# To take someone away



## ehs212

Hi all,

I want to say: The police took me away.

Would it be: La policia se me llevó?

Also, what kind of a construction is the "llevarse" in the sentence? Is it reflexive or a "no fault" construction? The reason why i don't think it's reflexive is because the police isn't taking itself away, it's taking me away. So confused.

Muchas gracias, cualquier consejo me serviría.

Eddie


----------



## 0bito

Yes, it's right. The difference is that "llevar" (transitive verb) is more like carrying somewhere, and "llevarse" (pronominal verb) is to take away with you:

*Se llevó el coche.* - He took away the car.
*Llevó el coche al garaje*. - He took the car to the garage.

You  could also say "Se llevó el coche al garaje", if you want to emphasise that he drove  the car himself, instead of having someone to do it for him.


----------



## cesarduck

ehs212 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I want to say: The police took me away.
> 
> Would it be: La policia se me llevó?
> 
> Also, what kind of a construction is the "llevarse" in the sentence? Is it reflexive or a "no fault" construction? The reason why i don't think it's reflexive is because the police isn't taking itself away, it's taking me away. So confused.
> 
> Muchas gracias, cualquier consejo me serviría.
> 
> Eddie



You have to say; la policia me llevo (if you're talking of yourself)
And it is; la policia se lo(s)/la(s) llevo if you're talking about third person.


----------



## Perrito

Llevarse es un verbo curioso cuando se trata de los complementos directos (cuando son pronombres).  

La policía se me llevó.  
La policía se te llevó.  
La policía se lo llevó.  
La policía se la llevó.  
La policía se nos llevó.  
La policía se os llevó.  
La policía se los llevó.  
La policía se las llevó. 

¿ ?

No sé si todos son posibles, será interesante ver que dicen los nativos.  Creo que es tu pregunta más o menos, ¿verdad?   

Perrito


----------



## ehs212

0bito said:


> Yes, it's right. The difference is that "llevar" (transitive verb) is more like carrying somewhere, and "llevarse" (pronominal verb) is to take away with you:
> 
> *Se llevó el coche.* - He took away the car.
> *Llevó el coche al garaje*. - He took the car to the garage.
> 
> You  could also say "Se llevó el coche al garaje", if you want to emphasise that he drove  the car himself, instead of having someone to do it for him.




are you sure that se llevó el coche isn't passive voice? did u mean to say él se llevó el coche? sorry for being so picky, I'm just trying to get the clearest answer possible. Also, cesarduck said that you have to say "la policia me llevó" instead of "se me llevó la policia." What do you think? Thanks!


----------



## ehs212

cesarduck said:


> You have to say; la policia me llevo (if you're talking of yourself)
> And it is; la policia se lo(s)/la(s) llevo if you're talking about third person.



So for "the police took me away", you would say "la policia me llevó" but if you're saying that "the police took him away" you would say "la policia se lo llevó"? Why can't you just say "la policia se me llevó"? That would be the same set up that is used when saying that the police took him. To be as clear as possible, my question is: why is the "se" dropped when talking about yourself but the "se" is needed when saying that someone else was taken?


----------



## Rondivu

Perrito said:


> Llevarse es un verbo curioso cuando se trata de los complementos directos (cuando son pronombres).
> 
> La policía se me llevó.
> La policía se te llevó.
> La policía se lo llevó.
> La policía se la llevó.
> La policía se nos llevó.
> La policía se os llevó.
> La policía se los llevó.
> La policía se las llevó.
> 
> ¿ ?
> 
> No sé si todos son posibles, será interesante ver que dicen los nativos. Creo que es tu pregunta más o menos, ¿verdad?
> 
> Perrito





1- La policía se me llevó. 
2- La policía se te llevó. 
3- La policía se lo llevó. 
4- La policía se la llevó. 
5- La policía se nos llevó. 
6- La policía se os llevó. 
7- La policía se los llevó. 
8- La policía se las llevó. 

Leave out "se " in 1, 2, 5 and 6 and they are fine but incomplete.
For example:

La policía me llevó... If someone said this to me, my next reaction would be...Where? Did they give you a lift home? How do you mean "La policía me llevó"?

For 3,4,7 and 8, I understand the police took them to the police station. ( La policía se los llevó (detenidos)). Of course, there can be other interpretations but the idea is that the police took them somewhere else (probably to jail) because they were causing problems.

Hope this helps


----------



## 0bito

ehs212 said:


> are you sure that se llevó el coche isn't passive voice? did u mean to say él se llevó el coche? sorry for being so picky, I'm just trying to get the clearest answer possible. Also, cesarduck said that you have to say "la policia me llevó" instead of "se me llevó la policia." What do you think? Thanks!



(Él) se llevó el coche.
(Él) llevó el coche al garaje.

The subject can be omitted or not, as you please.


If it was passive, the sentence would be like:

El coche se llevó al garaje. = El coche fue llevado al garaje. = The car was taken to the garage.

There, the subject is "The car". 


However, in the first examples it is not:

(Él) se llevó el coche. = He took away the car.

The subject is "He".


Finally, if you say "La policía me llevó", you need to say where, but if you say "La policía se me llevó", you're just saying that they took you away, from anywhere and to anywhere.


----------



## Perrito

Ehs212, so basically llevarse with a pronoun can only be used in the third person (see checkmarks and x's above).  Strange, but that's how it works.  

Perrito


----------



## Rondivu

0bito said:


> ..but if you say "La policía se me llevó", you're just saying that they took you away, from anywhere and to anywhere.



I don't understand this part, sorry. "La policía se me llevó" is not correct...period.


----------



## altorange

My understanding of this has always been, more or less, to see it as a relative of "irse", except that it comes with an object to indicate what is being carried away. (Also, I don't think you can use an object pronoun to indicate who/what it was taken away from.) That's not a fancy explanation and I don't have any abstruse grammatical terminology to support it, but it seems to have done me well enough so far.


> 1- La policía se me llevó.
> 2- La policía se te llevó.
> 3- La policía se lo llevó.
> 4- La policía se la llevó.
> 5- La policía se nos llevó.
> 6- La policía se os llevó.
> 7- La policía se los llevó.
> 8- La policía se las llevó.



Is it that they're grammatically incorrect, or simply that they're hardly, if ever, used? I'm having a hard time understanding why they're wrong. What would you say instead? "La policía me llevó a la cárcel"? If so, can you think of any reason why? If you can't, don't worry. I'm perfectly willing to accept that it _just is_.


----------



## 0bito

Rondivu said:


> I don't understand this part, sorry. "La policía se me llevó" is not correct...period.



"El hablante puede utilizar el pronombre _me _para introducirse como afectado positiva o negativamente por la acción ejercida por el verbo: _

–No te *me *caigas 
–La policía se *me *llevó_. 

Se denomina *dativo ético* o *de interés*."


----------



## Perrito

Quizás podríamos decir que se suele restringir a conversaciones más coloquiales y más verbales que escritas. Pero dudo que se oigan en un noticiario o en un informe oficial. ¿Estáis de acuerdo?   

Perrito


----------



## Rondivu

Gracias por tu respuesta, Obitus.

Si siempre que utilicemos "se", combinado con los pronombres personales átonos me, te, le, etc., con cualquier verbo que se nos ocurra, lo vamos a dar por válido porque lo consideramos un dativo ético, apaga y vámonos. ¡A dónde va a ir a parar mi querido idioma español!

- Mamá, la radio no funciona.
- Ay, hijo, ya te lo he dicho mil veces; es que no me pulsas bien el botón. Es hacia abajo. 

- Pedro no puede ir en coche a trabajar. ¿Por qué no? 
- Porque se le robaron el coche a Pedro 


Verbos comunes usados para formar el dativo de interés:
Acabar, arrugar, caer, comer, decolorar, derramar, derretir, desbaratar, descomponer, desmoronar, desprender, enfriar, enredar, estropear, ensuciar, manchar, olvidar, perder, ponchar, quemar. (Puede que falte alguno).


Estudiantes de español, por favor, tened mucho cuidado con el uso del dativo de interés. 
"Se me llevó la policía" 

Feliz Navidad


----------



## duvija

Si, el dativo ético nos puede armar grandes líos. Yo se lo dejaría usar solamente a los nativos de español, pero los que lo estudian tienen que saberlo para poder entender, y para no meter la pata al hablar. Adquirir el 'dativo ético' es una de las metas de los que aprenden español. 
Para ehs212: Si _te me_ estás muriendo de frío como yo, subí la calefacción. (pero no puedo decir ' se me estoy muriendo de frío' )


----------



## Perrito

No creo que haga falta tener tanto miedo con estas construcciones. Creo que aveces en inglés corresponde al "on" en inglés. 

Don't die on me. No te me mueras. Mas informal: don't go dying on me. . 

Perrito


----------



## duvija

Perrito said:


> No creo que haga falta tener tanto miedo con estas construcciones. Creo que aveces en inglés corresponde al "on" en inglés.
> 
> Don't die on me. No te me mueras. Mas informal: don't go dying on me. .
> 
> Perrito



Well, a Mexican woman we met, pointed towards her 2 year old son and said: _Éste ya me usa sai cinco._
As soon as I understood 'sai' as ' size', the rest was easy, but how would you translate it? Clearly, not with ' on ' .


----------



## k-in-sc

It probably wouldn't be translated directly -- "This kid (of mine) is wearing size 5's already" -- but we would be aware of the shadow meaning, subtext, whatever -- "I'm having to buy him size 5's already."


----------



## Perrito

That's true. Certainly on doesn't work in all the cases. Here, maybe you could say something like: he's already grown into a size 5 on me.  Since we don't use use with clothes.  Sometimes there may not be an equivalent or you will have to split it up into two sentences to translate it, but here this is one possibility. 

Greg


----------



## Perrito

I like k-in-sc's examples!!  .


----------



## duvija

Remember the woman was extremely proud of having such a large child...
I like both, k-in-sc and Perrito's examples.
(Should I write ' k-in-sc's and Perrito's ...' ? I believe the 's just in the second name works for both)


----------



## Perrito

K-in-sc's are better, mine are more forced but work.  

(Duvija, it's the second one! )  

Felices fiestas,
Perrito


----------



## duvija

Perrito said:


> K-in-sc's are better, mine are more forced but work.
> 
> (Duvija, it's the second one! )
> 
> Felices fiestas,
> Perrito



Thanks! And happy politically correct holidays to you too...


----------



## Rondivu

Also, sometimes, you can hear sentences like the following and afterwards faces go   

No me le bañéis al niño ahora en el río que hace mucho frío.


I strongly object to such "dativo de  interés". RAE pasa un poco de largo sobre this topic and I wonder why.


----------



## 0bito

Rondivu said:


> Also, sometimes, you can hear sentences like the following and afterwards faces go
> 
> No me le bañéis al niño ahora en el río que hace mucho frío.
> 
> 
> I strongly object to such "dativo de  interés". RAE pasa un poco de largo sobre this topic and I wonder why.



Ahí el dativo sería el "me", no el "le" que no pinta mucho ahí.

-No bañéis al niño.
-No me bañéis al niño.


----------



## duvija

El dativo de interés es un buen ejercicio en expresividad. Es totalmente correcto en español, aunque suene raro para los que estudian gramática automatizada. Me suena fantástico y me alegra tenerlo, y compararlo con el inglés que también tiene el suyo.
( Digamos que es un uso como cuando hay que decir algo en Spanglish - a lo Ilan Stavans- , porque ninguno de los dos idiomas por separado dan el comentario que queremos.)
El orgullo que demostraba la madre de esa bestia de 2 años usando talle 5, es bien claro. Claramente, no era una queja, sino una demostración de sus buenas dotes maternales, comparadas con las mías porque mi hijo a los 2 años usaba talle 2...


----------



## Perrito

> El dativo de interés es un buen ejercicio en expresividad. Es totalmente correcto en español, aunque suene raro para los que estudian gramática automatizada. Me suena fantástico y me alegra tenerlo, y compararlo con el inglés que también tiene el suyo.
> ( Digamos que es un uso como cuando hay que decir algo en Spanglish - a lo Ilan Stavans- , porque ninguno de los dos idiomas por separado dan el comentario que queremos.)
> El orgullo que demostraba la madre de esa bestia de 2 años usando talle 5, es bien claro. Claramente, no era una queja, sino una demostración de sus buenas dotes maternales, comparadas con las mías porque mi hijo a los 2 años usaba talle 2...



Totalmente de acuerdo.  No veo ningúna razón por censurarlo ni rechazarlo como otros.  De hecho, creo que demuestra la riqueza de la lengua española y creo en este caso quizás la lengua inglesa queda un poco corta a la hora de poder expresar lo mismo con el mismo estilo y fluidez.   

Saludos,
Perrito


----------



## Rondivu

Duvija, no me interpretes mal. El ejemplo de la madre que mencionas me parece normal, como por ejemplo estos otros:

Se me quemaron las tostadas.
Está triste porque se le murió el perro.

Pero hay casos y casos para analizar.
El tan usado... "el niño no me come bien" ( the kid doesn't eat me well).


