# Origins of Spanish repeated object pronoun



## Beachxhair

I've tried to search for an existing thread on this topic, but I couldn't find one....(Sorry if one does exist and this has to be merged with it .) 

In Spanish, a 'redundant' pronoun is often used, such as _le _in this (rather odd ) sentence I took from an online dictionary:

*"*Acostumbro a hablarle a mi perro*" 

*Where does this "redundant" pronoun originate? Is it a relic from an earlier stage of the language where it was necessary?

Thank you


----------



## Hulalessar

I suspect it is because in Spanish (a) word order tends to be somewhat free and (b) where the direct object is a human or higher animal it needs to be proceeded by _a_, which also serves to indicate the indirect object. Throwing in the extra pronoun helps prevent ambiguity and has come to be used even when unnecessary or for emphasis.


----------



## sotos

Such expressions are also common in Greek. Some times they give emphasis, some times are just redundant words that give a special flavor to the speech or the speaker.


----------



## Gavril

As you may know, the direct object pronouns _lo(s)/la(s)_ are also used redundantly when the object is fronted for emphasis:

_Esa chamarra *la* compré el mes pasado. _"I bought *that* jacket last month"

The difference between the use of _la_ in the above sentence, and the use of _le(s)_ that you mentioned, is that _le(s)_ can be used redundantly regardless of whether the indirect object ("a mi perro" in your sentence) is fronted or not.


----------



## fdb

In Gavril's example la is not (I think) redundant. It is an obligatory resumptive pronoun, needed to encase the topic (esa chamarra) into the syntax of the main cluase.


----------



## Nino83

To clarify, in all Romance languages we can use pronouns redundantly and it's usual in spoken language. 

For example: _te l'ho detto a te, je te l'ai dit à toi, digo-te a ti, te digo a ti_. 

Neverthless Spanish language is the only one that requires redundant pronouns when there is a prepositional (dative) pronoun in one sentence. 

Example: _ho detto a lei di non andarci, j'ai dit à elle de n'y pas aller_ but _te he dicho a ti_. 

I think, as Hulalessar said, that it's due to the fact that Spanish is the only language in which there is the so called _personal a_ so after some verbs you can't say, without using a redundant pronun, if there is a direct or an indirect object. 

Es. I hand him/I hand to him. In Italian one say _consegno lui__/consegno a lui_, in Spanish if one say _entrego a él__/entrego a él_ it's not clear the meaning. 
In Italian, French and Portuguese the preposition _a_ indicates unequivocally an indirect object but in Spanish it doesn't. 
If you say_ le entrego a él_ it's clear that there is an indirect object.


----------



## Hulalessar

You cannot say _entrego a él_; _a él_ is only used for emphasis or where you need to make it clear you mean "him" rather then "her". You must say either _le entrego_ or _le entrego a él_.

I believe Romanian also uses redundant pronouns to the same extent as Spanish and also has a construction similar to the _personal a_​.


----------



## Gavril

fdb said:


> In Gavril's example la is not (I think) redundant. It is an obligatory resumptive pronpun, needed to encase the topic (esa chamarra) into the syntax of the main cluase.



In what sense is _la _obligatory in the sentence

_Esa chamarra la compré el mes pasado

_but not _le _in the sentence,

_Al Sr. Urrutia le vendimos la casa de veraneo

_?


----------



## Peterdg

Gavril said:


> In what sense is _la _obligatory in the sentence
> 
> _Esa chamarra la compré el mes pasado
> 
> _but not _le _in the sentence,
> 
> _Al Sr. Urrutia le vendimos la casa de veraneo
> 
> _?


Both "le" and "la" are mandatory in both your sentences.


----------



## Gavril

Peterdg said:


> Both "le" and "la" are mandatory in both your sentences.



OK, but Fdb seemed to be implying in post #5 that "le" in the original sentence (_Acostumbro a hablarle a mi perro_) was less obligatory than the "la" in _Esa chamarra la compré el mes pasado: _he said that_ le _in the former was redundant, but _la_ in the latter wasn't_. _If both are obligatory, then I don't understand what distinction was being made.


----------



## Nino83

Hulalessar said:


> You cannot say _entrego a él_



Yes, in Spanish redundant pronoun is mandatory while in Italian, French and Portuguese it isn't.


----------



## Quiviscumque

Mandatory or "redundant"? Well, a difficult question. In depends on the historical period, the region and the register. See a summary in the Real Academia "Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas":

http://www.rae.es/dpd/srv/search?id=elLl31yYnD65MTS9uF (#5)

That description corresponds just to present standard prose Spanish; according to it, all our poets and all our classics were solecists!


