# Double Object Pronouns when DO and IO are both people



## AkronJen

I am just thinking about how you would say "I give YOU to THEM" (using double object pronouns).  

I am not sure what the context for this would be.  But in this case "YOU" would be the Direct Object and "THEM" would be the Indirect Object.
Les te doy does not look or sound at all right, but it would be putting the placement of the Indirect Object Pronoun before the Direct Object Pronoun, before the verb. As in a "normal" type sentence:  I give the book to them = Se lo doy. 

I definitely would appreciate feedback on this one---from native speakers of Spanish as well.  

To me: yo te doy a ellos sounds the best.  (Or yo voy a darte a ellos).  But I think that this sentence should be able to take the double object pronoun construction?

Thanks.  I know this is not a typical double object sentence type construction.  I googled it but was unable to find any responses.


----------



## Collegebound23

The IO always goes first.  I have had sentences like this in a few compositions I've turned in and my professor has never marked them wrong. But if you still have doubts, just use the "te doy a ellos" form. 

Hope that helps!


----------



## inib

As you say, it's not easy to find a context in daily conversation, but I've come up against this obstacle on occasions too. I hope you'll get more answers, because like you, I'd be very scared to say "les te doy". 
I wish I could solve your doubt, but I'm afraid I'm going to complicate it further; I wouldn't worry so much about translating "we send them to you" as "te los enviamos", even if the "los" referred to several persons.


----------



## roanheads

Referring to the word order of a sequence of "object pronouns", I was taught to follow strictly the following order in relation to the verb.

se--te--me--le lo /la
and the plurals,
os--nos--les los/las.

Confirmed in the RAE as follows ( sorry I can't do a link, appears there are internal improvements in progress with the new edition)

"Orden de las secuencias de clíticos.  Un mismo verbo puede llevar dos hasta tres pronombres clíticos. que se anteponen o posponen al verbo siempre en bloque.
El orden no es libre y se somete, básicamente, a la regla que establece que los pronombres de segunda persona preceden a los de primera y estos a los de tercera, salvo a la forma "se" que precede a todas las demás.------."

Al of which confirms my order sequence as above.

Therefore, as " les te doy a ellos " not only sounds totally horrific and wrong,--- in accordance with the RAE it should be "te les doy a ellos".
I agree that " normally " the indirect object takes precedent, but in this quite unusual example the basic order rule may take command 

Hopefully, there will be some input from some of the " hispanohablantes"  !

Saludos.


----------



## blasita

Yes, I agree with Roanheads. 'Les te' is not correct (and it sounds terrible to me, by the way). The order is fixed and must be:

_se – second person pronoun – first person pronoun – third person pronoun._

So, for example: _Muerte, ¿por qué te lo llevas tan pronto?_ (siento el ejemplito, pero es lo primero que se me ha ocurrido).

Un saludo.


----------



## roanheads

blasita,
Esperaba que tú llegaras para aclararlo todo. Por cierto un hilo bien raro.
Saluditos.


----------



## inib

Thanks Roanheads and Blasita for your answers. I didn't know the rule about the order of the different persons, only that IO goes before DO.
Please ignore my example in the second half of post 3. There is obviously no problem there because the IO precedes the DO. I wrote in a hurry and had just focused on the title of the thread which mentioned both objects being people. I apologise for any confusion or for wasting anyone's time.


----------



## blasita

inib said:


> Thanks Roanheads and Blasita for your answers. I didn't know the rule about the order of the different persons, only that IO goes before DO.
> Please ignore my example in the second half of post 3. There is obviously no problem there because the IO precedes the DO. I wrote in a hurry and had just focused on the title of the thread which mentioned both objects being people. I apologise for any confusion or for wasting anyone's time.



Please do not apologise, Inib. No worries at all. Your comment was a good and interesting one, and it's helped a lot here.


----------



## roanheads

inib,
Your politeness and good manners are much appreciated.

SALUDOS


----------



## duvija

blasita said:


> Yes, I agree with Roanheads. 'Les te' is not correct (and it sounds terrible to me, by the way). The order is fixed and must be:
> 
> _se – second person pronoun – first person pronoun – third person pronoun._
> 
> So, for example: _Muerte, ¿por qué te lo llevas tan pronto?_ (siento el ejemplito, pero es lo primero que se me ha ocurrido).
> 
> Un saludo.



Good example, but more colloquial-  'Muerte, ¿por qué te me lo llevaste tan pronto?'


----------



## blasita

duvija said:


> Good example, but more colloquial-  'Muerte, ¿por qué te me lo llevaste tan pronto?'



Perfecto. De hecho, he estado a punto de escribirlo justo así porque me sonaba mejor, y la única razón por la que no lo he hecho ha sido por si podía confundir de alguna manera.

Un saludo.


----------



## MC Kosh

Hola a todos

La forma correcta es "Te *los* doy".

En primer lugar, quiero aclarar que "te" es el complemento indirecto y "los" el complemento directo. Eso queda más claro considerando la estructura básica del verbo dar: "dar algo (CD) a alguien (CI)". Por ejemplo: "Doy el libro (CD) a Pedro (CI)". 

En el ejemplo que propuso AkronJen, el objeto que se da es una persona, por lo tanto, la estructura básica quedaría como "dar a alguien (CD) a alguien (CI)". O sea: "Doy a ellos (CD) a ti (CI)". Hay que tener en cuenta que los complementos directos de persona van precedidos por la preposición "a". 

Ahora, la sustitución por los pronombres resulta fácil. Complemento indirecto: a ti => te. Complemento directo: a ellos => los. Por lo tanto: "Te (CI) los (CD) doy". Como casi siempre, el complemento indirecto precede al complemento directo. 

Espero que la explicación os sirva.

Un saludo.


----------



## blasita

MC Kosh said:


> Espero que la explicación os sirva.



Yes, Mc Kosh, I am sure that what you have said is going to be useful for AkronJen and others.

Anyway, we tried to give a different example as, to me, _dar una persona a alguien_ is quite unusual (but not impossible).

All about this (it's in Spanish):

http://buscon.rae.es/dpdI/SrvltConsulta?lema=dar.
http://buscon.rae.es/dpdI/SrvltConsulta?lema=pronombres (esp 4).

Saludos.


----------



## inib

MC Kosh said:


> Hola a todos
> 
> La forma correcta es "Te *los* doy".
> 
> En primer lugar, quiero aclarar que "te" es el complemento indirecto y "los" el complemento directo. Eso queda más claro considerando la estructura básica del verbo dar: "dar algo (CD) a alguien (CI)". Por ejemplo: "Doy el libro (CD) a Pedro (CI)".
> 
> En el ejemplo que propuso AkronJen, el objeto que se da es una persona, por lo tanto, la estructura básica quedaría como "dar a alguien (CD) a alguien (CI)". O sea: "Doy a ellos (CD) a ti (CI)". Hay que tener en cuenta que los complementos directos de persona van precedidos por la preposición "a".
> 
> Ahora, la sustitución por los pronombres resulta fácil. Complemento indirecto: a ti => te. Complemento directo: a ellos => los. Por lo tanto: "Te (CI) los (CD) doy". Como casi siempre, el complemento indirecto precede al complemento directo.
> 
> Espero que la explicación os sirva.
> 
> Un saludo.


I'm sorry, I seem to be the only one having problems with this, apart from AkronJen, so please be patient with me. As far as I can see, Akron is saying the opposite of the part I've now put in red. In his sentence *you* is the direct object and *them* is the indirect object. Or where am I going wrong?


----------



## James2000

Inib, I'm with you on this.  The direct and indirect objects seem to have swapped places between the original post and the one you've quoted.


----------



## Spug

inib, I read Mc Kosh's post exactly as you do: _Te los doy_ means _I give them to you_—almost the opposite of _I give you to them_. A ver si algún nativo confirma nuestra suposición... (blasita, ¿estás por ahí?)


----------



## blasita

Yes, I agree, Spug. _I give them to you_= _Te los doy._

I can't find a natural context for "I give you to them" in Spanish. In theory, I think it should be 'se te doy', because 'se' must precede the rest of the pronouns and this is the form that a third person pronoun takes when it goes before a C.D (actually before an 'acusativo átono'). However, this just does not work here; 'se te doy' is not right and I'd just say e.g. "Te voy a dar/Voy a darte a X (porque estoy harta de ti)"; this situation is quite odd.

Let's take a more usual situation, e.g.: "Te lo llevaré mañana a la consulta" (talking to my doctor about taking my son to the surgery/doctor's office tomorrow). _Te _(C.I. = a ti)_ lo_ (C.D. = in this case a person: my son). Talking to my son: "Te voy a llevar/Voy a llevarte mañana al médico (, así es que te tendrás que levantar una hora antes)."

Sorry, if I've made mistakes, please correct me. Just typed this quickly, and it's likely to be incomplete. I'll try to give it a thought as soon as I get home, but I'm sure that some of our grammar experts will have given a perfect explanation by then.


