Hot answers tagged

8

Do you want me to invite you? La traducción literal sería: ¿Quieres que te invite? Pero yo te recomendaría utilizar la siguiente expresión, que a mi parecer suena mejor: ¿Puedo invitarte? ¿Me permites invitarte? ó ¿Me permites que te invite? ¿Me dejas invitarte? ó ¿Me dejas que te invite? Estas 3 frases serían la traducción para May I ...


8

Las reglas de colocación de clíticos permiten ambas formas. Las dos frases son correctas y perfectamente intercambiables. Mira el punto 3.d del artículo sobre los pronombres personales átonos del Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas: Como hablante de España, debo decir también que las dos formas no solo son posibles según las reglas gramaticales, sino que ...


7

Estás casi en lo correcto. Si bien en tu ejemplo lo normal sería decir: Dálelo.*        (incorrecto) es incorrecto porque en español existe una regla que dice que cuando se tiene la combinación le + lo, o les + lo, se convierten en selo: le + lo ==> selo les + lo ==> selo Esta transformación ...


5

The word textear does not exist in Spanish, you will not find any entrance in RAE and in any dictionary. Use escribir un texto instead of textear, both means the same but the first one includes the direct object. Le escribí (un texto , CD). (Le, CI) escribí (un texto, CD) Escribí (un texto, CD) (a mi abuelo, CI) I have never heard this word ...


4

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


4

According to Merriam Webster: Definition of ETHICAL DATIVE : a colloquial use of the dative of a pronoun for a person to whom it imputes a vague concern with the matter in question Spanish has something similar but not for first person, which explains the OP's confusion as he only came up with first person examples. As said in the examples, the ...


4

Cuando el pronombre desempeña la función de complemento directo, deben usarse las formas lo, los para el masculino (singular y plural, respectivamente) y la, las para el femenino (singular y plural, respectivamente): ¿Has visto a Juan? Sí, lo vi ayer. ¿Has visto a Juan y a los niños? Sí, los he visto en el parque. Compré la medicina y se la di sin que ...


3

"Les" is a personal pronoun that works here as an indirect-object (dative). It refers here to the coins (monedas). "donde les corresponde (estar) = where it suits them (to be) = it's appropiate for/to them (to be)" In this particular example, I think that the pronoun could be omitted "estarán donde corresponde" - it actually sounds a little better to ...


3

That's because with the verb ordenar the direct object is the given order, and the indirect object is the recipient of that order. With insultar you have only a direct object, the one receiving the insult.


3

The DPD gives good advice on this topic. Basically, there is one exception to when you can't indirect object pronoun. Here are the rules copied from another answer I gave a while back. If the object (indirect or direct) is a person pronoun (mí, ti, etc) and included anywhere in the sentence, you must include the pronoun with the verb (indirect or direct):...


3

Basically, it means, "you could ask one of them to follow/track her, but they couldn't see her" As you can see, we are referring to "her" twice, so we have used the pronoun la twice for it in the original sentence. In your example there is a couple of subordinate sentences (introduced by those "que"). Podías decirle a uno de ellos que la siguieran pero (...


2

Actually, "pertenece a mí" is not correct. You should say "Me pertenece". Any other example in which you think the I.O. may be optional?


2

In spanish the first tends to be used when the speaker you are reffering is decided to do it, while the second one is conditioned and he/she won't do it due to something. Maybe with the verb comprar in this example we cannot apply the general rule from Presente to Pretérito Imperfecto del indicativo except if we specify when because the verb itself only ...


2

First things first: By "pero" you mean "perro" , am i right?. :-) 1) Means he was doing that while talking. Sound to me like: Dijo que estaba comprando... (He/she said he was buying the dog). At the same moment of talking. 2) Means that he/she would buy the dog in the future from the moment of the conversation, but... we still don't know if he really did ...


2

I would say "Juan se lo dio a Martín". Juan lo dio a Martín sounds strange.


2

Yes, Juan se lo dio a Martin is correct. Juan lo dio a Martin is correct too, but that misses the point of using the double object construction.


2

Let's start by explaining what the indirect object is not. The indirect object can't be se/ellos, because whatever the IO is, it has to match the pronoun "os" used in the original question. That said, I interpret this question as "who is making your beds?" We know the indirect object is "you", which is inferred from the possessive pronoun"your", just as ...


