"She is interested in this class."
Translation:A ella le interesa esta clase.
You are not alone, Donald. Some of us have simply studied these parts of speech before. In English, direct and indirect objects are often the same words. "I hit her. I hit the ball to her." ("Her" is a direct object in the first sentence and an indirect object in the second.)
Add the fact that there has been a rebellion against teaching English grammar over the past several decades and most English speakers don't know the difference between direct and indirect objects in their own language; so, yeah, it's difficult to understand them in another tongue. (One year of Latin in college was a great help to me. You literally can't write a single sentence in Latin without understanding parts of speech.)
I don't think it's fair to rant about a "rebellion" in teaching grammar. They did teach identifying different parts of speech and direct vs. indirect objects when I went to school, but as someone who is not a recent high school or college grad or a fifth grad teacher, those classes were a long time ago and I haven't been quizzed on this stuff in decades. It's not something that most people generally need to remember to do our jobs or get through our lives, so yeah, people forget this stuff. Not everyone on this board is a teenager who could/should still remember this stuff.
Teresa, I have my own experience on which to draw; I was in primary and high school in the 1960s and early 70s. Where I lived the system was to give you a diagnostic test and if you passed, advance you on to the next chapter. Since my parents were college educated, I merely answered with whatever sounded right to my ear and was promoted without ever understanding grammar.
Later, for 15 years I taught freshmen and women at one of the top-20 ranked universities in the country. I had to teach them to/two/too and their/they're, etc. These were all A+ students in high school and very, very bright--and I read thousands of essays over the years. I know for a FACT they were not taught English grammar.
If you want to do the research--as I did years ago--you can find still-current theories of education that hold the rules of grammar to be "totalitarian" and "unfair to minorities who speak a dialect at home", etc. It wasn't an accident that my students (mostly American) didn't learn grammar; it was a deliberate decision on the part of institutions that were training teachers. My post to which you refer wasn't intended as a rant, it was an attempt to reassure a frustrate poster that he wasn't alone in not knowing direct from indirect objects. As I noted, I didn't learn grammar until I studied Spanish and, particularly, Latin.
To be fair, with a diverse class of students who need to learn to write, I can understand not burying them in rules at the beginning. Let them learn to get their thoughts and feelings on paper; then teach them how to conform their usage of English so it is clearer to others. But as so often happens, the theory has gone way overboard until the simplest of constructions are a mystery even to many of the brightest kids.
But I do agree with you to this extent: many of us have simply forgotten grammar rules, however we learned them decades ago. I am relearning all the time here, even though I had four years of Spanish in high school and 3 years in college (all 35 to 50 years ago).
theories of education that hold that the rules of grammar are "totalitarian" and "unfair to minorities who speak a dialect at home", etc.
Speaking as someone who was taught standard grammar in school and as someone who has a degree in linguistics, they're going about it all wrong. It's not the rules of grammar that are "totalitarian" or "unfair to minorities who speak a dialect at home", it's how it's taught that is "totalitarian" and "unfair to minorities who speak a dialect at home".
There is no such thing as not a dialect. Non-standard dialects are not the standard (i.e. prestige) dialect with errors any more than Spanish is French with errors. The rules of grammar are not something handed down from on high. They are closer to "a mammal gives birth to live young" than "thou shalt not park here between 8:00 and 3:00". English is an SVO language not because someone decreed it but because that's what linguists concluded after analyzing how native speakers talk.
Is the standard dialect useful? Yes. Is it somewhat artificially maintained because almost no one speaks it natively? Yes. Should it be taught in schools? Yes. And not a whole lot has to change other than the teacher's basic attitude. Instead of telling students that they're fundamentally wrong for speaking their dialects, they should be told that here in school, we're learning the standard way and so while you're here, that's what you're expected to use. Just like there's nothing inherently wrong with Spanish, but please only speak French while we're in French class because that's what we're learning.
I have a friend who is a junior high English teacher, and that's his approach. Rather than promoting the stigmatization of the non-standard dialects his students speak, he merely says "This is a Standard English Zone". Standard English is taught, no one is oppressed.
