1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "Le voy a mostrar mi coche a …

"Le voy a mostrar mi coche a él."

Translation:I am going to show him my car.

February 9, 2014



So, just to make sure I understand -- is the "Le" referring to the car or to him?


To him!! "Yo voy a mostrarLE mi coche (a él)" or "Yo LE voy a mostrar mi coche (a él)" and I use the ( ) because sometimes they are not necessary, only if you want to be clear if it's He or she.


Why is the "le" necessary if "a él" makes it clear who the direct object is?


The pronoun is always necessary in these kind of sentences. The "a él" is not necessary unless to make it clear that you are speaking about him or her since le can be either one.


this phrase is uunormal, It is correct but nobody said that. We said " le voy a mostrar mi coche" le means a el so dont need to repit again.


I am going to show my car to him . It was corrected too


I do not understand why this is not correct too. "I am going to show my car to him" is really the same as "show him my car"


accepted 11/30/19


Are you a native Spanish speaker?


le could be "ella' also


I'm confused. Wouldn't it be la if it was her? Like, "La voy a mostrar mi coche a ella."


No, because "la" is a direct object pronoun, and in this sentence you need an indirect object pronoun ("I am going to show the car to her" - "the car" is the direct object, "her" is the indirect object). Indirect object pronouns in Spanish are either "le" or "les", so they only differentiate by number.


Direct object pronouns can be so confusing sometimes lol. I'm also interested in this answer.


How would you say, "He is going to show my car to him."

This would obviously be heavily dependent on context to make sense, but certainly possible... For example if someone said, "Are you, or your brother, going to show your car to the buyer?"


Él le va a mostrar mi coche (a él) . You can always add the a Él or other appropriate specifier if needed for clarity, but the context is often sufficient even for this type of thing.


my question is, why bother with le if (a el) is going to be used. that is redundant. it makes le pointless. and the answer is of course, that's how it's done and i'm learning spanish not creating it.


Mark g j, you did a great job of answering your own question, and gave me a smile - ¡Gracias!


The "a él" adds emphasis. The pronoun is completely necessary to have, but the "a él" makes it clearer that you are showing it to (HIM) as opposed to (SHOWING) it to him.


Hello Evelyn-Grace: Le could also refer to "a ella". So if the indirect object wasn't made clear previously through context, you could clarify by "a el" or "a ella".


I thought "le" was definitely a him - and "la" would be her.


Most importantly le is not a direct object pronoun, it is the indirect object pronoun. While direct object pronouns are not used with a stated direct object, they are used with indirect objects with the named indirect object. It is one of the difficult points for learners.


I am confused, isn't "mi coche" the direct object and "a el" the indirect object? So why not "le lo voy a mostrar mi coche a el"?


You do not use "lo", because you already have the direct object specified -- "el coche". On the other hand, indirect objects, when present, must be expressed with an indirect object pronoun, and can then be clarified with extra information, thus "le" is required.

  • For direct object, you use either the pronoun or the full expression.
  • For indirect object, you must use the pronoun and optionally add the full expression.


To sum up the two answers, you don't need 'lo' because the direct object is specified (this is like English, you don't say “it the car") and even if you switched 'el coche' to 'lo' (one or the other, not both!) you would then have to say 'se lo...' Never 'le lo' or 'le la'.


If anyone is wondering where "se" comes from like I was, it replaces "le" to make it easier to say than two short l words in a row. And the indirect object pronoun will always come before the direct one. Same as if you attach it to the infinitive. "Voy a mostrarselo a el" I am going to show it to him.


So would it be 'se lo voy a mostrar a él'


Yes. Or Voy a mostrárselo, with the added accent to maintain the original stress syllable.


That would be 'se lo voy...' I have the same question.


What seems to be the problem with "I'm going to display my car to him" ?


I think it is because the English would be awkward. We show things to specific people, but display things to no-one in particular.


"I'm going to display my car for him" would be grammatically correct.


"Display" should also be accepted.


Got it wrong on a miss type. I wrote " I am going to show him my CAT." Should have guessed he didn't want to see that.


