de interés (nótese que en la frase original no hay dativo)
(A él) se le cae algo - sujeto = "algo", "a él"/"le" = dativo duplicado -> Puesto que hay un dativo, la introducción de un dativo de interés no es posible, no se podría discernir quien es el interesado y a quién se le cae el helado.

Estoy pensando en voz alta, tampoco creáis que estoy completamente seguro, es un tema arduo. 

Leo


----------



## sperdomo

Ok,let me see if I've got this. The _se_ in these construction is always odd to me. I think I can use it right but don't really understand it. The _se_ is "accidental"?: 
Is the se part of the verb, a type of passive marker?

_se fue el bus = the bus left_
_se me fue el bus_. =  I bus left me, through no fault of my own! 
_se me enfrió _a comida. = I accidently let the food get cold or the food got cold on me?.

el cayo el helado. = He dropped the icecream
el me cayo el helado= he dropped the icecream on me. (on doesn't=location)
se cayo el helado= impersonal passive? = the icecream dropped?
_se me cayo el helado_ = I accidently dropped the icecream. 

But _se me le cayo_ is wrong because there is already an indirect object? 
It wouldn't be _I accidently dropped the ice cream on him? (not using *on* as location, but to indicate interest). Or he accidently dropped the icecream on me. _
Thanks for any more insight. I'm already learning a lot from this thread.
Susan


----------



## Outsider

sperdomo said:
			
		

> Ok,let me see if I've got this. The _se_ in these construction is always odd to me. I think I can use it right but don't really understand it. The _se_ is "accidental"?:
> Is the se part of the verb, a type of passive marker?
> 
> _se fue el bus = the bus left_
> _se me fue el bus_. =  I bus left me, through no fault of my own!
> _se me enfrió _a comida. = I accidently let the food get cold or the food got cold on me?


The _me_ is figurative in those sentences. As said by others, it expresses interest -- the fact that the person affected by the departure of the bus, or the food's getting cold, is "me".



			
				sperdomo said:
			
		

> el cayo el helado. = He dropped the icecream
> el me cayo el helado= he dropped the icecream on me. (on doesn't=location)


No! _Cayó_ means "fell".



			
				sperdomo said:
			
		

> se cayo el helado= impersonal passive? = the icecream dropped?


I see no reason to use _se_, there.



			
				sperdomo said:
			
		

> _se me cayo el helado_ = I accidently dropped the icecream.


Not necessarily. The word _me_ only expresses _my interest_ on the ice cream. It can also expresses the fact that it was _my_ icecream, i.e., possession. It may well be that the icecream fell by accident, or by someone else's fault. 



			
				sperdomo said:
			
		

> But _se me le cayo_ is wrong because there is already an indirect object?
> It wouldn't be _I accidently dropped the ice cream on him? (not using *on* as location, but to indicate interest). Or he accidently dropped the icecream on me. _


I could say "Se me cayó el helado", indicating that the icecream was mine, or I could say "Se le cayó el helado", indicating that the icecream was his/hers. But it wouldn't make sense for the icecream to belong to two different people at once, normally. Or, if by any chance the icecream did belong to two people, I and he or she, it would be more natural to say: "Se *nos* cayó el helado."


----------



## sperdomo

Thank you, 


Excellent and very clear. I appreciate your taking the time.


----------



## asm

Yo no estaria seguro en el segundo ejemplo. En No te me pongas triste hay dos pronombres, el te se refiere a ti, el me seria el ahora famoso dativo de interes. Sin embargo en el helado ... Habria tres pronombres lo cual me confunde mucho.
Si dices SE cayo el helado (no mencionas a quien se le cayo), esta bien. Se te cayo el helado (diciendo que fue a ti) es tambien correcto. Se me cayo el helado ( a mi) es correcto. 

Pero el se me le cayo, perdon, "pero no'mas no me suena", si quieres involucrarte con el helado, como en el caso de la novia universitaria, seria se nos cayo el helado (y seguiria siendo correcto, pero ya estariamos encontrando que todos somos culpables por la caida del ahora muy famoso helado).
SI entendi bien la aportacion del dativo ... el ME si cabe (o nos), pero no el "le".

Lo me lo siento si los confundi con mi aportacion cantiflesca.

Saludos

ASM




			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> Leo, entonces "no te me pongas triste" es correcto... y la del helado "se me le cayó el helado", también es correcta?
> 
> Gracias!


----------



## Phryne

_se fue el bus  = the bus left _
_se me fue el bus_.  = I missed the bus

The difference is that in the first sentence we don't know if somebody missed the bus. 



			
				sperdomo said:
			
		

> _se me enfrió l_a comida.  = the food got cold on me?.
> 
> el cayo el helado.
> el me cayo el helado
> _se me cayo el helado_  = My icecream fell


Se cayó el helado  = The icecream fell, but we don't know whose icrecream it was.



			
				sperdomo said:
			
		

> But _se me le cayo_ is wrong because there is already an indirect object?
> It wouldn't be _I accidently dropped the ice cream on him? (not using *on* as location, but to indicate interest). Or he accidently dropped the icecream on me. _


In that case you would use a different verb and say _Le tiré el helado (a él)._


----------



## Phryne

Outsider said:
			
		

> _se cayo el helado= impersonal passive? = the icecream dropped?_
> 
> I see no reason to use _se_, there.


 
I disagree, _cayó el helado = se cayó el helado_, and a native speaker would choose the second option.


----------



## Leopold

Phryne said:
			
		

> I disagree, _cayó el helado = se cayó el helado_, and a native speaker would choose the second option.



You're right Phryne. "Se cayó el helado" is better. Although "cayó el helado" would also be possible.

Anyway it'd be more natural to say "el helado cayó" (this is typical of descriptive prose or poetry) and "el helado se cayó" (which is more common).
That's beacuse althought the verb "caer" exists, nowdays we tend to use "caerse".

Leo


----------



## Outsider

Phryne said:
			
		

> I disagree, _cayó el helado = se cayó el helado_, and a native speaker would choose the second option.


I see, the verb can be pronominal... Thank you for the correction.


----------



## sergio11

It is very difficult to explain to a non-native the rules of when to use "caer" as pronominal and when not.  My mother had trouble with it even after 35 years of living in Argentina. Many other non-natives did and do, too. If someone can figure out an easy to explain rule, please post it, by all means.


----------



## jackpal32

if you are talking directly to someone, the "you" is understood.  so if you say, no me pongas triste, you are telling that person, "don't make me sad".


----------



## sergio11

jackpal32 said:
			
		

> if you are talking directly to someone, the "you" is understood. so if you say, no me pongas triste, you are telling that person, "don't make me sad".