----------



## Hulalessar

I think we need to distinguish between (a) redundant pronouns i.e. those which appear to be unnecessary and (b) emphatic or disambiguating pronouns. You can tell the difference because redundant pronouns refer to a noun, whilst emphatic or disambiguating pronouns refer to another pronoun.

In _Le dio la carta a Juan,_ _le_ is redundant - it refers to _Juan_. In _Le dio la carta a él_, _a él_ refers to _le_. It is emphatic where you mean "He gave it to _him_" or "He's the one he gave it to"; it is disambiguating if you want to make it clear that what is meant is "him" as opposed to "her" or "you".

Omitting or using emphatic or disambiguating pronouns is never grammatically wrong.

Whether and to what extent redundant pronouns are compulsory and in what circumstance they should be avoided is not something on which I feel I can offer an authoritative opinion. Indeed, Googling suggests that authoritative opinion is divided. The best you can do I think is to give examples of where they are usually employed and which no one considers to be incorrect.


----------



## Nino83

For example in Spanish we have to say _te digo a ti_ while _digo a ti_ is grammatically wrong. 
In this case we don't use _a ti_ to disambiguate the person whom we speak to but also in this case the pronoun _te_ is mandatory.


----------



## Peterdg

Gavril said:


> OK, but Fdb seemed to be implying in post #5 that "le" in the original sentence (_Acostumbro a hablarle a mi perro_) was less obligatory than the "la" in _Esa chamarra la compré el mes pasado: _he said that_ le _in the former was redundant, but _la_ in the latter wasn't_. _If both are obligatory, then I don't understand what distinction was being made.


Yes, and with reason. When the object (direct object or indirect object) appears before the verb, then the duplication is necessary. In "_Acostumbro a hablarle a mi perro", _the object appears after the verb and hence the duplication is not necessary. In "_Esa chamarra la compré el mes pasado"_​ the direct object appears before the verb and hence duplication is mandatory.


----------



## Nino83

I think that the real question is why in sentences like _te digo a ti, le entrego a él_ "te" and "le" are mandatory. 
This happens only in Spanish.


----------



## Hulalessar

Nino83 said:


> I think that the real question is why in sentences like _te digo a ti, le entrego a él_ "te" and "le" are mandatory.
> This happens only in Spanish.



Put like that it suggests that the basic form is _verb + a + pronoun_ or that you need pronouns both before and after the verb.

You can have _le digo a él _and _le digo_ but not *_digo a él. Le digo_ is the minimum possible and is just the way it is and is only mandatory in the same way that French _je lui dis_ is mandatory.


----------



## Beachxhair

Hulalessar said:


> Put like that it suggests that the basic form is _verb + a + pronoun_ or that you need pronouns both before and after the verb.
> 
> You can have _le digo a él _and _le digo_ but not *_digo a él. Le digo_ is the minimum possible and is just the way it is and is only mandatory in the same way that French _je lui dis_ is mandatory.


 In French, I think both direct and indirect pronouns are necessary, _Je le lui dis..._


----------



## fdb

Yes, but you can also say: je le dis à lui. It puts more weight on the indirect object.


----------



## Nino83

Hulalessar said:


> and is only mandatory in the same way that French _je lui dis_ is mandatory.



So only in Italian and in Portuguese one can say _dico a te__, ho dato a lui__, digo a ti, dei a ele_ as in English _I tell (it) to him, I gave (it) to him_. 
But in French there are a few verbs that allow the construction _verb + à + pronoun_, for example _Il pense à elle_ (in Spanish _piensa en ella_, with another preposition). 

Therefore I'd say that this is the only difference because redundant pronouns are allowed and used in all Romance languages. 

Italian and Portuguese allow the structure _verb + a + stressed pronoun_ while Spanish and French (with some exception) allow only the structure _(subject) + unstressed pronoun + verb + a/à + stressed pronoun_.


----------



## Hulalessar

Nino83 said:


> So only in Italian and in Portuguese one can say _dico a te__, ho dato a lui__, digo a ti, dei a ele_ as in English _I tell (it) to him, I gave (it) to him_.
> But in French there are a few verbs that allow the construction _verb + à + pronoun_, for example _Il pense à elle_ (in Spanish _piensa en ella_, with another preposition).
> 
> Therefore I'd say that this is the only difference because redundant pronouns are allowed and used in all Romance languages.
> 
> Italian and Portuguese allow the structure _verb + a + stressed pronoun_ while Spanish and French (with some exception) allow only the structure _(subject) + unstressed pronoun + verb + a/à + stressed pronoun_.



A pronoun is not redundant just because it is preceded by _a.
_


----------



## Nino83

Hulalessar said:


> A pronoun is not redundant just because it is preceded by _a.
> _



I wouldn't focus on definitions. I may call it _repeated pronoun_ instead of _redundant_ if this closes this formalistic dispute. 

