# We have phoned his sister



## yuriandre

I am somewhat confused with the verb I should use on this sentence. 

They have phoned their mother : *12.Ellas han telefoneado a su madre* 

The above one is i think correct. 

But if I will translate : We have phone his sister

Should I say *Nosotros han telefoneado a su hermana. or Nosotros tenemos telefoneado a su hermana? *

Any help will be highly appreciated! Gracias.


----------



## VenusEnvy

yuriandre said:
			
		

> I am somewhat confused with the verb I should use on this sentence.
> 
> They have phoned their mother:
> *12. Ellas le  han telefoneado a su madre*


This sounds good.   
Notice that you conjugated the verb "haber" in the third person plural because _ellas _ is doing the action.



			
				yuriandre said:
			
		

> But if I will translate : We have phoned  his sister
> 
> Should I say *Nosotros han telefoneado a su hermana. or Nosotros tenemos telefoneado a su hermana? *


You would need to conjugate "haber" in the first person plural because _nosotros _ is doing the action.

Nosotros le hemos telefoneado a su hermano.

Check this out for a complete conjugation of the verb "haber".
Is this clear now?


----------



## Rayines

*May I?: *


> *Ellas han telefoneado a su madre*


*This is right. "Le" **is not necessary.*


> Nosotros le hemos telefoneado a su herman*a*.


*( también sin "le")** , porque "su madre" y "su hermana" (a pesar de que está la preposición "a", son objeto directo).*


----------



## VenusEnvy

Thanks, Inés.   
Yes, it is sister, not brother.

I suppose my using "le" is a product of a teacher that drilled it into us. Ever since then, sometimes I get "le-happy".    Thanks.

Despite the "personal a", it's a direct object?    Oh no . . .  I'm in trouble now. Can you explain that for me?


----------



## Rayines

> Despite the "personal a", it's a direct object?  Oh no . . . I'm in trouble now. Can you explain that for me?


*Hallo, Venus: Yes, this is an ooooold question: whenever you can turn a sentence into the passive voice, and the complement becomes the subject of the new sentence, you're in presence  of Direct Object. As follows: "Ellos han telefoneado a su madre">>>>>Passive voice: "Su madre (D.O.) ha sido telefoneada por ellos". The verb "telefonear" is always followed by the preposition "a", because you can't "telefonear" a flower, or a rock  ). Buuuuut there're verbs that can be followed or not by an "a". This happens when the D.O. is a person: "Vio una película"/"vio a sus amigos en el cine". Both "una película" and "sus amigos" are O.D. (try and turn them tu passive voice).*
*YES?*


----------



## elroy

Rayines said:
			
		

> *Hallo, Venus: Yes, this is an ooooold question: whenever you can turn a sentence into the passive voice, and the complement becomes the subject of the new sentence, you're in presence  of Direct Object. As follows: "Ellos han telefoneado a su madre">>>>>Passive voice: "Su madre (D.O.) ha sido telefoneada por ellos". The verb "telefonear" is always followed by the preposition "a", because you can't "telefonear" a flower, or a rock  ). Buuuuut there're verbs that can be followed or not by an "a". This happens when the D.O. is a person: "Vio una película"/"vio a sus amigos en el cine". Both "una película" and "sus amigos" are O.D. (try and turn them tu passive voice).*
> *YES?*



Great explanation, Inés.  Let me just try to wrap it up by putting it in a slightly different way:

There are two types of "a" that can come after the verb and before the object.  One is used for an indirect object, and corresponds to the English "to."

(Le) di un libro *a* mi hermano.
(I gave a book *to* my brother.)

The other, however, is what is appropriately called the "personal a."  In Spanish, if the object is a person, it HAS to be preceded by "a," whether it is a direct or an indirect object.  This "a" does not exist in English and therefore cannot be translated.

Vi *a * mi hermano.
(I saw my brother.)

Busco *a* un buen cocinero.
(I am looking for a good cook.)

Remember that when the object is not a person you use "a" only if it an indirect object.

Hay que dar(le) *a*l amor la oportunidad de crecer.
(One needs to give *(to) * love the opportunity to grow.)

Busco amor en mi vida.
(I am looking for love in my life.)

So basically, when deciding whether to use "le," ask yourself if the "a" is a regular "a" used for an indirect object or if it a "personal a."  It is worth noting that if the object is not a person you will always have to use "le."

I hope this helps!


----------



## Rayines

> I hope this helps!


*Mejor imposible!...Only:*


> Necesito *a* un buen cocinero.
> (I need a good cook.)


*Here's not necessary "a".* *(Just an exception).*


> It is worth noting that if the object is not a person you will always have to use "le."


*And maybe this....not so clear? *


----------



## elroy

Rayines said:
			
		

> *Mejor imposible!...Only:**Here's not necessary "a".* *(Just an exception).**And maybe this....not so clear? *



Ah, yes!!!  I forgot that some verbs are exceptions to the rule - "necesitar," "tener," and a few others.  I better edit my post and use a different verb to avoid confusion.   

When I said 



> It is worth noting that if the object is not a person you will always have to use "le."



I meant 

If you have a sentence with an "a" and the object is not a person, then you know that it is an indirect object because if it were a direct object it would not need an "a."  Therefore, when you replace the noun with a pronoun it will have to be "le."

Is is clearer now?


----------



## elroy

Is it better now with "buscar"???


----------



## elroy

I also want to point out that you don't use the personal "a" if you have an indirect object in the sentence.

*Te * recomiendo un buen traductor.
(I recommend a good translator to you.) 

You don't use "a" because you have the indirect object "te"! 

("Te recomiendo *a * un buen traductor" would mean "I recommend you to a good translator"!)


----------



## meetheye

yuriandre said:
			
		

> They have phoned their mother : *12.Ellas han telefoneado a su madre*
> 
> But if I will translate : We have phone his sister
> 
> Should I say *Nosotros han telefoneado a su hermana. or Nosotros tenemos telefoneado a su hermana?*.



Todo lo que han escrito arriba me parece bien, pero para mi gusto, la palabra telefonear se usa más en los países centroamericanos.
Yo diría (como chilena):
Ellas llamaron a su madre por teléfono./ Ellas llamaron por teléfono a su madre.
Nosotros hemos llamado por teléfono a su hermana.

Espero que te sirva de algo, 
bye.

Vanessa


----------



## VenusEnvy

Inés, elroy, and all: Thanks for explaining this to me. 
I swear, just when I think I understand things, something like this happens! Ufh!


			
				elroy said:
			
		

> In Spanish, if the object is a person, it HAS to be preceded by "a," whether it is a direct or an indirect object.  [...] Remember that when the object is not a person you use "a" only if it an indirect object.


To be honest, no one in my entire career learning Spanish (only a span on one year, lol) has told me this explicitly. I feel much better, and will read over this thread tomorrow when I'm not too tired to soak it in appropriately.


----------



## elroy

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Inés, elroy, and all: Thanks for explaining this to me.
> I swear, just when I think I understand things, something like this happens! Ufh!
> 
> To be honest, no one in my entire career learning Spanish (only a span on one year, lol) has told me this explicitly. I feel much better, and will read over this thread tomorrow when I'm not too tired to soak it in appropriately.



Wow, that's really something - considering the "personal a" is one of the most important (and basic) identifying features of Spanish.   

Well, glad I could help!    Let us know if you still have more questions!


----------



## VenusEnvy

Elroy: Well, we learned what the "personal a" was, but we were never taught how to detect it or use it correctly in grammar. (They were basic Spanish classes, and most of the students had trouble with definite and indefinite articles. Needless to say, it was slow moving.)


----------



## VenusEnvy

Rayines said:
			
		

> As follows: "Ellos han telefoneado a su madre">>>>>Passive voice: "Su madre (D.O.) ha sido telefoneada por ellos".


Ok, I get this.



			
				Rayines said:
			
		

> "Vio una película"/"vio a sus amigos en el cine". Both "una película" and "sus amigos" are O.D. (try and turn them tu passive voice).


So, they can't be turned into the passive?

Vio a sus amigos en el cine -->  Sus amigos han sida visto en el cine.
¿No?


----------



## elroy

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Ok, I get this.
> 
> 
> So, they can't be turned into the passive?
> 
> Vio a sus amigos en el cine -->  Sus amigos han sid*o * vist*as* en el cine.
> ¿No?



Yes, they can.  I think what Inés was getting as is that the "a" is lost in the passive, and that shows that it is not an indirect object.


----------



## Rayines

> Yes, they can. I think what Inés was getting as is that the "a" is lost in the passive, and that shows that it is not an indirect object.


*Hi!: I intended to explain that whenever you can turn into passive voice (with the object becoming subject in the passive voice), it's Direct object: "Vio a sus amigos en el cine" (active voice) "Sus amigos **(now becomes subject) fueron vistos (por él/ella) en el cine" (passive voice). Then "a sus amigos" (in the first sentence) is Direct Object.*

*But if you say "Les dio los libros a sus amigos": Try and turn it into passive voice  . Which is the Direct Object?, and the Indirect one? Hmmm.....*


----------



## VenusEnvy

Rayines said:
			
		

> *Hi!: I intended to explain that whenever you can turn into passive voice (with the object becoming subject in the passive voice), it's Direct object: "Vio a sus amigos en el cine" (active voice) "Sus amigos **(now becomes subject) fueron vistos (por él/ella) en el cine" (passive voice). Then "a sus amigos" (in the first sentence) is Direct Object.*


I understand this somewhat. The only problem I have is that every time I say a sentence, I am not going to try and turn it into the passive, voice, analyse it for a minute, decide whether it is a direct object or indirect, then speak.   



			
				Rayines said:
			
		

> *But if you say "Les dio los libros a sus amigos": Try and turn it into passive voice  . Which is the Direct Object?, and the Indirect one? Hmmm.....*


The books were given to their friends.
OD - books
OI - their friends

Er, uh, I mean:
Se dieron los libros a sus amigos.
OD - Los libros
IO - sus amigos
¿No?



Ahhh! I give up!


----------



## VenusEnvy

Ok, so in this sentence:
Ellas han telefoneado a su madre

one doesn't use "le" for "a su madre" because it is a direct object, although it appears at first to be an indirect object. 
The reason is appears this way is due to the presence of the "personal a", because "su madre" is a person. 

Another question: How can telefonear by an intransitive verb?


----------



## Rayines

> one doesn't use "le" for "a su madre" because it is a direct object, although it appears at first to be an indirect object.
> The reason is appears this way is due to the presence of the "personal a", because "su madre" is a person.


*WOOOW, very good!!!*


> How can telefonear by an intransitive verb?


*I think it's always transitive.*


----------



## VenusEnvy

Inés: Ok, gf, I feel better. Thanks.


----------



## Rayines

*VenusE.: dejamos esto en el tintero:*


> Er, uh, I mean:
> Se dieron los libros a sus amigos.
> OD - Los libros
> IO - sus amigos
> ¿No?


*If you referred to the same sentence, it should be:* 

*1) Les (O.I.)dio los libros (O.D.)a sus amigos (O.I.)*

*2) Los (O.D.) dio a sus amigos. (This one isn't very common)*

*3) Se (O.I.) los (O.D.) dio.*

*Because...if you say "se dieron los libros..." it's a sort of impersonal (no subject).*

*YES??   *


----------



## elroy

Rayines said:
			
		

> *VenusE.: dejamos esto en el tintero:**If you referred to the same sentence, it should be:*
> 
> *1) Les (O.I.)dio los libros (O.D.)a sus amigos (O.I.)*
> 
> *2) Los (O.D.) dio a sus amigos. (This one isn't very common)*
> 
> *3) Se (O.I.) los (O.D.) dio.*
> 
> *Because...if you say "se dieron los libros..." it's a sort of impersonal (no subject).*
> 
> *YES??   *



Yup, "se dieron los libros" just means "The books were given."

By the way, just to clarify: "le" and "les" become "se" when there is a direct object pronoun ("lo," "la," "los," or "las").


----------



## Rayines

> By the way, just to clarify: "le" and "les" become "se" when there is a direct object pronoun ("lo," "la," "los," or "las").


*Oh, yes!!! *


----------



## VenusEnvy

Rayines said:
			
		

> Because...if you say "se dieron los libros..." it's a sort of impersonal (no subject).


Can it be impersonal _and _ passive?

EDIT: Right, elroy said it: The books were given. This is passive, no?

EDIT 2: Elroy, with regards to the changing of the IO to "se". Surprisingly, I actually knew that! Go fig!


----------



## elroy

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Can it be impersonal _and _ passive?
> 
> EDIT: Right, elroy said it: The books were given. This is passive, no?
> 
> EDIT 2: Elroy, with regards to the changing of the IO to "se". Surprisingly, I actually knew that! Go fig!



Yup.  Well, it has a passive meaning.  The structure is reflexive, but the meaning is passive.  A "purely passive" structure would be "Los libros fueron dados."


----------



## Outsider

> Ellas han telefoneado a su madre
> 
> one doesn't use "le" for "a su madre" because it is a direct object, although it appears at first to be an indirect object.
> The reason is appears this way is due to the presence of the "personal a", because "su madre" is a person.


Are you sure it isn't "*Le* han telefoneado"?


----------



## Artrella

VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> Ok, so in this sentence:
> Ellas han telefoneado a su madre
> 
> one doesn't use "le" for "a su madre" because it is a direct object, although it appears at first to be an indirect object.
> The reason is appears this way is due to the presence of the "personal a", because "su madre" is a person.
> 
> Another question: How can telefonear by an intransitive verb?




Why do you say "a su madre" is a DO?  I don't think so.  
Can you phone something?  No, you can phone someone, but this someone is not a DO but IO.  The direct object cannot begin with a prepositional phrase.

Verbs like "tell" "give" "communicate" are bitransitive.  This means you "tell sb sth" or "communicate sth to sb" ( so you have "sth">> DO and "sb" or "to sb" which is the IO")
But "telefonear" is intransitive so you need an IO.  Or you can say "Ayer telefoneó"  "Ayer telefoneó a su madre" "Ayer me telefoneó".  So I think Outsider is right and you have to say "LE telefoneó".

I've found this>>>

*Telefonear: dos construcciones:

Transitivo: transmitir mensajes

Telefoneé unos mensajes / LOS telefoneé 

Intransitivo: llamar a alguien, LE telefoneé para masculino y femenino

Telefoneé a María / LE telefoneé porque es intransitivo * f*uente*


----------



## Outsider

That's curious! I think Portuguese grammars would call such a verb "transitive indirect". Maybe the grammars I've been reading are a bit outdated...


----------



## elroy

Artrella said:
			
		

> Why do you say "a su madre" is a DO?  I don't think so.
> Can you phone something?  No, you can phone someone, but this someone is not a DO but IO.  The direct object cannot begin with a prepositional phrase.
> 
> Verbs like "tell" "give" "communicate" are bitransitive.  This means you "tell sb sth" or "communicate sth to sb" ( so you have "sth">> DO and "sb" or "to sb" which is the IO")
> But "telefonear" is intransitive so you need an IO.  Or you can say "Ayer telefoneó"  "Ayer telefoneó a su madre" "Ayer me telefoneó".  So I think Outsider is right and you have to say "LE telefoneó".
> 
> I've found this>>>
> 
> *Telefonear: dos construcciones:
> 
> Transitivo: transmitir mensajes
> 
> Telefoneé unos mensajes / LOS telefoneé
> 
> Intransitivo: llamar a alguien, LE telefoneé para masculino y femenino
> 
> Telefoneé a María / LE telefoneé porque es intransitivo * f*uente*



This verb would also take an indirect object in French (je lui ai telephoné) so I was slightly doubtful but Inés said it was a direct object so I trusted her as a native speaker!


----------



## carrieaa

Hello:
This is so helpful. But I wanted to check out that 'necesitar', "tener" and others don't need the personal a.  Would it be:  

I don't need my mother.
No necesito mi mama. or No necesito a mi mama.

She has her kids in the house.
Ella tiene sus ninos en la casa o Ella tiene a sus ninos en la casa.

Appreciation, Carrie


----------



## elroy

carrieaa said:
			
		

> Hello:
> This is so helpful. But I wanted to check out that 'necesitar', "tener" and others don't need the personal a.  Would it be:
> 
> I don't need my mother.
> No necesito mi mama. or No necesito a mi mama.
> 
> She has her kids in the house.
> Ella tiene sus ninos en la casa    o Ella tiene a sus ninos en la casa.
> 
> Appreciation, Carrie



I'm pretty sure you use "necesitar" without an "a."

As for "tener," I think it depends on context.  In your sentence I would use the "a." 

*Tengo dos hermanos.* (I have two brothers - general)
*Tengo a mis dos hermanos aquí a mi lado.* (I have my two brothers right here at my side - specific reference to their physical presence)

Those are my two cents.  I would greatly appreciate being correced if I am wrong.


