# passive voice with IO?



## sudest

i know passive voice made with 'ser'.But usually using indirect object can give a sense of passive in spanish.please give me some examples of this construction?thanks in advence.


----------



## sudest

Spanish natives help me.


----------



## Milton Sand

Hi!
Could it be that you refer to the reflexive passive voice? Hummm, but there's no IO here.
I'm sorry, I can't figure out what you mean.


----------



## Machin

Can you give more context?


----------



## Milton Sand

Hi!
Well, this is an example of what I told you:

Standard Passive: La comida *es conservada* en la nevera.
Reflexive Passive: La comida *se conserva* en la nevera.
In English: The food *is preserved* in the refrigerator.

I don't know any other passive form in Spanish.
Is it what you're asking for? If so, there are some considerations about its usage.


----------



## sudest

le han interrogado?is this passive?


----------



## sudest

many thanks milton sand.


----------



## Machin

Are these the examples you asked for?
La tarea se revisa al inicio de clases.
El certificado se anula si presenta enmiendas.
La torta se come con tenedor.If this is not what you want, please specify.

This reflexive passive is preferred in standard Spanish.

Read you later!


----------



## Machin

¿Le han interrogado?
¿Le han invitado?
¿Les han dicho sobre la fiesta?

All are passive constructions.
Alternatively you say:

¿Ha sido interrogado?
¿Han sido invitados?

The last example cannot be expressed in this form.


----------



## Outsider

sudest said:


> le han interrogado?is this passive?


It's a passive voice, but there's no indirect object there.


----------



## sudest

yessss.you are great Machin .i find out.if im not wrong first sentence
he is interogated.(le han interrrogado).that's true?


----------



## Milton Sand

sudest said:


> le han interrogado?is this passive?


Humm... I think I get it now...

Le han interrogado (a usted) -> It is not a passive voice. It's just perfect past, like: They have interrogated you.

Your example shows a very discused usage of "le/les" that is known as "leísmo de cortesía", where ortho-spanish speakers would strictly choose "lo/la" depending on the direct object's gender (_usted_, in this case).

If the direct object is not "_usted_", then the sentence is wrong. It should be:
Lo/la han interrogado = They have interrogated him/her.


----------



## sudest

what is the function of -le-Outsider?


----------



## Outsider

In this case, it stands for a direct object. While traditional grammar says that _le_ should always be a dative, many native speakers use it also as an accusative with animate masculine objects, and this usage is even accepted by the RAE.


----------



## hosec

Si, a pesar de que mi inglés es muy deficiente, me he enterado de algo, creo que buscáis una oración pasiva en español con complemento indirecto, ¿no? Pues casi que cualquiera que lleve indirecto y directo en activa: _Juan le dijo a Mario unas palabras muy feas > Unas palabras muy feas le fueron dichas a Mario por Juan_. *Le* y *a Mario* son OI en ambas oraciones.

Espero no estar metiendo la pata...

Salud


----------



## sudest

al final el éxito corono su carrera his career was finally crowned with success(sourcexford spanish)
why is this sentence translated into english as passive?


----------



## Outsider

Subtleties of style. "Success crowned his career" just doesn't sound very good in English.


----------



## Milton Sand

Outsider said:


> In this case, it stands for a direct object. While traditional grammar says that _le_ should always be a dative, many native speakers use it also as an accusative with animate masculine objects, and this usage is even accepted by the RAE.


Humm.. I don't think it is so used like that.
What is accepted is to use "le/les" as a polite accusative refering to "usted/ustedes". Other uses are not so welcome:
Permítame ayudar*le*/*lo*, señor = Let me help you, sir.
No podría traer*le* nada desde allá = He might not bring anything to you .
No podría traer*lo* nada desde allá = Nada podría traerlo desde allá= Nothing might bring him/it from there.
I hope that it is clear and that I'm not rigid-minded. 
Bye.


----------



## Outsider

Why can't _¿Le han interrogado?_ be a courtesy _le_?


----------



## sudest

Le dieron flores.how can you translate this sentence passive or active?


----------



## Milton Sand

Outsider said:


> Why can't _¿Le han interrogado?_ be a courtesy _le_?


I agree, like in my first post of this thread(#12).


----------



## Milton Sand

sudest said:


> Le dieron flores.how can you translate this sentence passive or active?


_Active voice -> _Le dieron flores = They gave some flowers to him/her.
_Passive voice -> _Le fueron dadas flores = Flowers were given to him/her.
_Reflexive passive voice -> _Se le dieron flores = Flowers were givento him/her.
I used a color code to link meanings.

Bye.


----------



## sudest

thank you very much.


----------



## Outsider

Milton Sand said:


> Outsider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't _¿Le han interrogado?_ be a courtesy _le_?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, like in my first post of this thread(#12).
Click to expand...

You agree that it can, or that it can't?...


----------



## Milton Sand

I agree that it can. Read it, please.
Bye.


----------



## Outsider

Oh, I hadn't noticed yet that you'd edited your post! 

I still don't see why you say what I wrote here was wrong, though.


----------



## Milton Sand

No, Outsider, I didn't edited to add that, just to make a small correction. Look at the time. I don't feel shame for beign wrong and don't need to cheat either.

In your post you did't clarified you refered to "leísmo de cortesía" and I though you meant that RAE was widely accepting "le" as an accusative.

You wrote: "_many native speakers use it also as an accusative with animate masculine objects, and this usage is even accepted by the RAE."_

So, I considered necessary to specify that it only occurs to accusative for "usted(es)"
Then, I gave another example of polite "leism": Permítame ayudar*le*/*lo*, señor = Let me help you, sir.

That's all. It is funny to give this explanation but I realize that someone else might need to consult this thread.

Bye.


----------



## Outsider

I understand your point now. Thank you for explaining.


----------



## Milton Sand

Sorry, I got a little upset.
Have a nice day.


----------



## Bilbo Baggins

Outsider said:


> It's a passive voice, but there's no indirect object there.



How is that passive? That's a perfect verb tense with an object.....


----------



## Outsider

sudest said:


> ¿Le han interrogado?


You're right, it isn't even a passive voice.


----------



## YaniraTfe

Milton Sand said:


> No, Outsider, I didn't edited to add that, just to make a small correction. Look at the time. I don't feel shame for beign wrong and don't need to cheat either.
> 
> In your post you did't clarified you refered to "leísmo de cortesía" and I though you meant that RAE was widely accepting "le" as an accusative.
> 
> You wrote: "_many native speakers use it also as an accusative with animate masculine objects, and this usage is even accepted by the RAE."_
> 
> So, I considered necessary to specify that it only occurs to accusative for "usted(es)"
> Then, I gave another example of polite "leism": Permítame ayudar*le*/*lo*, señor = Let me help you, sir.
> 
> That's all. It is funny to give this explanation but I realize that someone else might need to consult this thread.
> 
> Bye.


 

Excuse-me if I got a bit lost 

Do you mean, Milton, that for example:

"*Le* vi ayer" is *not* correct to say "I saw *him*"?

Thanks!


----------



## Ivy29

sudest said:


> i know passive voice made with 'ser'.But usually using indirect object can give a sense of passive in spanish.please give me some examples of this construction?thanks in advence.


 
*The unaccusative verbs* with 'se' can be mistaken as passive.
*las puertas se cerraron* ( unaccusative) (ellas solas). (cerrarse)

could be : a) unaccusative
              b) passive (an agent or cause is implied).

*Se calentó el agua* (unaccusative) calentarse.
Passive : an agent or cause is implied. 

Ivy29


----------



## Jeromed

Outsider said:


> Why can't _¿Le han interrogado?_ be a courtesy _le_?


It can be, of course.  

Even if it wasn't, it could still be correct.  As I'm sure you know, the RAE accepts _le_ as a DO when it refers to a male.  It doesn't accept it in the plural (_les_ for _los_), for objects, or for women (_le_ for _la_).


----------



## Ynez

sudest said:


> le han interrogado?is this passive?


 
That is not passive. It is active and it is the normal way to say in Spanish what in English is expressed with a passive sentence having an indirect object as subject.

Active: Someone has given a present (direct object) to my brother(ind. obj)
Active: Alguien le ha dado un regalo(obj. directo) a mi hermano (obj. ind.)