 
We agree that, "if you are talking directly to someone, the "you" is understood," Jackpal32, but the "te" in "no te me pongas triste" is not a simple "you;"  it is a reflexive pronoun, which is a must in that expression.  The question originally was, if I remember correctly, why the "me."  "No te me pongas triste" does not mean "No me pongas triste," and as someone correctly translated it to English, it means "don't get sad on me."  And there is no other way to express it, so that whoever had doubts about it, doesn't need to have them, because it is correct, if that is what you want it to mean.  That is the only way to say in Spanish, "don't get sad on me."


----------



## jackpal32

thanks for clarifying that for me.  his question was somewhat confusing.


----------



## Felhek

Soy de Buenos Aires Argentina, i would never say 'se me le cayó' sounds bad and novelezco, jeje, creo que solo lo dicen en las series mexicanas o venezolanas.

depends wich spanish country.

Here in Bs As, it says 'se le cayó'

or the  'no te me pongas a llorar" <-- ive only heard it from some mexicans or ppl from center america.

what im trying to say is that both are valid,depends the country and the ppl.


----------



## Outsider

Felhek said:
			
		

> Soy de Buenos Aires Argentina, i would never say 'se me le cayó' sounds bad and novelezco, jeje, creo que solo lo dicen en las series mexicanas o venezolanas.


Bienvenido al foro, Felhek.
Otros foreros en ese filo ya han dito que 'se me le cayó' no hace sentido.


----------



## Leopold

Outsider said:
			
		

> Bienvenido al foro, Felhek.
> Otros foreros en ese hilo ya han dicho que 'se me le cayó' no tiene sentido.



Sólo unas correcciones. 

Leo


----------



## Outsider

Gracias. El mio español es lastimable.


----------



## sergio11

Outsider said:
			
		

> El mio español es lastimable.


 


			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> *Mi español es lamentable*.


 
Si quisieras utilizar una palabra derivada de lástima, podrías usar "lastimero" (digno de compasión) o "lastimoso" (que mueve a compasión). Creo que lastimoso es mejor que lastimero para lo que tú quieres decir. Pero se prefiere *lamentable*, como dice Artrella.


----------



## Outsider

Gracias otra vez. 



			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> *Mi español es lamentable*.


Ah, se dice _mi_ porque es un adjectivo, verdad? Como en inglés. En portugués no hacemos esta distincción.

El problema es que nuestras dos lenguas son parecidas, pero diferentes, as veces cuando menos se espera. Entonces, es muy fácil ser víctima de exceso de confianza.


----------



## Artrella

Outsider said:
			
		

> Gracias otra vez.
> 
> 
> Ah, se dice _mi_ porque es un adjectivo, verdad? Como en inglés. En portugués no hacemos esta distincción.
> 
> El problema es que nuestras dos lenguas son parecidas, pero diferentes, as veces cuando menos se espera. Entonces, es muy fácil ser víctima de exceso de confianza.




Hola Outsider!  

"mi" en "mi español es lamentable" es un adjetivo posesivo que modifica al sustantivo "español"
Saludos!!!


----------



## galadriel

"no te pongas triste" yo creo que es lo correcto 100%, "no te me pongas triste" es como para decir que a mi también me pesa tu dolor , pero "se me le cayo el helado"??!! en ningun caso está correcto.
=)


----------



## Ivy29

fabio28 said:
			
		

> if this said no te pongas triste i would translate it as : don't become sad or something like that. however the way this sentence is constructed with the te & then me i find it very confusing. can someone please share with me if there is a rule for this and if possible show me some other examples using this kind of construction. thanks alott!!!!


 
That extra ME is just saying that it affects the SPEAKER ( ethic dative).
Sympathetic dative means possession. 
Se me murió el perro ( 'me' means possessive= Sympathetic dative).
It does not play a role in that sentence is just an extra NON-STRESSED pronouns= (ME, TE, SE, NOS, OS).

Cheers
Iván


----------



## Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo

You have to distinguish between pronominal and non-pronominal verbs:

*No direct object*
_No grites. _Don't shout.
_No te pongas a gritar. _Don't start shouting.

*Direct object: 'Me'*
_No te me (a mí) pongas a gritar._ Don't start shouting at me.
_No me (a mí) grites. _Don't shout at me.

*But what if* *I am not the direct object!?*

*Direct object: 'The boy'*
_No grites al niño. _Don't shout at the boy.
_No te pongas a gritar al niño. _Don't start shouting at the boy.
_No te pongas a gritarle al niño. _Don't start shouting at the [ðɪ*: *(enf.)] boy.

*Direct object: 'The boy', me means affection*
_No me (a mi niño querido) grites al niño. _(Aprox.) Don't shout at my boy.
_No te me (a mi niño querido) pongas a gritarle al niño._ Don't start shouting at my boy.

Even three pronouns!: _No *te me* pongas a gritar*le*._

I hope it helps!


----------



## Fonεtiks

Pedro P. Calvo Morcillo said:
			
		

> _No te me (a mí) pongas a gritar._ Don't start shouting at me.  That would be more like *"No te pongas a gritarme"*


 
"No te me pongas a gritar" could also mean "don't start shouting and trying to involve me in your shouting or the consequences of it"


----------



## Terry Mount

No digo que es correcto con tres pronombres...pero me parece que el significado... es que a él se le cayó el helado...pero también esta acción me ha afectado a mí.  Yo ahora estoy triste o quizás enojado porque a él se le ha caído el helado.


----------



## Outsider

In theory, that could be the case, but in practice I don't think it's normal to use _two_ ethical datives in the same clause, in Spanish.


----------



## WillyLandron

Para el que le interesa, los dioses en el monte RAE piensan:

Cuando coaparecen varios clíticos en español, se ordenan con arreglo a fuertes restricciones que dependen de factores complejos, lógicos y sintáctico-semánticos. 

En primer lugar, no puede repetirse ningún elemento, aunque cumpliera funciones distintas, y no resulta admisible una serie de más de tres clíticos. 

Debe respetarse el siguiente orden: 

 SE + 2ª persona + 1ª persona + 3ª persona. 
​ 
Sería correcta una oración como _«Si hay veces que _se te me_ caes de las manos»_ (Vázquez _Vida_ [Esp. 1976]), pero, en cambio, es incorrecto *_«No _me se_ haga el pendejo, Balbicito, no me cojudee»_ (Bayly _Días_ [Perú 1996]). 

Junto a las restricciones marcadas por la persona a que se refiere el pronombre, coexiste una jerarquía en cuanto a la función o la semántica del complemento, de forma que un dativo nunca puede posponerse a un acusativo, del mismo modo que el pronombre con sentido reflexivo debe anteponerse a todos los demás; el orden sería como sigue:

 pron. reflexivo + pron. benefactivo + pron. dativo + pron. acusativo.

​ En cuanto a las secuencias objeto de su consulta, todas ellas respetan la regla según la cual los pronombres de segunda persona deben anteponerse a los de primera. Pese a ello, no todas están bien construidas. Las oraciones _Te me adelantaste _y _Te me acercaste_ respetan además la segunda de las jerarquías descritas más arriba, ya que el pronombre _te _forma parte del verbo (lo consideraremos reflexivo) y _me_
En cambio, aunque aparentemente análogas, las oraciones _*Te me adelanté _y _*Te me acerqué _no resultan admisibles, dado que incumplen la regla sobre jerarquías semánticas: el ahora dativo _te_ se antepone al reflexivo _me._

-- 
 es un dativo. [Empleamos el símbolo * para señalar las formas u oraciones incorrectas o poco recomendables desde el punto de vista normativo].

Reciba un cordial saludo.
----
Departamento de Español al día
RAE


----------



## aurilla

If you have to be literal, 'no te pongas triste" would be "don't get yourself sad".


----------



## Soy Yo

Gracias, WillyLandron, muy amable.  Parece que no es incorrecto tener tres pronombres....pero no es muy común.  Y los hay que lo ven como muy raro y hasta incorrecto.  ¿Es buena mi interpretación?


----------



## Don Borinqueno

Uno los los errores mas graves que la gente que quiere aprender una idioma nueva es que tratan de traducir una frase palabra por palabra. Por eso confundiste la frase "no te me pongas triste"


----------



## Outsider

Soy Yo said:
			
		

> Gracias, WillyLandron, muy amable.  Parece que no es incorrecto tener tres pronombres....pero no es muy común.  Y los hay que lo ven como muy raro y hasta incorrecto.  ¿Es buena mi interpretación?


No es incorrecto usar tres pronombres. Nadie ha dicho que era. [Oops! I was mistaken. See below. ]


----------



## Soy Yo

Bien... entonces puedes decirme si esto es correcto?

¿Qué le pasó a su casa?
*Se me le vino* encima un árbol.

Y si es correcto, ¿lo dirían tú y tus compatriotas?


----------



## mhp

Outsider said:
			
		

> Nadie ha dicho que era.


see messages 15, 16, and 19


----------



## Outsider

Soy Yo said:
			
		

> Bien... entonces puedes decirme si esto es correcto?
> 
> ¿Qué le pasó a su casa?
> *Se me le vino* encima un árbol.
> 
> Y si es correcto, ¿lo dirían tú y tus compatriotas?


Generally speaking, clauses with three personal object pronouns are possible in Spanish. This is what I meant. [But I was wrong. See below. ]



			
				mhp said:
			
		

> see message 15 & 16


Those two messages do not concern the sentence _"No te me pongas triste"_.


----------



## ampurdan

Soy Yo said:
			
		

> Bien... entonces puedes decirme si esto es correcto?
> 
> ¿Qué le pasó a su casa?
> *Se me le vino* encima un árbol.
> 
> Y si es correcto, ¿lo dirían tú y tus compatriotas?


 
Salvo el hecho de que me parece raro el uso de "le" por "de su casa", aunque no sé si es incorrecto, yo creo que es una frase correcta. Además, cumple las reglas de la RAE (muchas gracias Willylandron!!!):

se + pronombre benefactivo de 1ª persona + pronombre de 3ª persona (¿dativo?).


----------



## mhp

Soy Yo said:
			
		

> Bien... entonces puedes decirme si esto es correcto?
> 
> ¿Qué le pasó a su casa?
> *Se me le vino* encima un árbol.
> 
> Y si es correcto, ¿lo dirían tú y tus compatriotas?


Let me try: 
The house collapses under a three on him and I'm somehow involved in all of this.

@outsider: Soy Yo I think was talking about "tres pronombres" (which I understood as se + pronombre 1a persona + pronombre 3a persona)


----------



## ampurdan

No, Mhp. The full sentence would be:

Un árbol se me vino encima de su casa.

A tree fell over his house (on me).

But I think an English speaker would never use anything related to dative of interest in this case.


----------



## Outsider

mhp said:
			
		

> @outsider: Soy Yo I think was talking about "tres pronombres" (which I understood as se + pronombre 1a persona + pronombre 3a persona)


You are quite right. I got mixed up!

My apologies to you, and to *Soy Yo*. 

But now I'm wondering which sentence *WillyLandron* asked the RAE about. His post doesn't say it...


----------



## mhp

ampurdan said:
			
		

> No, Mhp. The full sentence would be:
> 
> Un árbol se me vino encima de su casa.
> 
> A tree fell over his house (on me).
> 
> But I think an English speaker would never use anything related to dative of interest in this case.


Thank you ampurdan. The reason I didn't use "his house" is because (I think) someone mentioned that there is nothing in the sentence "*Se me le vino* encima un árbol" to indicate that it was in fact his. Although from the previous sentence we know that it is his house. What do you think, does the use "le" qualify the house as being his? (let's say without considering the first sentence)


----------



## ampurdan

No, it doesn't. It could be "the/his/her/that/a/my/your/... house or whatever thing or person". Anyway, I think this pronoun is rather odd... I would like somenone would give me a good reason why "de la casa" is replaced by "le"... It normally replaces indirect objects (or direct ones referring to a man, if the speaker uses aproved "leísmo").


----------



## mhp

Of course I’m only learning and would appriciate any corrections. Here is the way I see it from the kind information provided be WillyLandron

* se* cayó el florero: the vase fell
* se le* cayó el florero: the vase fell (he is involved) (the vase fell accidentally at his presence)
* se me le* cayó el florero: the vase fell (he is involved and I’m involved in this too)

The third translation is very odd and this is may be because I still don’t understand how “me” is functioning.


----------



## Outsider

mhp said:
			
		

> Of course I’m only learning and would appriciate any corrections. Here is the way I see it from the kind information provided be WillyLandron
> 
> * se* cayó el florero: the vase fell
> * se le* cayó el florero: the vase fell (he is involved) (the vase fell accidentally at his presence)  or His vase fell.
> * se me le* cayó el florero: the vase fell (he is involved and I’m involved in this too)
> 
> The third translation is very odd and this is may be because I still don’t understand how “me” is functioning.


The third sentence seems odd to me, too. But I'm not a native speaker.


----------



## WillyLandron

Outisder, this is my take. It's like those Russian dolls where one doll is inside,and another inside that one etc.

Se fue la mujer = neutral observer

Se *me *fue la mujer = She left me so I'm sad (or happy).

Se *me le* fue la mujer a mi hijo = She didn't leave me but she left my son so I'm sad for him (or happy for him).


----------



## Outsider

Could you tell us how you got the RAE reply you posted earlier, please? What was the sentence you asked about?


----------



## ampurdan

se le cayó el florero: he dropped the vase.
se me le cayó el florero: this means nothing to me. I would say it is incorrect.


----------



## WillyLandron

Outsider said:
			
		

> Could you tell us how you got the RAE reply you posted earlier, please? What was the sentence you asked about?



The sentence in question was : *"Te me adenlanté"*

By the way, this sentence is odd to many native speakers. Many will think it's plain wrong and I don't blame them.

Alot of what other people in other regions say sounds plain wrong to me too. It's the same in English. "She was in hospital.' still sounds broken to me and so does "Brazil are the best team in South America."

But that sentence is fine to me. In the Caribbean, this sentence is normal. I think the RAE said it was correct. I don't remember. And to be honest, I don't care. I just care about their arguments. Their conclusions are irrelevant.At least to me.

---

You can ask the RAE questions at their web site. Sometimes it takes them a about a week or more to answer and sometimes they just cut and paste a bunch of stuff that doesn't answer your question but I have gotten about thirty decent replies from them about a whole bunch of issues. I'm more than happy to share. : )


----------



## WillyLandron

ampurdan said:
			
		

> se le cayó el florero: he dropped the vase.
> se me le cayó el florero: this means nothing to me. I would say it is incorrect.


Yes! Many non-Caribbeans say it's incorrect. I don't blame them. Alot of the things you say in Spain are things that if I did not know better, I would correct a student learning Spanish. There are too many to get into now but one thing is your use of constructions like : "Estoy perfectamente." and "Voy a por pan." If it weren't for TVE, I would mark those wrong on a test.


----------



## mhp

ampurdan said:
			
		

> se le cayó el florero: he dropped the vase.
> se me le cayó el florero: this means nothing to me. I would say it is incorrect.


It sure doesn't mean anything to me either. I think I stick with using just two pronouns for the next few years  [to be honest I had never seen 3 pronouns before reading this thread]

Thanks


----------



## Outsider

WillyLandron said:
			
		

> The sentence in question was : *"Te me adenlanté"*


Ah, but that sentence has only two personal pronouns, not three!

...Although, to my non-native eyes, your other example could be right:



			
				WillyLandron said:
			
		

> Se fue la mujer = neutral observer
> 
> Se me fue la mujer = She left me so I'm sad (or happy).
> 
> Se me le fue la mujer a mi hijo = She didn't leave me but she left my son so I'm sad for him (or happy for him).


Let's hear the native speakers...


----------



## WillyLandron

Outsider said:
			
		

> Ah, but that sentence has only two personal pronouns, not three!
> 
> ...Although, to my non-native eyes, your other example could be right:
> 
> Let's hear the native speakers...



My advice is that if something sounds odd to you, avoid it if you can. I say stuff like that but I know that if I google stuff like that, 90 per cent of the stuff is going to come from the Caribbean basin.

As a matter of fact, so many people think this is wrong that you should avoid it based on that alone. Who cares if the RAE says it's correct? Most people don't know that and will still think you have made an "error".


----------



## Outsider

WillyLandron said:
			
		

> As a matter of fact, so many people think this is wrong that you should avoid it based on that alone. Who cares if the RAE says it's correct? Most people don't know that and will still think you have made an "error".


What do you mean by "this", here?

"Se me le fue la mujer a mi hijo"

or

"Te me adenlanté"

P.S. It's funny how the poor RAE is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. If they condemn a certain phrase, they're outdated prescriptivists... if they accept it, they're legitimizing aberrations...


----------



## ampurdan

I understand: se me le fue la mujer a mi hijo. Maybe it's because you have added "a mi hijo". Now I understand also "se me le cayó el florero". Certainly, it's not a sentence I would say normally, but it makes sense.

I care about what RAE says. They may give bad answers sometimes, of course, but I think it's good to have such institutions. Then one is free to say whatever he likes.


----------



## ampurdan

I don't like "te me adelanté", even if it's correct. It sounds awful to me. I would always say "Me adelanté a ti".


----------



## WillyLandron

Outsider said:
			
		

> What do you mean by "this", here?
> 
> "Se me le fue la mujer a mi hijo"
> 
> or
> 
> "Te me adenlanté"
> 
> P.S. It's funny how the poor RAE is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't. If they condemn a certain phrase, they're outdated prescriptivists... if they accept it, they're legitimizing aberrations...



I'm not sure what "it" is because I don't know nor do  I really care what sounds odd to people outside of the Caribean. You would have to look through the messages and see what things the natives from Spain or Argentina, etc. think about these two.

I got an objection from a Mexican for "Te me adelanté" and that's why I wrote the RAE (I wanted more fuel for I paper I'm writing that trashes the RAE). I think some people here have objected to "Se me le cayó." but you can always check.

I hate the RAE in my paper but in real life I really like the director and I dig Manuel Seco.I think I hate the RAE but love the guys in there. Jajajaja. I think those guys are cool.


----------



## WillyLandron

ampurdan said:
			
		

> I understand: se me le fue la mujer a mi hijo. Maybe it's because you have added "a mi hijo". Now I understand also "se me le cayó el florero". Certainly, it's not a sentence I would say normally, but it makes sense.
> 
> I care about what RAE says. They may give bad answers sometimes, of course, but I think it's good to have such institutions. Then one is free to say whatever he likes.



Hi, 

I certainly appreciate your answer and feel you are entitled to your opinion. I have my own but I am not looking to convince people to think like me. 

It's mostly that I don't care about _anything_, really. It's a personal fault.

But thanks for your input. I *do *care about what *you *have to say.


----------



## ampurdan

Thank you, so do I about what you've said...

Anyway, you are right. One tends to speak the way the others will recognize as appropriate, unless his intention is to break the other's expectations.


----------



## Fonεtiks

Se tomó una foto = a picture was taken
Se me tomó una foto = a picture of me was taken
Se me le tomó una foto = a picture of him was taken, with me involved somehow (of he and I together, with me as the picture taker or in my presence, or just because I want to get involved)


----------



## Nadine Beck

sperdomo said:
			
		

> _se me enfrió _a comida. = I accidently let the food get cold or the food got cold on me?.
> 
> el cayo el helado. = He dropped the icecream
> el me cayo el helado= he dropped the icecream on me. (on doesn't=location)
> se cayo el helado= impersonal passive? = the icecream dropped?
> _se me cayo el helado_ = I accidently dropped the icecream.
> 
> But _se me le cayo_ is wrong because there is already an indirect object?
> It wouldn't be _I accidently dropped the ice cream on him? (not using *on* as location, but to indicate interest). Or he accidently dropped the icecream on me. _
> Thanks for any more insight. I'm already learning a lot from this thread.
> Susan



I like how Leopold explained it.  I grew up with this way of speaking -- I'm surprised to see people calling it incorrect, but i guess it's probably used more in some Spanish speaking countries than in others....

"Se me fue el bus" is a good one, just the kind of thing someone might say by way of explanation about why s/he is arriving late to work without looking irresponsible.

One of my FAVORITES is "Se me fue la mano."  If I put too much salt in the soup I made and didn't mean to, I might apologize and explain que "se me fue la mano en la sal"  That would be, my hand ran away on the salt  -- or with the salt.  There actually ISN'T a very good way to express this in English.   

BTW, "He dropped the ice cream" would be "se le cayó el helado," but of course it means more like it fell on his watch.
"Se me cayó el helado" would be it fell -- not on top of me -- more like, while I was enjoying it -- it went and jumped ship!  ("I accidentally dropped the ice cream" is correct but it's missing all the flavor...)

BTW, if you want to express that you dropped the ice cream ON YOU (location,) or that it fell on top of you while it was supposed to be sitting there nicely waiting to be eaten, that would be: "Se me cayó el helado ensima."
If it fell on you while it was supposed to be sitting waiting to be eaten by someone else, that would be (presuming the someone else is male):
"Se le cayó el helado ensima de mi."  

I don't know why exactly "Se me le cayó..." is wrong, but it has too much going on -- I don't know who it would be about anymore. 
The way to say: "_I accidently dropped the ice cream on him_" (meaning  I dropped his ice cream, I think you want here?)  would be "Se me cayó el helado de él."  
I'm not sure that's what you meant, but I can't think what else, since you made it clear you didn't mean you dropped it on top of him.


----------



## SpiceMan

sperdomo said:
			
		

> se cayo el helado= impersonal passive? = the icecream dropped?


It's intransitive. It fell (by itself).

I broke my watch = Rompí mi reloj.
My watch broke = Se rompió mi reloj.



			
				Nadine Beck said:
			
		

> If it fell on you while it was supposed to be sitting waiting to be eaten by someone else, that would be (presuming the someone else is male):
> "Se le cayó el helado ensima de mi."


 "Se le cayó el helado encima mío."
It would just the same if that someone is female. "de mi" is not incorrect but -besides providing another example- it's what I would usually say.


----------



## Nadine Beck

Perdóname -- es la primera vez que veo un hilo tan largo y no me di cuenta que habían tres páginas más. Si lo hubiera sabido hubiera tomado en cuenta algo de que se había escrito más recientemente.....


----------



## Nadine Beck

SpiceMan said:
			
		

> "Se le cayó el helado encima mío."
> It would just the same if that someone is female. "de mi" is not incorrect but -besides providing another example- it's what I would usually say.



Yes, thanks -- I guess I thought I was going to asy something different.  

But -- you would say "Se me cayó el helado encima mío" 
rather than
"Se me cayó el helado encima de mí"?

This is a reginal difference -- I can't imagine anyone from PR (or maybe the caribbean?) saying "encima mío."


----------



## Fonεtiks

"Encima de mi" es la forma correcta, hasta donde estoy informado


----------



## WillyLandron

¡Ay! Esto nunca se va a acabar. Es que estamos tratando de averiguar *la* forma correcta de decir las cosas y no hay *una sola *forma correcta. Hay varias formas correctas que son correctas en lugares distintos.

Spiceman, «encima mío» se dice en la Argentina, inclusive* personas cultas lo dicen así. La RAE dice que no es correcto pero casi cuarenta milliones de Argentinos dicen que sí. Para mí que la albiceleste gana ese partido.

A tí te suena raro «Se me le cayó el helado» pero a nosotros en el Caribe «encima mío» suena raro también. Suena bien en un lugar y raro o incorrecto en otro. Eso es normal. Los norteamericanos e ingleses tienen las mismas discrepancias.

La RAE censura «encima mío» pero eso no quiere decir que esté mal. La RAE dice que «Se me le cayó el helado» está bien pero eso no quiere decir que en la Argentina lo deben (de) decir. El argentino vive en la Argentina no en un diccionario que publicaron en Madrid.

Lo siento, amigos españoles pero en América nos interesa más como lo que decimos nos suena a nosotros no a ustedes. Y creo que es lo más práctico. Y también en el Caribe el hecho de algo suene mal en Chile, Argentina, o Uruguay es interesante pero sin mucha importancia en la vida real.

Amigos, hay varias formas correctas. No hay un castellano correcto sino varios en distintos países y regiones.


----------



## WillyLandron

P.S.

And what the RAE says about «encima mío» doesn't even make sense!

It just sounds wrong to them so they cross it out. If anybody is interested in this, let me know.


----------



## diegodbs

WillyLandron said:
			
		

> ¡Ay! Esto nunca se va a acabar. Es que estamos tratando de averiguar *la* forma correcta de decir las cosas y no hay *una sola *forma correcta. Hay varias formas correctas que son correctas en lugares distintos.
> 
> Spiceman, «encima mío» se dice en la Argentina, inclusive* personas cultas lo dicen así. La RAE dice que no es correcto pero casi cuarenta milliones de Argentinos dicen que sí. Para mí que la albiceleste gana ese partido.
> 
> A tí te suena raro «Se me le cayó el helado» pero a nosotros en el Caribe «encima mío» suena raro también. Suena bien en un lugar y raro o incorrecto en otro. Eso es normal. Los norteamericanos e ingleses tienen las mismas discrepancias.
> 
> La RAE censura «encima mío» pero eso no quiere decir que esté mal. La RAE dice que «Se me le cayó el helado» está bien pero eso no quiere decir que en la Argentina lo deben (de) decir. El argentino vive en la Argentina no en un diccionario que publicaron en Madrid.
> 
> Lo siento, amigos españoles pero en América nos interesa más como lo que decimos nos suena a nosotros no a ustedes. Y creo que es lo más práctico. Y también en el Caribe el hecho de algo suene mal en Chile, Argentina, o Uruguay es interesante pero sin mucha importancia en la vida real.
> 
> Amigos, hay varias formas correctas. No hay un castellano correcto sino varios en distintos países y regiones.


 
Pero WillyLandron, el diccionario puede que se publique en Madrid, pero todas las Academias de la lengua de América intervienen junto con la Academia Española. Quiero suponer que todas tendrán el mismo "peso" a la hora de decidir qué palabras incluir o no.


