# To introduce somebody to somebody



## Purplecactus

Hola

¿Cómo se diría en español "She doesn't want to introduce us to him"?

Cualquier explicación gramática será agradecida.


----------



## Chalon

"Ella no nos quiere presentar ante él"

"Ella no quiere presentarnos ante él"


----------



## Purplecactus

Gracias.

¿No se podría utilizar un pronombre de objeto indirecto en esa construcción?


----------



## mhp

Purplecactus said:


> Gracias.
> 
> ¿No se podría utilizar un pronombre de objeto indirecto en esa construcción?


The verb _presentar_ is a little problematic since both the direct and the indirect object are people.

Él presentó a Juan a María. (He introduced Juan to María, or he introduced María to Juan)

Él nos presentó a Juan. (He introduced us to Juan, or he introduced Juan to us)

Él nos lo presentó (He introduced him to us)

There doesn’t seem to be a way to say "he introduced us to him" unless you resort to other prepositions. However, that is not an issue since as you can see even with proper names it is not clear who was introduced to whom. Just that introduction was mutual. So a reasonable translation of “Él nos lo presentó” could be “he introduced us to him” if the context requires that. Just think of it as: There was a mutual introduction between him and us.

So to translate your sentence with no prepositions: Ella no quier presentárnoslo.


----------



## El intérprete

Purplecactus said:


> Hola
> 
> ¿Cómo se diría en español "She doesn't want to introduce us to him"?
> 
> Cualquier explicación gramática será agradecida.



She doesn't want to introduce us to him.
Ella no quiere presentarnos a él.

¿Qué tiene de malo?

La sugerencia de Chalon, quien trabaja en un local muy sabroso, me parece bien, pero un poco formal.  ¿Es así?


----------



## mhp

El intérprete said:


> Ella no quiere presentarnos a él.
> ¿Qué tiene de malo?


The problem, aside from not solving the problem, is that you are using the verb as if «a él» were _un complemento de régimen_. The verb _presentar _does not have such a complement. See: http://buscon.rae.es/dpdI/SrvltConsulta?lema=presentar


----------



## Chalon

El intérprete said:


> She doesn't want to introduce us to him.
> Ella no quiere presentarnos a él.
> 
> ¿Qué tiene de malo?
> 
> La sugerencia de Chalon, quien trabaja en un local muy sabroso, me parece bien, pero un poco formal.  ¿Es así?



La diferencia es que nosotros vamos a ser presentados ante él y no él ante nosotros. Es un asunto de matiz creo.

¿Se entiende?, aunque tal vez sea una diferencia absurda.


----------



## i heart queso

I'm confused as to the usage of "ante" here.  Is that a Chilean construction or have I been blind all these years?


----------



## El intérprete

I asked several translators how to say "She doesn't want to introduce us to him." and they agreed upon "Ella no nos lo quiere presentar."

Unfortunately, I don't understand the logic behind this.


----------



## Camilo1964

Mi propuesta:

_Ella no quiere presentárnoslo_.

Saludos,

Camilo


----------



## Purplecactus

Gracias a todos. Las explicaciones no sólo son buenas sino también variadas. : )

Lo que todavía me preocupa es la regla del castellano que exige el uso del pronombre de objeto indirecto en una frase que contiene un objeto indirecto y también el orden de pronombres (ie: indirecto y directo). 
ejemplo: Le presenté Maria a Juan.  suena mal ¿no?

Si seguimos la regla del orden de pronombres "She does not want to introduce us to him" sería "No quiere presentarlenos" y eso que sí suena mal.

Todavía no encuentro la explicación y lo único que puedo pensar es que tiene algo que ver con el verbo presentar. Si no encuentro una explicación que me lo aclare, evitaré traducir 'to him' 'ella no nos quiere presentar' lo demás se infiere.

Gracias


----------



## mhp

Purplecactus said:


> lo único que puedo pensar es que tiene algo que ver con el verbo presentar


   No, this is not unique to the verb _presentar_. It happens whenever both objects are people (or treated as a person in the sense that it require the preposition 'a'); for example, throwing someone to someone. It also happens when there are two indirect objects that are both people: To buy something (DO) from someone (IO1) for someone (IO2). With the verb ‘_comprar’_ the problem is solved by using ‘para’ instead of ‘a’ for IO2 when there is an ambiguity that cannot be resolved from context. With the verb _presentar_, the problem can be avoided to some extent as suggested in the article in the DPD that I referenced above.


----------



## L Cuaresmeño

The translation for she doesn't want to introduce us to him can't be presentárnoslo because the direct object is Lo and nos is the indirect object. Ella no quiere presentárnoslo means she doen't want to introduce him to us, not us to him.


----------



## nocturnoinvernal

Purplecactus said:


> Hola
> 
> ¿Cómo se diría en español "She doesn't want to introduce us to him"?
> 
> Cualquier explicación gramática será agradecida.



Que _ella no quiere presentarnos con él._

Saludos.


----------



## L Cuaresmeño

nocturnoinvernal said:


> Que _ella no quiere presentarnos con él._
> 
> Saludos.



Pero verdad que: ella no quiere presentárnoslo significa she doesn't want to introduce him to us. Porque en presentárnoslo, Lo= el objeto directo, nos= el indirecto. Para decir she doesn't want to introduce "us" to him, nosotros tendríamos que ser el objeto directo, y en presentárnoslo no lo somos, somos el indirecto.


----------



## Nino83

Purplecactus said:


> Gracias a todos. Las explicaciones no sólo son buenas sino también variadas. : )
> 
> Lo que todavía me preocupa es la regla del castellano que exige el uso del pronombre de objeto indirecto en una frase que contiene un objeto indirecto y también el orden de pronombres (ie: indirecto y directo).
> ejemplo: Le presenté Maria a Juan.  suena mal ¿no?
> 
> Si seguimos la regla del orden de pronombres "She does not want to introduce us to him" sería "No quiere presentarlenos" y eso que sí suena mal.
> 
> Todavía no encuentro la explicación y lo único que puedo pensar es que tiene algo que ver con el verbo presentar. Si no encuentro una explicación que me lo aclare, evitaré traducir 'to him' 'ella no nos quiere presentar' lo demás se infiere.
> 
> Gracias



Purplecactus, "nos" is both accusative and dative case (direct and indirect object) of the subject pronoun (nominative case) "nosotros" (as in english, him is both accusative and dative). 

So, in this case the rule (indirect object - direct object, that is the rule of all Romance languages) is the same: 

presentar*noslo* --> litterally introduce-*to us*-*him* --> *indirect object* - *direct object*


----------



## L Cuaresmeño

Nino83 said:


> Purplecactus, "nos" is both accusative and dative case (direct and indirect object) of the subject pronoun (nominative case) "nosotros" (as in english, him is both accusative and dative).
> 
> So, in this case the rule (indirect object - direct object, that is the rule of all Romance languages) is the same:
> 
> presentar*noslo* --> litterally introduce-*to us*-*him* --> *indirect object* - *direct object*



Yes I agree, but purplecactus wants a translation of- she doesn't want to introduce us(direct object) to him( indirect object. In such case a translation can't be Ella no quiere presentárnoslo because Lo is the direct object and nos is the indirect object. In order to say what cactus wants, nos has to be the direct object.


----------



## nocturnoinvernal

DaviD-is-Cute said:


> Pero verdad que: ella no quiere preséntarnoslo significa she doesn't want to introduce him to us. Porque en preséntarnoslo, Lo= el objeto directo, nos= el indirecto. Para decir she doesn't want to introduce "us" to him, nosotros tendríamos que ser el objeto directo, y en preséntarnoslo no lo somos, somos el indirecto.



Da la idea, pero en sí no es lo mismo _porque ella no quiere que vayamos a conocerlo_ (ella no quiere presentarnos con / ante él). Diferente _a ella no quiere que él venga a conocernos_ (ella no quiere presentárnoslo). Al menos así es como lo percibo. A ver qué nos dicen los sapientes en gramática.

Lo del uso del verbo _ir_ y _venir_ es para ejemplificar un poco más la diferencia. 

Saludos.


----------



## Nino83

Sorry, my mistake.
This construction (presentarlenos) is not possible in Italian too. 

The rule is this: 
when the direct object is a third person pronoun (lo/la) we can utilize indirect object + direct object (me lo, te lo, se lo, nos lo, vos lo, se lo) 
when the direct object is not a third person pronoun we can't utilize this construction, so we utilize direct object + preposition + prepositional pronoun

Why is it so? 
Because in Romance language the accusative case is equal to dative case except for the third person. So we have: 

me, te, nos, vos = accusative and dative case 
lo, la, los, las = accusative case 
le, les = dative case 

In english the accusative and dative case merged (also for the third person pronoun) so you say: 

I gave it to him (direct + preposition + prepositional pronoun) but not I gave him it (you say: I gave him that/this). 

We can say: se lo di or lo di a (para) él 

So, the rule "indirect object + direct object" works only when the direct object is the third person pronoun. 
When there is a first/second person pronoun there is not difference between indirect and direct object pronoun. 

I hope this helps 

Ciao


----------



## L Cuaresmeño

Nino83 said:


> Sorry, my mistake.
> This construction (presentarlenos) is not possible in Italian too.
> 
> The rule is this:
> when the direct object is a third person pronoun (lo/la) we can utilize indirect object + direct object (me lo, te lo, se lo, nos lo, vos lo, se lo)
> when the direct object is not a third person pronoun we can't utilize this construction, so we utilize direct object + preposition + prepositional pronoun
> 
> Why is it so?
> Because in Romance language the accusative case is equal to dative case except for the third person. So we have:
> 
> me, te, nos, vos = accusative and dative case
> lo, la, los, las = accusative case
> le, les = dative case
> 
> In english the accusative and dative case merged (also for the third person pronoun) so you say:
> 
> I gave it to him (direct + preposition + prepositional pronoun) but not I gave him it (you say: I gave him that/this).
> 
> We can say: se lo di or lo di a (para) él
> 
> So, the rule "indirect object + direct object" works only when the direct object is the third person pronoun.
> When there is a first/second person pronoun there is not difference between indirect and direct object pronoun.
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> Ciao
> 
> P.S.
> 
> It's not a matter of animated or inanimated object, as* mhp* said.
> If there is a difference between direct and indirect object (only in third person pronoun) we can use this rule. If there is not any difference, we can't dinstinguish between direct and indirect object.



Regarding that phrase that you used:
 I gave it to him= se lo di a él o le di algo eso a él. 

I guess you can't say "lo di a él*(incorrect) You must use se before lo:
Se lo di a él.

Also you can't use se or le(s) if you use para: ( I'm not correcting you, I'm just adding more information to what you said.)
Se lo di para él*( incorrect)
Lo di para él(correct)
Le di eso para él( incorrect)

More examples:

Le di eso para el* (incorrect)
Le di eso a él.( correct)
If the indirect object were a noun you don't need le. 
Di eso a Juan. ( correct) 
Everytime the indirect object  is a pronoun you need le(s)
Or when the indirect object is before the verb:
A Ella dije eso( incorrect)
Indirect object before the verb needs le(s). 

A ella le dije eso(correct)
Dije eso a ella( incorrect because a élla is a pronoun so you must use le(s).
Dije eso a David( le is optional because the indirect object-David is a noun and not a pronoun) 
A David dije eso( incorrect)
A David le dije eso( correct)
A ella le dije eso.( correct)
Le di eso a ella. 
se lo di para él* (incorrect)
lo di para él. (Correct)
El dinero lo di a él( incorrect) 
El dinero se lo di a él. (Correct)
El dinero= DO. 
SE, A EL= IO

Mi novia quiere que la presente a mis padres.*
( incorrect because you need to use se before la) 

Mi novia quiere que se la presente a mis padres.(correcto)
Mi novia= direct object, a mis papas=indirect object. "Se" is needed before the direct object.

I hope someone else comes and better explains this rule than me. =) I'm a native but I'm also learning new things. Native doesn't mean perfect.


----------



## nocturnoinvernal

DaviD-is-Cute said:


> But I guess that when for example you have a frase such as the one you used. I gave it to him= se lo di a él o le di algo algo a el.
> 
> I guess you can't say "lo di a él" You must use se before lo. Se lo di a él but You can't use se or le(s) if you use para él.
> Se lo di para él *---> Sí es correcto pero no como se lo di a él (véase el ejemplo de abajo en color verde)*
> Le di eso para *él** ---> *Sí es correcto pero no como **le di eso a él* (véase el ejemplo de abajo en color verde)
> Le di eso a él.( correct)
> If the indirect object were a noun you don't need le.
> Di eso a Juan. ( correct)
> Everytime the indirect object  is a pronoun you need le(s)
> Or when the indirect object is before the verb:
> A Ella dije eso( incorrect)
> Indirect object before the verb needs le(s).
> 
> A ella le dije eso(correct)
> Dije eso a ella( incorrect because a élla is a pronoun so you must use le(s).
> Dije eso a David( le is optional because the indirect object-David is a noun and not a pronoun)
> A David dije eso( incorrect)
> A David le dije eso( correct)
> A ella le dije eso.( correct)
> Le di eso a ella.
> se lo di para él ---> Esto se lo di a usted, él, ella para que se lo diera a él* (Sí es correcto pero no con el significado de _se lo di a él_)
> lo di para él. (Correct)
> El dinero lo di a él( incorrect)
> El dinero se lo di a él. (Correct)
> El dinero= DO.
> SE, A *ÉL*= IO
> 
> Mi novia quiere que la presente a mis padres.*
> ( incorrect because you need to use se before la)
> 
> Mi novia quiere que se la presente a mis padres.(correcto)
> Mi novia= direct object, a mis papas=indirect object. "Se" is needed before the direct object.
> 
> I hope someone else comes and better explains this rule than me. =) I'm a native but I'm also learning new things. Native doesn't mean perfect.


----------



## echinocereus

The structure problem here seems to arise when:
1) a sentence contains both an indirect object and a direct object and 
2) both are persons and
3) the direct object is of 1st or 2nd person.  
Because the usual “rule” requires indirect object pronoun before direct object pronoun, we are faced with “impossible” combinations:  

Someone introduces: me to you, me to him, me to her, me to them, 
OR you _(familiar)_ to me, you to him, you to her, you to us, you to them.
_(Not to mention “you-formal” to me, him, her, us, them because that would be another “can of worms”)_

I think most native speakers are not comfortable with the combinations:  
te me, le me, les me
OR me te, le te, nos te, les te.

The solution of turning the indirect object into a prepositional phrase in these cases seems to be accepted by some speakers and rejected by others. 

“Alguien me presenta a ti” or the situation presented in this thread “Alguien nos presenta a él” are possibilities although someone could certainly insist that the reverse translation is possible in each case, that is:  “Somebody introduces you to me” and “Somebody introduces him to us.”

This may be one of those cases in which there will never be a solution that will be acceptable to all native speakers of Spanish, perhaps like the controversy in English over “him” or “them” as the correct neuter pronoun. 

Saludos.   

I find myself wondering whether most natives would see or hear "Alguien nos presenta a él" and interpret the sentence as "Somebody introduces us to him" or "Somebody introduces him to us."  I'm wondering about the native's first impression...


----------



## L Cuaresmeño

Mucha razón: esto se lo di para él= esto se lo di a usted para que se lo entregara a él o esto se lo di para él.




Pero se lo di para él es incorrecto si lo que quieren decir es se lo di a él.
Se lo di para él no es lo mismo que se lo di a él. 


Es lo que quieres decir?


se lo di( a usted) para él.


se lo di a usted para que se lo entregara a él.


se lo di para él no es lo mismo que se lo di a él.
se lo di para él.( se lo di a usted para que se lo entregara a él o indirectamente se lo di a él)
se lo di a él( nunca se lo di a usted, y directamente se lo di a él)


----------



## Nino83

Thanks *David*. 
So in Spanish there are more "redoundant" pronoun than in Italian or French (*se* lo di a él...does this rule work also for other pronouns? Es. *te* lo di a ti?; *le* di eso a él...is right for me to say: *te* di eso a ti?). 

So, what I'm focusing on is that we can say "No quiere presentarles*la*" but we can't say "no quiere presentarles*te*", because if there isn't any distinction between direct (accusative) and indirect (dative) pronoun, you can't apply a rule based on that distinction. 
This is why English people never say "She doesn't want to introduce them *her*" because we (Romance languages speakers) have distinction "*la*/le" while English people doesn't have it (her=her, him=him).


----------



## Megadethly

*Nino83*

That's very interesting. My course book, grammar book, and work book do not mention this rule at all, yet none of the Spanish in those books uses indirect + direct, either before the conjugated verb or after an infinite, unless the direct object is lo(s)/la(s). You never see nos, os, or me used after an indirect object.

Where did you learn of this rule? Any idea why none of my sources makes note of it?


----------



## L Cuaresmeño

Nino83 said:


> Thanks *David*.
> So in Spanish there are more "redoundant" pronoun than in Italian or French (*se* lo di a él...does this rule work also for other pronouns? Es. *te* lo di a ti?; *le* di eso a él...is right for me to say: *te* di eso a ti?).
> 
> So, what I'm focusing on is that we can say "No quiere presentarles*la*" but we can't say "no quiere presentarles*te*", because if there isn't any distinction between direct (accusative) and indirect (dative) pronoun, you can't apply a rule based on that distinction.
> This is why English people never say "She doesn't want to introduce them *her*" because we (Romance languages speakers) have distinction "*la*/le" while English people doesn't have it (her=her, him=him).



You have to use te lo di a ti because the indirect object is a pronoun so you need to duplicate it and use TE. If you didn't duplicate the indirect object it would be : di eso a ti.* that's incorrect.
Same for le di eso a Él(correct). Di eso a Él*(incorrect) 
A Él is the indirect object and is also a pronoun so you must duplicate the indirect object.

now if you have an indirect object that is a noun, then it's not mandatory to duplicate the indirect object.
di una flor a la muchacha.(correct) 
unless the indirect object were before the verb then you would need to duplicate it:
a la muchacha le di una flor.(correct) A la muchacha di una flor*(incorrect)
 Di una flor a Ella* (incorrect, here you need le because the indirect object is a pronoun)


----------



## nocturnoinvernal

El intérprete said:


> She doesn't want to introduce us to him.
> Ella no quiere presentarnos a él.
> 
> ¿Qué tiene de malo? La preposición _a_
> 
> La sugerencia de Chalon, quien trabaja en un local muy sabroso, me parece bien, pero un poco formal.  ¿Es así?




Se dice _presentar a alguien con/ ante alguien_, _voy a presentarlos con / ante mis papás_.

Saludos.


----------



## Nino83

Megadethly said:


> *Nino83*
> 
> That's very interesting. My course book, grammar book, and work book do not mention this rule at all, yet none of the Spanish in those books uses indirect + direct, either before the conjugated verb or after an infinite, unless the direct object is lo(s)/la(s). You never see nos, os, or me used after an indirect object.
> 
> Where did you learn of this rule? Any idea why none of my sources makes note of it?



*Megadethly* 

In a very essential book (Spanish: an essential grammar, Routledge) at page 81 I read:
"In sentences where a verb has two weak pronouns, the indirect object precedes the direct object, with the exception of reflexive se, which is always in initial position". 

At page 74 I read: 
"Forms of direct and indirect object pronouns
Direct and indirect object pronouns have identical forms except in the 3rd person (lo, la, los, las as opposed to le and les). Usted and ustedes correspond to 3rd person object pronouns, so the distinction also applies there." 

As a native Romance language speaker this sounds natural to me. 

Old English had distinctive accusative/dative pronouns (Es. hine = accusative, him = dative) but during Middle English this two cases merged in an unique oblique case (him is both accusative and dative). 
This happened also in Romance languages except for the third person. 

So if there is not difference this rule (indirect + direct) doesn't work and we have to use the construction direct object + preposition + prepositional pronoun. 

Theoretically an Old English speaker could say "She doesn't want to introduce us *hine*" (us =dative, him =dative, hine =accusative). I don't know OE grammar rules, so I don't know if there was a similar rule. 

Well, I didn't learn this rule on some book but it's evident that when there is not distinction between direct and indirect pronoun, this rule is impossible to use. 

You're right, generally grammar books don't dwell on this aspect. I get it on my own.


----------



## Megadethly

Thank you for the reply. I am not suggesting that you are incorrect. I definitely trust you because you are a native Romance language speaker. All the books I have seem to agree with you, even though they do not speak of the rule exactly.

I often think that indirect object pronouns can be replaced by 'para el' or 'a el' at the end of the sentence. Prepositional pronouns seem to communicate the same meaning. Now I finally have a reason to use prepositional pronouns more! I think the reason I like them is that they translate better into English because the word order is similar.


----------



## nocturnoinvernal

Nino83 said:


> Thanks *David*.
> So in Spanish there are more "redoundant" pronoun than in Italian or French (*se* lo di a él...does this rule work also for other pronouns? Es. *te* lo di a ti?; *le* di eso a él...is right for me to say: *te* di eso a ti?).
> 
> So, what I'm focusing on is that we can say "No quiere presentarles*la*" but we can't say "no quiere presentarles*te*", because if there isn't any distinction between direct (accusative) and indirect (dative) pronoun, you can't apply a rule based on that distinction.
> This is why English people never say "She doesn't want to introduce them *her*" because we (Romance languages speakers) have distinction "*la*/le" while English people doesn't have it (her=her, him=him).



Hello.

In Spanish you can say:

-*Te* lo di *a ti*.
-*Se* lo di *a usted*.

Just to emphasise on the person who receives the action or to give especific context to avoid any confusion as in "_se lo di (a usted)_", instead of "_se lo di (a él / a ella)_". The examples above are different from "_te lo di_" and "_se lo di_"

Best,


----------



## Nino83

Megadethly said:


> Thank you for the reply. I am not suggesting that you are incorrect. I definitely trust you because you are a native Romance language speaker. All the books I have seem to agree with you, even though they do not speak of the rule exactly.
> 
> I often think that indirect object pronouns can be replaced by 'para el' or 'a el' at the end of the sentence. Prepositional pronouns seem to communicate the same meaning. Now I finally have a reason to use prepositional pronouns more! I think the reason I like them is that they translate better into English because the word order is similar.



Yes, you're right. 
I think that these books don't speak of the rule because when they are written by native speakers, these take it for granted and when they are written by English people, these follow grammar books in original language and these books don't talk about this rule.


----------



## Nino83

nocturnoinvernal said:


> Hello.
> 
> In Spanish you can say:
> 
> -*Te* lo di *a ti*.
> -*Se* lo di *a usted*.
> 
> Just to emphasise on the person who receives the action or to give especific context to avoid any confusion as in "_se lo di (a usted)_", instead of "_se lo di (a él / a ella)_". The examples above are different from "_te lo di_" and "_se lo di_"
> 
> Best,



Thank you *nocturnalinvernal*. 

Does this rule works only with *a* + prepositional pronoun or is it necessary also with other preposition (+ prepositional pronoun)? 
Anyway, my grammar book says that "The sequence a + prepositional object pronoun is often used in addition to a weak pronoun (direct or indirect object) for purposes of clarity, emphasis or contrast" but doesn't say that this redundant pronoun is grammatically necessary. Is it so? 

Another question. 
Is this answer correct or do I have to add *a* + prepositional pronoun?

Diste el libro a él? 

a) Se lo di. 
b) Se lo di a él. 