I just want to reiterate that I was in no way passing judgment on any poster's dialect or knowledge of grammar. I was merely trying to reassure one poster who said he was confused by direct and indirect objects that he was by no means alone. There are entire generations of Gen X and Millennials in the same boat. (Again, not criticizing the kids; it's not their fault they weren't taught grammar.)
Rae, I agree 100%. I am old enough to remember when even white Southerners were told when they arrived at college that the first requirement was to drop their Southern dialect. As a playwright, eliminating dialects is a tragedy to me.
I was merely reporting one, dominating pedagogical theory of the past 30 years.
My own policy with students was this: "I have 150 of your papers to grade. There is no way I will have time to correct your grammar. So this will be our policy: if I understand what you mean--even if you make a grammatical error or your handwriting is atrocious--you get credit for the statement. If I can't understand you, then you do not get credit." I graded accordingly and the vast majority of my students did well, regardless of their background (foreign, domestic, urban, rural).
One day I was really annoyed with deciphering the messy papers I had had to wade through, so I thought to "punish" the class by making them sit through a lecture on English grammar, such as "to/two/too", etc. To my surprise, they were not insulted, they were GRATEFUL because nobody had ever taught them those things. That's when I began to realize how bad our educational systems had become in this area. (I'm not damning all things about American schools, by any means.)
at the end of the day, the FACT remains that a "Direct object" is a direct object and an indirect object" is an indirect object" whether taught or not!
Or give a crap. Does it really matter if someone does not know what a direct vs indirect is? Does your post help in any way for those of us wondering why it is le interesa? Not one iota.
Yes, it does matter if you want to learn Spanish. Unlike English, Spanish uses different pronouns for direct v. indirect objects EXCEPT when, as in this case, the direct object is a person: ella. Then ella is treated as if it were an indirect object and la becomes le. And indirect objects are not optional in Spanish; you have to recognize and include them even if you also name the person represented by the indirect object pronoun (me, te, le, nos, les).
interesar is a "verb like gustar. Sentences with interesar are constructed as follows: OBJECT + VERB + SUBJECT.
So A ella le interesar esta clase means "This class interests her" even though the words are in a different order than in English.
I hope this helps because I don't appreciate being reviewed as if I were an Amazon product. I'm not on salary here.
No. It does not matter. It is like playing guitar. You can learn the theory but it is not necessary. Name me one 6 year spanish speaking child who can tell you which are the direct indirect parts of speech. Yet, they probably speak it perfectly.
No one is reviewing you like an Amazon product no more than you reviewed me as an Amazon product. I am just saying hundreds of millions of spanish speakers could not name you the direct and indirect pronouns. Yet they do quite will.
To go back to the guitar analogy, millions of guitar players have no idea about theory. They just know what sounds good.
So you are having a conversation with your friend Pablo. Do you stop in your conversation and pick out the parts of speech so you know what goes where? No, you do it by rote. Do it often enough and "it just sounds right"
Theory is fine if you dig it. But it is not necessary at all.
Speak for yourself. You are the only one whining about this. Everyone else has either expressed their appreciation (surely you can read the "thank you" comments others have left on his explanations, and see how much he has been upvoted?) or kept it to themselves.
Donald said he didn't understand the prompt, so I gave him the applicable grammar rules and assured him he was not alone in wrestling with a construction that is basically the opposite of how we say it in English.
Yes, I understand the concept of learning by ear and I wish I had been immersed in Spanish when I was six. But my relatives don't speak Spanish, so I have to learn the rules. Most of us here are in the same boat.
And, yes, when I speak Spanish, I have to think about things like gender, number, direct and indirect objects, etc. Nobody says it's easy. I wish I could afford to go and live in Mexico for a couple of years, but I can't afford it. Fortunately, I live about 100 miles from the border and meet a lot of Spanish speakers. So I get some practice, but not enough to forego formal study. (Thanks for the defense, Rae. You're a pal!)