----------



## WillyLandron

diegodbs said:
			
		

> Pero WillyLandron, el diccionario puede que se publique en Madrid, pero todas las Academias de la lengua de América intervienen junto con la Academia Española. Quiero suponer que todas tendrán el mismo "peso" a la hora de decidir qué palabras incluir o no.



Gracias por decir esto, Diego. Mi opinión personal que entre todas las academias la *única *que tiene *una gota* de sentido común es la española. La RAE depende de las academias americanas para muchas cosas y por eso salen con tantos disparates. 

Lo que dicen sobre «encima mío» es un puro disparate que un profesor de secundaria rechazaría. Supongo que los académicos americanos tuvieron *mucho *que ver con eso. De otro modo no fuera tan absurdo.

No quiero citar países específicamente pero son todas un desastre.


----------



## ampurdan

"Encima" rige la preposición "de", eso no significa que represente una relación de posesión o ninguna de las relaciones típicamente representadas por los pronombres posesivos. En el caso hipotético de que rigiera la preposición "a", no podría ser reemplazada por un posesivo.

Así que me parece muy lógica la postura de la RAE, "*encima mío"es incorrecto, debe decirse "encima de mí" como sería incorrecto decir _"_*háblame tuyo" por "háblame de ti".

EDIT - Ello no impide que yo lo pueda decir, porque está muy extendido dondo yo vivo también.


----------



## WillyLandron

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Así que me parece muy lógica la postura de la RAE, "*encima mío"es incorrecto, debe decirse "encima de mí" como sería incorrecto decir _"_*háblame tuyo" por "háblame de ti".



_Delante mío_ is another regionalism which is said (and  written) by _hablantes cultos_ who are not from Castile. There is nothing  ungrammatical about it in several varieties of Spanish both Iberian and  American.



Structures like this appear in speech, quite often, in Spain, in  newspapers, _Television Española_ news reports, in a Chilean Driver's  manual, the best of Argentinian literature, and even in the works of such  Peninsular literary giants as Miguel de Unamuno.  

However, the RAE says they are wrong, along with: _por su  delante_, _en mi delante_, _encima mío_, _detrás mío_,  _debajo mío_, and _enfrente mío_.

The RAE's rationale is that _delante_, and the other adverbs,  should be followed by _de_ since it's an adverb that describes a place.  That's how it works in the sociolect they speak, and in other dialects where  _delante mío_ is considered colloquial or even incorrect, but this does not  mean it's how it works everywhere.

  All Spanish dialects do not have the same grammar and even the RAE  admits that the construction appears in works by authors that the Academia  recognizes as _hablantes cultos_.

_Al lado mío_, however, is perfectly fine. Even though _al  lado_ is an adverbial phrase that describes a place just like _delante_,  and _detrás_. _Lado_ is a noun; since you can say: _el libro  mío_, you can say: _al lado mío_.

  This is one of those cases in which you could logically argue it  one way or the other which explains the contradictory argument by the RAE. In  fact, the RAE blatantly contradicts itself in the same email, addressed to me :  

*...es perfectamente correcto el uso de SE SENTó AL LADO MíO.  Aunque AL LADO es una locución adverbial, LADO es un sustantivo, y por tanto,  puede ir seguido del posesivo en forma plena o precedido de este en forma  apocopada.* 

and  
*
**En resumen, los posesivos, como adjetivos que son, solo pueden  modificar a un sustantivo, nunca a un adverbio o a una  locución adverbial [emphasis added]. * 

If _en cima_ were allowed (two words instead of one) it's  status might be different; a technicality. _En cima_ is commonly written as  two words today, according to this same email, and searches on Google will  confirm this. In any case, this word is derived from _en_ + the noun *cima* just as *en* + the noun *frente* is the source of _enfrente_ (see 3.5.2).  
The RAE admits _en busca mía_ and _a favor mío_ (because  _busca_ and _favor_ are nouns) but states that _en busca de mí_  and _a favor de mí_ are "quizá lo más recomendable." They don't explain why  _al lado mío_ is perfectly correct but _en busca mía_ perhaps not as  perfectly correct. _Lado_ and _busca_ are both nouns; what applies for  one should apply for the other.

_A través mío_ is more a more complex case, according to la  Academia, but they recommend _a través de mí_ ("Consulta RAE (delante)").

  The RAE snubs _detrás mío_ despite the fact that it is very  much Spanish. Although the RAE cites the usage of the best authors of the  language as a model it condemns their usage and will even admit it in their  literature.

  This puts the RAE in the strange position of establishing rules to  defend a written language, codified to reflect the usage of the _hablantes  cultos_ that those very same _hablantes cultos_ constantly and  systematically violate.


----------



## mhp

WillyLandron said:
			
		

> _Delante mío_ is another regionalism which is said (and  written) by _hablantes cultos_ who are not from Castile. There is nothing  ungrammatical about it in several varieties of Spanish both Iberian and  American.
> 
> 
> 
> Structures like this appear in speech, quite often, in Spain, in  newspapers, _Television Española_ news reports, in a Chilean Driver's  manual, the best of Argentinian literature, and even in the works of such  Peninsular literary giants as Miguel de Unamuno.
> 
> However, the RAE says they are wrong, along with: _por su  delante_, _en mi delante_, _encima mío_, _detrás mío_,  _debajo mío_, and _enfrente mío_.
> 
> The RAE's rationale is that _delante_, and the other adverbs,  should be followed by _de_ since it's an adverb that describes a place.  That's how it works in the sociolect they speak, and in other dialects where  _delante mío_ is considered colloquial or even incorrect, but this does not  mean it's how it works everywhere.
> 
> All Spanish dialects do not have the same grammar and even the RAE  admits that the construction appears in works by authors that the Academia  recognizes as _hablantes cultos_.
> 
> _Al lado mío_, however, is perfectly fine. Even though _al  lado_ is an adverbial phrase that describes a place just like _delante_,  and _detrás_. _Lado_ is a noun; since you can say: _el libro  mío_, you can say: _al lado mío_.
> 
> This is one of those cases in which you could logically argue it  one way or the other which explains the contradictory argument by the RAE. In  fact, the RAE blatantly contradicts itself in the same email, addressed to me :
> 
> *...es perfectamente correcto el uso de SE SENTó AL LADO MíO.  Aunque AL LADO es una locución adverbial, LADO es un sustantivo, y por tanto,  puede ir seguido del posesivo en forma plena o precedido de este en forma  apocopada.*
> 
> and
> *
> **En resumen, los posesivos, como adjetivos que son, solo pueden  modificar a un sustantivo, nunca a un adverbio o a una  locución adverbial [emphasis added]. *
> 
> If _en cima_ were allowed (two words instead of one) it's  status might be different; a technicality. _En cima_ is commonly written as  two words today, according to this same email, and searches on Google will  confirm this. In any case, this word is derived from _en_ + the noun *cima* just as *en* + the noun *frente* is the source of _enfrente_ (see 3.5.2).
> The RAE admits _en busca mía_ and _a favor mío_ (because  _busca_ and _favor_ are nouns) but states that _en busca de mí_  and _a favor de mí_ are "quizá lo más recomendable." They don't explain why  _al lado mío_ is perfectly correct but _en busca mía_ perhaps not as  perfectly correct. _Lado_ and _busca_ are both nouns; what applies for  one should apply for the other.
> 
> _A través mío_ is more a more complex case, according to la  Academia, but they recommend _a través de mí_ ("Consulta RAE (delante)").
> 
> The RAE snubs _detrás mío_ despite the fact that it is very  much Spanish. Although the RAE cites the usage of the best authors of the  language as a model it condemns their usage and will even admit it in their  literature.
> 
> This puts the RAE in the strange position of establishing rules to  defend a written language, codified to reflect the usage of the _hablantes  cultos_ that those very same _hablantes cultos_ constantly and  systematically violate.



This is interesting, but I put it along with the use of 3 pronouns: correct or not it is probably a good idea to use other constructions that are just as simple, mean the same thing, and are _less_ objectionable


----------



## WillyLandron

mhp said:
			
		

> This is interesting, but I put it along with the use of 3 pronouns: correct or not it is probably a good idea to use other constructions that are just as simple, mean the same thing, and are _less_ objectionable



*EDIT: *Got confused with the issue. The post was about "en frente mío" not "Se me le cayó"

This structure sounds fine in some places but I think the alternatives sound good to them. Some Argentines might object to "detrás de ti." It just sounds wrong to them. 

One of the things students of Spanish have to decide is which Spanish to learn. IMHO, of course.


It appears wrong to most Spanish speakers. Why use it unless you don't care what sounds wrong to most Spanish speakers?


----------



## Soy Yo

*ENCIMA*

Esto tiene que ver aunque no nos presenta con tres pronombres...

de un cuento de Ricardo Palma (Perú) ["No hay mal que por bien no venga"]

"Al mismo tiempo que los criados que vigilaban la entrada de la casa *le caían encima*, una mujer enlutada dejaba otro niño a las puertas de la casa de beneficencia."
(*no* dice "encima de él)

de un cuento de Ana María Matute (escritora, España, académica de la RAE) ["Los chicos"]

"Con sigilo trepó hacia el terraplén, por donde subía el último de los chicos, y *se le echó encima*." (*no* dice "encima de él)


----------



## Fernando

Just to say this is not a nationalist issue. Leísmo/laísmo or encima mío/encima de mí can originate deaths in discussions in Madrid or Buenos Aires. Language borders do not coincide with political borders (unless the governments and us decide otherwise).

Willy, if you decide to blow the language, you will get thousands of dialects, which can split even families. As an example, the phrase "Spaniards speak this way" is EVER false. Two Spaniards speak always different.


----------



## WillyLandron

Fernando said:
			
		

> Just to say this is not a nationalist issue. Leísmo/laísmo or encima mío/encima de mí can originate deaths in discussions in Madrid or Buenos Aires. Language borders do not coincide with political borders (unless the governments and us decide otherwise).
> 
> Willy, if you decide to blow the language, you will get thousands of dialects, which can split even families. As an example, the phrase "Spaniards speak this way" is EVER false. Two Spaniards speak always different.



It's true that not all Spaniards speak the same way. You got me there. 

However, I don't understand how one "blows" a language. And as I see it, we already have a bunch of little languages. The truth *is *that Dominicans don't sound like people from Buenos Aires. We have a different accent and *yes *we have a different grammar.

Now, without understanding what you mean by "blowing" a language, if we plan to have everybody speak Spanish the *exact same way*, I wonder which one variety we are going to pick. I choose a Mexican variety because Mexico is one third of the Spanish speaking world. At least that's utilitarian.


----------



## Maria Juanita

Yo vivo en Colombia (en el Caribe), he pasado cerca de cinco años en la Universidad y créanme, aquí se usa muchísimo esa forma. "Se me cayeron las monedas" "no te me pongas a llorar" "no te me arrugues" (esto último quiere decir "no te arrepientas" y por lo general el "me" se usa para indicar compromiso sentimental con el contexto. También se usa mucho "encima mío" "detrás mío"; "detrás tuyo" nos parece tan correcto como "detrás de tí". Si queremos referencias validas a esto, tendríamos que citar a Saussure y su teoría de la lengua y el habla, etc. Quizá se debe a que nuestra forma de ser nos lleva a atropellar el lenguaje de esta manera. Sin embargo, a mí no me parece que suenen mal, al menos no como una figura que está adquiriendo fuerza últimamente y es decir "habemos" en lugar de "somos", "estamos" o "hay conmigo". Tengo que añadir a eso el tan repetido comentario de que mi país es uno de los que tiene el mejor tratamiento del español como tal.

De todas maneras, *no me lo* tomen en serio. Tan solo soy una futura licenciada en lenguas modernas con una gramática horrenda. 

Saludillos


----------



## WillyLandron

Maria Juanita said:
			
		

> ...una figura que está adquiriendo fuerza últimamente y es decir "habemos" en lugar de "somos", "estamos" o "hay conmigo".


Hola,

Antes que nada, déjame decirte que no tienes para nada una gramática terrible ni nada por el estilo. *Creo *que es absurdo decir que un nativo no habla bien su propio idioma. Es como decir que un pez no sabe nadar o que una ave no sabe volar.

Eso de «habemos» es más antiguo que el castellano mismo. Viene del Latin. ¿Se dieron cuenta ustedes que la frase «Habemus papam» cuando se eligió el nuevo Papa nunca se tradujo al castellano en nimguno de los medios? Yo nunca ví una traducción. ¿Por qué no? Porque no hace falta. Todos entendemos. Es nuestro idioma y el castellano es un grupo de dialectos del latín.

Algunos pretenderán que «habemos» es un vulgarismo. Pero habemos muchos que no estamos de acuerdo que tenga algo de malo.


----------



## Ivy29

Soy Yo said:
			
		

> Gracias, WillyLandron, muy amable. Parece que no es incorrecto tener tres pronombres....pero no es muy común. Y los hay que lo ven como muy raro y hasta incorrecto. ¿Es buena mi interpretación?