----------



## JohanJM

I'm still left with 2 questions after reading this thread:

1) Why can you use "lo/la/los/las" as an object (La policía se lo llevó), but not "me/te/nos/os" (La policía se me llevó)?

2) If _"The police took him away/carried him off"_ is _"La policía se lo llevó"_, then how do you say _"The police took me away/carried me off"_?


----------



## Rondivu

JohanJM said:


> I'm still left with 2 questions after reading this thread:
> 
> 1) Why can you use "lo/la/los/las" as an object (La policía se lo llevó), but not "me/te/nos/os" (La policía se me llevó)?
> 
> 2) If _"The police took him away/carried him off"_ is _"La policía se lo llevó"_, then how do you say _"The police took me away/carried me off"_?



1- According to some natives (Obito) it is possible. "La policía se me llevó" grates  on  my ears. I would never  say it like that.
2.- La  policía me llevó (a comisaría/ a casa/ a otro lugar).


----------



## vertebrado

Rondivu said:


> 1- According to some natives (Obito) it is possible. "La policía se me llevó" grates  on  my ears. I would never  say it like that.
> 2.- La  policía me llevó (a comisaría/ a casa/ a otro lugar).


Totally agreed.

Due to some reasons beyond my knowledge me/te/nos/os sounds horrible in some cases. Fortunately an expert on Spanish grammar can tell us why. Looking forward to it.


----------



## 0bito

Actually, I think we're missing the main point: 

-In the sentence "La policía me llevó" we all agree on the fact that pronoun "me" is mandatory, not optional. We can't just say "La policía llevó"... "Llevó" what?

-The problem is that using that form of the verb, the sentence feels incomplete, as if it needed a parameter (which, in this case, would be the place where the police took me). 


For that reason, we use a pronominal verb "*llevarse*", instead of "*llevar*" which is not pronominal, thus making the sentence complete, and not lacking of meaning. The element "se" is then a mandatory part of that verb:

—"La policía *se* *me *llevó." (anywhere, no need to specify)

Or differently put:

—"Llevó*seme* la policía".


Let the debate begin


----------



## Rondivu

0bito said:


> Actually, I think we're missing the main point:
> 
> -In the sentence "La policía me llevó" we all agree on the fact that pronoun "me" is mandatory, not optional. We can't just say "La policía llevó"... "Llevó" what?
> 
> -The problem is that using that form of the verb, the sentence feels incomplete, as if it needed a parameter (which, in this case, would be the place where the police took me).
> 
> 
> For that reason, we use a pronominal verb "*llevarse*", instead of "*llevar*" which is not pronominal, thus making the sentence complete, and not lacking of meaning. The element "se" is then a mandatory part of that verb:
> 
> —"La policía *se* *me *llevó." (anywhere, no need to specify)
> 
> Or differently put:
> 
> —"Llevó*seme* la policía".
> 
> 
> Let the debate begin




Please read post 7, where I say "la policía me llevó" is incomplete.
"The police took me away" means " la  policía me llevó (de allí). I don't think it is clear in English where they took you either.
As always we need CONTEXT.


----------



## 0bito

Rondivu said:


> Please read post 7, where I say "la policía me llevó" is incomplete.
> "The police took me away" means " la  policía me llevó (de allí). I  don't think it is clear in English where they took you either.
> As always we need CONTEXT.



Yes, that's it basically 
In English if you say "The police took me away.", there's  no need for a place to be specified. You were just dragged from wherever  you were, and that's it.
 But translating it as "La policía me  llevó", you're lacking a place of destination. It is then when the verb  "llevarse" comes into action. 
I think the particle "away" kind of  resembles the "se" here, in the sense that if you remove any of them, a  destination is required.


----------



## Rondivu

0bito said:


> Yes, that's it basically
> In English if you say "The police took me away.", there's  no need for a place to be specified. You were just dragged from wherever  you were, and that's it.
> But translating it as "La policía me  llevó", you're lacking a place of destination. It is then when the verb  "llevarse" comes into action.
> I think the particle "away" kind of  resembles the "se" here, in the sense that if you remove any of them, a  destination is required.



Then, without more context, "the police took me away" could be translated as "la policía me llevó/sacó de allí"

En mitad de la pelea en el bar, llegó la policía y me sacó de allí. (...the police took me away)

It's a matter of context. Usually, sentences in isolation are difficult to translate accurately. That's why context is always requested. Have a look at the OP again... No context.


----------



## vertebrado

I am still waiting for somebody to explain why in the given example (La policia... llevo) the options  "se me/se te/se nos/se os" sound so bad to a Spanish ear and consequently are not used .


----------



## duvija

vertebrado said:


> I am still waiting for somebody to explain why in the given example (La policia... llevo) the options  "se me/se te/se nos/se os" sound so bad to a Spanish ear and consequently are not used .



I don't have a clear answer, but " la policía se me llevó ..." implies the police took (something) away from me, and you have to say what: La policía se me llevó el auto después que atropellé a 8 peatones. Maybe this usage emptied the other one.


----------



## JohanJM

duvija said:


> Maybe this usage emptied the other one.



Interesting!  Maybe the native-Spanish _intuition_ has gravitated to this one way...but then didn't do so for the other pronouns "lo/la/los/las".  I'd be curious to know what the Mexican intuition has to say about this, since that is the Spanish most useful to me where I live (U.S.).

I think I know why:  _"La policía se lo llevó"_ can't mean _"The police took it away from him"_, because "lo" already means "him", leaving no room for another object:  _"La policía se le lo llevó"_ BUT _"La policía se me lo llevó"_, right?


----------



## cesarduck

ehs212 said:


> why can't you just say "la policia se me llevó"? That would be the same set up that is used when saying that the police took him. To be as clear as possible, my question is: why is the "se" dropped when talking about yourself but the "se" is needed when saying that someone else was taken?



You just said it.
Because "se" is an auxiliary to talk about third person. There are some other examples where it does fit like;

Se *me* cayó el libro = I dropped the book

But I'm talking about myself.

La policia (they) se me llevó. It's not right at all.


----------



## Perrito

Above it was asked if you could say: "se me lo llevó."  I'd say no. But what do the natives say?  I've never seen 3 pronouns together. 

Perrito


----------



## vertebrado

Perrito said:


> Above it was asked if you could say: "se me lo llevó."  I'd say no. But what do the natives say?  I've never seen 3 pronouns together.
> 
> Perrito


You can: "A mi Pepe se me lo llevo el maldito Cancer" meaning "My dear Pepe _was killed_ by the damn Cancer".


----------



## Perrito

Could it mean take away/take from on place to another without having to do with death?  

Very interesting!  Thanks for the clarification. I hope it contributes to the original post in helping to better understand this construction.


----------



## vertebrado

"Con el cariño que le tenia a mi coche y se me lo llevo la grua", in English would be something similar to this:
"I really loved my car but it was taken away by the lorry that takes away the cars that are parked in a prohibited area"

Grua here does not mean crane but coche-grua all together which is a lorry with a small crane integrated.


----------



## Perrito

Yes. Here we call it a tow truck. Interesting construction. Something I doubt few grammar books include. 

Greg


----------



## Rondivu

duvija said:


> I don't have a clear answer, but " la policía se me llevó ..." implies the police took (something) away from me, and you have to say what: La policía se me llevó el auto después que atropellé a 8 peatones. Maybe this usage emptied the other one.



Efectivamente. A mí se me había ocurrido ese uso también pero no comenté nada para no liar más la madeja.




JohanJM said:


> I think I know why: "La policía se lo llevó" can't mean "The police took it away from him", because "lo" already means "him", leaving no room for another object: "La policía se le lo llevó" BUT "La policía se me lo llevó", right?




Depending on context, "la policía se lo llevó" can also refer to "it". 

El coche se lo llevó la policía porque estaba mal aparcado.
Se lo llevó la policía. La policía se lo llevó.

Again, the OP has provided no context.



Perrito said:


> Above it was asked if you could say: "se me lo llevó."  I'd say no. But what do the natives say?  I've never seen 3 pronouns together.
> 
> Perrito


Dos personas a punto de entrar en casa.

-- ¡Mierda!
-- ¿Qué pasa?
-- ¡Las llaves! ¡¡¡Las llaaaaaaves!!! ¡¡¡*Se me las* llevó/ha llevado Pablo!!! Estaban en el maletín que le di con los informes que tenía (que hacer Pablo) para el lunes. 
-- ¡¿Pero cómo se te ocurre poner las llaves de casa en el maletín?! Tú no eres más tonto porque no te entrenas...¿Y ahora cómo entramos? Etc.


----------



## duvija

My 'go to' sentence to remember that usage is:

_¡Diosito!¿Por qué te me lo llevaste tan joven?

Se me lo llevaron preso, justo ahora que estoy embarazada.

_(yes, even native speakers need sometimes a 'go to sentence')
Check and see I can't use ' me me lo llevaron' ...


----------