You are not alone. I get very frustrated sometimes, even though I really am enjoying the learning.
nope i cannot for the life of me get the hang of the "personal" "a" thing, why a ella?
I think you have it. You just defined the "personal a" pretty well.
A ella le interesa esta clase.
The problem is that the a in this instance is NOT the "personal a". It is the indirect object, just as we use it in English and it is translated as "to".
E.g., "He hit the ball TO her." (Emphasis added.) The ball is the direct object of the action ("to hit") and to her is the indirect object. "Hit the ball" is direct; to whom he hit it is indirect. The same is true in Spanish.
HOWEVER, Spanish is much more fluid in terms of word order. (Blame Latin, where every single word is a conjugation (verbs) or declension (nouns, etc.) and word order is almost irrelevant.
A ella le interesa esta clase.
So let's translate it literally;
"To her it interests her this class."
Obviously, this is an odd sentence in English because we don't decline nouns; their meanings are usually derived from where they fall in the sentence. Not so much in Spanish. So let's break it down:
A ella = "To her" (Note that "a" in this case means "to"; this sentence has no "personal a".)
le enteresa = "it interests her" (but it could also mean "it interests him" or "it interests you", which is why the a ella was added at the beginning). (As someone else has written, le is used instead of la because with Indirect objects, le stands in for either gender.)
esta clase = oddly, but only to English speakers, this is the SUBJECT of the sentence, even though this construction puts it at the end of the sentence.
So in the end, we have "This class interests her." But in English, we are more likely to say, "She is interested in this class."
The construction may seem convoluted to English speakers, but that's really just a function of the differing syntax of English and Spanish. This is a very common usage of interesar in Spanish.
Let me know if you get to a problem that actually uses the "personal a" and we can discuss that then. Sorry if my response here is too long. It's hard to break down the sentence in two languages and still give a credible account of each.
So the translation is "This class interests her." DL tries to be helpful by giving us the more common, "She is interested in this class." But it can be confusing because in doing so, DL has reversed the subject and objects in the process of translation. "She" (actually "her") was an indirect object in Spanish, but in English (per DL's translation) it is now the subject. "This class" (the subject in Spanish) is now an object in English.
well thank you Guillermo for the best explanation i have read, that really clears up the issue for me :-) i appreciate you taking the time to write such a comprehensive responce.
Thank you for your time in putting together such a nice piece of information. Have a lingot!
Thank you very much. As I've written elsewhere, my explanations are by no means infallible, but I ALWAYS learn something by trying to explain the differences between the grammar of the two languages. So no hardship at my end whatsoever.
Great explanation. I have been confused thinking it was the "personal a" I was susposed to be using instead of using it as an indirect object. Have a Lingot for you troubles!
Great explanation, unfortunately it doesn't explain why when one hovers over a word A ella does not appear only Ella :-(
The hover hints are a bit stupid and don't reflect the greater context of the sentence. It's a bit like directly looking up a word in a dictionary. You still need to know which sub-entry is the relevant one.
Yep! Mind boggeringly, frustratingly difficult. Got the personal "a" wrong again! Can't tell my objects from my subjects it appears.
The Spanish verbs interesar, gustar, encantar point the opposite way as the English equivalents. In English, we say "I am interested in X; I like X; I adore X." In Spanish, they say "X interests me; X pleases me; X enchants me."
In this case, it's not the personal "a". The Spanish sentence literally says "To her, this class interests her."
Thanks for that. So, would "a ella, esta clase le interesa" be grammatically acceptable or dismissed as Yoda-speak?
I don't know about the Yoda angle, but a more usual subject-verb-object structure would be, "esta clase le interesa a ella." You can do the same thing to sentences with "gustar," but the word order would be less idiomatic. I'm guessing the same is true for "interesar."
I am confused about this one. Would someone please tell me what is the subject, direct object and indirect object in this sentence? I thought that "le" indicated that "ella" was the indirect object, but then what would be the direct object?
"A ella" is feminine gender, and it is used to clarify that the indirect object "le" is referring to a female. You know it's an indirect object because of its position before the verb. Also, "le" is the indirect object pronoun used to mean "him" or "her."
"Interesa" is the sentence's predicate verb with the null subject "it." "Esta clase" is the direct object of the verb because of its position, and because it receives the action of the predicate. Finally, think of how the genitive case works: The indirect object can become the subject. For example: The class is interesting to her/She is interested in the class.
I think esta clase is the subject of the sentence, even though it comes after the verb. The sentence is literally "this class is interesting to her." The subject (clase) agrees with the verb (interesa 3rd person singular).
If it were "She is interested in these pictures," we would have to think "These pictures are interesting to her." The subject pictures would make the verb 3rd person plural (interesAN) and our sentence would be "A ella le interesan estas fotos."
That's the thing that makes verbs like gustar a little challenging: the subject generally comes after the verb.
For sentences like these, English uses the passive voice: 'She (subject) is interested (verb in passive voice) in this class (which is not really an object)'. Contrariwise, Spanish uses the active voice: 'This class (subject) is interesting (verb in active voice) to her (indirect object)'. Hope that clarifies rather than confuses!
Well put. "In this class" is a prepositional phrase that tells us where the action occurred. Otherwise, your parsing looks good to me.
Well said, I think. The only thing I would add is that indirect objects/reflexive verbs are no more complicated than passive tense in English.
The passive is a voice, not a tense, which pertains to time, eg past, present and future.
And to clarify, the verb interesar is intransitive in this sentence. There is no direct object and that is why there is no la. To be used as a transitive verb you would need to make someone interested in the class. For example, "the teacher got her interested in this class" - el maestro la interesó (a ella) en esta clase.
David, I'm not sure about this. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'm not sure. "The class interests her." "Her" is the direct object, but le is used because the direct object is a person, not because the person is an indirect object. There are other verbs where your analysis would be spot on, but not here, IMO. I think it's an exception to the d.o. v. i.o. rules, as discussed in other threads. There is a thread somewhere in which posters discuss how the usage of le for people who are direct objects is used in some countries (e.g., Spain), but not all. Some places would use la instead.
This probably won't help, but Duo doesn't respect leismo and doesn't ever use standard indirect object pronouns for direct objects. I assume that's because they favor current prescriptive Spanish grammar over colloquial usage. More important, it would be very confusing to students if they did allow it. As independent speakers, we are free to adopt whatever conventions are used by those around us. Just know that Duo hasn't strayed from current grammar rules here and "le" is indeed an indirect object pronoun.
That said, the only way that "interesar" can be a transitive verb (and thus involve a direct object pronoun) is in a construction in which "this class" causes "her" to take an interest in something. But that's not how it's being used here. It really is just saying she's interested in the class, and there's no direct object.
If it helps, you can think of it like "gustar." We shouldn't look at "le gusta esta clase," translate it as "this class pleases her," and wonder what happened to the direct object. Instead, we should interpret it as saying "this class is pleasing to her" and recognize "her" as the indirect object.
RAE has this to say:
Cuando significa, dicho de una persona o cosa, ‘ser motivo de interés para alguien’, es intransitivo y el complemento de persona es indirecto: «No le interesa leer, no le interesa el cine, no le intereso yo» (Martínez Vuelo [Arg. 2002]). Cuando significa ‘hacer que [alguien] sienta interés por algo’, es transitivo y el complemento de persona es directo: «Fue el historiador Walther Laroche el primero en interesarlo en el culto del afiche» (País [Ur.] 8.11.01).
When it means, applied to a person or thing, 'to be of interest to someone', it is intransitive and the person-object is indirect. When it means 'making someone feel interest in something', it is transitive and the person-object is direct.
From Portland State U., the following was my understanding (only because I read it somewhere else as well, not because I can compete with David in Spanish fluency):
"This is what we call “leísmo”: when we use “le/les” as a direct object. Although it is grammatically incorrect in all cases, the RAE accepts “le” as direct object if the pronoun is referred only to a male person, but never to female or things. This variation is much extended in the north and the centre of Spain, but not in Latin America." (Emphasis added.)
To be totally candid, the article goes on to show how people use le to refer to a female as well, despite what the RAE may hold.
Yeah, this is an interesting case of usage fighting the current ruling. It's a bit like the way English speakers will say "did used to ..." rather than "did use to ..." While the former is accepted as widespread usage, students are advised not to use it on an exam.
Think of Duo as an exam. :)
David, with the utmost respect and fully acknowleging that you know Spanish grammar far better than I, I think you trip yourself up when you transliterate "verbs like gustar" into English SVO sentences using the present progressive.
In your example--Le gusta esta clase--the most literal translation IS "This class pleases her" and Le is standing in for the direct object pronoun per customary usage, but in contravention of the rules.
[Quick note: You mean "translate", not "transliterate". Transliteration is what you do when you convert from one writing system to another. You transliterate "שלום" into "shalom". You translate "shalom" into "hello" or "peace".]
I really can't claim superior knowledge of Spanish grammar. I have, however, looked at this particular usage quite a lot. Regardless of how we might translate between Spanish and English, the "le" in both cases is an indirect object pronoun. It is not standing in for a direct object and is not being used in exception to the rule.
In the end, it's fine if you translate the standard Spanish expressions into English using a transitive verb form. I would even accept that the transitive form is most common in English. I was merely suggesting a structure that leads to an indirect object. If you don't like that approach, which is fine, you should convince yourself that the Spanish construction differs from the English one and is intransitive.
And, for fun, you should look up the etymology and usage of both "gustar" and "like." I think it's really fascinating how the two have developed over time. See, for example, this entry, which is thankfully in English.
Thank you, Rae! I thought "transliterate" meant "rough translation" and have been misusing the word for half a century! It's about time I was corrected (so graciously). (To be clear, I am being absolutely sincere; no sarcasm here.)
I mistakenly thought David was "creating" an indirect object by using the English present progressive in translation. But the link he provided confirms ya'll's understanding that gustar, interesar, etc. are intransitive verbs that have no direct object. I still don't understand why, but I know how to use such verbs and objects. (Obviously we are all learning: I just found months-old posts from you and me where we each argued the opposite side of where we were recently. LOL.)
David, as per your suggestion I do just think of "verbs like gustar" as a common Spanish usage without worrying that we say the same things in English is a different way.
I'm going to have to take your word and Rae's word on this. This isn't the first time I've had the feeling that my understanding of transitive v. intransitive verbs is shaky.
ETA thanks for the link, which certainly supports your and Rae's argument. I was already convinced, but seeing it in writing will help me remember.
(And, David, though I am not qualified to judge your overall fluency, I am certainly able to say with certainty that you almost always understand grammar better than I. The same is true of Rae, of course.)
I'm going to have to take your word and Rae's word on this.
I'm no expert on the nuances of personal pronouns in Spanish, so please don't use my comments in this conversation as reference material. I had only been re-hashing what I read in the forums, mixed with my own English-biased understanding of what constitutes a direct object. I am willing to be shown that I was wrong.
It may help you to think:
"This class is interesting TO her."
The TO signifies an indirect object, hence "le".
If you made it a direct object, using "la", the sentence would end up something like:
"This class is interesting her"
which is neither good Spanish nor the meaning intended. In fact, I'm not even sure it's valid. Linda, what do you think?
Actually, no. The better translation would be "The class interests her." which makes it clear that "her" is the direct object. Your idea to use "to" as the determiner is convenient, and it works with the usual example, "I hit the ball to her."
But in a lot of cases the use of a preposition is dictated by the use of present progressive form of the verb. "My words offended her." or "My words were offensive TO her." AFAIK, the differing constructions don't change the fact that "her" remains the direct object.
Somebody with a better command of English grammar will correct me if I am wrong, I'm sure.
ETA I was wrong and posters with better understanding of grammar correct me below. Please see their posts.
Linda is correct, of course. But we are talking about the cases where le o les is used at the DIRECT object pronoun, not the indirect.