----------



## manicha

I think the right form is "te les doy" (te CD, les CI) but I would try to avoid it and go for "te di a xxxx". If I were to hear "Te les doy", I would assume that the person is "leísta" (so, he uses CI forms when he should use CD forms) and that he is actually saying it wrong, instead of: "Te los doy"


----------



## duvija

Let me add a little context. Let's talk about slavery, where is perfectly ok to give someone to someone (I didn't say it's moral, just possible).


----------



## gringuitoloco

I would say "Se te doy."

This is my reasoning:

R.I.D. The order of pronouns is reflexive, indirect, direct. The indirect object is "them" =les; the direct object is "you" =te; When you have "les/le" before a direct object, you change it to "se."

Therefore: Se te doy. 

It cannot be "te les doy," because you cannot change the order of the pronouns. You cannot say "Te los doy," because that would change what and to whom you are giving. I think we all agree that "Les te doy" sounds terrible, and I don't think anyone believes this to be correct, so I would go with "Se te doy."



Those are my 2¢ =)


----------



## Spug

blasita said:


> Yes, I agree, Spug. _I give them to you_= _Te los doy._
> 
> I can't find a natural context for "I give you to them" in Spanish...




Hola blasita, gracias por tu respuesta.

Y para que sepas... yo tampoco encuentro ningún contexto en inglés para _I give you to them_ que no suene poco habitual. Es una construcción (en mi opinón) que realmente choca. Un saludo...


----------



## blasita

Spug said:


> Hola blasita, gracias por tu respuesta.
> Y para que sepas... yo tampoco encuentro ningún contexto en inglés para _I give you to them_ que no suene poco habitual. Es una construcción (en mi opinón) que realmente choca. Un saludo...



Muchas gracias, Spug.  Siento de veras no haber podido todavía dar una explicación adecuada; a ver si alguien se anima.

Otra idea: se podría decir en general p.ej. "se te dará", etc.; es correcto, pero no iría aquí. "Se te doy" no tiene ningún sentido en mi opinión.

Un cordial saludo.


----------



## SevenDays

AkronJen said:


> I am just thinking about how you would say "I give YOU to THEM" (using double object pronouns).
> 
> I am not sure what the context for this would be.  But in this case "YOU" would be the Direct Object and "THEM" would be the Indirect Object.
> Les te doy does not look or sound at all right, but it would be putting the placement of the Indirect Object Pronoun before the Direct Object Pronoun, before the verb. As in a "normal" type sentence:  I give the book to them = Se lo doy.
> 
> I definitely would appreciate feedback on this one---from native speakers of Spanish as well.
> 
> To me: yo te doy a ellos sounds the best.  (Or yo voy a darte a ellos).  But I think that this sentence should be able to take the double object pronoun construction?
> 
> Thanks.  I know this is not a typical double object sentence type construction.  I googled it but was unable to find any responses.



Hello
It's an interesting question. Traditional grammar calls "to them" an indirect object, but there are pretty good syntactic reasons against such label. The most basic reason is that an object's natural position is immediately after the transitive verb, but "to them" is too far removed from "give" to be called an _object_ (and if it isn't an object, then "to them" can't be an _indirect object_). "To them" is simply a prepositional phrase, a complement of the direct object. The same reasoning works in the translation: "a ellos" is a prepositional phrase; because "a ellos" is not really an indirect object, it's quite reluctant to accept a construction with "les." Your instinct, I think, was spot on: *Te doy a ellos,* where "te" functions as direct object, and "a ellos" as complement of the direct object. ("Complement" or "complemento" is linguistic shorthand to refer to a grammatical element that _completes_ the meaning of another element.) But, when it comes to terminology, there are lots of opinions.
Cheers


----------



## gringuitoloco

I would also like to give an example where one could say it in English.

When introducing someone in front of an audience, it is quiet common to hear: Ladies and gentlemen, I give you SOMEBODY! *applause*

This is a very common introduction where you would give someone to someone else.

However, in this case it is slightly different because you wouldn't really use a pronoun for whoever was "given."


----------



## duvija

gringuitoloco said:


> I would also like to give an example where one could say it in English.
> 
> When introducing someone in front of an audience, it is quiet common to hear: Ladies and gentlemen, I give you SOMEBODY! *applause*
> 
> This is a very common introduction where you would give someone to someone else.
> 
> However, in this case it is slightly different because you wouldn't really use a pronoun for whoever was "given."



Buen contexto, pero en español diríamos '¡Y aquí les doy a Carlos Gardel'!

Prueben usar 'presentar' en lugar de 'dar'.


----------



## inib

Wow! The mystery thickens, and gradually we seem to be coming to the conclusion that it just can't be translated so literally from English to Spanish, unless we say "te doy a ellos". (I had also wondered about Manicha's idea of "te *les* doy", but that doesn't seem popular at all).
As some members seem to find the context rather unlikely, I'll propose another paralell one. Suppose I'm telling my son that he's going to spend the summer with his grandparents; I say "I'm going to send *you* (DO) to *them"* (IO/prepositional phrase?) = ¿Te les voy a mandar/te voy a mandar a ellos/se te voy a mandar? 
I didn't like SevenDays' prepositional phrase theory at first, but it is supported by the suggestion made to me by Blasita via PM, that perhaps the most natural way of saying it would be "Te voy a mandar *CON* ellos".


----------



## edw

Example in context: 

_Okay, I'll talk. Ted Jones knows you witnessed the murder. He  found  the end of the marijuana cigarette you were smoking. He sent two men  over here--Budlofsky and Matheson.  They are two big dangerous men.  They're goal is to kill you, men,  and they're going to kill me, too,  unless* I give you to them.* So you  are in a hopeless situation. _

I would the translation the sentence in question this way:

_Su objetivo es matarlos, amigos, y me matarán a mí también, a menos que * te de a ellos. *_

But a better translation would it be: _a menos que *te *entregue *a ellos*_.

Anyway, the OD and OI are expressed the same in Spanish.


----------



## inib

edw said:


> Example in context:
> 
> _Okay, I'll talk. Ted Jones knows you witnessed the murder. He found the end of the marijuana cigarette you were smoking. He sent two men over here--Budlofsky and Matheson. They are two big dangerous men. (They're) their goal is to kill you, men, and they're going to kill me, too, unless* I give you to them.* So you are in a hopeless situation. _
> 
> I would the translation the sentence in question this way:
> 
> _Su objetivo es matarlos, amigos, y me matarán a mí también, a menos que *te de a ellos. *_
> 
> But a better translation would it be: _a menos que *te *entregue *a ellos*_.
> 
> Anyway, the OD and OI are expressed the same in Spanish.


Another good example. These structures CAN exist.


----------



## duvija

inib said:


> Another good example. These structures CAN exist.



_...a menos que *te *entregue *a ellos *_.

And this would be a good way of saying it, clearly! We probably avoid using CD and CI pronouns, with the particular verb 'dar'. (Some people say 'when a language paints itself in a linguistic corner, you find another solution'. I think this is one of those cases).


----------



## roanheads

Referring to " a menos que te dé a ellos "---- " a ellos " would be the complemento tónico, but according to RAE , with such complemento tónico ( dealing with persons) should, by obligation, also contain  the complemento átono, which would be "les "or " se ".

I quote DPD,

5.1--- Si el complemento tónico es también un pronombre personal, la coaparición del pronombre átono es obligatoria, tanto si el complemento es directo como indirecto.---*Me *castigaron a mí.----a ti *Te *dieron el premio,  ( no Castigaron a mí. -- no A ti dieron el premio.  )     
Aunque son posibles, en estos casos oraciones idénticas sin el complemento tónico.---Me castigaron---Te dieron el premio.


I am not a grammar expert, but as a keen student of Castellano I would appreciate to know whether the above comments add to ,or detract from, this teasing thread.

Saludos.


----------



## inib

Good for you, Roanheads. We'd missed that one.


----------



## duvija

roanheads said:


> Referring to " a menos que te dé a ellos "---- " a ellos " would be the complemento tónico, but according to RAE , with such complemento tónico ( dealing with persons) should, by obligation, also contain the complemento átono, which would be "les "or " se ".
> I quote DPD,
> 5.1--- Si el complemento tónico es también un pronombre personal, la coaparición del pronombre átono es obligatoria, tanto si el complemento es directo como indirecto.---*Me *castigaron a mí.----a ti *Te *dieron el premio, ( no Castigaron a mí. -- no A ti dieron el premio. )
> Aunque son posibles, en estos casos oraciones idénticas sin el complemento tónico.---Me castigaron---Te dieron el premio.
> 
> I am not a grammar expert, but as a keen student of Castellano I would appreciate to know whether the above comments add to ,or detract from, this teasing thread.
> 
> Saludos.



Ok, now I'm lost. What would the sentence be like then, using 'se/les'?
"... a menos que se te entregue a ellos?/ a menos que te les entregue a ellos?" glup...