----------



## Artrella

carrieaa said:
			
		

> Hello:
> This is so helpful. But I wanted to check out that 'necesitar', "tener" and others don't need the personal a.  Would it be:
> 
> I don't need my mother.
> No necesito mi mama. or No necesito a mi mama.
> 
> She has her kids in the house.
> Ella tiene sus ninos en la casa o Ella tiene a sus ninos en la casa.
> 
> Appreciation, Carrie



Well, "necesitar" algo o "a" alguien.  
So you say "No necesito a mi mamá" but since "necesitar" is a transitive verb you need a DO always, so "a mi mamá" would replace "something".
Who do I need? >> a mi mamá
What do I need?>>> money

Necesito dinero >> Lo necesito BUT  Necesito a mi mamá >>> La necesito

Tengo dinero >> Lo tengo  BUT  Tengo a mis niños conmigo/ en mi casa >>> Los tengo

So "la" and "los" replace the DO "dinero" "a mi mamá" "a mis niños"....

NOW that I think about this, I believe I made a mistake in my previous post when I said that a DO cannot begin with a prepositional phrase, because in the case of "a mis niños" I am using a preposition ("a") ... However in English we cannot have a DO beginning with a prepositional phrase, that's why I got confused and said that.

*En español, el complemento directo de cosa se construye sin preposición, pero el de persona o cosa personalizada no pronominal se construye con la preposición a: "Pedro come peras" / "Pedro mató al guarda" / "Pedro alabó a la Real Academia de la Lengua"*

 Obtenido de


----------



## yuriandre

Thanks guys. I got a bit confused at first but a bit overwhelmed with information in the end. Thanks again. Spanish is not that easy as I initially thought.


----------



## Rayines

> Inés said it was a direct object so I trusted her as a native speaker!


*Thank you, elroy!Buuuuuuut, let me see how can I think about it.*
*Here, de RAE's definition:*


> *telefonear**.**1.* tr.Transmitir mensajes por teléfono.
> *2.* intr.Establecer una comunicación telefónica.


*From this point of view, we could never say: "Telefoneé a mi madre", but we should say: "Telefoneé unos mensajes a mi madre" (which sounds weird).*
*Then, it could be intransitive if we only said (Atention, Venus!): "Al mediodía me tomé un descanso para telefonear".*
*(Me siguen!!??  )*
*Hay algo que no me cierra. Para mí, siempre que la oración pueda tornarse en voz pasiva, y el objeto transformarse en sujeto de la voz pasiva -como en el caso de "mi madre fue telefoneada (así creía yo que se podía decir) por mí"-, se trata de objeto directo, y, por lo tanto, de un verbo transitivo....Pero evidentemente sólo se podrá decir que "Los mensajes fueron telefoneados...?"...No sé, quizás mis fuentes me abandonaron..... . Está interesante el debate, pero creo que por ahora, quedo aquí........ *


----------



## Artrella

Rayines said:
			
		

> *Thank you, elroy!Buuuuuuut, let me see how can I think about it.*
> *Here, de RAE's definition:**From this point of view, we could never say: "Telefoneé a mi madre", but we should say: "Telefoneé unos mensajes a mi madre" (which sounds weird).*
> *Then, it could be intransitive if we only said (Atention, Venus!): "Al mediodía me tomé un descanso para telefonear".*
> *(Me siguen!!??  )*
> *Hay algo que no me cierra. Para mí, siempre que la oración pueda tornarse en voz pasiva, y el objeto transformarse en sujeto de la voz pasiva -como en el caso de "mi madre fue telefoneada (así creía yo que se podía decir) por mí"-, se trata de objeto directo, y, por lo tanto, de un verbo transitivo....Pero evidentemente sólo se podrá decir que "Los mensajes fueron telefoneados...?"...No sé, quizás mis fuentes me abandonaron..... . Está interesante el debate, pero creo que por ahora, quedo aquí........ *




Inés!! Pero hay verbos "di/bitransitivos"!!! Así que no estás equivocada!! Lo podés poner en voz pasiva y también es intransitivo.


