# se le dio



## dave 12345678

I have been reading a story called "Temprano y sol" by Emilia Pardo Bazán.

Firstly, it seems to mean "Early and sun". 

Please explain what this means.

It contains the following sentence:

"La condesa de Pardo Bazán alcanzó el honor de ser la primera mujer a quien SE LE DIO una cátedra en la Universidad Central"

1. Does this mean "The countess of Pardo Bazán "reached" the honor of being the first woman to whom "they" gave a chair at the Central University". ?

2. Is "reached" appropriate in this context or does it mean something else ?

3. SE LE DIO:

A. Is "SE" here being used as the impersonal se. In other words, we don't know who "they" are exactly ?

B. Is LE being used here as an indirect object ? i.e. the chair is being "given" TO her ?

C. Is DIO being used as the third person plural preterit of the verb "dar", "to give" ?

Tks

Dave


----------



## Teena

Hello,

I believe it means "the first woman to whom was given..." The "se" is impersonal, the "dio" is 3rd person singular of the verb "dar". "Le" is an indirect object pronoun "to her".

- Kristina


----------



## spainjunkie

2. I would use "achieved" rather than "reached". Although "reached" can be used, "achieved" sounds better.


----------



## Wellow

Teena said:


> Hello,
> 
> I believe it means "the first woman to whom was given..." The "se" is impersonal, the "dio" is 3rd person singular of the verb "dar". "Le" is an indirect object pronoun "to her".
> 
> - Kristina


 
I agree with Teena - it means (in colloquial english) " the first woman who was given..." But I suggest that "se" here is a passive use and not impersonal. The post/job was given to her.
You could probably write the spanish as "a quien fue dado la cátedra" (passive with Ser).

What do you think?

Regards


----------



## Teena

Wellow said:


> I agree with Teena - it means (in colloquial english) " the first woman who was given..." But I suggest that "se" here is a passive use and not impersonal. The post/job was given to her.
> You could probably write the spanish as "a quien fue dado la cátedra" (passive with Ser).
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Regards


 
You're right, it is the passive se in this case, sorry. 
"..a quien fue dad*a *la..." perhaps?

- Kristina


----------



## NewdestinyX

dave 12345678 said:


> 3. SE LE DIO:
> 
> A. Is "SE" here being used as the impersonal se. In other words, we don't know who "they" are exactly ? *Yes, sorta.*
> 
> B. Is LE being used here as an indirect object ? i.e. the chair is being "given" TO her ?  *Yes *
> 
> C. Is DIO being used as the third person plural preterit of the verb "dar", "to give" ? *No- dio is 3rd person singular. see below..*
> 
> Dave



Dave -- this is a SE 'passive' with an indirect object. 

Se le dio = It was given to him/her

Due to the flexibility of English's position of the indirect object -- in English you can also say 'He/She was given... But that 'he/she' is not a 'subject' of an active voice.

The way that sentence is in Spanish you could also use 'they' as in your translation. So it can be said 'impersonally' -- but the syntax of the Spanish, as written, is passive.

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

In the SE Passive, Dave, the verb changes from singular to plural depending on the 'logical subject' of the passive. (this is not the case is 'impersonal se'.)

Se envió el mensaje. = The message was sent.
Se enviaron los mensajes = The messages were sent.

The SE Passive is used for 'inanimate objects only'. 

The SE Passive can take an indirect object too (me,te,le,nos,os,les) but the logical subject of the passive is the only thing that could be understood as the 'direct object'. The 'actor' of the action is 'unknown' in the SE Passive which is why your 'impersonal 'they' worked in your translation.

Remember what i told you in the other thread too.. When and indirect object, 'a + el/ella/quien, etc' is named before the verb a redundant IO pronoun must appear with the verb. That's why - *a quien* se *le* dio....

Grant


----------



## neal41

dave 12345678 said:


> It contains the following sentence:
> 
> "La condesa de Pardo Bazán alcanzó el honor de ser la primera mujer a quien SE LE DIO una cátedra en la Universidad Central"
> 
> 1. Does this mean "The countess of Pardo Bazán "reached" the honor of being the first woman to whom "they" gave a chair at the Central University". ?
> 
> 2. Is "reached" appropriate in this context or does it mean something else ?
> 
> 3. SE LE DIO:
> 
> A. Is "SE" here being used as the impersonal se. In other words, we don't know who "they" are exactly ?
> 
> B. Is LE being used here as an indirect object ? i.e. the chair is being "given" TO her ?
> 
> C. Is DIO being used as the third person plural preterit of the verb "dar", "to give" ?


