"lo" and "la" are for direct objects, and "le" is for indirect objects. They can't just be swapped to indicate gender - in this sentence "him" is an indirect object so "le" must be used. If you're not sure why it's an indirect object, this might help: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/1667832
lo is direct object, whereas le is an indirect object. may I recommend checking out the lessons on spanishdict.com .
Also there is a book I own called "english grammar for students of spanish". It has helped me a lot with the more difficult parts of spanish grammar. especially DOP´s and IOP´s.
Why are we using "le" as this is an indirect object pronoun. I am I mistaken with thinking that it should have been the direct object "lo" used here as:
Responded is the verb, She is the subject, the subject + verb = direct object, therefore, "she responded" to 'who / what'. This answer should be "him".
In an earlier lesson "I see them" was "yo los veo a ellos", where the "los" is a direct object pronoun.
Thanks in advance,
I was confused too, but I now I get it. When you ask the question: to who/ to what, the answer you get is the INDIRECT object, not the direct. When you ask the question who/what, the answer is the DIRECT object. I think that's what has you confused.
Let's take your example. Yo los veo a ellos. Ask yourself, I see who/what. I see them. So los is the DIRECT object.
Now, Ella le respondió a él. She responded TO whom/ TO what? To him. In this case, él is the indirect object, (because it answers the question TO WHOM [and not whom] ) so it takes the pronoun le.
I hope I've cleared this up for you. And if you need more clarification, watch this guy for direct objects: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcjGv4aiHoU
And for indirect objects: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWilradvu6s
I always wondered why to add on the "le", but I think its sinking in. You could say "Ella le respondió" which in English is like "She him responded to". Although this is not good English, it helps me to remember how Spanish sentences are structured. It's a complete sentence in Spanish. The "a él" is added emphasis on a particular guy in a crowd, like "She him responded to, (that guy over there)". The "a él" or "that guy over there" isn't required but adds emphasis on a certain target of your sentence. Its choppy I know but it helps me understand how it works.
Maybe it's just a regional thing, but when I hear "she answered to him" I think of it as "she was accountable to him", while when I hear "she answered him" I think of it as "she replied to him". I would never say "she answered to him" when talking about replying. Do you interpret those sentences the same way I do?
Responder is definitely the word to use for replying, but when I glance at online dictionaries I'm not seeing it used for accountability. Maybe that's why, but I'm not sure.
You're right. The second one wouldn't be a good translation for this sentence. It looks like Chaya didn't put it into the past tense and had that extra "to" that made it seem like he was her superior. I think it becomes clearer if we think about it as "responded to" or gave a response to.
It is because the answer is "She responded TO him" - Ella le respondió a él. " You need to "to" even if "a él" isnt present as you should be asking for Indirect / direct objects. What is doing the action and secondly, to whom is the action being done. So She responded "what" ? and to whom "to him".
Another example "I read the book to him". Read is the verb, So I read what? The book. And I read it to who? To him. The Spanish sentence would be:
Yo leo el libro a él
or replacing "the book" with "it"
Yo se lo leo a él
The "a él" is only needed as lo can be "him" or "it"
I hope that helps, if not I can try and help tomorrow. This has only started to make sense to me recently.
Thanks for help me, but I have a question: could be that verbs "to answer" and "to respond" They just must write with "to"? , ej "I answer to him", like a grammar rule?. Sorry about my simple English, I am learning just 3 month ago. I talk as Tarzan ja,ja. Thank you very much for your help
This depends on the verb being used, and I think it's just something you have to memorize. Some verbs can't have "to", some can't be without it, some can work either way.
In every case I can think of, if "respond" is followed by an object then it needs the word "to" (there may be obscure examples that are different). Eg, "I responded to the question", "I respond to him". There are cases where it is not followed by an object, eg "I responded", "I don't know how he will respond", but the meaning is basically the same.
However, "answer" changes it's meaning depending on whether it's followed by "to" or not. These sentences are identical in meaning to the ones above with "respond":
- I answered the question
- I answer him
- I answered
- I don't know how we will respond
Including the "to" after answer changes the meaning to show responsibility, eg "I answer to him" basically means that I report to my him, like a boss - I do what he says because he is in charge of me (he is responsible for me).
"I answer to the question" would just be incorrect grammar.