Hot answers tagged lo
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) ...
It's a pronoun, being used to refer to actions, concepts and ideas, never for nouns, which require the use of "El que...". Check this page for more examples. Consider the sentence: Lo que necesitamos es más tiempo. In English it would be "What we need is more time" (Translation might seem clumsy, but it's to allow you to understand); "what" refers to ...
Because it's an adjective. It's not a person or thing; it's the quality of being reading at the moment or having the habit of reading, which you can apply to things o people, as in, I don't know, "el topo lector" (= "el topo que lee"). This is how adjectives are defined. You can't say that rojo, for example, means "lo de color encarnado", because you would ...
There is no difference in meaning. The verbs ayudar and obedecer are changing their patterns. Historically (in medieval Spanish) they would take a dative pronoun (le); nowadays they take mostly an accusative one (la/lo). See: DPD, “Leísmo”, sección 4e
I would say it replaces el tiempo (time) or equivalent, as pasarlo bien == pasar bien el tiempo
In Standard Spanish, there is generally no distinction made in animacy for the object pronouns1. Lo and la are used for direct objects, being lo for masculine2 and la feminine. Le is used for indirect objects3 and represents the recipient of an action. This sentence is a bit tricky, because the verb doesn't correlate in transivity to English. Let's try ...
The answer from guifa is very good. Please notice that in several regions of Spain people uses this forms in the wrong way. It's a phenomena known as "leísmo" when they use le form instead of lo/la and "laísmo" when they use lo/la instead of le. As far as I know, it does not happens on south america.
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 ...
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. Means: 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 ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible