I'm totally guessing that since "los" is a shorter(less syllables, less letters) way of expressing "a ustedes" Spanish speakers naturally more often use "los" instead of the sentence with the additional "a ustedes". The "a ustedes" here is optional for clarification that it not "a ellos". As a result of this it maybe essentially a rule or so common that it is a de facto rule that the "los" has to be here.
I would think that "a ustedes" is clarifying los, rather than los is clarifying "a ustedes." If the "ustedes" were clear, you wouldn't even need to clarify and could omit "a ustedes" completely.
That's what exactly is on my mind. I think you can even say it like Nosotros vamos a seguirlos.
Yes you can write the object pronoun as a tail to the infinitive if there is one or have it as Duo just before the conjugated verb.
Thinking aLong the same lines, you are required to use the indirect object pronoun even when the indirect object is present. Are you required to use the direct object pronoun when the direct object is present? Would this sentence be correct without the "los?"
In other words, you can't say nosotros ustedes vamos a seguir, you have to use los here instead of ustedes: nosotros los vamos a seguir (a ustedes), with a ustedes clarifying that los refers to "you" and is not an unnamed "them".
Doesn't "vamos a" always refers to the "going to" future? Why is it "will follow" you here instead of "going to follow" ?
Some people have mentioned they think there is a bit of difference in the two. Both on the English and Spanish side of it. Duolingo accepts "will" or "going to" in this construction everywhere though.
In English "will" or future tense can be used for any future, but "...going to..." can only be used for the near future or for planned future. So, "will" should be accepted anywhere "going to" is, but "going to" cannot be used everywhere that "will" is. However, for Duolingo purposes they originally did not accept "will" for "going to", because they were trying to teach that particular version of the future. Some people reported "will" as an alternate, but reporting is done sentence by sentence and I am not sure if it is allowed everywhere at this time.
I know the function of the -a- but keep forgetting about it. Would the translation "we will follow them to you" be wrong or even less common?
On several translators "vamos a seguirlos a ustedes" translated as ''We are going to follow them to you''
But, (by changing the position of ''los'') ''Los vamos a seguier a ustedes'' translated as ''We are going to follow you''
In both cases ''los'' was the direct object, but in the first case ''ustedes was considered an indirect object and in the second case ''ustedes'' was considered as clarifying/renaming the direct object.
This is an error on the part of the translator, because there must be an indirect object pronoun any time there is an indirect object involved. So, "a ustedes" can only be clarifying the direct object pronoun here. For it to be "We are going to follow them to you." the Spanish would have to be "Se los vamos a seguier a ustedes." or "Vamos a seguírselos a ustedes." at the very least and perhaps "Se los vamos a seguier a ustedes a ellos." or "Vamos a seguírselos a ustedes a ellos." (indirect object is placed before direct object when both are in a sentence.) Yet that would still be confusing to some, I think there would be context and you would likely only say "Vamos a seguírselos."
'we are going to follow them'
accepted? the 'los' is there it's plural, ❤❤❤❤ you gay owl
The drop down hints says that "los" means the, them or its. Says nothing about "you".
Two questions. Why not "we are going to follow them"? and why Nosotras vs Nosotros? Doesn't the los indicate the group is masculine?
They is ellos or ellas if only women are included. The unstressed obligatory direct objectform is LOS, the stressed form is A ELLOS/ELLAS. The los in the sentence is the unstressed direct objectform of the direct object ustedes and has nothing to do with the subject nosotras. From the fact that Duo uses NOSOTRAS we can conclude that there are no men in Duo's we