"She can choose her boyfriend."
Translation:Ella puede elegir a su novio.
She can choose her boyfriend, meaning can pick one, doesn't need a. She can choose her existing boyfriend to go do something, does need an a.
I'm no expert, but I agree with zopilotes. I would use the personal a if/when the person/boyfriend exists, and not use the personal a if/when the idea is that she is going to choose a boyfriend.
I got it wrong, but it said that the correct solutions is "Ella puede elegir su pololo." Why don't they have "pololo" as an option in the dictionary hints for "boyfriend?"
The word does exist, but as far as I can tell, it is only used in Chile. It also means "moth" or "odd job," but I think that those are only used in Chile too.
That's because the English sentence is vague. Is she choosing her existing boyfriend to go do something with him, or is it that she has the ability to choose whomever she wants to be her boyfriend.?
Because novio is the direct object, not the indirect object. No redundant 'le' is needed with direct objects.
So with direct objects you need redundancy? Whenever there's a DO, you have to include me/te/lo(s)/la(s), etc. along with the DO?
"Su novio" is the direct object. He's receiving the action of being chosen. If we use a pronoun instead of "su novio," it would be "Ella puede elegirlo" or "Puede elegirlo a él." Obviously there's more word order variations for the placement of pronouns and object pronouns, but you can see Le(to/for him) doesn't work, because no other object is receiving any action. If she we're choosing a thing FOR her novio, then he would be an indirect object. Puede is inconsequential to the object pronouns, elegir is the verb that matters here, and it's transitive.
Well...I guess I wont be speaking Spanish in any third world country...