----------



## elroy

Artrella said:
			
		

> Well, "necesitar" algo o "a" alguien.
> So you say "No necesito a mi mamá" but since "necesitar" is a transitive verb you need a DO always, so "a mi mamá" would replace "something".
> Who do I need? >> a mi mamá
> What do I need?>>> money
> 
> Necesito dinero >> Lo necesito BUT  Necesito a mi mamá >>> La necesito
> 
> Tengo dinero >> Lo tengo  BUT  Tengo a mis niños conmigo/ en mi casa >>> Los tengo
> 
> So "la" and "los" replace the DO "dinero" "a mi mamá" "a mis niños"....
> 
> NOW that I think about this, I believe I made a mistake in my previous post when I said that a DO cannot begin with a prepositional phrase, because in the case of "a mis niños" I am using a preposition ("a") ... However in English we cannot have a DO beginning with a prepositional phrase, that's why I got confused and said that.
> 
> *En español, el complemento directo de cosa se construye sin preposición, pero el de persona o cosa personalizada no pronominal se construye con la preposición a: "Pedro come peras" / "Pedro mató al guarda" / "Pedro alabó a la Real Academia de la Lengua"*
> 
> Obtenido de



Ok, so "necesitar" DOES require the "a"????   

What about "tener"?  I thought it depended on the context!!


----------



## Artrella

elroy said:
			
		

> Ok, so "necesitar" DOES require the "a"????
> 
> What about "tener"?  I thought it depended on the context!!




Well, Elroy if your DO *refers to a person * you need "a", if it *refers to a* *thing* you don't need it.  Look at these examples:

"Necesito agua"  >>>>>>>>>>>  LA necesito
"Necesito tomar agua">>>>>>>   LO necesito
"Necesito a Juan">>>>>>>>>>>  LO necesito

"Tengo agua">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LA tengo
"Tengo a Juan sentado a mi lado"> LO tengo sentado a mi lado


Necesito a mis hijos >>>>  los necesito
Necesito a mis niñas>>>>  las necesito
Tengo a mis hijos>>>>>>  los tengo
Tengo a mis niñas>>>>>> las tengo

Necesito los libros>>>>>> los necesito
TEngo los libros>>>>>>>> los tengo


----------



## garryknight

Artrella said:
			
		

> if your DO *refers to a person * you need "a"


I've also learnt that the "a" isn't necessary after _tener_. In fact, my grammar book (Butt & Benjamin) has a section on _Personal a after tener, querer_ in which it gives these examples:

*Tengo un hijo y una hija - I've got a son and a daughter
Tenemos una asistenta griega - We have a Greek maid
*_but_
*Tengo a mi tío como fiador - I've got my uncle to act as guarantor
*_and_
*querer una mujer - to want a woman
querer a una mujer - to love a woman
*


			
				Artrella said:
			
		

> "Tengo a Juan sentado a mi lado"> LO tengo sentado a mi lado


It's interesting that the example you gave isn't one in which _tener_ translates as "to have" in the sense of "being related to" - "I have Juan seated beside me". It seems to me that you can omit the personal 'a' when you say something like "I have a daughter" but not when you say "I have my daughter with me today".


----------



## elroy

Artrella said:
			
		

> Well, Elroy if your DO *refers to a person * you need "a", if it *refers to a* *thing* you don't need it.  Look at these examples:
> 
> "Necesito agua"  >>>>>>>>>>>  LA necesito
> "Necesito tomar agua">>>>>>>   LO necesito
> "Necesito a Juan">>>>>>>>>>>  LO necesito
> 
> "Tengo agua">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LA tengo
> "Tengo a Juan sentado a mi lado"> LO tengo sentado a mi lado
> 
> 
> Necesito a mis hijos >>>>  los necesito
> Necesito a mis niñas>>>>  las necesito
> Tengo a mis hijos>>>>>>  los tengo
> Tengo a mis niñas>>>>>> las tengo
> 
> Necesito los libros>>>>>> los necesito
> TEngo los libros>>>>>>>> los tengo



I understand the difference between personal objects and non-personal ones, but my question was about using "a" after "necesitar" even when the object is a person.  When I said "Necesito a un buen cocinero" earlier in the thread, Inés said that was wrong, so I thought it was one of those verbs that was an exception.

As for "tener," as I said earlier, I thought it took an "a" only sometimes, depending on the context.  That is, if you are just speaking in general about your relatives, you don't use "a." (Tengo un hermano.)  However, if you are referring to the person's physical presence, you use "a." (Tengo a mi hermano en mi casa.)

What do you have to say about these two phenomena???


----------



## elroy

garryknight said:
			
		

> I've also learnt that the "a" isn't necessary after _tener_. In fact, my grammar book (Butt & Benjamin) has a section on _Personal a after tener, querer_ in which it gives these examples:
> 
> *Tengo un hijo y una hija - I've got a son and a daughter
> Tenemos una asistenta griega - We have a Greek maid
> *_but_
> *Tengo a mi tío como fiador - I've got my uncle to act as guarantor
> *_and_
> *querer una mujer - to want a woman
> querer a una mujer - to love a woman
> *
> 
> It's interesting that the example you gave isn't one in which _tener_ translates as "to have" in the sense of "being related to" - "I have Juan seated beside me". It seems to me that you can omit the personal 'a' when you say something like "I have a daughter" but not when you say "I have my daughter with me today".



Exactly...that's what I thought.  That's why I'm slightly confused now...


----------



## Artrella

garryknight said:
			
		

> It seems to me that you can omit the personal 'a' when you say something like "I have a daughter" but not when you say "I have my daughter with me today".



Correct Garry!  It seems so.... it's amazing that I never think of this, because I take my language for granted... but now that someone who is learning it as a second language puts me to think about it.  This is great for me!!!  

When the DO refers to a person you need "a", if it refers to a thing you don't need "a".  However you make me think twice why in these examples with "persons" in some cases we don't use "a"... is it because of the "possession feature" vs the "????? feature" ( I don't know how to call it , I mean the example with "tengo a Juan a mi lado".  What do Benjamin and Butt say about this case?


Tengo una hija  >>> La tengo * NOT  * *Tengo a una hija

Tengo a Juan a mi lado >>>>  Lo tengo a mi lado

Tengo a mi hija a mi lado

?? Tengo a Juan 

Tengo una mesa a mi lado >>> La tengo a mi lado

Tengo una mesa  NOT   *Tengo a una mesa

Necesito a Juan  >>>   Lo necesito

Necesito una mesa >>>  La necesito

Tengo a mi hermana a mi lado

Tengo una hermana

Necesito a mi hermana a mi lado >>  La necesito

??Necesito una hermana a mi lado >> ?? La necesito

Necesito a Juan a mi lado >> Lo necesito

* Necesito Juan a mi lado 

Quiero a Juan a mi lado >> Lo quiero a mi lado

* Quiero Juan a mi lado

Tengo una hermana >> La tengo

* Tengo un Juan

Tengo a una hermana a mi lado /  ?? Tengo una hermana a mi lado


Grammar is great!! It's like Mathematics, it puts you to think and analyse a lot!!


----------



## Outsider

Regarding the verb "telefonear", since it seems that it does indeed take an indirect object in Spanish (I know it does in Portuguese), here's an explanation to those learning Spanish:

If I say, _Voy a telefonear a mi madre_, "I'm going to phone my mother", _mi madre_ is an indirect object, and the sentence should be shortened to _*Le* voy a telefonear_. 

Why? Because the act of phoning is not exerted directly on my mother. It's exerted on the telephone, and only _directed at_ my mother.

In general, when a verb describes the act of sending a message, the receiver of the message is considered an indirect object, since the direct object is the message itself, even when the message is not explicitly mentioned.

I hope this helps.


----------



## VenusEnvy

So . . . . 
Are these correct, afterall?

Ellas *le* han telefoneado a su madre.
Nosotros *le * hemos telefoneado a su hermano.


I am still a little confused about when to use the "a", and when not to. Since Garry and Outsider seem to have a good grasp on it (and since their explanations almost work for me), can you try and explain it more?
(Let's start a new thread???)


----------



## garryknight

Artrella said:
			
		

> the "????? feature" ( I don't know how to call it , I mean the example with "tengo a Juan a mi lado". What do Benjamin and Butt say about this case?


The book deals with a lot of different cases and they don't divide them up into "the posession feature" and the "????? feature" - it uses entirely different categories. Just to give you an idea of how the book treats the subject, here are the section headings:

Personal _a_: general
Personal _a_ before direct objects denoting human beings or animals
Personal _a_ with nouns linked by _como_
Personal _a_ before pronouns
Personal _a_ before relative pronouns
Personal _a_ before relative nouns
Personal _a_ after _tener_, _querer_
Omission of personal _a_ before numerals
Personal _a_ combined with dative _a_
Personal _a_ before collective nouns
Personal _a_ before non-living direct objects
_A_ obligatory or preferred with certain verbs

So, you see, all that stuff you learned so easily at your mother's knee is quite a complicated subject. 

The book says that you _don't_ use personal _a_ (or don't have to):


When the direct object is not individually particularized: *Busco un marido que me ayude en la casa*
When _tener_ has the "possessive" sense: *Tengo un hijo y una hija*
When _querer_ means "to want" rather than "to love" (they don't give a particular example, but I would think that *quiero una mujer que tenga un buen sentido de humor* would suffice)
Before numerals: *Reclutaron (a) doscientos jóvenes* (can use 'a' or omit it)



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Regarding the verb "telefonear", since it seems that it does indeed take an indirect object in Spanish


I understand that _llamar_ is the same: *¿Piensas llamar a tu amigo mañana? - Sí, voy a llamarle*



			
				VenusEnvy said:
			
		

> I am still a little confused about when to use the "a", and when not to. Since Garry and Outsider seem to have a good grasp on it (and since their explanations almost work for me), can you try and explain it more?
> (Let's start a new thread???)


I've only a basic grasp of the subject based on what I've picked up in my reading. I'm nowhere near Chapter 22 of B&B yet. But I agree, since I'm interested in this. Let's start a new thread. How about posting a specific question with a title including the words "personal a" so that we can recognise it?


----------



## Outsider

garryknight said:
			
		

> I understand that _llamar_ is the same: *¿Piensas llamar a tu amigo mañana? - Sí, voy a llamarle*


Hmm, the verbs that mean "to name/to call a name/to call out/to send for" seem to be a special case, at least in Portuguese...


----------



## Artrella

Estuve viendo cosas por ahí y encontré esta explicación a una pregunta con el verbo "Buscar"... cuándo se usa "buscar + sustantivo" y cuándo se usa "buscar + a + sustantivo"

_Busco *a* gente  _    o    _Busco gente_  ???

Utilizamos "buscar a" + nombre de persona y "buscar"+ nombre de objeto (como sucede con otros verbos). Por ejemplo:
"busco a mi padre", "busco el dinero" "Me puse a buscar gente de mi entorno". ¿Sería más correcto "buscar a gente de mi entorno"? 
De hecho, 'gente' no funciona como 'nombre de persona', puesto que no lo es.

Por qué, entonces, se dice "busco a mi padre" y no "busco mi padre"?. Creo que en este punto hay que considerar la oposición 'sintagma nominal determinado' / 'sintagma nominal indeterminado', como ocurre en el siguiente ejemplo, en el cual decimos dos cosas bien distintas:

- busco amigos
- busco a mis amigos 


El verbo 'buscar' es transitivo, y por tanto requiere de un objeto directo que le acompañe.
Ahora bien, la preposición 'a' se requiere obligatoria para acompañar al OD conocido o *familiar* para el hablante.

Por ejemplo, yo puedo decirle a una amiga "he visto un gato negro con manchas blancas en la puerta de tu casa", a lo que ella podría contestarme "negro y con manchas? ah, entonces has visto *A mi gato Piky*".

Por eso, el 'busco gente' del ejemplo  no tiene preposición. La que escribe no habla de alguien conocido, sino de personas en general.

Si hablamos de un *objeto directo inanimado*, siempre es buscar: Busco mi libro. Si el *objeto es animado*, *a mayor determinación más uso * *de "busco a": * busco a Juan. A menor determinación menor uso de la preposición: busco compañía



Yo supongo que esto también aplica a tener, llamar, y todos los otros casos que estuvimos viendo, como el de "Tengo una hija" , "Tengo a Juan a mi lado"


----------



## VenusEnvy

Artrella said:
			
		

> Utilizamos "buscar a" + nombre de persona y "buscar"+ nombre de objeto (como sucede con otros verbos). Por ejemplo:
> "busco a mi padre", "busco el dinero" "Me puse a buscar gente de mi entorno". ¿Sería más correcto "buscar a gente de mi entorno"?
> De hecho, 'gente' no funciona como 'nombre de persona', puesto que no lo es.



I am so glad you said this, Art (not just you, everyone actually). This is so much clearer for me. It answers to many questions I previously had, seriously.

BUT . . . . . 
Is this true for every transitive verb? Or, only specific verbs (tener, llamar, buscar . . .)


----------



## Rayines

> Is this true for every transitive verb? Or, only specific verbs (tener, llamar, buscar . . .)


*I think this is true for those transitive verbs that admit a person as well as a thing or an animal, as a Direct Object (like those you mentioned).*
*This is not the case for: "beber", "sembrar", "leer", "escribir", etc.*


----------

