Spanish Language Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for students, teachers, and linguists wanting to discuss the finer points of the Spanish language. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top


In this sentence, for example:

El dinero no lo es todo en la vida.

What does this "lo" refer to? Can it be omitted ("El dinero no es todo")?


En esta frase, por ejemplo:

El dinero no lo es todo en la vida.

¿A qué se refiere este "lo"? ¿Puede ser omitido ("El dinero no es todo")?

share|improve this question
I'm not sure if the example is a correct sentence or if it comes under what's known as "loísmo". But this stuff confuses me at times too. – hippietrail Nov 23 '11 at 17:14
@hippietrail it's not loísmo. – Diego Mijelshon Nov 23 '11 at 17:20
Can you tell us where you took this from and possibly paste the piece of text where you read it? – Alenanno Nov 23 '11 at 18:24
I know I've read something about adding the direct object pronoun to emphasize or clarify what's being talked about, but I don't remember where... – jrdioko Nov 23 '11 at 20:03
"Lo" is a pretty tricky thing in Spanish. It doesn't have a direct counterpart in at least some of the other Romance languages. It's at least sometimes called the "neuter pronoun". If we get some more questions about it, and I bet we will, it will probably warrant a tag of its own. – hippietrail Nov 23 '11 at 21:31
up vote 23 down vote accepted

Sorry, I don't speak English

Es una duplicación del complemento directo.

En español culto, cuando el complemento directo o indirecto se antepone al verbo y no es un pronombre, entonces es obligatorio añadir el pronombre átono también antepuesto al verbo.

La tarta la llevo yo. (yo llevo la tarta).

La tarta no la llevo yo. (yo no llevo la tarta)

A tu hermano lo vi en el cine (yo vi a tu hermano en el cine)

A tu hermano no lo vie en el cine (yo no vi a tu hermano en el cine)

A mi madre le he dicho que ... (yo he dicho a mi madre que ...)

A Pepito le han expulsado del colegio (ellos han expulsado a pepito del colegio)

El dinero lo consigue todo (todo se consigue con dinero)

El dinero no lo es todo (no todo es [se consigue con] dinero)

share|improve this answer
"español culto"? – hippietrail Nov 23 '11 at 22:32
Pronombres personales átonos, Diccionario panhispánico de dudas, sección 5.2. – Jaime Soto Nov 23 '11 at 22:41
Las respuestas (y preguntas) en español son perfectamente válidas; no es necesario escribir en inglés. – Gonzalo Medina Nov 24 '11 at 4:48
We have the same in English for some of those examples, if you want to put the object first: "the quiche, I'll take it", "your brother, I saw him in the cinema", "My mother, I told her that".. It's a bit odd and is generally used in speech rather than writing because you've said the subject before thinking about the rest of the sentence. – Ricky Clarkson Nov 24 '11 at 15:12
In the only meaningful interpretation of "El dinero lo consigue todo", "El dinero" is the subject and "todo" the object, therefore "lo" is not needed, and the example is irrelevant. Likewise, in "El dinero no lo es todo", if "El dinero" is the subject, the "lo" is not mandatory. So you're not really answering the question. – dainichi Jun 4 '12 at 5:47

The lo in this sentence refers to "todo en la vida". It's a direct object pronoun. The same thing applies for:

Te lo doy el dinero.


I give you the money.

This could also be stated as:

Te doy el dinero.

Or, assuming that money is already involved in this conversation, you could say

Te lo doy.

To mean "I give it to you", with "it" referring to the money.

Also, in response to being told "El dinero es todo en la vida", you could say "No lo es!" to mean "No it's not!".

share|improve this answer
Any clues as to why we need a direct object pronoun when "el dinero" is already the direct object? Do we always need both? Are them some rules or logic behind it? Does it come across as redundant in Spanish as it appears to an English speaker analysing it? – hippietrail Nov 23 '11 at 21:28
@hippietrail: lo is not strictly necessary. Both "te doy el dinero" and "te lo doy el dinero" are correct. It is redundant, to an extent, yes, but I think it's a stylistic thing. – Mr. Jefferson Nov 23 '11 at 21:34

As far as I can see, the lo is simply being used expressively to emphasize the speaker's point (and it refers to todo en la vida, as another answerer mentioned).

The meaning is almost the same as:

El dinero no es todo en la vida.

Money isn't everything in life.

The extra lo gives a feeling similar to this English phrase:

Money - it's not everything in life.


Money is not everything in life.

That, or it could simply be a typo, assumed it's written. The writer may have started with El dinero no lo es and changed his/her mind but forgot to delete the lo. This is admittedly a long shot, and I think my first suspicion is closer to the truth.

share|improve this answer
I'd agree with the stylistic purpose, but this doesn't answer the question of what in the sentence "lo" refers to. – Mr. Jefferson Nov 23 '11 at 21:42
To do the same in English would require a comma: "Money, it's not everything in life". But I'm not good enough at the peculiarities of "lo" to know about the Spanish usage. – hippietrail Nov 23 '11 at 21:51
Yeah, I was trying to represent more spoken English, since I would never write anything like that. Even with a comma, it looks tacky. Edited to answer the part about lo. – Kevin K. Nov 23 '11 at 22:17

I think this kind of sentences are called in Spanish "oración copulativa". Basically they are composed by:

  • Subject.
  • Verb (normally, to be).
  • Attribute.

Dinero is the subject and todo en la vida is the attribute. lo is a particle used to emphasize the attribute.

So, lo refers to todo en la vida and it can be omitted.

Now, I am guessing... If somebody disagrees with the sentence, the conversation would be:

El dinero es todo en la vida.

No, no lo es.

So, basically, I think the use of lo make the sentence sounds a bit like a reply.

share|improve this answer

It is my understanding that "todo" requires the neuter pronoun "lo" when "todo" is not further modified/explained. For example, you could say "Juan lo sabe todo" but not "Juan sabe todo." However, you can say "Juan sabe todo sobre la jardinería" because "todo" is not left on its own, but is further modified or narrowed to "everything about" a certain subject.

Similarly, "Juan lo come todo" or "Juan come de todo", but not "Juan come todo".

share|improve this answer

In this case lo refers to el dinero as in English you say for example:

I ate the cake.

Or you can say:

I ate it.

In English you say:

Money isn't everything (It isn't everything).

Hope you understand my explanation.

share|improve this answer
But why is "lo" there when we already have "el" before dinero and "es" implies third person singular doohickey already? In English it's literally "Money it isn't everything in life". Is the "lo" optional or mandatory? Is it a kind of "agreement"? – hippietrail Nov 23 '11 at 18:05
I think is a ciclic. – Galled Nov 23 '11 at 19:06
@Galled: It's "clitic" actually. But a clitic is just a kind of particle that attaches to other words. That wouldn't explain why it's needed. In fact it doesn't attach in this case so it's not a clitic anyway. It would be a clitic in something like "damelo" however. – hippietrail Nov 23 '11 at 19:54
I respectfully disagree with this. – Mr. Jefferson Nov 23 '11 at 21:26
@hippietrail: I don't think the answer is correct. – Mr. Jefferson Nov 23 '11 at 21:30

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.