# les lo --> se lo



## dave 12345678

Hi Guys

I’ve been having a hard time recently with “se” in certain contexts.

There have been some other postings on this subject, however most of the answers have been in Spanish and I am a beginner.

I shall have to break down my questions into several steps.

If possible, please reply in English.

Step 1.

Indirect Object Pronoun Followed By Direct Object Pronoun:

Let’s say we have a gift and we are sending it to a group of amigos.

We could say “LES LO enviamos “ “We send IT to THEM”

However, the “LES to SE” rule makes us say the following:

“SE LO enviamos”

Firstly, is this correct ?

Tks

Dave


----------



## Catalonia

dave 12345678 said:


> Hi Guys
> 
> I’ve been having a hard time recently with “se” in certain contexts.
> There have been some other postings on this subject, however most of the answers have been in Spanish and I am a beginner.
> I shall have to break down my questions into several steps.
> If possible, please reply in English.
> Step 1.
> Indirect Object Pronoun Followed By Direct Object Pronoun:
> Let’s say we have a gift and we are sending it to a group of amigos.
> We could say “LES LO enviamos “ “We send IT to THEM”
> However, the “LES to SE” rule makes us say the following:
> “SE LO enviamos”
> Firstly, is this correct ?
> Tks
> Dave


 
Hi Dave!

Indeed, in that context you should say "Se lo enviamos" (the pronoun SE stands for "al grupo de amigos" [the group of friends], the pronoun LO stands for "el regalo" [the present] and we don't need to use the subject "nosotros" [we] 'cos it's included in the verb ending "enviamos").

However, if instead of using LO you said "el regalo", you would say "Les enviamos el regalo" and LES would stand for "a los amigos".

I don't know exactly the rule behind that, I just can tell you that you would never say "les lo" in Spanish, it'll always be "se lo".

I hope it'll help...

C.


----------



## Pitt

Hello,

You are right. You can't say: LES LO enviamos.
But it is correct: SE LO enviamos. 
You must replace LES (or LE) by SE.

Regards,
Pitt


----------



## dave 12345678

Sorry, I repeated my previous post again accidentally.

Here's the new one:


Step 2

“Leism”

I understand that in some parts of Spain etc that the direct object pronoun “LO” can be replaced with the  term “LE”. In other words having the same physical spelling as the indirect object ‘LE” but being used as a direct object.

Using the same example as above,  we could say 

“SE LE enviamos”

Is this correct ?

If this is correct,  I presume that  we can only replace “LO” with “LE” and NOT “LA”, “LOS” or “LAS” with “LE”. Is this correct ?

Tks
Dave


----------



## manicha

Definitely, SE LE enviamos is incorrect. It is true that LE can replace LO as Direct Object (DO) sometimes, but there are restriction to this: That LO has to refer to a personal, male, singular subject. Example: "A María la llamaron por teléfono"- "A Juan lo/le llamaron por teléfono". As I live in a non-leist region, le sound a little odd to me, but I'm quite certain that "le llamaron por teléfono" is ok. 
But if the OD is not a male person, you cannot use le. Example: "Visitamos la ciudad/Visitamos a María", in both cases is "la visitamos". But "Visitamos el pueblo/Visitamos a Juan" is only "Lo visitamos" in the first case and "Le visitamos/lo visitamos" in the second case.


----------



## dave 12345678

Tks

So, to summarize, with respect to the use of SE in double object pronouns:

With an indirect object pronoun followed by a direct object pronoun, the following combinations are allowed:

SE LO

SE LA

SE LOS

SE LAS

Also, in some areas, we can have SE LE, provided that the "LE" is substituting for a singular male object.

Is this correct before I move onto the SE PASSIVE ?

Tks

Dave


----------



## manicha

I do not recommend to use "se+le" if le is DO. 
You should say: 
Llevé el niño/la niña a sus abuelos
Les llevé el niño/la niña.
Se lo/se la llevé. 
Compré el esclavo/la esclava a un rico romano/a una rica romana.
Le compré el esclavo/la esclava.
Se lo/la compré
Encontraron un marido a Susana.
Le encontraron un marido. 
Se lo encontraron.
Anyway, although it is correct, as a native speaker I would try to use a different way to express that, or I just would not ommit the DO. There is no need to be that economic! I would never say: Se le llevé (al niño) a sus abuelos, that is very vulgar. 

But you have to keep in mind that many times there is a "se+le" combination which is correct, because se is reflexive, non-personal, etc. (I'n not sure about grammar concepts, you know). Example: A Juan se le cayeron los paquetes. A María se le presentó una duda. Al estudiante se le encargó un trabajo. This are correct sentences, because se is not IO.


