# Ni a tres metros de mÍ



## Vina2010

Hi, Can anybody help me with this phrase?

"Déjame en paz. No quiero ni que lo vean ni a 3 millas de distancia de mí"

My attemps: 

1)Leave me alone. I don’t even want you to be seen three miles away from me.
 
2)Leave me alone. I don’t want you to be seen not even three miles away from me.
 
Many thanks!
 
Hugs!


----------



## aurilla

Leave me alone. I don't want you to be seen even three miles from me.


----------



## gengo

I would make it less literal.

Leave me alone. I don’t want you within three miles of me.

Or, if it is important to mention the "ver" part:

Leave me alone. I don’t want you spotted within three miles of me.


----------



## Vina2010

Thanks Aurilla and Gengo!!

Hugs!

Vina


----------



## gengo

Vina2010 said:


> "Déjame en paz. No quiero ni que lo vean ni a 3 millas de distancia de mí"



One thing confuses me here.  You are using the informal form in the first sentence, but then use "lo" in the second, which you translate as "you," meaning that it is the usted form.  Why is it not "te" here?


----------



## stretch

Good point, gengo.


----------



## Vina2010

The context is this one. There is a girl and a boy and he wants to explain her something, but she does not want to listen. The matter is that this girl has been forbidden to talk, as she is a servant in a house, and this is why she tells him: No quiero ni que lo vean a 3 millas de mí. She does not want anybody to see that he is with her. Can you understand now, Gengo?

Many thanks!!!! 

Huge hugs!


----------



## Vina2010

She is a servant. She always uses the usted in English; though in Spanish "TE" would be all right.


----------



## stretch

Vina2010 said:


> She is a servant. She always uses the usted in English; though in Spanish "TE" would be all right.



This makes no sense whatsoever.  I am very confused.  Besides, the question is about the Spanish, not the English.  Why do you mix the informal command "déjame" with the formal "...lo vean..." later?  This is a mistake that rookie Spanish-speakers make, which makes the text confusing as to what's going on.


----------



## Vina2010

She does not want sbody to see him with her


----------



## Vina2010

Sorry I did read properly. She says dejeme en paz. Sorry. Thanks again


----------



## Vina2010

I did not read properly


----------



## gengo

Vina2010 said:


> The context is this one. There is a girl and a boy and he wants to explain her something to her, but she does not want to listen. The matter is that this girl has been forbidden to talk, as she is a servant in a house, and this is why she tells him: No quiero ni que lo vean a 3 millas de mí. She does not want anybody to see that he is with her. Can you understand now, Gengo?



Entiendo lo que dices, pero todavía no me has contestado a mi pregunta.

Edit:  I just now read your post #11.  OK, now it's clear.


----------



## stretch

Vina2010 said:


> She does not want sbody to see him with her



Sí, esa parte se entiende fácilmente.  Lo que no se entiende es lo que acabo de mencionar, respecto a la incongruencia entre "tú" y "usted" que aparece en el texto que nos diste.  Primero la muchacha le habla al muchacho de "tú": "déjame en paz."  Eso es el uso informal del imperativo.  Y en la misma frase, ella le habla de "usted":  "...LO vean..."  este último siendo el uso formal  ¿Por qué no decir o "déjeme en paz...no lo vean..." o "déjame en paz...no te vean..."?  De lo contrario, no tiene sentido, o por lo menos se puede malentender. 
¿Cuál es...formal o informal?

EDIT:  Ahora sí entiendo...gracias.


----------



## la_machy

Moraleja:
''El poder de una sola letra'' .


Saludos


----------



## steemic

@ stretch--This confused me at first too so I'll step in and give you a hand.  Lo  and la is used often the same way as te o le but also as a pronoun  for it, which means the combination of the two can technically mean tu, ud, el, ella, o una cosa.  

This makes it quite confusing because the context is absolutely  necessary to understand if they are refering to a person (you, him) or a  thing.

dejame en paz, no quiero ni que lo vean.....is like saying leave me alone, i don't even want anybody to see you within.....but in translation it comes out as leave me alone, i don't you to be seen within "three miles" of me, lo in this case is "tu"


----------



## stretch

steemic said:


> @ stretch--This confused me at first too so I'll step in and give you a hand.  Lo  and la is used often the same way as te o le but also as a pronoun  for it, which means the combination of the two can technically mean tú, ud, él, ella, o una cosa.
> 
> This makes it quite confusing because the context is absolutely  necessary to understand if they are refering to a person (you, him) or a  thing.
> 
> dejame en paz, no quiero ni que lo vean.....is like saying leave me alone, i don't even want anybody to see you within.....but in translation it comes out as leave me alone, i don't you to be seen within "three miles" of me, lo in this case is "tú"



Steemic, I understand both the grammar at play here and the intended translation, but thanks anyway for the kind offering.  The problem is that "tú" cannot function as an object in the form of "lo", but rather must necessarily be "te", just as "te" cannot serve as an object form of "usted."  What occurred here is the mixing of the formal and informal registers, as has already been established.  This caused the confusion as to whether the text referred to the boy or a "thing" as you have said.  The OP has now realized this, and has since corrected his/her error, if you read all posts.  
Un cordial saludo.


----------



## steemic

stretch said:


> The problem is that "tú" cannot function as an object in the form of "lo", but rather must necessarily be "te", just as "te" cannot serve as an object form of "usted."  What occurred here is the mixing of the formal and informal registers, as has already been established.
> Un cordial saludo.



I think the original poster made a mistake then because dejame en paz is informal not formal.  And lo and la is used quite commonly to replace tu and usted in castellano, which is what I was attempting to explain because I think that was the root of most of the confusion in the post.

lo quiero= le/te quiero
lo encuentro muy bien hoy dia= you look quite well today.


----------



## stretch

steemic said:


> I think the original poster made a mistake then because déjame en paz is informal not formal.  And lo and la is used quite commonly to replace tú and usted in castellano, which is what I was attempting to explain because I think that was the root of most of the confusion in the post.
> 
> lo quiero= le/te quiero
> lo encuentro muy bien hoy dia= you look quite well today[When referring to the person as "usted", yes.]



"Lo" is not used interchangeably with "te".  If it is used as such, it is an outright error, and in my humble opinion, very poor Spanish.  "Lo" should be used when speaking to someone using "usted", and "te" should be used when "tuteando" someone.

¿Cómo estás?  Me da gusto verte.
¿Cómo está usted?  Me da gusto verlo/la. 
¿Cómo estás?  Me da gusto verlo/la.
¿Cómo está usted?  Me da gusto verte.

I hope this explains it.
Saludos.



Saludos.


----------



## la_machy

No sé si steemic se refiere a este tipo de conversación:

''Pas*e *compadre, ¿gust*a *algo de tomar? Ya sabe*s *que está*s* en *tu* casa''.

El tú y el usted mezclados. Más que correcto o incorrecto, es una forma de hablar bastante coloquial entre familiares y conocidos.


Saludos


----------



## stretch

steemic said:


> I'm sure you do, but that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about this form being used in castillian spanish.
> 
> Any other viewpoints from any native castellano speakers on the lo and la construction being used as familiar?



Perhaps you forget that the OP already corrected him/herself, saying that he/she read it wrong, so they do match up, and there is no mixing in the original text.


----------



## stretch

la_machy said:


> No sé si steemic se refiere a este tipo de conversación:
> 
> ''Pas*e *compadre, ¿gust*a *algo de tomar? Ya sabe*s *que está*s* en *tu* casa''.
> 
> El tú y el usted mezclados. Más que correcto o incorrecto, es una forma de hablar bastante coloquial entre familiares y conocidos.
> 
> 
> Saludos




This makes sense to me, because of the tone, although again, it is often considered a mistake that beginning Spanish students make.  
The original made no sense to me, and has been clarified as having been an error.
In Machy's example, there is clearly a very colloquial tone, one that I didn't pick up on in the original.
Saludos.