English Passive (2 possibilities):
A present has been given to my brother
My brother has been given a present (this is what you are interested in)

Spanish Passive (only 1 possibility, we never have an indirect object as subject of a passive sentence):
Un regalo le ha sido dado a mi hermano


BUT we just don't use that passive sentence, what we do is to say that idea in the active like this:

Le han dado un regalo a mi hermano/*A mi hermano le han dado un regalo*


----------



## sudest

Thanks Ynez .you are very helpful.but i have a question.spanish is using usually as active sentence. But why do you use 3.plural(ellas,ellos)?is it grammatical rule?


----------



## Outsider

sudest said:


> But why do you use 3.plural(ellas,ellos)?is it grammatical rule?


Because the subject of the sentence is "they". "He's been interrogated (by them)" = "They've interrogated him", in the Spanish syntax.


----------



## Ynez

Yes, what Outsider said.

I set an example with "someone", but here it's one with "they":

Active: They have given a present to my brother.
Activa: Ellos le han dado un regalo a mi hermano.

In English, it is more normal to use the passive (*My brother has been given a present*), because it'd be necessary to express the subject of a sentence, "they", which is not interesting in these cases.

In Spanish, we don't have to use the subject of a sentence if we don't want to. So that's what we normally do in *Le han dado un regalo a mi hermano.*


----------



## sudest

Ynez said:


> Yes, what Outsider said.
> In Spanish, we don't have to use the subject of a sentence if we don't want to. So that's what we normally do in *Le han dado un regalo a mi hermano.*


_he has been given a gift_.(by them)
if i can translate the sentence this way without using _by them?_


----------



## Outsider

Le han dado un regalo a mi hermano.
_My brother has been offered/given a gift.
_​_By them_ is optional, yes.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Milton Sand said:


> You wrote: "_many native speakers use it also as an accusative with animate masculine objects, and this usage is even accepted by the RAE."_
> 
> So, I considered necessary to specify that it only occurs to accusative for "usted(es)"
> Then, I gave another example of polite "leism": Permítame ayudar*le*/*lo*, señor = Let me help you, sir.



I disagree, Milton. What Outsider said was correct. 'Leism' is not only accepted for 'usted'. It is also accepted for use when referring to male direct objects. But I know you don't hear it in Colombia. It's mostly only in Spain. But the RAE and its supporting bureaus in LatAm accept LE = LO for male animate direct objects.
Le/Lo vi. = Vi a él.
Le/Lo ayudé. = Ayudé a él.

-but as I said this in confined mostly to Spain.

Ciao,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

sudest said:


> Le han dado un regalo a mi hermano.
> 
> 
> 
> _My brother has been offered/given a gift.__he has been given a gift_.(by them)
> if i can translate the sentence this way without using _by them?_
Click to expand...


Yes -- by them, is not necessary, but you can't really leave out 'my brother'.

My brother has been given a gift.

But just remember that that sentence in the Spanish also can just as easily be:
They have given my brother a gift. -or- They have given a gift to my brother.

The "3rd person plural impersonal" in Spanish is often the best translation of many of English's passive sentences. But you can also use the 'se' constructions and it sounds perfectly natural as well.

My brother has been given a gift. =
_Se le ha dado un regalo a mi hermano_. -or-
_A mi hermano se le ha dado un regalo_.

In this formation the verb has to match the number of the object; in this case 'un regalo'. With the 3rd person plural formation you can't be 100% sure if the 3rd person plural means a specified 'they' as a subject -- or an impersonal 'they'. Context can some times help. With the 'se' formation, there is no confusion about the intended passive or impersonal meaning.

Ciao,
Grant


----------



## sudest

NewdestinyX you are great many thanks.


----------



## Pitt

NewdestinyX said:


> Le/Lo vi. = Vi a él.


 
Estas construcciones son correctas:

Vi a Juan > Le/Lo vi. 
Le/Lo vi a él.

Pero, que yo sepa, es incorrecto:
*Vi a él.

Quisiera saber la opinión de los nativos.

Un saludo,
Pitt


----------



## sudest

double IO is correct.but le-les must be in the sentence?


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pitt said:


> Pero, que yo sepa, es incorrecto:
> *Vi a él.



If 'él' were an indirect object you would be right. But 'él', as a direct object (marked with personal 'a') wouldn't need a duplicate DO pronoun.