----------



## Pitt

dave 12345678 said:


> Tks
> 
> So, to summarize, with respect to the use of SE in double object pronouns:
> 
> With an indirect object pronoun followed by a direct object pronoun, the following combinations are allowed:
> 
> SE LO
> 
> SE LA
> 
> SE LOS
> 
> SE LAS
> 
> Also, in some areas, we can have SE LE, provided that the "LE" is substituting for a singular male object.
> 
> Is this correct before I move onto the SE PASSIVE ?
> 
> Tks
> 
> Dave


 
Hi Dave,

in my opinion only is correct:

Se [complemento indirecto] lo/los/la/las [complemento directo]

But it is incorrect:

Se [complemento indirecto] le/les [complemento directo/leísmo]

In this combination the _leísmo_ doesn't work.

Pitt


----------



## Pitt

manicha said:


> But you have to keep in mind that many times there is a "se+le" combination which is correct, because se is reflexive, non-personal, etc. (I'n not sure about grammar concepts, you know). Example: A Juan se le cayeron los paquetes. A María se le presentó una duda. Al estudiante se le encargó un trabajo. This are correct sentences, because se is not IO.


 
En estos ejemplos SE no tiene ninguna función sintáctica: es un componente de un _verbo pronominal_ (p.ej. _caerse, presentarse,_ _encargarse_). Ejemplo:

A Juan se le cayeron los paquetes.

A Juan / le = complemento indirecto
se = componente del verbo pronominal _caerse_
los paquetes = sujeto

Saludos


----------



## dave 12345678

1. In this case: "A Juan se le cayeron los paquetes."

Does this mean that the "se" here is a reflexive pronoun and le is an indirect object pronoun ?

Does it translate to "Juan carried the packages to him/her/you [ le ] ?"



2. From what has been said previously, does this mean that "leism" LE is not usually used in a SE LO type of expression where SE is an indirect object pronoun and LO is an indirect object pronoun ?

In other words, Is it correct that we would not replace SE LO [ indirect/direct ] with "Leism" SE LE [ indirect/direct ] in normal speech ?

Tks


----------



## Pitt

dave 12345678 said:


> 1. In this case: "A Juan se le cayeron los paquetes."
> 
> Does this mean that the "se" here is a reflexive pronoun and le is an indirect object pronoun ?
> SE is a reflexive pronoun, but it doesn't work as a direct or indirect object.
> A Juan/LE is an indirect object.
> Los paquetes is the subject.
> 
> Does it translate to "Juan carried the packages to him/her/you [ le ] ?"
> A Juan se le cayeron los paquetes = Juan dropped the packages (in my opinion!).
> 
> 
> 2. From what has been said previously, does this mean that "leism" LE is not usually used in a SE LO type of expression where SE is an indirect object pronoun and LO is an indirect object pronoun ?
> LO is a direct object.
> 
> In other words, Is it correct that we would not replace SE LO [ indirect/direct ] with "Leism" SE LE [ indirect/direct ] in normal speech ?
> Only is correct: SE [indirect object] LO [direct object].
> In any case is incorrect: SE [indirect object] LE.
> 
> Tks


 
Pitt


----------



## dave 12345678

I presume then that we only have a "leism" when used for a direct object only.

e.g. 

A Juan toma el refresco

A Juan lo toma

WITH LEISM this becomes 

A Juan le toma

Is this correct ?


----------



## Pitt

dave 12345678 said:


> I presume then that we only have a "leism" when used for a direct object only.
> 
> e.g.
> 
> A Juan toma el refresco
> 
> A Juan lo toma
> 
> WITH LEISM this becomes
> 
> A Juan le toma
> 
> Is this correct ?


 
Juan toma el refresco [direct object] >
Juan lo [direct object] toma.
Juan le toma = incorrect (_leísmo_ not acceptable)
The use of LE instead of LO/LA (direct object) for a thing is incorrect.


----------



## dave 12345678

A Juan se le cayeron los paquetes :does this mean literally

The packets [ los paquetes ], they [ se ]  fell to him [ le, "juan" ] ?

In other words is "le" an indirect object meaning "to him" i.e. "to Juan" ?


----------



## dave 12345678

Juan toma el refresco [direct object] >
Juan lo [direct object] toma.
Juan le toma = incorrect (_leísmo_ not acceptable)
The use of LE instead of LO/LA (direct object) for a thing is incorrect. 

1. Is this correct :

Juan veo a Pedro

Juan lo veo

WITH LEISM 

Juan le veo


----------



## dave 12345678

This has not been easy for me, but I am determined to conquer 'Señor Se" !!!


----------



## dave 12345678

As a side issue, does the personal "a" e.g. A Juan only occur inside a sentence and not at the beginning ?

Tks


----------



## Pitt

dave 12345678 said:


> Juan toma el refresco [direct object] >
> Juan lo [direct object] toma.
> Juan le toma = incorrect (_leísmo_ not acceptable)
> The use of LE instead of LO/LA (direct object) for a thing is incorrect.
> 
> 1. Is this correct :
> 
> Juan veo a Pedro
> 
> Juan lo veo
> 
> WITH LEISM
> 
> Juan le veo


 

Juan ve a Pedro [direct object] > Juan lo [direct object].
LO is correct.

Juan ve a Pedro [direct object] > Juan le [direct object] ve.
LE instead of LO (direct object) for a masculine person is acceptable.

Juan ve a María > Juan la ve.
LA is correct.

Juan ve a María > *Juan le ve.
LE instead of LA (direct object) for a feminine person is incorrect.


----------



## Pitt

dave 12345678 said:


> As a side issue, does the personal "a" e.g. A Juan only occur inside a sentence and not at the beginning ?
> 
> Tks


 
A Juan [indirect object] se le [indirect object] cayeron los paquetes.

For people as direct and indirect object the preposition *a* (the personal 'a') is always necessary:
Conozco *a *Juan [direct object].
Le [indirect object] doy un regalo *a* Juan [indirect object].

For people as subject the preposition a is not used:
Juan toma un refresco.


----------



## NewdestinyX

dave 12345678 said:


> This has not been easy for me, but I am determined to conquer 'Señor Se" !!!


I admire your tenacity, Dave, to take on 'Señor SE'. I don't want to crush your hopes -- but you won't 'master' it any time soon. I've been a student of Spanish for 10 years now and tutor it at the college level and it still occasionally surprises me. The rules of the forum don't really allow for you to ask about every case of SE in one thread as you said earlier -- "before I move on to SE Passive". That will have to its own thread per the rules of the forum. SE is just to large a topic.

As for the focus of this thread I find, in my tutoring that you make some 'always' and 'never' statments to student giving the caveat that there are exceptions to the rules -- "but you don't need them now".

To your recent question.. Is 'SE + LE' ever a 'leism' -- I'm gonna tell you -- No!... Just forget that notion that the 'le' is ever a replacement for LO. 

When you think of indirect object replacement by SE the only choices are as you outlined..
SE + Lo/La/Los/Las
Se lo dio = (s)he gave it to him/her/them/you (formal) (it=masculine object)
Se la dio = (s)he gave it to him/her/them/you (formal) (it=feminine object)
etc., etc. (for 'los' and 'las')

After wrestling with Sr. SE for many years I finally concluded you have to go after it by learning all its 'cases'. So in a course I wrote I explain every case.  Here are the cases -- if you have any specific 'questions' about any case.. Start a new thread for each case for which you have a question.

Case #1-SE to replace LE/LES
Case #2-To Convey Reflexive and Reciprocal Senses (myself/herself, etc. /each other/one another and acts done inherently to oneself like shaving)
Case #3-The Obligatory Pronominal (SE has to appear with the verb like 'arrepentirse')
Case #4-For Adding Nuance or Aspect Change (negar = deny/negarse a = refuse to - and many other verbs where adding the se and the reflexive poronouns adds a nuance)
Case #5-For Emphasizing Total Consumption (adding the reflexive pronoun shows totality of an acting of consuming)
Case #6-For Expression or Emphasis (removable and still carries meaning)
Case #7-For Indicating Emotional State (alegrarse = to get happy)
Case #8-For Indicating a Change in Mental State or Situation (perderse - to get lost; enfadarse = to get mad versus enfadar = to make someone else mad)
Case #9-Accidental/No Fault ‘SE’ (olvidársele = to forget accidentally)
Case #10-For Stating ‘Happenings’ and ‘Movement’ from an Unknown Cause (se hundió el barco = the ship sank (by some unknown force)
Case #11- for Passive voice
Case #12- for Impersonal sentences with direct objects and without

Enjoy the pursuit of Sr. SE.. Love that..

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pitt said:


> A Juan [indirect object] se le [indirect object] cayeron los paquetes.
> 
> For people as direct and indirect object the preposition *a* (the personal 'a') is always necessary:
> Conozco *a *Juan [direct object].
> Le [indirect object] doy un regalo *a* Juan [indirect object].
> 
> For people as subject the preposition a is not used:
> Juan toma un refresco.


We have to be careful Pitt when we explain this that we don't imply that the 'a' in both cases you mention has the same function. The role of 'a' in marking a direct object is "personal a" where the 'a' that marks an indirect obkect is a 'prepositional a' that actually is a translatable word to other languages (a = to/for/at/from -- depending on the verb). Personal 'a' is not a translatable particle. 