It is to her therefore le no la. Sometimes it is hard to understand why the to her, him it works hence le but that is the jist of it
It has been explained, but you rejected the explanations saying you didn't care.
It has been explained in a way that turns off almost everyone. No one cares if it is direct or indirect or semidirect. They just want to know why. The rest is just stuff that turns students off. Just tell them why. What I was saying is the to her to him etc is sometimes not all that clear. Not that the concept is hard to understand. To him, to her pretty much covers it. Sometimes it is hard to understand where the to her happens. That is all I am saying.
Sorry, but you do not count as "almost everyone". The number of upvotes on his comments suggests that more people do appreciate the explanations.
They just want to know why.
Just tell them why.
That is what he's doing, but you're dismissing it.
butcher, what you are ignoring is that "direct object v. indirect object" IS the "why" you seek. It is the only and therefore the simplest explanation. I can't help it if you don't like the explanation.
Except it doesn't work in all cases. I appreciate that you want a simple answer, but the simple answer isn't always correct.
I am not dismissing it. It is correct. I am saying just give a simple explanation. It is because it is the class that is interesting to her. TO her is LE even if the to is not always obvious as in this case. No indirect, direct etc. But that explanation works.
No, there are good explanations elsewhere in this discussion (just search for marcy65brown), but the quick answer is think of interesar the way you think of gustar and you'll get it.
It's easier to understand if you translate the verb as "to be of interest." Otherwise, you have to deal with a nonexistent direct object. If you start from "this class is of interest to her," I think the connection is more obvious. At least, that's how I would break it down.
True EXCEPT that in English "her" is a direct object; not so in Spanish is what they are telling us.
A ella le interesa esta clase.
Literally, "To her, the class interests her."
"Le" is the direct object pronoun. "Ella" is the indirect object pronoun.
That can't be quite right, Rae, as le is always an indirect object. But in other discussions we are told that some regions (including Spain) use le for persons, regardless of whether the person is the direct or indirect object.
In any event, ella and le refer to the same person: she who is interested in the class.
Again, Rae, le is NEVER the direct object, except, reportedly, in Spain. It is the INdirect object pronoun for him/her. A ella is used for emphasis and to identify the indirect object as "her". Your analysis is wrong.
You are absolutely correct, Rae. I don't know why I was arguing with you 3 months ago. But I have seen the light now and I have used your explanation in my most recent posts. I apologize for being so dense in June. LOL.
I am hoping to make amends by giving you a lingot. (I'm kidding, except about the lingot.)
LOL. And here I was starting to see the point of what you were saying.
I think we both need someone more knowledgeable on the topic. :-P
Here's a site that seems expert, though except for the sentence I quote below, it talks about d.o. and i.o. as the only determinant of la/lo v. le.
"There is a tendency, particularly in European Spanish (so common that it is considered correct now) that le and les are used as direct object pronouns."
This says nothing about whether the d.o. is a person, as I read elsewhere; but then it barely discusses the exception at all.
Ella esta interesada en esta clase. This was an easier translation for me and was accepted.
Yeah, but you're not learning reflexive verbs. Your business, of course.
That exact sentence was given to me with word choices and it was correct, this app is very inconsistent
Just growing pains. I get messages every couple of days that they have accepted my alternative answer and updated the software. The DL "team" really is working on it.
Yep, I know of no software app that is 100% accurate all the time. This is a great language-learning resource, and it comes free!! The Duo staff and volunteers do a fab job in my opinion.
Your construction seems to combine two different ways to express the idea of taking an interest in something.
The pronominal form interesarse ("to be interested") would make ella the subject rather than the object. So, you should not use the prepositional phrase a ella with interesarse. I believe what you're looking for is something like, ella se interesa en esta clase. Note the inclusion of en as well.
The structure Duo is showing in this exercise reverses the object and subject of the English sentence, because interesar means "to interest". Thus, if you were to say ella interesa you'd be saying "she interests (something/someone)" and that doesn't makes sense for the translation here.
Having read the comments I'm more confused than ever as the "correct" answer I was given started "A ella se..." not le or la as per everyone else's comments. Why "se"?
