The order of the pronouns. The first pronoun is the indirect (me) and the second is direct (lo). They will verb the direct pronoun to or for the indirect pronoun. Me lo van a impedir, they're are going to impede it for (from) me, or more colloquially, they're going to stop me/prevent me from it.
DLs translation is treating "lo" as an IO "from it" and "me" as a DO "prevent me". " no le me van a imperir" fits their translation
Lo can never be an indirect object. If you had an antecedent that would match to direct-object lo, and you want an indirect form, it will be le or se. (Le and les both turn into se when you also have a DO: She gives it to them. Ella se lo da.)
The grammar of Spanish "impedir" just does not match well with how English deploys "impede", "stop", or "prevent". We don't say, "They're not going to prevent me from it." That's actually borderline ungrammatical. We'd say, instead, "They're not going to stop me," with the action I intend to carry out being left completely unstated.
With "stop", or even "prevent me [from doing something]", the person who wishes to carry out an action (which the subject is trying to interfere with) can be the direct object. Or the action / event to be stopped can be the direct object. (They are not going to prevent my victory.) But if you want to state both, you need to add a whole second clause: They are not going to prevent me from winning. (I'm not entirely sure how to translate this into Spanish. Possibly, "Ellos no me van a impedir de ganar." I feel like there might need to be some kind of subjunctive, though.)
Thanks. This saved me from becoming re-discombobulated concerning IO pronouns.
I translated it to "They will not stop me." expecting to lose a heart, but surprisingly it accepted it! That is the best translation in my opinion for this phrase, and it will make your life easier to think of it this way.
"going to prevent me from it" has 76,800 google results and "going to prevent it from me" has 1 result. It sounds odd here. "prevent it from me" has 23,300,000 results and "prevent me from it" has 6,450,000 results. So in other constructions it maybe ok. Though to me it sounds odd.
Yes, but half of those 23,300,000 results for "prevent me from it" were people on Duolingo marveling that this is supposed to be correct English. Ha ha. But more seriously there were a lot of top results from Duolingo. When I went beyond that, here's how this phrase is typically used. In sentence 1, a person describes how they would like to do something. In sentence 2 they describe some obstacle that is preventing them from doing what was described in sentence 1. For example, "I would like to dance the light fandango, but my bum knees prevent me from it." So granted that this is a legitimate English construction, it still sounds weird and incomplete. In the Google results, I never found the phrase, "prevent me from it" in a stand alone sentence. The referent for "it" always immediately preceded "prevent me from it."
This Dl translation seems wrong to me. The DO answers who the verb is acting on And the DO here is "ït" The IO answers the question 'to whom,'' or 'for whom' with regard to the verb.here it is "me" so "the verb is saying that it will stop "who" and that would be "ït" and for whom will it stop (the IO) "Me" so it is stopping it from me. I am going to report this. I hope someone will tell me how I am wrong on this. If they disagree. unless there is some rule that "no le me van a imperir" as rsmall64 writes in this thread is not the way this should be said.
I agree with you. I tried to be as literal as possible and wrote: "They are not going to prevent it for me." That is awkward, but it gets the meaning across and still reinforces the "grammar lesson". But of course it was not accepted.
What's wrong with impede? It's a cognate and a synonym to prevent...
Yes, both should fit here.
Almost synonyms, yes, but not cognates, they don't come from the same words.
One is from the French "prévenir"(litterally "to come before") and the other is from the French "impédant", "impédiment" (from Latin: " impedimenta")
"There is a slight difference between impede and prevent. To impede would be to stop something that is already in progress, or nearly in progress, it is more like to interfere than to prevent. To prevent means to stop something that has not happened yet." (source: wordreference)
That´s the idea, but Duolingo is pretty literal, so...I´d say play it safe when translating.
"They will not keep it from me." is wrong, but I do not understand why. me = indirect object and it = direct object."?
In spanish, we use la, lo, las and los; for direct object; le and les is for the indirect.
Without the "lo" I think "No me van a impedir" could mean "They are not going to prevent me". The "lo" is the "it".
That seems to make more sense to me, too. "They are not going to prevent me from it" makes no sense to me in English. However, because you are inserting an extra verb: doing, I doubt that Doulingo would accept that. What about translating the sentence as "They are not going to keep me from it-" would that be a valid translation? I'll try it and see.
I thought the direct object preceded the verb. shouldn't it be "prevent it" instead of "prevent me?"
The "lo" can refer to a whole phrase, so this probably means "they are not going to prevent me from doing it." Can a native speaker confirm?
Hamper and hinder have the same meaning in English in this context. Hamper should be allowed.
What is the difference between "No me lo van a impedir" and "No me van a impedir"?
"They are not going to prevent me from it.". I had to work hard to ignore this ugly English sentence and I translated it this way to get past!
"Prevent me from it" seems to be mussing a verb. I think a native English speaker is much more likely to say "prevent me fron doing it" or "prevent me from having it" or sonething similar. I would never say "prevent me from it".
You (They) are not going to keep it from me is the idiomatic translation. The “correct” answers will not come from native English speakers.
This was a headache for me. So I looked up how to say "to prevent someone from doing something", which should be translated as "impedir a alguien (de) hacer algo".
It seems the "(de) hacer algo" can then be summarised as just "lo" and in this Duo example the "a alguien" refers to "me", so we arrive at "me lo impedir" and thence to "no me lo van a impedir".
So I think impedir is transitive and the "a alguien" is just the direct object with the "personal a", but I can't really explain how "lo", which is another direct object pronoun, can be used as well. This is a complicated area in Spanish! Maybe it's because impedir is one of those verbs of "gaining or losing" that would tend to take "le" rather than "lo" as the 3rd person object pronoun, converting it into a type of indirect object, notwithstanding that impedir is in principle transitive. This seems to be confirmed by a web search, so "le impiden" is "they prevent him/you" whereas "lo impiden" is "they prevent it".
For the record, I had no problem reading this, but I think if somebody said this to me, I would have ZERO clue what they said because hearing this with the non-English word order. This may be where I say "¿escribe usted para me por favor?" (or maybe it is por :D)
Learning is a labor of love...
I wrote "It is not going to prevent me" because of the "lo", but DL said the right answer is "You're not going to prevent me". I've read all the comments, and apparently DL has more ideas to correct answers where the "lo" is what we're apparently being prevented to do. But I'm still unsure about one thing, and it's something that happens every time for me. How in the world am I supposed to figure out WHO is trying to prevent me? I mean, what word should indicate to me if it's him, her, them, you, etc.? It's completely lost on me. Does someone have a good explanation?
In my opinion the sentence does not make a lot of sense in english. One might say "they are not going to prevent me from DOING it " but not "they are not going to prevent me from it". The latter is extremely vague and unclear and I dont think its good english.