'to attain' and 'to reach' have similar meanings.

The answer to B and C is yes. Butt and Benjamin (_A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish_) would say that 'se' is passive 'se'. The chair was given. The construction with 'they' where we don't know who 'they' is is equivalent in meaning to passive voice.


----------



## Wellow

Teena said:


> You're right, it is the passive se in this case, sorry.
> "..a quien fue dad*a *la..." perhaps?
> 
> - Kristina


 
Gracias Kristina, tienes razón. Que el objeto/puesto (la cátedra) dado es femenino. No porque la persona a quien fue dado el objecto/puesto es femenina. 

Oops! Esto de ser estudiante de la lengua española no es nada fácil.

Saludos


----------



## NewdestinyX

neal41 said:


> dave 12345678 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . C. Is DIO being used as the third person plural preterit of the verb "dar", "to give" ?
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to C is yes.
Click to expand...


Actually the answer to 'C' there *isn't correct* in that 'dio' is not 3rd person 'plural' as Dave states. It's 3rd person singular. But 'se le dio' does give the 'impersonal they' sense as we've agreed..

Grant


----------



## dave 12345678

Tks Guys

I'm a little confused as to the difference between the passive and the impersonal.

Can someone please give some examples ?

Dave


----------



## NewdestinyX

dave 12345678 said:


> Tks Guys
> 
> I'm a little confused as to the difference between the passive and the impersonal.
> 
> Can someone please give some examples ?
> 
> Dave


Per the rules of the forum that would need to be started in a new thread, Dave.

I'll give you this..

*The SE passive* in Spanish is used for inanimate objects expressed without an agent of the action and the verb changes in plurality depending on the logical subject.

_Se dio la clase._ = The class was given.
_Se dieron las clases._ = The classes were given.
--the verb can go before the logical subject or after.

*
The SE Impersonal* in Spanish is used for 2 cases

a)general information disbursal most often with intransitive verbs or transitive verbs where the direct object is not pertinent to the context.
_Se vive bien en España._ = People/They live well in Spain. (intransitive verb)
_No se permite entrar._ = Entrance forbidden. (like on a placard -- intranstive verb)
_Se come mucho aquí._ People/They eat a lot here. (transitive verb but object doesn't matter)

b)passives where animate objects (people, animals, personified nouns) are clearly direct objects. The verb is always in singular and 'a' marks the animate direct object just like 'personal a'.
_Se selecciona a muchas mujeres cada año._ = Many women are chosen each year.
_Se les selecciona cada año._ = They (women) are chosen each year.
--as you can see in this example -- when you want to refer to the object by a pronoun -- Spanish prefers the indirect object pronouns over the direct object ones to dispel ambiguities. Even though it's clearly a direct object we're talking about. In the Southern Cone of South America (Chile, Argentina, etc) they will use 'lo,las,los and las' instead of le,les for SE Impersonal -- but the vast majority of the Spanish speaking world definitely uses 'LE/LES' for third person object replacement in SE Impersonal.

There's a 'tidbit' for you..

Enjoy,
Grant


----------



## dave 12345678

Thanks everyone.

I suffer from eyesight problems [ slowly getting better ] as a result of neck injuries.

Reading books is very difficult for me at times. When I was in bed for six months, it would take me a whole day to read one page of a spanish text book, line by line. As I had never studied spanish before, it was not an easy process.

Being able to use large fonts on the computer and using this forum has helped me greatly. 

Thanks for all your replies.

Grant, I received your mail. Many thanks. I have tried to reply, but the mail keeps getting bounced back.

