It's the second person plural object pronoun 'os' (as opposed to the subject pronoun 'vosotros'). It means 'you (plural)'. You would also use it where in English you might use 'to you' or 'for you' etc.
When such a pronoun occurs directly after an infinitive verb (or a gerund, or a positive command), it attaches to the end of the verb (this is called ...
The rules themselves are quite complicated especially taking into account dialectal concerns in the north of Spain where due to influence from other languages like Asturian can affect regional speech (and isn't strictly considered incorrect modern Spanish, though it will certainly sound old fashioned to everyone else).
That said, I can give two sets of ...
The "problem" is so extended that RAE finally decided to consider that that's actually the way people speak, making it a valid version for the imperative.
To update this question, even if at the moment of writing these lines the form iros might be not officially accepted yet, the RAE has informally announced that it will do so.
They can go "hooked" to the verb when the verb is in imperative, infinitive or gerund.
¿por qué no puede hacerlo así? / ¿por qué no lo puede hacer así?
¿por qué no están haciéndolo así? / ¿por qué no lo están haciendo así?
In the other verb tenses the pronouns can't go hooked. In "¿por qué no lo hace?" the verb tense is ...
A full answer would require the equivalent of a few Spanish course classes, so I'll just clear the basics up.
What you found are combinations between verbs and pronouns. These are not different conjugations. The pronouns are the shorter, unstressed, non-empathic forms that are technically known as clitic. A pronoun is enclitic if it's attached to the end of ...
The conjugation is just comer, but it has attached the pronoun that identifies the direct object.
These two sentneces have the same meaning.
Por favor, póngame una piña 'durita', pues no voy a comerla inmediatamente.
Por favor, póngame una piña 'durita', pues no la voy a comer inmediatamente.
Some of the pronouns can go immediately in front of the verb or ...
I use to say:
when I want to stress the fact that I am involved. The emphasis is in the implied subject I.
In contrast, when I say:
Lo quiero comprar.
Lo estoy preparando.
I am stressing the "it". The "it" is important.
In both cases, I emphasize the first word (by increasing a little the volume ...
This is a matter of emphasis only. The meaning is exactly the same but the emphasis is in a different element:
I, specifically me, want to buy something. -> Quiero comprarlo.
I want to buy that, specifically that. -> Lo quiero comprar.
Actually the pronouns make important distinctions in the example you provided and are not redundant:
Means, "You want to eat"
Means "You want to eat it", with "it" being that thing that has previously been named and the pronoun "lo" stands for.
Quieres comer? Hay un yogur en la ...
When the verb contains an infinitive form (plain verb, not modified by conjugation), it is equally valid to place the direct object pronoun (me, lo) at the end of the infinitive verb, or before the verb.
Can you do it? ¿Puedes hacerlo? / ¿Lo puedes hacer?
But when the verb is conjugated, the direct object pronoun is separated and put in front of the verb....
I use words like "comerla" all the time, but I never questioned why they are constructed like that. Seeing this quesition made me wander about that and I did a little reaserch. The topic can be quite complex, but the simple explanation is this:
Words like comerla, correrlo, mancharse, contarnos, llegarme, are verbs accompanied by unstressed personal ...
They are perfectly equivalent in modern Spanish. Whenever you have a personal pronoun or verb that's in the infinitive (or in the gerund) and is hierarchically linked to another verb (in this case, empezando, which in turn is linked to está), you are able to "raise" it higher in the chain —that is, bring it closer to the main verb.
You can also partially ...
This is basically the English equivalent of the difference between
I am preparing it.
I'm preparing it.
Well, it's not the literal translation or the literal difference, but it has the same lack of prejudice. I am is used for formal writing or conversation; it makes you sound a bit more educated, while I'm is just a shortcut.
A fallacy with ...
Does this problem happen in any other regions of the world?
These conjugations will only appear in dialects which use vosotros, so that limits us to the Spanish of peninsular Spain (and possibly also Equatoguinean and Filipino Spanish).
Does it also happen with other verbs?
I suspect very very rarely. Given that the terminal -d is lost when attaching the ...
Some additional information not noted in other answers. One of the reasons that it will feel more natural, in most cases, to attach the object is that in older Spanish, like modern day European Portuguese, object pronouns were not allowed at the beginning of utterances.
Hence, you could not simply say "Lo quiero hacer" because you've started the sentence ...
—Hay algo que está empezando a cansarme.
—Hay algo que me está empezando a cansar.
As @guifa said, there's no difference in meaning.
Interestingly, the other variant can be used when asked for repetition: if you said the former, when you're asked to repeat, you can say the latter.
The choice follows no rules and they are perfectly ...
Example #4 was correct in Medieval Spanish, but not anymore. Today, pronouns added to an infinitive (comprarme) or gerund (comprándome) or imperative (cómprame) must go after the verb, except when it's a negative imperative (no me compres).
You could rephrase #2 as ¿Me podrías comprar un sandwich?, which is a correct form.
When you're linking multiple ...
The short answer is this:
If you don't see a reflexive pronoun in the verbal phrase, it isn't a reflexive usage of the verb.
But, I’m going to use a concrete example to try to help answer this a bit more fully (and, for full disclosure, as the original poster of this question, this is what led me down this road of inquiry in the first place). The example ...
The indirect object pronouns used in your examples... Comérmelo, Comértelo...
Those pronouns, when used with comer, indicate eating all of something. To eat it all up. To lavish all of it. To engorge it all, consume it all.
So if you asked someone `¿Quieres comértelo?, you would literally be asking if that person wants to eat all of something.
Back in the day, there was a difference, that is that you couldn't begin utterances with object pronouns. Thus "lo quiero comprar" would have been seen as vastly less formal (even agrammatical). That isn't the case today, and both are interchangeable.