2

A few observations: you have a direct object and an indirect object in your sentence. Just go to the passive voice: La cara (de la niña) es lavada por la madre. So, "la cara" is the direct object. You can now replace the indirect object by "le" La cara le es lavada por la madre. If you omit "le", the subject disappears: La cara es lavada por ...


2

I'm going to venture a general rule that may have some exceptions, but I believe to be true in enough cases to lay it out this way. In constructions involving an indirect object, always use the indirect object pronoun. Now we're talking about actual usage more than formal rules, which you should keep in mind as I discuss this, but generally, even when ...


2

It's not a matter of identifying direct or indirect objects. It's a matter of the right choice of the preposition. "Te voy a presentar a mi novia" means "I am going to introduce my girlfriend to you" If you want to invert the person that is being introduced, you use either con or ante (as Emilo Gort stated in his answer, the latter could sound old-...


2

La traducción sería más bien: ¿Te gustaría que te invite? Aunque, si he entendido bien el sentido de la frase en inglés, el objetivo de la frase parece darle a entender que podrías invitarle si él quisiera. En español solemos ser más directos, y más que preguntar por si quieres que te invite, se preguntaría directamente: ¿Te gustaría venir?


2

Though "I have to say goodbye" could be translated merely as "Tengo que decir adiós", "Te tengo que decir adiós" is literally "I have to say goodbye to you". Te here is just a use of the dative case, that's why it's easier to understand it if you look at the sentence as "I have to say goodbye to you", you can see now the noun which the goodbye is being ...


2

His leg hurts would be correctly translated as "Le duele la pierna", literally, "The leg hurts him". In this respect, it functions exactly as in English, except that an object is obligatory, rather than optional. If you wanted to say that Ronaldo's leg hurts, you would just specify him as the explicity indirect object: "Le duele la pierna a Ronaldo". In ...


2

In the RAE's entry for usted is stated that Como pronombres de tercera persona gramatical a usted y ustedes les corresponden las formas átonas lo(s), la(s) para el complemento directo y le(s) para el indirecto compare their example: A ustedes les gusta ir a ese baile? with yours (A usted) le quedan entradas? The tricky thing is that usted/...


2

The verb presentar means to introduce the direct object, generally to the indirect object. In your example, te could be either a direct or an indirect object. If the sentence had a direct object with it (te presento mi libro or te lo presento) then we'd know for sure it's functioning as an indirect object. Likewise, if it as an indirect object (ye presento ...


2

-¿Qué quieres? -A Emma Es incorrecto si se interpreta el verbo "querer" como "amar", mientras que en el sentido de "qué deseas" estaría bien. Por otra parte: -¿A quién quieres? -A Emma es correcto en cualquier caso. Lo siguiente podría parecer correcto en estructura pero no tendría ningún sentido: -¿Qué quieres? -Emma. "A Emma", aunque ...


2

le can't be la hora because la hora is the subject. The sentence doesn't have enough information to determine who le refers to, but it could be usted, él, ella, or something else singular. Whenever you have multiple object pronouns, despite what many textbooks may say, regardless their function, the order is always se + 2nd person + 1st person + 3rd person (...


2

The RAE defines pasar in the definition #56 and #58 as: Prnl. Olvidarse o borrarse de la memoria algo. Prnl. Dicho de algunas cosas: Perderse la ocasión o el tiempo de que logren su actividad en el efecto. Prnl. means here "pronominal", which means the verb takes a pronoun. Since it's always necessary for the verb to mean what you want to mean ...


2

The object pronouns play a necessary role to show who or what we are referring to. If it's not placed, the meaning can change. Lávate las manos = las manos tuyas. Lava las manos = ¿Cuáles? ¿Las tuyas o las mías? Vamos a lavarnos los dientes = nuestros dientes. Vamos a lavar los dientes = ¿Cuáles? ¿De quién? The same happens when using gustar: ...


2

As you suspect (judging by the "indirect?"), this "lavar" is not intransitive but pronominal. In the DLE entry for "lavar" you can read: tr. Limpiar algo con agua u otro líquido. U. t. c. prnl. Read about pronominal verbs in the DPD page "Términos lingüísticos": 13. verbo pronominal. El que se construye en todas sus formas con un pronombre ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible