# profesor necesita (a) dos alumnos



## Enrique mini

El profesor necesita dos alumnos que lo ayuden.
El profesor necesita a dos alumnos que lo ayuden.
Somebody can help me? I really appreciate.


----------



## Cbes

Enrique mini said:


> El profesor necesita dos alumnos que lo ayuden.
> El profesor necesita a dos alumnos*, para* que lo ayuden.
> Somebody can help me? I really appreciate.


Best regards


----------



## Cenzontle

Thanks, Cbes, for dealing with the doubts that I had about the second sentence.
I take the first sentence—with *no* personal "a"—to mean he needs two *unspecified *students to help.  It doesn't matter who they are.  He needs two.
I take the second sentence—*with *personal "a"—to mean he needs the help of two *specific* students:  Mr. A and Ms. B.


----------



## Cbes

Cenzontle said:


> Thanks, Cbes, for dealing with the doubts that I had about the second sentence.
> I take the first sentence—with *no* personal "a"—to mean he needs two *unspecified *students to help.  It doesn't matter who they are.  He needs two.
> I take the second sentence—*with *personal "a"—to mean he needs the help of two *specific* students:  Mr. A and Ms. B.


Not necessarily, both senteces are equal, your interpretation is correct, but in that case you need to mention Mr. A and Mr. B: El profesor necesita a dos alumnos, Mr. A y Mr. B, para que lo ayuden.
My correction on second sentence was only to be more clear and colloquial.
Regards


----------



## SevenDays

Enrique mini said:


> El profesor necesita dos alumnos que lo ayuden.
> El profesor necesita a dos alumnos que lo ayuden.
> Somebody can help me? I really appreciate.



También puedes considera lo siguiente. Aquí, "a" será la marca sintáctica de complemento directo, que no es necesaria ya que el sintagma "dos alumnos" es el CD, con o sin "a". Usamos "a" en realidad por motivos semánticos (por ejemplo, para_ personificar_ lo que se necesita o para poner _énfasis_ en que el profesor necesita "dos" alumnos, y no tres o cinco), de estilo (suena mejor), o quizás psicológicos (agregamos "a" de manera subconsciente, sin pensarlo). La partícula "a" también es preposición con varios significados, entre ellos "de finalidad", tal como la preposición "para"; de ahí que tengan compatibilidad en "necesita *a* dos alumnos *para *que".
Saludos


----------



## cesarduck

Enrique mini said:


> El profesor necesita dos alumnos que lo ayuden.
> El profesor necesita a dos alumnos que lo ayuden.
> Somebody can help me? I really appreciate.



A mi ambas me parecen correctas, no veo el porque pudiera estar mal una de ellas.


----------



## riojanita

La diferencia está en que "dos alumnos que lo ayuden", no importa qué dos alumnos. Pero si es "a dos alumnos que lo ayuden" son dos alumnos específicos


----------



## Enrique mini

what you said is useful for me. But "dos alumnos" is not a CD.


----------



## Enrique mini

ya lo sé. Muchas gracias.


----------



## dipsota

En la oración ..._necesita dos alumnos que lo ayuden,_ 'dos alumnos que lo ayuden' es OD del verbo necesitar y 'que lo ayuden' es posmodificador de 'alumnos' (restrictive relative clause) Ahí se especifica qué clase de alumnos:  que lo ayuden.  Podría ser dos alumnos altos,  dos alumnos de matemáticas, dos alumnos trabajadores, etc,  etc. pero 'que lo ayuden'  define la clase de alumnos.


----------



## cesarduck

riojanita said:


> La diferencia está en que "dos alumnos que lo ayuden", no importa qué dos alumnos. Pero si es "a dos alumnos que lo ayuden" son dos alumnos específicos



Para mi las dos oraciones son exactamente lo mismo, no hay diferencia de alumnos especificos.

Si el director de una escuela llegara a un salon de clases y dijera, el maestro necesita....

Dos alumnos que lo ayuden
A dos alumnos que lo ayuden

Cualquier alumno podría levantar la mano.


----------



## Cbes

Ambas son correctas, sólo que cuando uno lo dice de forma refleja, en el habla cotidiana, al usar "a" automáticamente nos viene "para" (bueno, al menos a mí )


----------



## Cenzontle

> El profesor necesita dos alumnos que lo ayuden.
> El profesor necesita a dos alumnos que lo ayuden.


Here's the problem with the second sentence:
The personal "a" indicates that the students are specific, or definite, while the subjunctive of "ayuden" indicates that they are unknown and unspecified.
Butt & Benjamin (22.2) say (with emphasis added by me)





> Personal _a_ is required before a direct object which denotes a *known or identified* human being


In contrast to the "known or identified" human being, B&B continue:


> Compare the following sentences in which the object of the verb is not individually particularized: _Busco un marido que me ayude en la casa _[etc.]


B&B's Section 16.14.1 is titled "Subjunctive in relative clauses when the antecedent is not yet identified".  
That accounts for the subjunctive in Enrique's first sentence (no personal "a").
But in the second sentence, with its two students made specific by personal "a", 
I don't see any justification for the subjunctive in the relative clause that modifies those specific students.

De Bruyne (Sec. 662, on personal "a") gives two examples, specific and unspecified, and comments on the indicative/subjunctive contrast:


> • _Para esta misión he contratado a dos personas que hablan ruso.
> _• _Para esta misión busco dos personas que hablen ruso.
> _Note the connection with the choice between indicative and subjunctive in such sentences (see [Sec.] 1048).


----------



## srb62

Cenzontle said:


> Here's the problem with the second sentence:
> The personal "a" indicates that the students are specific, or definite, while the subjunctive of "ayuden" indicates that they are unknown and unspecified.
> Butt & Benjamin (22.2) say (with emphasis added by me)
> In contrast to the "known or identified" human being, B&B continue:
> 
> B&B's Section 16.14.1 is titled "Subjunctive in relative clauses when the antecedent is not yet identified".
> That accounts for the subjunctive in Enrique's first sentence (no personal "a").
> But in the second sentence, with its two students made specific by personal "a",
> I don't see any justification for the subjunctive in the relative clause that modifies those specific students.
> 
> De Bruyne (Sec. 662, on personal "a") gives two examples, specific and unspecified, and comments on the indicative/subjunctive contrast:



This all seems to make sense to me.
The only thing I wondered a little about was if the second sentence could ever mean something like the following in English.
He needed (that) two students help him (or, in more current English, "He needed  two students to help him") where the idea is along the idea of "necesito que me ayudes".


----------



## chileno

Cenzontle, those examples are OK, but it isn't the same construction that the OP gave, besides I think the verb "necesitar" is different than those of your examples given by B&B's.

You know I don't know grammar, but I concur that both original phrases are correct and used, including the one using "para", which can be omitted without changing the meaning, given by Cbes.


----------



## srb62

chileno said:


> Cenzontle, those examples are OK, but it isn't the same construction that the OP gave, besides I think the verb "necesitar" is different than those of your examples given by B&B's.
> 
> You know I don't know grammar, but I concur that both original phrases are correct and used, including the one using "para" given by Cbes.


Yes, maybe 'necesitar' is not the best verb to use for understanding the construction/grammar.


----------



## SevenDays

Cenzontle said:


> Here's the problem with the second sentence:
> The personal "a" indicates that the students are specific, or definite, while the subjunctive of "ayuden" indicates that they are unknown and unspecified.
> Butt & Benjamin (22.2) say (with emphasis added by me)
> In contrast to the "known or identified" human being, B&B continue:
> 
> B&B's Section 16.14.1 is titled "Subjunctive in relative clauses when the antecedent is not yet identified".
> That accounts for the subjunctive in Enrique's first sentence (no personal "a").
> But in the second sentence, with its two students made specific by personal "a",
> I don't see any justification for the subjunctive in the relative clause that modifies those specific students.
> 
> De Bruyne (Sec. 662, on personal "a") gives two examples, specific and unspecified, and comments on the indicative/subjunctive contrast:



The preposition "a" indicates "person" or "personification," but neither necessarily signifies "specific/definite." To mark something as specific/definite, we use the corresponding article. For example, we say "necesita a Juan" (person) or "necesita a Dios" (personification of a Deity), and if we wanted to refer to a _specific_ John or God, we'd use preposition + article: "necesita *al* Juan de la esquina"; "necesita *al* Dios de la Biblia". "A" in "a dos alumnos" signifies _personification_ in the mind of the speaker, but without reaching _specificity_. To mark "two students" as specific/definite, I'd use "los" (_necesita a *los* dos alumnos_). Similarly, in the De Bruyne examples, "a" is marking personification rather than specificity. We can add or drop "a" (_he contratado dos personas/a dos personas_; _busco dos personas/a dos personas_), based on how "personified" they are in the mind of the speaker, because "two people" is _specified_ by the que-clause (_que hablen ruso_). 
Cheers


----------



## srb62

SevenDays said:


> The preposition "a" indicates "person" or "personification," but neither necessarily signifies "specific/definite." To mark something as specific/definite, we use the corresponding article. For example, we say "necesita a Juan" (person) or "necesita a Dios" (personification of a Deity), and if we wanted to refer to a _specific_ John or God, we'd use preposition + article: "necesita *al* Juan de la esquina"; "necesita *al* Dios de la Biblia". "A" in "a dos alumnos" signifies _personification_ in the mind of the speaker, but without reaching _specificity_. To mark "two students" as specific/definite, I'd use "los" (_necesita a *los* dos alumnos_). Similarly, in the De Bruyne examples, "a" is marking personification rather than specificity. We can add or drop "a" (_he contratado dos personas/a dos personas_; _busco dos personas/a dos personas_), based on how "personified" they are in the mind of the speaker, because "two people" is _specified_ by the que-clause (_que hablen ruso_).
> Cheers



But surely, because of the context, it would often refer to something specific anyway?  Adding the article (and the extra information about the object) seems more like 'clarification'.  Just a thought (though, of course, 'specifying' and 'clarifying' often mean the same thing.


----------



## Cenzontle

> To mark something as specific/definite, we use the corresponding [definite] article.


I would restate this with a qualification:  To mark something as specific/definite *in the mind of the listener*, we use the definite article.
Something *in*definite in the mind of the listener can be specific for the speaker.
"I bought *a *new car. *The *old car broke down."
Both cars are specific in my mind, but the listener knows only the old car.  To introduce my new car, I use the indefinite article.
"Busco *a* dos alumnos" = I'm looking for two students who are specific *in my mind*, but who are not yet known or specified *for you*.  I know their names, but you don't, yet.
"Busco a *los* dos alumnos" = I'm looking for those two students who are known *to both you and me*—we both understand, from our previous conversation, which ones I'm referring to.


----------



## vertebrado

SevenDays said:


> The preposition "a" indicates "person" or "personification," but neither necessarily signifies "specific/definite." To mark something as specific/definite, we use the corresponding article. For example, we say "necesita a Juan" (person) or "necesita a Dios" (personification of a Deity), and if we wanted to refer to a _specific_ John or God, we'd use preposition + article: "necesita *al* Juan de la esquina"; "necesita *al* Dios de la Biblia". "A" in "a dos alumnos" signifies _personification_ in the mind of the speaker, but without reaching _specificity_. To mark "two students" as specific/definite, I'd use "los" (_necesita a *los* dos alumnos_). Similarly, in the De Bruyne examples, "a" is marking personification rather than specificity. We can add or drop "a" (_he contratado dos personas/a dos personas_; _busco dos personas/a dos personas_), based on how "personified" they are in the mind of the speaker, because "two people" is _specified_ by the que-clause (_que hablen ruso_).
> Cheers


Sin que sirva de precedente coincido con SevenDays.


----------



## srb62

Cenzontle said:


> I would restate this with a qualification:  To mark something as specific/definite *in the mind of the listener*, we use the definite article.
> Something *in*definite in the mind of the listener can be specific for the speaker.
> "I bought *a *new car. *The *old car broke down."
> Both cars are specific in my mind, but the listener knows only the old car.  To introduce my new car, I use the indefinite article.
> "Busco *a* dos alumnos" = I'm looking for two students who are specific *in my mind*, but who are not yet known or specified *for you*.  I know their names, but you don't, yet.
> "Busco a *los* dos alumnos" = I'm looking for those two students who are known *to both you and me*—we both understand, from our previous conversation, which ones I'm referring to.



I think this is what I was trying to say by 'clarification' - you are making it clear (to the person listening) to whom/what you were referring.  So far as I can see an use of the 'personal a' is going to be specific.


----------



## SevenDays

Cenzontle said:


> I would restate this with a qualification:  To mark something as specific/definite *in the mind of the listener*, we use the definite article.
> Something *in*definite in the mind of the listener can be specific for the speaker.
> "I bought *a *new car. *The *old car broke down."
> Both cars are specific in my mind, but the listener knows only the old car.  To introduce my new car, I use the indefinite article.
> "Busco *a* dos alumnos" = I'm looking for two students who are specific *in my mind*, but who are not yet known or specified *for you*.  I know their names, but you don't, yet.
> "Busco a *los* dos alumnos" = I'm looking for those two students who are known *to both you and me*—we both understand, from our previous conversation, which ones I'm referring to.



But notice cesarduck's example in post #11; there, *any *two students would do, regardless of their names; that's because the teacher doesn't have two _specific_ students in mind (name and all). If we followed the concept of specificity further, then we'd say that what's specified is the number ("2") and not "students" (that goes back to what I said in post #5: ... _o para poner __énfasis en que el profesor necesita "dos" alumnos, y no tres o cinco.
_Cheers


----------



## srb62

lol!  I'm finding this thread quite hard to follow.
@SevenDays  I'm not sure I understand why using 'a' stresses the number of students, two, that the teacher needs.  Could it not be that 'a' can be used because all the children in the class are known to him/her?  In other words, the 'a' tells us that he must know all the students in the class and, consequently the two that are ultimately chosen/picked'


----------



## SevenDays

srb62 said:


> lol!  I'm finding this thread quite hard to follow.
> @SevenDays  I'm not sure I understand why using 'a' stresses the number of students, two, that the teacher needs.  Could it not be that 'a' can be used because all the children in the class are known to him/her?  In other words, the 'a' tells us that he must know all the students in the class and, consequently the two that are ultimately chosen/picked'



I know, I know; I hear you. I'll be handing out parachutes in a bit, so we can all bail out in due time. 
Could that be a reason, that all the students are known to him? Yes, I suppose that could be true, just as it could be true that the teacher doesn't know any of the students. Let's step back a bit. We use "a" when the direct object is a person or thing/entity personified (_necesita a Juan; necesita a Dios_) or when the direct object is specific (_necesita *a* *los* dos alumnos *que lo ayudaron la semana pasada*_). Now, here comes "necesita a dos alumnos," which might be tagged as "colloquial" or (*gasp*) incorrect simply because it doesn't adhere to the norm, though I think we are rather quick to apply the label "colloquial" to anything that doesn't conform to our way of speaking. To understand why "a" is thrown in "necesita a dos alumnos," we'd have to figure out _the intent_ of the speaker (always a tricky proposition, because intent is subjective). There might be something else at work here. I suspect (and I don't have any sources at hand for this) that historically, we are increasingly using "a" to mark the direct object _indiscriminately_, _in all cases, _particularly in spoken language; "a," then, might be becoming  by default the syntactic and semantic marker of DO (but I don't want to make too much of this). In any event, here we go.
Cheers


----------



## k-in-sc

Jeez, I agree with srb62. I came in just in time to bail out


----------



## srb62

SevenDays said:


> I know, I know; I hear you. I'll be handing out parachutes in a bit, so we can all bail out in due time.
> Could that be a reason, that all the students are known to him? Yes, I suppose that could be true, just as it could be true that the teacher doesn't know any of the students. Let's step back a bit. We use "a" when the direct object is a person or thing/entity personified (_necesita a Juan; necesita a Dios_) or when the direct object is specific (_necesita *a* *los* dos alumnos *que lo ayudaron la semana pasada*_). Now, here comes "necesita a dos alumnos," which might be tagged as "colloquial" or (*gasp*) incorrect simply because it doesn't adhere to the norm, though I think we are rather quick to apply the label "colloquial" to anything that doesn't conform to our way of speaking. To understand why "a" is thrown in "necesita a dos alumnos," we'd have to figure out _the intent_ of the speaker (always a tricky proposition, because intent is subjective). There might be something else at work here. I suspect (and I don't have any sources at hand for this) that historically, we are increasingly using "a" to mark the direct object _indiscriminately_, _in all cases, _particularly in spoken language; "a," then, might be becoming  by default the syntactic and semantic marker of DO (but I don't want to make too much of this). In any event, here we go.
> Cheers





Yes, it is an interesting thread - though perhaps not the best topic/example for helping those of us who struggle with this a bit (among other things, because, as you say, it might not adhere to the norm).  The idea that 'something else may be at work' sounds possible - though I've no idea what!  Perhaps what were originally separate uses now appear to come from the same source.  For sure, I sometimes don't feel sure which 'a' is being used in some sentences.
I also wanted to ask if it were possible that the teacher used 'a' even if he/she didn't yet know the two particular pupils because he/she was certain that he would find two pupils and was almost 'personalising' them in advance.  It's very late, so I'm not sure if that makes much sense! Thinking about it, this is the same as what you said about the actual intention of hte speaker, possible?


----------



## SevenDays

srb62 said:


> ...
> I also wanted to ask if it were possible that the teacher used 'a' even if he/she didn't yet know the two particular pupils because he/she was certain that he would find two pupils and was almost 'personalising' them in advance.  It's very late, so I'm not sure if that makes much sense! Thinking about it, this is the same as what you said about the actual intention of hte speaker, possible?



Yes, that's a good way of putting it: _personalising them in advance_. I like it.
Cheers


----------



## Cenzontle

I've consulted <http://www.corpusdelespanol.org/x.asp> and found that usage is mixed.  Here are a few counterexamples to the neat principles that I stated above.  
In each of these cases the person is (in my opinion) indefinite, as indicated by the subjunctive in the relative clause, but nevertheless introduced with personal "a":
• voy a buscar *a* una persona *que sepa* de pianos (oral transcription, Caracas)
• No se trata sólo de buscar *a* una persona combatiente, *que dispare* bien *y tenga* cara de mafioso (newspaper, Guatemala)
• Fue a buscar *a* un hombre *que entregase* mi carta
• En todas partes del mundo necesitan *a* un empleado de Documentos al Exterior *que sepa* manejar una Underwood eléctrica
• Necesitabais *a* un pendejo, *a* un pintamonas, alguien *que corriera* los riesgos.


I think this indicates that the criteria for personal "a" in practice are fuzzier than the prescriptive grammars would like them to be.


----------



## Cenzontle

P.S.:  One more observation, and then I'll take my parachute.
From the same source, here are a couple of counterexamples of the opposite kind—specific persons, modified by clauses in the indicative, but not granted the personal "a":
• vengo á buscar un hombre á quien detesto (_El puñal del godo_)
I'm looking at the lack of personal "a" before "un hombre".  
As for "á quien", I predict that you will never find the relative pronoun "quien" as a direct object without "a", regardless whether definite or indefinite.
• La perspectiva de perderse en aquel submundo, buscando una mujer negra, de la que solo sabía el nombre,... (_Tunduru, jardín del paraíso_)
Live and learn!


----------



## Peterdg

Eso es lo que dice el DPD al respecto:


> *1.2.* Doble uso:
> *a)* Ante nombres comunes de persona precedidos de un determinante indefinido, cuando son complemento directo de verbos que significan búsqueda, preferencia o necesidad, como _buscar, necesitar, preferir, querer_ (‘desear, apetecer’), etc.:_Busco un camarero_ o _Busco a un camarero._ En estos casos, la ausencia de la preposición implica que el complemento es inconcreto o inespecífico (es decir, alude a un individuo cualquiera dentro de la clase de personas designada por el nombre), mientras que el uso de la preposición implica que el complemento se refiere a una persona determinada de entre las de su clase, individualizada en la mente del hablante: _Busco un camarero_ significa ‘busco a cualquier persona que pueda trabajar como camarero’ (y en este caso la oración de relativo, si la hubiere, llevaría el verbo en subjuntivo: _Busco un camarero que sepa hablar inglés_); por el contrario, _Busco a un camarero_ significa ‘busco a un camarero concreto, que ya conozco’ (y en este caso la oración de relativo, si la hubiere, llevaría el verbo en indicativo: _Busco a un camarero que sabe hablar inglés_).


Fijaos en lo que dice con respecto al vínculo entre la "a" personal ante en OD y el modo verbal en este caso.


----------



## cesarduck

El profesor necesita dos alumnos que lo ayuden. *pueden ser especificos o no especificos*

El profesor necesita a dos alumnos que lo ayuden.
*pueden ser especificos o no especificos*

Para las 2 oraciones es lo mismo, los comentarios de Cenzontle y Seven days son muy acertados.

Y si se dijera "..Necesita a los dos alumnos" esos alumnos si son especificos y logicamente son conocidos por el locutor y el receptor.


----------



## SevenDays

La Academia no aclara bien las cosas. Si dice que la ausencia de la preposición "implica que el complemento es inconcreto o inespecífico", bueno, entonces se deduce que la presencia de la preposición puede perfectamente implicar _lo contrario_: que el complemento sea "concreto o específico"; e incluso una realidad intermedia: algo "concreto e inespecífico", como hemos visto en este hilo. La presencia de la preposición se ve ligada al concepto de "determinado", como bien dice la RAE, pero el ejemplo del profesor y los que ha aportado Cenzontle demuestran que en la práctica, el lenguaje presenta una realidad más compleja.
Saludos


----------