Grant


----------



## RoCi'S

sudest said:


> Le dieron flores.how can you translate this sentence passive or active?


 

Las flores fueron dadas (a alguein)


----------



## swift_precision

Tengo que decir*les* (a ustedes) para que algunas no se confundan jejeje que este tema ha sido sumamente útil y que hasta hora no sabía o mejor dicho se me olivdaron las tantas reglas que existían en cuanto al uso de le/lo/les/los/las......uffff parece que tengo que repasar esas reglas de nuevo antes que sea tarde. Ustedes son muy "verdugos" en cuanto a este tema..dejame decirles...

cuídense...


----------



## Milton Sand

NewdestinyX said:


> If 'él' were an indirect object you would be right. But 'él', as a direct object (marked with personal 'a') wouldn't need a duplicate DO pronoun.
> Grant


Sorry, Newdestiny...


Pitt said:


> Vi a Juan > Le/Lo vi. || Le/Lo vi a él.
> *Vi a él. -> *Lo vi a él.*


Pitt's right.
"Vi a él" is gramatically correct but we just say as Pitt told you: 
Le/Lo vi. 
Le/Lo vi a él -> Especially if there's a possibility of confusion: 
Carlos corría tras el enorme balón que se había untado de pintura y dejaba una senda azul por donde pasara. Cuando miré por la ventana, lo vi [a él] claramente.
Carlos was running after the huge ball which had been smeared with paint leaving a blue trail wherever it passed. When I look through the window, I saw it/him clearly.
*Lo* vi -> I saw the ball _or_ I saw Carlos _or_ I saw the scene?
*Lo* vi a él -> I saw Carlos.

Well, here's when I say that I realized why Newdestiny disagreed with me:
*Le* vi claramente -> I saw Carlos (_who is an animated object_). 
I heard such an answer in a spanish movie yesterday. We don't use it like that in Colombia.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Milton Sand said:


> Pitt's right.
> "Vi a él" is gramatically correct but we just say as Pitt told you:
> Le/Lo vi.
> Le/Lo vi a él -> Especially if there's a possibility of confusion:



Oh yes I know how it's normally said.. And I was just using 'Vi a él' as a defining example. Pitt was not correct to say it is 'grammatically incorrect'. That's what I was responding to. It is not common -- but it is correct to say 'Vi a él'. (Él = Carlos)

Grant


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> If 'él' were an indirect object you would be right. But 'él', as a direct object (marked with personal 'a') wouldn't need a duplicate DO pronoun.
> 
> Grant


 
You cannot say = vi a él ( *incorrect*). You can say = *lo/le vi* and drop a él.
*You have to recall that* 'to see' perception verb in this sentence:
yo vi a Michel lavar el carro= yo vi [a Michel lavar el carro] is a CIE clasula infinitiva excepcional] where the person Michel receives acussative case, but without being its direct complement necessarily.

Ivy29


----------



## Pitt

NewdestinyX said:


> Oh yes I know how it's normally said.. And I was just using 'Vi a él' as a defining example. Pitt was not correct to say it is 'grammatically incorrect'. That's what I was responding to. It is not common -- but it is correct to say 'Vi a él'. (Él = Carlos)
> 
> Grant


 
El pronombre tónico en función de complemento directo (p.ej.: a él) siempre exige el correspondiente pronombre átono (p.ej.: lo/le). 

Por eso es incorrecto:
*Ayer vi a él [a Juan].
*Ayer vi a ella [a María].

Pero es correcto:
Ayer lo/le vi > Ayer lo/le vi a él.
Ayer la vi > Ayer la vi a ella.

He sacado del DPD:
*4.* *Duplicación de complementos: coaparición del clítico y el complemento tónico.* No es obligatoria la presencia de un pronombre tónico en función de complemento directo o indirecto, pero, si aparece, es forzoso que aparezca también el pronombre átono correspondiente.

Pitt


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pitt said:


> El pronombre tónico en función de complemento directo (p.ej.: a él) siempre exige el correspondiente pronombre átono (p.ej.: lo/le).
> 
> Por eso es incorrecto:
> *Ayer vi a él [a Juan].
> *Ayer vi a ella [a María].
> 
> He sacado del DPD:
> *4.* *Duplicación de complementos: coaparición del clítico y el complemento tónico.* No es obligatoria la presencia de un pronombre tónico en función de complemento directo o indirecto, pero, si aparece, es forzoso que aparezca también el pronombre átono correspondiente.