Dave


----------



## Peterrobertini7

NewdestinyX said:


> Per the rules of the forum that would need to be started in a new thread, Dave.
> 
> *The SE Impersonal* in Spanish is used for 2 cases
> 
> a)general information disbursal most often with intransitive verbs or transitive verbs where the direct object is not pertinent to the context.
> _Se vive bien en España._ = People/They live well in Spain. (intransitive verb)
> _No se permite entrar._ = Entrance forbidden. (like on a placard -- intranstive verb)
> _Se come mucho aquí._ People/They eat a lot here. (transitive verb but object doesn't matter)
> 
> b)*passives *where animate objects (people, animals, personified nouns) are clearly direct objects. The verb is always in singular and 'a' marks the animate direct object just like 'personal a'.
> _Se selecciona a muchas mujeres cada año._ = Many women are chosen each year.
> 
> There's a 'tidbit' for you..
> 
> Enjoy,
> Grant



I'm afraid to disagree about the usage of passive for impersonal 'se'-

According to my sources the IMPERSONAL 'SE' is an active construction with an undetermined subject(impersonal). In the following example :
*Se agredió a una periodista del canal 20/Se respeta a los ancianos*, ( it means that someone attacked/someone acted upon somebody) a newsreporter from channel 20/some one respect the elders.
The impersonal 'se' can occur with INTRANSITIVE verbs as you have already written above, but without DO : Se come bien aquí ( alguien/la gente come bien aquí. 
The differences between the impersonal 'se' and passive 'se' are :
1- Agreement of the verb with its subject ( Passive 'se') non-agreement of the verb because there is not SUBJECT, the verb is locked in third person singular with a direct object (DO). 
2- In the passive someone was attacked by someone (passive meaning), in the IMPERSONAL someone do sth. upon somebody ( active, its direct object) its meaning is an active construction with a DO,an undetermined subject ( impersonal).
3- In the passive the *subject *is its notional *DO*. In the 'impersonal' the Notional *Do *is the grammatical *DO *of its *active *construction.
4- As you already stated the dative pronoun le/les is preferred.


----------



## NewdestinyX

Peterrobertini7 said:


> I'm afraid to disagree about the usage of passive for impersonal 'se'-
> 
> According to my sources the IMPERSONAL 'SE' is an active construction with an undetermined subject(impersonal). In the following example :
> *Se agredió a una periodista del canal 20/Se respeta a los ancianos*, ( it means that someone attacked/someone acted upon somebody) a newsreporter from channel 20/some one respect the elders.
> The impersonal 'se' can occur with INTRANSITIVE verbs as you have already written above, but without DO : Se come bien aquí ( alguien/la gente come bien aquí.
> The differences between the impersonal 'se' and passive 'se' are :
> 1- Agreement of the verb with its subject ( Passive 'se') non-agreement of the verb because there is not SUBJECT, the verb is locked in third person singular with a direct object (DO).
> 2- In the passive someone was attacked by someone (passive meaning), in the IMPERSONAL someone do sth. upon somebody ( active, its direct object) its meaning is an active construction with a DO,an undetermined subject ( impersonal).
> 3- In the passive the *subject *is its notional *DO*. In the 'impersonal' the Notional *Do *is the grammatical *DO *of its *active *construction.
> 4- As you already stated the dative pronoun le/les is preferred.


Remember Peterrobertini, by and large on the Word Ref Forum here we are teaching non native Spanish speakers that Spanish language. *In both English and Spanish* the SE Impersonal structures,  that use Intransitive verbs or Transitive verbs with no direct object, translate to an Active Voice. We agree on that. But I 'wrote' passive for part 'b' to Dave for a very good and proper reason.

The SE Impersonal structures that employ Direct Objects always translate to English as 'passives'. It is a function of translation not of identifying the correct Spanish voice. 

Though I will point out that many of my grammar books teach that the SE Impersonal with Direct Objects does not imply an 'agent' of the action. We ignore the agent in the impersonal. It is not germane. The 'direct object' in SE Impersonal is much more like a 'logical subject' in the Se Impersonal. This is consistent with the English translation. But I am not disagreeing with your analysis from the Spanish perspective.

Grant


----------



## manicha

b)passives where animate objects (people, animals, personified nouns) are clearly direct objects. The verb is always in singular and 'a' marks the animate direct object just like 'personal a'.
_Se selecciona a muchas mujeres cada año._ = Many women are chosen each year.
_Se les selecciona cada año._ = They (women) are chosen each year.
--as you can see in this example -- when you want to refer to the object by a pronoun -- Spanish prefers the indirect object pronouns over the direct object ones to dispel ambiguities. Even though it's clearly a direct object we're talking about. In the Southern Cone of South America (Chile, Argentina, etc) they will use 'lo,las,los and las' instead of le,les for SE Impersonal -- but the vast majority of the Spanish speaking world definitely uses 'LE/LES' for third person object replacement in SE Impersonal.

I am the only one who would consider a mistake that use of le, when refering to a female DO ? I am Spanish and I would definitely say: 
Se las selecciona cada año. 
Maybe it's because I live in a non-leist area.


----------



## NewdestinyX

manicha said:


> b)passives where animate objects (people, animals, personified nouns) are clearly direct objects. The verb is always in singular and 'a' marks the animate direct object just like 'personal a'.
> _Se selecciona a muchas mujeres cada año._ = Many women are chosen each year.
> _Se les selecciona cada año._ = They (women) are chosen each year.
> --as you can see in this example -- when you want to refer to the object by a pronoun -- Spanish prefers the indirect object pronouns over the direct object ones to dispel ambiguities. Even though it's clearly a direct object we're talking about. In the Southern Cone of South America (Chile, Argentina, etc) they will use 'lo,las,los and las' instead of le,les for SE Impersonal -- but the vast majority of the Spanish speaking world definitely uses 'LE/LES' for third person object replacement in SE Impersonal.
> 
> I am the only one who would consider a mistake that use of le, when refering to a female DO ? I am Spanish and I would definitely say:
> Se las selecciona cada año.
> Maybe it's because I live in a non-leist area.


Thanks for your input Manicha. In the grammars I've read and in interviews I've done you input concurs with others from Galicia. Though all other non-leist areas of the world (except Southern Cone) use 'le' and 'les' there. All of Mexico, All of Peru, etc.. So this is not considered a normal leist usage at all by the RAE but rather a device of the language to avoid ambiguity. From the Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas:


> *f) * Es habitual que en las oraciones impersonales con _se_ (→ se, 2.1a) el complemento directo, especialmente cuando es masculino, se exprese con las formas de dativo y no con las de acusativo, como correspondería a la función desempeñada:_ Se le considera el mejor actor de su tiempo; Se les vio merodeando por la zona_. Parece demostrado que este tipo de oraciones se construían originariamente en castellano con pronombres de dativo. El uso de _le(s) _se ha mantenido mayoritariamente,* tanto en España como en gran parte de América,* cuando el complemento directo es masculino: _«A su bisabuelo hoy no le hubieran permitido vivir como vivió: se le consideraría como un ejemplo de inmoralidad» _(TBallester _Filomeno__«Se le vio_ [al niño] _algunas veces contento» _(VLlosa _Tía__«Se le obligó a aceptar el régimen de encomienda» _(Fuentes _Ceremonias_ [Méx. 1989]); _«En los puertos y rincones del Caribe se le conoció siempre como Wito» _(Mutis _Ilona_ [Col. 1988]); _«Al rey se le veía poco» _(UPietri _Visita_ [Ven. 1990]); sin embargo, cuando el complemento directo es femenino, lo normal es usar _la(s): «Se la veía muy contenta»_ (VLlosa _Tía_ [Perú 1977]); aunque no faltan ejemplos de _le(s):_ _«Tan enamorada se le observaba, tan desencajadamente arrebolada se le veía» _(Vergés _Cenizas_ [R. Dom. 1980]). Se trata, pues, de un caso especial en el que se emplean desde los orígenes las formas de dativo en función de complemento directo. No obstante, muchos hablantes, conscientes de que la función que cumple el pronombre en ese tipo de oraciones es la de complemento directo, emplean en estos casos los pronombres de acusativo, uso generalizado en los países del Cono Sur: _«Se lo veía zigzaguear entre los autos»_ (Cortázar _Reunión_ [Arg. 1983]); _«¡No se lo puede andar molestando por trivialidades!» _(Magnabosco _Santito_ [Ur. 1990]); _«Nunca se lo vio ladrar ni gruñir»_ (Allende _Casa_ [Chile 1982]).


As I read that again.. you are correct to point out that with 'feminine' direct objects it's more common to hear 'la/las'. I just wanted to point out that that in most Spanish speaking countries this use of 'le' is not like the use of 'le' for 'lo' in most leist areas like Central Spain.

In Mexico you will hear -- Se le veía (le=Eduardo) and not Se lo veía. But without the SE in the contruction you will hear 'lo'. Lo acompaño al aeropuerto. (In Madrid - Le acompaño...). So this is not the 'normal' leísmo. That's my point.

Grant


----------



## manicha

Oh! That is exactly what I would say. Se+la when la is replacing DO and se+le if le refers to a male, personal DO. I've just realized that my Spanish is very similar to the one from Mexico. Because I usually say: "A Juan lo vi en El Corte Inglés", but "A Juan se le vio comprando en El Corte Inglés". If it's Mary, I would say: "A María la vi en El Corte Inglés" y "A María se la vio comprando en El Corte Inglés". 
Thanks for the explanation, I had never realized that I usually change "lo" to "le" in those impersonal sentences.


----------



## dave 12345678

Hi Grant

I have spent the last week reading over this post, and have a much better "feel" for the contents now. As usual, your explanations are excellent.


b)passives where animate objects (people, animals, personified nouns) are clearly direct objects. The verb is always in singular and 'a' marks the animate direct object just like 'personal a'.
_Se selecciona a muchas mujeres cada año._ = Many women are chosen each year.
_Se les selecciona cada año._ = They (women) are chosen each year.
--as you can see in this example -- when you want to refer to the object by a pronoun -- *Spanish prefers the indirect object pronouns over the direct object ones to dispel ambiguities*

With reference to the "bolded" components above, where it says "to dispel ambiguities", I presume this means [ ignoring leísmo for now ] in order to prevent confusion with "double object pronoun structures" such as:

Se lo [ "It" [ masculine object ] to him/her/you for example ]

Se la [ "It" [ feminine object ] to him/her/you for example ]

Is that the reason  for "to dispel ambiguities" ?

Thanks

Dave


----------



## neal41

dave 12345678 said:


> b)passives where animate objects (people, animals, personified nouns) are clearly direct objects. The verb is always in singular and 'a' marks the animate direct object just like 'personal a'.
> _Se selecciona a muchas mujeres cada año._ = Many women are chosen each year.
> _Se les selecciona cada año._ = They (women) are chosen each year.
> --as you can see in this example -- when you want to refer to the object by a pronoun -- *Spanish prefers the indirect object pronouns over the direct object ones to dispel ambiguities*
> 
> With reference to the "bolded" components above, where it says "to dispel ambiguities", I presume this means [ ignoring leísmo for now ] in order to prevent confusion with "double object pronoun structures" such as:
> 
> Se lo [ "It" [ masculine object ] to him/her/you for example ]
> 
> Se la [ "It" [ feminine object ] to him/her/you for example ]
> 
> Is that the reason for "to dispel ambiguities" ?


 
According to Butt and Benjamin "the _se_ + transitive verb + personal _a_ construction has evolved to eliminate some of the ambiguities surrounding the overworked pronoun _se_."

"When a pronoun replaces the noun in this type of sentence, many speakers, including Latin Americans, prefer _le/les_ to _lo/la/los/las_, despite the fact that the pronouns are the direct object of the verb and may also be feminine." 

I don't think that this preference is for the purpose of dispelling ambiguity. Butt & Benjamin give examples with lo/la/los/las. I don't know the reason for the preference.

Se le/la nota cansada.


----------



## dave 12345678

Tks

Assuming that se lo, se la, se los, se las are indeed sometimes used in cases of the impersonal se using a direct object, what mechanisms are in place to prevent confusion with double object pronouns [ changing le lo to se lo for example, as an aid [ I believe ] to easier pronunciation ] ?

Could there not be some ambiguity here ?

i.e. se lo - case 1: "true" impersonal se using [ non -standard according to RAE ] lo as a direct object 

and

se lo simply as a "double object pronoun" ?

Dave

Dave


----------



## flljob

dave 12345678 said:


> Tks
> 
> Assuming that se lo, se la, se los, se las are indeed sometimes used in cases of the impersonal se using a direct object, what mechanisms are in place to prevent confusion with double object pronouns [ changing le lo to se lo for example, as an aid [ I believe ] to easier pronunciation ] ?
> 
> Dave
> 
> Dave


 
El mecanismo es usar le en lugar de lo

(Este pescado) se le come desde tiempos prehistóricos.
(este pescado) se lo comió rapidísimo.

Saludos.


----------



## NewdestinyX

dave 12345678 said:


> NewdestinyX said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Spanish prefers the indirect object pronouns over the direct object ones to dispel ambiguities*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With reference to the "bolded" components above, where it says "to dispel ambiguities", I presume this means [ ignoring leísmo for now ] in order to prevent confusion with "double object pronoun structures" such as:
> 
> Se lo [ "It" [ masculine object ] to him/her/you for example ]
> 
> Se la [ "It" [ feminine object ] to him/her/you for example ]
> 
> Is that the reason  for "to dispel ambiguities" ?
Click to expand...


Exactly.. It's a little more involved than that -- but that's a good general way to explain it to yourself. The 'le' could never be 'it' to anybody or anything.. The SE with the LE after it automatically shows you that you're working with an Impersonal SE/Passive SE or a Pronominal construction (where the SE is part of the verb) and the SE could never be a converted LE to prevent the 'le lo(s)/la(s) conundrum.

Talk soon,
Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

dave 12345678 said:


> Could there not be some ambiguity here ?
> 
> i.e. se lo - case 1: "true" impersonal se using [ non -standard according to RAE ] lo as a direct object
> 
> and
> 
> se lo simply as a "double object pronoun" ?


You're getting ahead of yourself. My answer to that question would confuse you horribly. Suffice it to say that you can't just analyze the 'se lo' versus 'se le' phenomenons and know exactly what they mean standing alone. It depends on the verb that comes next.

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

flljob said:


> El mecanismo es usar le en lugar de lo
> 
> (Este pescado) se le come desde tiempos prehistóricos.
> (este pescado) se lo comió rapidísimo.
> 
> Saludos.


I don't agree, filjob. That use of 'le' is incorrect.. 'Le' upon using 'leísmo' can only be used to refer to a male animate direct object - not a thing. Only 'lo' is correct there in both sentences.

Grant


----------



## flljob

Pues no. Deberías leer a Gómez Torrego. Para evitar ese tipo de ambigüedades se permite el leísmo.

Saludos


----------



## NewdestinyX

flljob said:


> Pues no. Deberías leer a Gómez Torrego. Para evitar ese tipo de ambigüedades se permite el leísmo.
> 
> Saludos


Pero -- no hay ambigüedad... Este pescado = cosa inanimado. El 'lo' (en "Se lo come") solo puede significar una cosa. Un pescado nunca se puede entender como 'él (una persona masculina)' -sino --> ello (una cosa)

Pero aun si no me explico correctamente -- el DPD hace claro mi argumento - y siempre eligo la RAE si hay diferencias de análisis entre los gramáticos. 

Tal vez no entienda yo tu argumento. ¿Podrías explicar qué crees que dice Torrego? ¿Dónde hay la ambigüedad en la oración con 'lo'?


----------



## dave 12345678

Hi

Just for my understanding, does the phrase:

 "(este pescado) se lo comió rapidísimo." 

mean:

[ In impersonal se ] 

"[ se, unknown person/s ] ate it [ the fish ] rapidly/quickly " ?

Thanks

Dave


----------



## Pinairun

Yes, it does.


----------



## flljob

dave 12345678 said:


> Hi
> 
> Just for my understanding, does the phrase:
> 
> "(este pescado) se lo comió rapidísimo."
> 
> mean:
> 
> [ In impersonal se ]
> 
> "[ se, unknown person/s ] ate it [ the fish ] rapidly/quickly " ?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Dave


 
No, no es impersonal: 
Yo me lo como, tú te lo comes, el *se* lo come, nosotros nos lo comemos.

El impersonal es: *se le* come actualmente sólo en algunos países.

Saludos


----------



## Bocha

*Nota del moderador

Se eliminaron una serie de mensajes que se apartaban del tema original de la discusión. Y que trataban de cuestiones ya debatidas en otros hilos.
*


----------