EDIT:  Also, this is not an interchangeable usage of lo, la and te...it is a colloquial "game", so to speak, that very close friends use, however not indicating an equivalence between te and lo/la.


----------



## gengo

la_machy said:


> No sé si steemic se refiere a este tipo de conversación:
> 
> ''Pas*e *compadre, ¿gust*a *algo de tomar? Ya sabe*s *que está*s* en *tu* casa''.
> 
> El tú y el usted mezclados. Más que correcto o incorrecto, es una forma de hablar bastante coloquial entre familiares y conocidos.



Yes, that makes sense to me, too, because it is merely a shift in register in the middle of a conversation.

La Machy, would you say that it is possible (in any kind of correct Spanish) to use "lo" meaning "te" in the original (uncorrected) sentence?  I say no, but I'm not a native speaker.

And is what steemic says, that lo and la are used in place of te, correct?  That would be surprising news to me.


----------



## stretch

gengo said:


> Yes, that makes sense to me, too, because it is merely a shift in register in the middle of a conversation.
> 
> La Machy, would you say that it is possible (in any kind of correct Spanish) to use "lo" meaning "te" in the original (uncorrected) sentence?  I say no, but I'm not a native speaker.
> 
> And is what steemic says, that lo and la are used in place of te, correct?  That would be surprising news to me.



Surprising to me too.  
I agree, gengo...it is a playful register shift, as you say.  I have indeed heard that, but I've never heard lo or la used in place of te, lacking this type of playful, colloquial situation.


----------



## la_machy

gengo said:


> Yes, that makes sense to me, too, because it is merely a shift in register in the middle of a conversation.
> 
> La Machy, would you say that it is possible (in any kind of correct Spanish) to use "lo" meaning "te" in the original (uncorrected) sentence?
> *NO.*
> And is what steemic says, that lo and la are used in place of te, correct? That would be surprising news to me.
> No, as far as I know, it is not correct. I put that example in my post about what I think it could be. But is not the same thing.


----------



## stretch

Thank you, la machy.  
Sounds good to me.


----------



## duvija

The way I read it (and of course tried to translate) was with 'lo' meaning 'him' (a 3rd person, not in the picture)
que lo vean = that they see him (don't know who's 'they', and assumed the town people...)

No quiero ni que lo vean ni a 3 millas de distancia de mí"

I don't want *them* to see *him *even... (and then something about 3 miles being too close).


----------



## Moritzchen

Fantástico todo, genial! 
Pero al final, ... son metros o millas?


----------



## Lurrezko

duvija said:


> The way I read it (and of course tried to translate) was with 'lo' meaning 'him' (a 3rd person, not in the picture)
> que lo vean = that they see him (don't know who's 'they', and assumed the town people...)
> 
> No quiero ni que lo vean ni a 3 millas de distancia de mí"
> 
> I don't want *them* to see *him *even... (and then something about 3 miles being too close).



That's the way I understand it too


----------



## gengo

Lurrezko oinak said:


> That's the way I understand it too



Yes, but that is not what was meant, since the "lo" was translated as "you."  And the sentence has now been corrected to:

_Déj*e*me en paz. No quiero ni que lo vean ni a 3 millas de distancia de mí._

Given that correction, you agree that the "lo" could be either "you" or "him/her/it," right?  And that it is "you" in this particular case?


----------



## Lurrezko

gengo said:


> Yes, but that is not what what meant, since the "lo" was translated as "you."  And the sentence has now been corrected to:
> 
> _Déj*e*me en paz. No quiero ni que lo vean ni a 3 millas de distancia de mí._
> 
> Given that correction, you agree that the "lo" could be either "you" or "him/her/it," right?  And that it is "you" in this particular case?



You are right, Gengo, I didn't notice that correction. Yes, I agree it is "you" in this case.


----------

