The correct sentence would be
La pelota es roja. La niña juega con ella.
The pronoun la is the clitic non-emphatic object pronoun. Third-person object pronouns are not used after prepositions like this. It seems you might be calquing the English structure.
First- and second-person singular object pronouns are used after prepositions, as well as the ...
According to the DLE, the verb jugar is used with that meaning followed by the a preposition:
intr. Entretenerse, divertirse tomando parte en uno de los juegos sometidos a reglas, medie o no en él interés. Jugar A la pelota, AL dominó.
The most important part of the definition is where it says the verb is intr(ansitive). This means it does not ...
It's a special meaning of hacer.
tr. Obligar a que se ejecute aquello que expresa un verbo en infinitivo o una cláusula introducida por que. Le hizo venir. Hizo que nos fuésemos.
El verbo hacer + infinitivo + complemento suele tener valor de voz pasiva cuando no se expresa el sujeto de la acción que el infinitivo señala. En estos ...
It's not necessary. You can say:
But its not clear. What "Lo" means?
Is it a persorn?
Is it an object?
¿Te ha llegado el correo?
No, todavía lo espero.
Is it an action?
¿Vas a aprobar este examen?
los is an article. The right pronoun in this case is ellos. Otherwise it is a perfectly correct sentence, with a couple corrections:
Muchas gracias por tus excelentes libros y videos. He aprendido mucho de ellos.
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 ...
It is redundant, but it's not wrong. It's also not compulsory to include it there. You could say, correctly:
Siempre arruina todo.
For all practical matters this means the same as with lo (see below, though, for details).
This redundant neutral pronoun is very often found in sentences with todo. It says here, especifically, that "the unstressed pronoun ...
Very generally speaking, a direct object completes or specifies the meaning of the verb, while an indirect object adds a destination, a goal, someone or something towards which the action is oriented. In technical terms, an indirect object is often a recipient or a beneficiary of the action.
For the most part, if a verb has only one object, it is a direct ...
Note that the "related example" may not be as related as you think. In the sentence
A lo que yo temo es a la maldita casualidad
the object ("casualidad") is not a person, and even so it carries an a. What's happening here is that the verb temer, with the sense of "to fear something" can be used in Spanish both as a transitive or intransitive verb. In the ...
That redundant direct object "lo" is obligatory, because "eso" is well-defined.
El doblado del complemento directo antepuesto al verbo es obligatorio:
A mis hijos los veo sólo los fines de semana.
Esta carta hay que mandarla hoy urgentemente.
A mi padre lo despidieron del trabajo.
Sus cartas las guardó toda su vida.
Que se había casado ...
I think you are talking about "objeto directo & objeto indirecto" ("complemento directo & complemento indirecto").
As an example:
(Yo) Le di un regalo a Alberto / I gave a present to Alberto
Yo le di un regalo / I gave him a present (you know who)
Yo se lo di / I gave it to him (you know who and what you gave)
You were already answered the question when to use se lo but I understand your question is more why using se lo instead of the expected le lo?
Like a lot of people, I wrongly believed this irregularity was due to euphonious reasons, le lo being considered unpleasing to the ear.
Le digo una cosa = I tell something to you
Lo digo = I tell it
Le lo digo
El fenómeno que está en juego aquí se llama dislocación a la izquierda y no es exclusivo del español: se da también en otras lenguas románicas. Podemos encontrar una explicación y algunos ejemplos en la Enciclopedia de lingüística hispánica.
Una dislocación a la izquierda consiste en un sintagma nominal que actúa como complemento del verbo que se sitúa al ...
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 here in Spain, ...
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".
El problema con la primera frase no es que sobre el lo, si no el uso redundante del pronombre "lo" y el "se", que puede ser entendido también como pronombre.
En la segunda frase
Si el repollo es demasiado duro, se puede colocar incluso antes de de las papas.
Has eliminado el pronombre "lo" que se refiere al repollo, por el &...
In English, the word la means the (feminine), so if you translate the phrase to English it would be like
The ball is red. The girl plays with the.
When translating "it" to Spanish you have to remember if it's masculine or feminine and use él in first case or ella in second case.
In a comment I've referred you to a question which answers this already. In short, if there's an indirect complement expressed as a full pronoun (in this case [a] ustedes), then the equivalent clitic (short, unstressed) form of the pronoun must appear (les). The same, using other persons and numbers:
Ella me cocina a mí.
Ella te cocina a ti.
Ella le cocina ...
I would say they are definitely redundant, which is not to say that they are meaningless. It's hard to pinpoint it exactly but I think it has to do with definiteness.
... zapatos de gimnasia. Anthony los escogió blancos... Yo los escogí azules...
To me this redundant (and repeated) use of the pronoun los emphasizes the fact that the writer is referring ...
The pronoun los is optional in this case. It's not really redundant because the impersonal form of haber normally takes a direct object. The form without the pronoun is elliptical: the pronoun is suppressed because it's clear from context what is being referred to.
Note that hay is third person singular regardless of the noun that accompanies it, precisely ...
This is a case of an indirect object that appears twice in the sentence: once as a noun and once as a pronoun. In the example:
A los españoles les llevó años reconquistar la península ibérica
It took the Spaniards years to reconquer the Iberian peninsula
the phrase a los españoles is the indirect object. As explained in this and this question, if the ...
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 for 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 ...
Indeed, there are rules, but it is important to distinguish between the rules that govern Standard Spanish (which should be used in formal communication) and informal or dialectal Spanish — which still have rules, just different from the standard.
In general, the following table explains when to use each of the object pronouns in third person:
Your question is a bit general but you have a nice table on the RAE website that can help you:
So for the third person you have:
Complemento directo masculino singular: lo/(le(leísmo))
Complemento directo masculino plural: los
Complemento directo femenino singular: la
Complemento directo femenino plural: la
Complemento directo ...
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 phrases:
The sentence means something like
If they see one hesitate, they immediately take advantage of one.
Let's see if I can explain it right. The speaker should talk about herself in the first person, and the sentence should be something like this:
Si me ven vacilar, ...
But in this case, the speaker is a third person from the point of view of the subject ...
In that sentence, "it" is the subject, not the direct object. So the correct word would be "ella" (casa is femenine) but we don't say it (accademy says not to use any gender pronouns when talking about things):
Mi casa es grande. (Ella) tiene tres pisos.
The direct object pronouns "lo" and "la" are used when replacing the direct object, never the subject....