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

dave 12345678 said:


> As a side issue, does the personal "a" e.g. A Juan only occur inside a sentence and not at the beginning ?
> 
> Tks


Not quite the case.. If it's a person, who's the direct object then personal A still appears.

Both indirect objects and direct objects can come before the verb in Spanish and in each case the 'direct' or 'indirect' object pronouns must be redundantly stated -- but in the case of an  inanimate direct object 'no 'a' when at the beginning.

A Juan le dio el premio. (indirect at beginning)
Mi chaqueta la dejé en la sala (direct 'inanimate' object at beginning)
A Juan lo conozco. (direct 'animate' object at the beginning.

Grant


----------



## neal41

dave 12345678 said:


> This has not been easy for me, but I am determined to conquer 'Señor Se" !!!


 
'Se' is very common in Spanish and its usage is complicated. You will find a good explanation of all of this in _A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish_ by John Butt and Carmen Benjamin. Section 28.4 is devoted to Passive 'se' .


----------



## dave 12345678

Many Thanks 

This was all leading to some sentences in a story I am reading just now.

The story is called "Temprano y con sol" by Emilia Pardo Bazán 

The sentence reads "La condesa de Pardo Bazán alcanzó el honor de ser la primera mujer a quien se le dio una cátedra en la Universidad Central"

I'll start a new thread on this one.

Also, if you have time, could you please provide a sample sentence or two for the above 12 cases that you gave ?

That way, I could print them out on a sheet of paper and refer to them when I come across the different "types" of se.


Dave


----------



## dave 12345678

Many Thanks

That list is very useful.

I'm going to print it out and use it as a reference when I'm reading spanish stories.

If you get the chance, I'd be very grateful if you would please provide a sample sentence or two for each of the cases above.


I will start a new thread on the following: "se le dio".


Dave


----------



## Pitt

NewdestinyX said:


> We have to be careful Pitt when we explain this that we don't imply that the 'a' in both cases you mention has the same function. The role of 'a' in marking a direct object is "personal a" where the 'a' that marks an indirect obkect is a 'prepositional a' that actually is a translatable word to other languages (a = to/for/at/from -- depending on the verb). Personal 'a' is not a translatable particle.
> 
> Grant


 
Hi Grant!

Thanks for the correction! The 'personal a' only refers to a person as direct object.

Pitt


----------



## Pitt

dave 12345678 said:


> Hi Guys
> 
> I’ve been having a hard time recently with “se” in certain contexts.
> 
> Dave


 

You can find the different uses of SE in the 'Diccionario panhispánico de dudas (DPD):

http://buscon.rae.es/dpdI/SrvltConsulta?lema=se

Pitt


----------



## NewdestinyX

dave 12345678 said:


> Many Thanks
> 
> That list is very useful.
> 
> I'm going to print it out and use it as a reference when I'm reading spanish stories.
> 
> If you get the chance, I'd be very grateful if you would please provide a sample sentence or two for each of the cases above.
> 
> 
> I will start a new thread on the following: "se le dio".
> 
> 
> Dave


I will send the pages from my course that contain the examples.. Via private message.

SE LE is another topic.. It is either:
• SE Impersonal with direct object. The 'le' is used instead of 'lo/la/los/las' to dispel ambiguities. -or it's-
• SE-Passive where the LE is an indirect object with verbs of motion away from the subject (e.g. give, send, etc.)

But if you opened a thread we'll discuss it there..

Grant


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pitt said:


> You can find the different uses of SE in the 'Diccionario panhispánico de dudas (DPD):
> 
> http://buscon.rae.es/dpdI/SrvltConsulta?lema=se
> 
> Pitt


Ese artículo es imposible entender cuando uno aún es estudiante intermedio. ¿No te parece?

Grant


----------



## Pitt

NewdestinyX said:


> Ese artículo es imposible entender cuando uno aún es estudiante intermedio. ¿No te parece?
> 
> Grant


 
En cualquier caso, vale un intento.

Pitt


----------



## NewdestinyX

Pitt said:


> En cualquier caso, vale un intento.
> 
> Pitt


Pues sí -- no me malinterpretes -- me encanta ese artículo. Me ha enseñado mucho. Pero no explica todos los 'casos' de SE. No explica 'no fault SE'. No explica 'se' de consumo total. No explica SE intransitivador, SE de matización, etc.. Solo explica las funciones 'sintácticas' de SE. Un estudiante intermedio tiene que aprender los casos (semánticos) de SE para aprender cómo usarlo. Somos nosotros estudiantes avanzados que queremos aprender las funciones sintácticas. 

Grant


----------



## Juanramon

Tal vez te ayude este enlace

Saludos.


----------