The dative of interest or ethical is very common, and if you respect the norm and usage all them are correct.

Cheers
Iván


----------



## Ivy29

WillyLandron said:
			
		

> The sentence in question was : *"Te me adenlanté"*
> 
> By the way, this sentence is odd to many native speakers. Many will think it's plain wrong and I don't blame them.
> 
> Alot of what other people in other regions say sounds plain wrong to me too. It's the same in English. "She was in hospital.' still sounds broken to me and so does "Brazil are the best team in South America."
> 
> But that sentence is fine to me. In the Caribbean, this sentence is normal. I think the RAE said it was correct. I don't remember. And to be honest, I don't care. I just care about their arguments. Their conclusions are irrelevant.At least to me.
> 
> ---
> 
> You can ask the RAE questions at their web site. Sometimes it takes them a about a week or more to answer and sometimes they just cut and paste a bunch of stuff that doesn't answer your question but I have gotten about thirty decent replies from them about a whole bunch of issues. I'm more than happy to share. : )


 
she is in hospital ( BrE) is correct, and implies that the person is a patient in the hospital, but if you state Peter is in the hospital ( BrE) he is not a patien maybe a visitor.

BRAZIL seeing as a team you use the singular verb ( IS), but as individual players you may nuse the plural verb (ARE).

Cheers
Iván


----------



## Soy Yo

Ivy is correct "in hospital" is British English and is correct.  However, to  the average American (U.S.) ear, it sounds a bit odd and is not generally used.  "He is in the hospital" would be understood first and foremost that he is a patient.  "He is at the hospital" is what I would say for someone who is visiting.

I don't think we generally say "on holiday," either...rather we say "on vacation."  (I know, I know this has nothing to do with the hospital.)


----------



## WillyLandron

Soy Yo said:
			
		

> Ivy is correct "in hospital" is British English and is correct.  However, to  the average American (U.S.) ear, it sounds a bit odd and is not generally used.  "He is in the hospital" would be understood first and foremost that he is a patient.  "He is at the hospital" is what I would say for someone who is visiting.
> 
> I don't think we generally say "on holiday," either...rather we say "on vacation."  (I know, I know this has nothing to do with the hospital.)



Yes, Sy Yo. That's the kind of thing I was trying to illustrate. Some Britons think Americans are making a mistake when we say that "Apples are different *than* oranges." One Briton told me that it hurt his ears. "Things are different *from* on another, you silly Yank!" 

That's just the way languages work. Different strokes for different folks. They wonder why we say *erbs *instead of *hhherbs*. We wonder why the say *milahtree *instead of *military*. Go figure!


----------



## Nadine Beck

WillyLandron said:
			
		

> Yes, Sy Yo. That's the kind of thing I was trying to illustrate. Some Britons think Americans are making a mistake when we say that "Apples are different *than* oranges." One Briton told me that it hurt his ears. "Things are different *from* on another, you silly Yank!"
> 
> That's just the way languages work. Different strokes for different folks. They wonder why we say *erbs *instead of *hhherbs*. We wonder why the say *milahtree *instead of *military*. Go figure!



Well if it comes to that, we have a lot of regional differences right here in the US -- pop and soda, pop and dad, "come with" for "come with me" (I heard that one in Chicago.)  The differences in pronunciation are fun, too--  "Nee-ork" for New York, and "orng" for orange, "cawfee" and "wawking" and "tawking"....

When I had just moved here (DC area) from the Boston area, I was in the library with my daughter perusing the kids videos.  She picked out a "Dora the Explorer" video, and I commented to the dad next to me that it must be made in Massachusetts, because that's the only place where "Dora" and "Explorer" rhyme.  (They'd say "explora.")  The guy turned to me and said in perfect New-York-ese "Dorer the Explorer."

  Nadine


----------



## Soy Yo

WillyLandron said:
			
		

> Yes, Sy Yo. That's the kind of thing I was trying to illustrate. Some Britons think Americans are making a mistake when we say that "Apples are different *than* oranges." One Briton told me that it hurt his ears. "Things are different *from* on another, you silly Yank!"
> 
> That's just the way languages work. Different strokes for different folks. They wonder why we say *erbs *instead of *hhherbs*. We wonder why the say *milahtree *instead of *military*. Go figure!


 
Ha, ha, ha! Willy, "Apples are different than oranges" 'hurts' my ears too. I would personally say "from."

And, by the way, Nadine, in the South "Dora" would pretty much rhyme with "explorer" as well...


----------



## Nadine Beck

Soy Yo said:
			
		

> Ha, ha, ha! Willy, "Apples are different than oranges" 'hurts' my ears too. I would personally say "from."
> 
> And, by the way, Nadine, in the South "Dora" would pretty much rhyme with "explorer" as well...



Really?  What do they sound like?  

Yeah, i guess "different than" doesn't sound like music to my ears, either.  Doesn't hurt them, though, the way "same difference" does.   "Detrás mío" doesn't hurt, but I'm so unused to it I think I'd respond by asking "detrás de tu qué?"

-- N


----------



## Soy Yo

No good with phonetic explanations...

DOruh the exPLOruh.
DOrah the exPLOrah.  (the r is not heard at the end of explorer)..and I suppose the "a" in Dora and the second "e" in explorer are reduced to "schwas"....  Can someone help me explain it?  Or am I the only one who thinks they "rhyme."


----------



## Nadine Beck

Soy Yo said:
			
		

> No good with phonetic explanations...
> 
> DOruh the exPLOruh.
> DOrah the exPLOrah. (the r is not heard at the end of explorer)..and I suppose the "a" in Dora and the second "e" in explorer are reduced to "schwas".... Can someone help me explain it? Or am I the only one who thinks they "rhyme."



That sounds pretty clear actually.  Do you mind my asking what state?  I think it's funny that it rhymes in so many places!


----------



## Soy Yo

Nadine Beck said:
			
		

> That sounds pretty clear actually. Do you mind my asking what state? I think it's funny that it rhymes in so many places!


 
Grew up in Alabama.  Live in North Carolina.


----------



## Nadine Beck

Soy Yo said:
			
		

> Grew up in Alabama.  Live in North Carolina.



Where would you say you heard the rhyming version of Dora the Explorer?  I'm going to guess Alabama -- I'm in Virginia and have heard some NC accents, it being right next door -- and they're not that deep.


----------



## Soy Yo

You hear several accents in both states....  and I would say Dora rhymes with Explorer in both, at least among certain people.  My next door neighbors are natives of NC.  I believe both would say "D t E" so that there is rhyme.  When I talk to them next, I'll ask them to say "Dora the Explorer."


----------