*Megadethly* 
I found that in German one can say "I give it to him" in two different ways: 
Ich gebe es ihm (es = it, ihm = him dative case) --> direct + indirect 
Ich gebe ihm es --> indirect + direct (this form is less used but grammatically correct) 
So, if English language had the distinction hine/him and hit/him, we could say "I give him hit" (hit = it accusative, him = he, it dative, hine = he accusative) --> indirect + direct 

Fewer the cases are, more we have to use prepositions.


----------



## L Cuaresmeño

Nino83 said:


> Thank you *nocturnalinvernal*.
> 
> Does this rule works only with *a* + prepositional pronoun or is it necessary also with other preposition (+ prepositional pronoun)?
> Anyway, my grammar book says that "The sequence a + prepositional object pronoun is often used in addition to a weak pronoun (direct or indirect object) for purposes of clarity, emphasis or contrast" but doesn't say that this redundant pronoun is grammatically necessary. Is it so?
> 
> Another question.
> Is this answer correct or do I have to add *a* + prepositional pronoun?
> 
> Diste el libro a él?
> 
> a) Se lo di.
> b) Se lo di a él.
> 
> *Megadethly*
> I found that in German one can say "I give it to him" in two different ways:
> Ich gebe es ihm (es = it, ihm = him dative case) --> direct + indirect
> Ich gebe ihm es --> indirect + direct (this form is less used but grammatically correct)
> So, if English language had the distinction hine/him and hit/him, we could say "I give him hit" (hit = it accusative, him = he, it dative, hine = he accusative) --> indirect + direct
> 
> Fewer the cases are, more we have to use prepositions.


Hello Nino,

remember that when the indirect object is a pronoun,( a Ella) you must duplicate the indirect object, so:
diste el libro a èl* should be:
 le diste el libro a Él.

Now if the indirect object were a noun, the duplication is optional: diste este libro a Nino, le diste este libro a nino.

also if the indirect object, no matter if it is a noun or a pronoun, is located before the verb, you must duplicate it:
A Nino diste este libro*(incorrect)
A Nino le diste este libro.(correct)
A Él diste este libro.*(incorrect)
A Él le diste este libro.(correct)


----------



## Nino83

Thank you *David*. 
So I must always duplicate it before "*a* + pronoun" or after "*a* + noun/pronoun". 
My question was: this rule works only with "*a + pronoun*" or must I duplicate the pronoun also with "*other prepositions + pronoun*". 
Es. "Lo he hecho *para* ti" but "Te lo he dicho *a* ti" (So, does this rule works only with the prepositon *a*?) 

If someone asks to me "Le diste el libro a Él?" can I answer "Se lo di"? 

Thanks


----------



## nocturnoinvernal

Nino83 said:


> Thank you *nocturnalinvernal*.
> 
> Does this rule works only with *a* + prepositional pronoun or is it necessary also with other preposition (+ prepositional pronoun)?
> Anyway, my grammar book says that "The sequence a + prepositional object pronoun is often used in addition to a weak pronoun (direct or indirect object) for purposes of clarity, emphasis or contrast" but doesn't say that this redundant pronoun is grammatically necessary. Is it so?
> 
> Another question.
> Is this answer correct or do I have to add *a* + prepositional pronoun?
> 
> Diste el libro a él?
> 
> a) Se lo di.
> b) Se lo di a él.
> 
> *Megadethly*
> I found that in German one can say "I give it to him" in two different ways:
> Ich gebe es ihm (es = it, ihm = him dative case) --> direct + indirect
> Ich gebe ihm es --> indirect + direct (this form is less used but grammatically correct)
> So, if English language had the distinction hine/him and hit/him, we could say "I give him hit" (hit = it accusative, him = he, it dative, hine = he accusative) --> indirect + direct
> 
> Fewer the cases are, more we have to use prepositions.



Not at all.

But I am *Nocturnoinvernal*

Best,


----------



## Nino83

nocturnoinvernal said:


> Not at all.
> 
> But I am *Nocturnoinvernal*
> 
> Best,



Sorry, I misread.


----------