That's good to know, Pitt. I stand corrected. My other grammars do not say that nor do the other publications of the RAE. But the DPD is a standard now and that's acceptable. I was really trying to use it as a 'translation' explanation rather that a sentence that would commonly be used. The DPD shows the example of "María fue escrito por mí" which is incorrect -- but they use it nonetheless as an example in an explanation only in the section on Leísmo in the DPD 4d. That's what I was doing with 'Vi a él'. But I was wrong to say that it was grammatically correct.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> You cannot say = vi a él ( *incorrect*). You can say = *lo/le vi* and drop a él.



Agreed - I see my error now.



> *You have to recall that* 'to see' perception verb in this sentence:
> yo vi a Michel lavar el carro= yo vi [a Michel lavar el carro] is a CIE clasula infinitiva excepcional] where the person Michel receives acussative case, but without being its direct complement necessarily.


 
Hay momentos en los que es evidente que lees sobre la gramática 8 horas al día. Porque el contenido de tu párrafo ahí ni siquiera se entendería entre profesores de español en la inmensa mayoría de universidades en America ni en los paises hispanohablante. No me estoy quejando.. Tus contribuciones al foro son muy profundos. .. pero me pregunto, algunas veces, si hay una aplicación práctica de observaciones como ésa.

Un saludo,
Grant


----------



## Ivy29

NewdestinyX said:


> Agreed - I see my error now.
> 
> 
> 
> Hay momentos en los que es evidente que lees sobre la gramática 8 horas al día. Porque el contenido de tu párrafo ahí ni siquiera se entendería entre profesores de español en la inmensa mayoría de universidades en America ni en los paises hispanohablante. No me estoy quejando.. Tus contribuciones al foro son muy profundos. .. pero me pregunto, algunas veces, si hay una aplicación práctica de observaciones como ésa.
> 
> Un saludo,
> Grant


 
This explanation of CIE, is germane, because the sentence :

*yo vi a Michel lavar el carro* if you use the perception verb 'VER' the direct object could be 'Michel',  the acussative case, but it isn't because what you saw was Michel *washing the* *c**ar* NOT Michel alone.

Ivy29


----------



## swift_precision

Ivy29 said:


> This explanation of CIE, is germane, because the sentence :
> 
> *yo vi a Michel lavar el carro* if you use the perception verb 'VER' the direct object could be 'Michel', the acussative case, but it isn't because what you saw was Michel *washing the* *c**ar* NOT Michel alone.
> 
> Ivy29


 
Ivy, ¿no se puede usar el gerundio en esa oración? "vi a Michel lavando el carro"


----------



## NewdestinyX

Ivy29 said:


> This explanation of CIE, is germane, because the sentence :
> 
> *yo vi a Michel lavar el carro* if you use the perception verb 'VER' the direct object could be 'Michel',  the acussative accusative case, but it isn't because what you saw was Michel *washing the* *c**ar* NOT Michel alone.
> 
> Ivy29



Pero nadie sabe qué significa 'CIE' -- ni qué es un caso 'acusativo'. Al menos, en tu párrafo arriba, usaste el término 'direct object' el cual se conoce bien. Por lo general creo que es importante que los que enseñan aquí empleen los términos más conocidos que todos nosotros aprendemos en la escuela secundaria/instituto. Solo es mi opinión. Yo concozco casi todos los términos que ofreces pero hay más gente en este foro que no tienen el interés técnico -pero que quieren aprender también -- y simplemente les hace falta el concepto en términos sencillos. Creo que todo que alguna vez he leido yo sobre los concepts más difícil en la gramática -- pueden explicarse en términos sencillos.

Ciao,
Grant


----------



## Ivy29

swift_precision said:


> Ivy, ¿no se puede usar el gerundio en esa oración? "vi a Michel lavando el carro"


 
Not in the Spanish (CIE) because CIE= Exceptional infinitive clause.
Remember English gerund= Spanish infinitive usually.
Yo vi que *estaba* lavando el carro ( imperfect) correct)
Yo vi a Michel lavando el carro ayer Correcto.
Ivy29


----------