It feels good to not be alone in wondering what is going on here lol


Whats the difference between 'Le' and 'Lo'. Why was 'Le' used here instead of 'Lo'?


"Le" is for indirect objects; it means "him" or "to him", or "it" or "to it" for masculine nouns. In this sentence, it is translated to "him."

In case the term "indirect object" needs clarification: It may be helpful to conceptualise indirect objects as nouns or pronouns that can be worded with a "to" or "for" in front of them: e.g., with this sentence, "I am going to show the car to him."


would "le voy a demostar mi coche a el" translate as i will show him my car, with the connotation of the car being active? Like, "I will show him my car [while it is turned on.]?" Is 'mostrar' a more general word than 'demostar,' even though both words mean 'to show?'


Yes, demostrar would be showing him what it can do (demonstrate or prove).

It's okay to clarify who 'le' refers to, but el and él are entirely different words.


okay and how if there would be: I'm going to show HER my car ...??


Le voy a mostrar mi coche a ella.


Le refers to him.


Shouldn't it be "La voy a mostrar mi coche a ella"?


Hello frankk1m: No. Le is necessary for the indirect object.


Lol the second they threw this "Le" in there my brain exploded


Is "I am going to show him my car" a better translation of this sentence or am I being too literal. It was accepted but i'm not sure what is better :)


Why not "I am going to show my car to him?"


I can't remember the rule. Why is it le instead of lo? Thanks.


I think it's because him is indirect object.


Archaic language.. Hahha only kidding


Why do you need "le" can't you tell from "a el" that is to him!?


It is actually the other way round. You need "le", but you do not need "a él". You only need "a él" to avoid ambiguity.


Es viaje va muy fantastico


I thought lo was the indirect object pronoun and le was the direct object pronoun.


Hello Dj180Smith: The other way around. Lo is a direct object pronoun and le is an indirect object pronoun. The chart on the duolingo object pronouns lesson is very helpful.


Why wouldn't it let me say "I am going to present my car to him"


why there is ''le'' at the beginning and ''el'' ending?dont they reffer the same meaning?


That is called clitic doubling and is standard practice for indirect object pronouns in Spanish. I was taught that it was required, although I have seen sites that disputed that. Nobody disputes that most native speakers do it as if it were a rule however.


Clitic doubling for direct object is a different story. I don't think it is ever required and it is often just wrong. The only things I have found on the internet about it are.long scholarly papers (which I haven't read) My personal practice is not to use them, but notice the contexts when I hear them.


Thanks for the link I took a look and it seems very helpful.


My Spanish tutor, a native speaker, tells me that it is not required. There is another example on Duolingo that does not put in les. "Ellos llaman a la policiá."


Your other example has a direct object, not an indirect object. In this example le coche is the direct object and the le represents the a él. As I said, it may not be required, but I think you would be hard pressed to find it lacking in standard written Spanish. It may be disappearing in conversational Spanish, and if so, probably more in some areas than others. So depending on where your tutor is from, s/he may have a different experience than some. But I have to find a language or grammar site that promotes that. This one says MUST.



Him i am going to show my car to him, would be roughly a literal translation?


That really is not any more literal than I am going to show him my car. This sentence demonstrates how Spanish use the indirect object pronoun whether or not an indirect object is named. Obviously it would not be correct to translate both the le and the à Él to English. The à él does show that it is a he and not a she or you, but either construction is true to the meaning.


When you say, "I am going to show him my show." How embarrassing.


"I am going to display my car to him" Marked WRONG? Why? I am a native English speaker, I do not understand why this is wrong.


I prefer "I'm going to show my stroller to him," je je!


That's cochecito


What is the difference between Am going to show...him and I'm going to show...him. Am I wrong saying am?


Not quite sure what you are actually are asking. If you are asking if there is any difference between I am and I'm, no. If you dropped the I, that of course is something that works in Spanish, but not in English.


You cannot hear the "le" because of technical problems


I am not having an issue hearing the le, but part of that is perhaps that I understand from the sentence that it should be there. But technical problems should be reported directly to Duo. This is the user forum.


I am going to show my car to him should be correct also

Learn Spanish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.