In English, Italian and Portuguese one can say _I give the book to you__, do il libro a te, dou o livro a ti_. 
This construction is not allowed in French and Spanish. 

In all Romance languages one may repeat pronouns when there is a prepositional indirect object pronoun.


----------



## fdb

Nino83 said:


> In English, Italian and Portuguese one can say _I give the book to you__, do il libro a te, dou o livro a ti_.
> This construction is not allowed in French and Spanish.



On the contrary.
Je te donne le livre : neutral
Je donne le livre à toi : to you, and to no one else


----------



## Nino83

Hulalessar said:


> You can have _le digo a él _and _le digo_ but not *_digo a él. Le digo_ is the minimum possible and is just the way it is and is only mandatory in the same way that French _je lui dis_ is mandatory.





fdb said:


> On the contrary.
> Je te donne le livre : neutral
> Je donne le livre à toi : to you, and to no one else



I'm not understanding. 
_Je donne le livre à toi_ is grammatically correct or not in French? 

EDIT: 

I found this page page http://french.about.com/od/grammar/a/indirectobjects.htm 



> With most verbs(3) and in most tenses and moods(4), when the indirect  object pronoun is first or second person, *it has to precede the verb*:
> 
> He's talking to me = _Il me parle_, not "_Il parle à moi_"
> 
> When the pronoun refers to the third person, you can use a stressed pronoun after the verb and the preposition _à_ in order to stress the distinction between masculine and feminine:
> 
> I'm talking to her = _Je lui parle, à elle_
> 
> However, with some verbs the indirect object pronoun *has* to follow the verb - see verbs that don't allow a preceding indirect object pronoun.



It seems that French doesn't allow this sentence structure.  

On google I've found only 20 results for _Je donne le livre à toi_.


----------



## Michael Visser

In order to emphasize the direct or indirect object of a sentence, a redundant object pronoun may be placed before the verb. The redundant pronoun is required when the actual direct or indirect object precedes the verb.

This redundant object pronoun may be required or simply stylistic.


----------



## RangerRichard

I want to go back to "entregar."

I presume if I want to say "I am delivering it to him," that's "Se lo entrego a él."

I likewise presume if I want to say "I am delivering his son to him," that's "Le entrego a su hijo a él."

Also I presume if I want to say "I am delivering his son," that's "Entrego a su hijo."

Finally, I presume if I want to say "I am delivering him," that's "Entrego a él."

As a matter of translating from the Spanish, "Le entrego a él" could be either "I am delivery him (one person) to him (some other person)," where le and él refer to different people, or "I am delivering (something, someone) to him," where they do not.


----------



## Cenzontle

> I presume if I want to say "I am delivering it to him," that's "Se lo entrego a él."





> if I want to say "I am delivering his son to him," that's "Le entrego a su hijo a él."


The Butt & Benjamin grammar (Sec. 22.8) says usage *used to be* to omit the *direct* object's personal "a" in these cases:
"Mande *el* paciente al especialista", but that nowadays the tendency is to keep both "a".


> I presume if I want to say "I am delivering him," that's "Entrego a él."



In "*Lo* entrego *a él*", the "Lo" is obligatory; the "a él" is optional, depending on whether you want to put emphasis on it.
"Le entrego a él" sounds incomplete:  "Le" is an indirect object, so the "a él" seems to be clarifying the indirect object,
and—where's the *direct* object?


----------



## RangerRichard

Well surely including a direct object is a requirement in no language that comes to mind.

But that said, just to make sure I understand, whether "a él" is paired with le/se or lo is whether a él is a direct or indirect pronoun. 

However, my understanding, and the RAE backs me up, is that the repetition of le/a él is standard bordering on required (so standard English speakers are taugh to use it in all cases, because it's never wrong), but that the repetition of lo/(a) él is considerably less standard, though it's normal in the spoken language of español rioplatense.


----------



## Cenzontle

Yes:  for most speakers, "le" (turning into "se" before "lo(s)" or "la(s)") is an indirect object, and "lo" and "la" are direct objects,
and "a él" or "a ella" could be either one (and just maybe the "redundant" _le_ functions to overcome the ambiguity).


----------



## merquiades

Nino83 said:


> I'm not understanding.
> _Je donne le livre à toi_ is grammatically correct or not in French?
> .


It works in this situation only.

Donne le livre à ma mère. Je ne serai pas là.
Non, je donne le livre à toi, et non pas à elle.

There is one example I can think of where _à toi_ is correct and _te_ is wrong.
Je pense à toi.
Different from Te penso.


----------



## Gavril

Gavril said:


> As you may know, the direct object pronouns _lo(s)/la(s)_ are also used redundantly when the object is fronted for emphasis:
> 
> _Esa chamarra *la* compré el mes pasado. _"I bought *that* jacket last month"



Self-correction: not for emphasis, but as a topic. In which case the asterisks should probably be removed.