----------



## inib

Hello again everyone. 
I've received an answer from the RAE.
My question - not exactly the original one (I avoided that because so many "foreros" were of the opinion that it was an unlikely situation and I didn't want to go into paragraphs of possible contexts) - was about the example I posed in post 26 = "I'm going to send you (DO)to them (?)"
This was their reply:


> En relación con su consulta, le remitimos la siguiente información:
> 
> Construcciones como las que usted plantea se generan normalmente en contextos orales y coloquiales: Ä _Te les voy a mandar / _Ä _Te voy a mandar a ellos._ Bordean la agramaticalidad, no se pueden considerar propias del español culto estándar, y no serían recomendables en un contexto de lenguaje esmerado, especialmente por escrito.
> El lenguaje oral busca métodos —a veces gramaticalmente poco "ortodoxos"— para expresar resumidamente una idea que, de otro modo, debería extenderse más en el discurso.
> 
> El verbo _mandar_ en el sentido de 'enviar a alguien o remitir algo' es transitivo, pero mientras que admite con facilidad un complemento indirecto de destinatario cuando lo que se envía es una cosa (_Mañana les voy a mandar el paquete a los abuelos / Les voy a mandar el paquete / Se lo voy a mandar_), e incluso también cuando el complemento directo es de persona (_Les voy a mandar al niño a los abuelos / Les voy a mandar al niño / Se lo voy a mandar), _sin embargo, no sería admisible combinar dicha construcción con un pronombre de segunda persona, tal como usted propone (Ä_Te les voy a mandar a los abuelos_).
> 
> Por otra parte, en estos casos sí sería normal la presencia de un complemento introducido por _con: Te voy a mandar con los abuelos. _
> __
> 
> Reciba un cordial saludo.
> __________
> Departamento de «Español al día»
> Real Academia Española
> 
> Nota: El símbolo Ä precede a las formas o usos incorrectos o desaconsejables según la norma culta del español actual


I am extremely grateful to the RAE for this information, but realise that I needn't have even made this query when we can count on the expertise of Blasita and Sevendays (see post 26 again), and so many other knowlegeable members.
Thanks to you all, and I hope this does help to clear up the original question. (My apologies if it doesn't, if "mandar" and "dar" are not quite the same).
PS: The blue text is my addition.


----------



## duvija

inib said:


> Hello again everyone.
> I've received an answer from the RAE.
> My question - not exactly the original one (I avoided that because so many "foreros" were of the opinion that it was an unlikely situation and I didn't want to go into paragraphs of possible contexts) - was about the example I posed in post 26 = "I'm going to send you (DO)to them (?)"
> This was their reply:
> 
> I am extremely grateful to the RAE for this information, but realise that I needn't have even made this query when we can count on the expertise of Blasita and Sevendays (see post 26 again), and so many other knowlegeable members.
> Thanks to you all, and I hope this does help to clear up the original question. (My apologies if it doesn't, if "mandar" and "dar" are not quite the same).
> PS: The blue text is my addition.



Hey! ¿y ni me das bolilla? (kinda - what am I, chopped liver? ) boooo, booo.... 
_(Some people say 'when a language paints itself in a linguistic corner, you find another solution'. I think this is one of those cases).
_


----------



## inib

Of course, Duvija, you were right too. Nice thread, lots of people were right (even I was, if you read only one bit of my sentence "_gradually we seem to be coming to the conclusion that it just can't be translated so literally from English to Spanish"_!)


----------



## duvija

inib said:


> Of course, Duvija, you were right too. Nice thread, lots of people were right (even I was, if you read only one bit of my sentence "_gradually we seem to be coming to the conclusion that it just can't be translated so literally from English to Spanish"_!)



You're right, nice thread!


----------



## blasita

A very interesting thread indeed!

Thank you very much, Inib. I made my last contributions via PM because I was just waiting for their answer to your question. It's good to see that the RAE agrees with me and us . Gracias. Un saludito.

Un saludo a todos.


----------



## AkronJen

Hi all!
Wow, I love that this generated so much discussion and just wanted to come back and thank everyone!  I realize the realistic/contextual usage of my sentence in question is not common.  I was actually thinking in the context of slavery or indentured servitude.  (But I was also thinking it could be a child to the grandparents for custody).  

I also had no idea that so many people had commented on this!  I was only notified of the initial first comment, and I thought the topic had died.  It was a pleasant surprise to read all of the feedback.  I do realize that this construction is not commonly said, but was mainly just super curious about how one 'would' do it if trying to use typical DO/IO structures.  Really interesting discussion (at least to me).  Thanks everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## inib

And thanks to you, Akron, for making us think about it.


----------



## neal41

I have asked native speakers about examples like this, and I think that duvija's comment captures the essence of the matter.  (When a languages paints itself in a linguistic corner, you find another solution.  The order of the pronouns is invariable; my impression is that cases in which the order leads to an unacceptable result are an exception to the rule that you cite.  Another example would be "He gave me to you" and "He gave you to me".  I believe that the first is "Te me dio" and the second is "Me dio a ti".


----------