By the way, how obligatory is the direct object pronoun in this case (as compared to indirect _le_)?

I have some memory of hearing sentences like "Esa chamarra compré yo también", even if the version with "*la* compré" is more common.


----------



## Hulalessar

According to my Spanish grammar, a "redundant" object pronoun is required when the direct object precedes the verb.


----------



## merquiades

Hulalessar said:


> According to my Spanish grammar, a "redundant" object pronoun is required when the direct object precedes the verb.


Yes, that's the official rule with the direct objects.   _He visto a Juan esta mañana.  A Juan le he visto esta mañana.  Ya he lavado la camisa.  La camisa ya la he lavado._
With indirect objects it is different, it's also fine when the object follows.   _ Le escribí una carta a María Elena.  Os di el el dinero a vosotros._


----------



## Sardokan1.0

merquiades said:


> Yes, that's the official rule with the direct objects.   _He visto a Juan esta mañana.  A Juan le he visto esta mañana.  Ya he lavado la camisa.  La camisa ya la he lavado._
> With indirect objects it is different, it's also fine when the object follows.   _ Le escribí una carta a María Elena.  Os di el el dinero a vosotros._



This thing of the repeated object pronoun is present also in Sardinian (but not in Italian).

_He visto a Juan esta mañana. = Happo bidu a Juanne custu manzanu.
A Juan le he visto esta mañana. = A Juanne l'happo bidu custu manzanu.
Ya he lavado la camisa. = Happo ià samunadu sa camisa/camìja.
La camisa ya la he lavado. = Sa camisa/camìja ià l'happo samunada.

Le escribí una carta a María Elena. = L'happo iscrittu una littera a María Heléne.
Os di el el dinero a vosotros. = Bos happo dadu su dinari a bòis(àteros)._


----------



## Gavril

Hulalessar said:


> According to my Spanish grammar, a "redundant" object pronoun is required when the direct object precedes the verb.



OK. It seems to me that this guideline is occasionally contravened in actual speech*, but I can see how the use of redundant object pronouns would be encouraged by the lack of case endings and desire to avoid ambiguity.

*For example, I remember once hearing someone say _Miedo no tengo a ninguno de ellos_, rather than _no *lo *tengo. _Though maybe one could claim that _miedo_ is not a "normal" direct object in this case, as it's part of a widespread phrase _tener miedo_.


----------



## jmx

Gavril said:


> I have some memory of hearing sentences like "Esa chamarra compré yo también", even if the version with "*la* compré" is more common.


The version with a redundant pronoun is a case of topicalization, while without the pronoun it is a case of focalization.

Check this: eso no lo entienden


----------



## Swatters

merquiades said:


> It works in this situation only.
> 
> Donne le livre à ma mère. Je ne serai pas là.
> Non, je donne le livre à toi, et non pas à elle.
> 
> There is one example I can think of where _à toi_ is correct and _te_ is wrong.
> Je pense à toi.
> Different from Te penso.



It'd still be "Non, je te donne le livre à toi, et pas à elle." in your first sentence.

"À toi, j'ai donné un livre" (in an enumeration of people that were given something) feels slightly archaising and literary but remains possible, but contrastive stress consistently triggers doubled pronouns in the modern language.

One last possibility for non-doubling is disfluencies, where the speaker wasn't intending to use a pronoun when they produced the verb but inserts one afterwards (Je l'ai donné en premier à... à toi, en fait), but that's a special case.


----------



## Gavril

jmx said:


> The version with a redundant pronoun is a case of topicalization, while without the pronoun it is a case of focalization.
> 
> Check this: eso no lo entienden



Ah, OK.

Indirect pronouns aren't sensitive to topicality in this way, correct?

For example, I'm pretty sure the sentence _Al chico *le* regalaron un nuevo bolígrafo _requires the _le _regardless of whether or not _al chico_ functions as the topic.


----------



## jmx

Gavril said:


> Indirect pronouns aren't sensitive to topicality in this way, correct?
> 
> For example, I'm pretty sure the sentence _Al chico *le* regalaron un nuevo bolígrafo _requires the _le _regardless of whether or not _al chico_ functions as the topic.


Indirect objects are reduplicated most of the time by unstresssed pronouns anyway, so the difference would be mainly in the intonation: the focalized element would be more stressed.


----------



## Hulalessar

Gavril said:


> I'm pretty sure the sentence _Al chico *le* regalaron un nuevo bolígrafo _requires the _le _regardless of whether or not _al chico_ functions as the topic.



Yes. That is because Spanish has the "personal a". "Regalaron al chico" (where "chico" is the direct object) and "Le regalaron al chico" (where "chico" is the indirect object) are distinguished.


----------