I have no idea. I got from a link somebody provided that nobody says "le lo" in Spanish; the "le" always becomes "se". But that's not the construction here anyway. What gives?
le lo is never used as you were informed. It always changes to se. Just something else to memorize.
English verbs that require a prepositional phrase do not always have Spanish equivalents that also require a preposition. Another example is "buscar", or in English, "to look for". We don't translate the "for" in Spanish because it is included in the verb. "Yo busco mi almuerzo." I look for my lunch. There is sometimes (though I can't promise often) an English equivalent that does not take a preposition. In the case of "buscar", I sometimes think of it as meaning "to seek". I seek my lunch means the same as "look for", but doesn't take a preposition.
In English, we use the passive voice: She is interested in this class.
In Spanish, they use the active voice: This class interests her.
They also add "to her" which is redundant to English ears, but is part of how Spanish grammar works: To her, the class interests her.
You can see my explanation a few posts above yours. (Not blaming you for not looking for it there.) Basically, interesar is one of those verbs that require a preposition in English but NOT in Spanish. Another is buscar, "to look for" (or "to seek") in Spanish so adding "for" would be redundant. Adding en makes your answer incorrect. Easy mistake for English speakers.
See marcy65brown's explanation a couple of posts below. She explains it very well and there's no point in my attempting to explain it again here.
(Note: I'm not blaming you for not seeing marcy's post before. I'm just pointing you toward it now.)
I think some of you must be on drugs, reading some of these "explanations" !!!!
Same old question, WHY is the personal "a" required? When is a sentence properly constructed as, "To her..........." and when, "She is........." Is there a RULE???
In this instance, the a in A ella le interesa esta clase. is NOT the "personal a". It means "to" and the prepositional phrase is "To her". "To her the class is interesting." is the (rough) English equivalent of the entire sentence.
You can find the "personal a" explained in discussions where it is used by DL.
Hi everyone I am French speaking and totally lost right Anybody who is French speaking and good enough in Spanish to explain me this ? I was doing fine so far but now....ouch....I am confused thank you
M. Bernier, I only took a year of French in the early 1980s, so I don't remember it well enough to provide you better examples. But you have reflexive verbs in French (s'amuser, se laver, etc.) and you have pronominal verbs (se raser).
For example, Elle se lave les mains. (I hope that's right; I'm partly guessing.) That's a reflexive verb. Je me rase. is a pronomial verb.
French doesn't have, I don't believe, a precise equivalent to "verbs like gustar" which are similar to the passive voice in English or French and require the reversal of the subject and indirect object. The basic pattern is this:
[The indirect object or pronoun] + [verb] + [subject noun]; or
Le gusta la guitarra. ("You-formal, he or she likes the guitar. Add A ella, A él o A usted at the beginning of the sentence to make it clear whom the guitar is pleasing.)
Me gusta la guitarra. ("I like the guitar.")
The verb is conjugated according to the noun which follows:
Te gustaron las guitarras. ("You liked the guitars." or "The guitars pleased you.")
Intereser is used like gustar in the above examples. These are very common usages in Spanish and essential to speaking it.
No. "Interesar" means "to interest", not "to be interested in". The Spanish literally means "This class interests her."
Duolongo estas muy ocupado with these object pronouns. Translation apps would not suggest you use A or le. It seems excesssive for such a simple sentence.. A Ella le ....
The "le" is required with this type of verb, and the "a ella" is used to clarify whether the "le" means "she, he, or you formal."
Exactly. Marcy is right as usual. Spanish is pretty strict about the use of the indirect object pronoun, even though anyone taking composition or journalism in English will be told to drop it whenever possible.
Google translate shows this as "Ella esta interesada en esta clase". Just saying.
Yes, but it's a trap for English speakers to choose verb patterns just because they correspond to their English equivalent. If you only want to be understood during a short trip, that might be fine; but it does one little good in learning to respond to what Spanish-speakers are most likely to say. The "verbs like gustar" (as we've been calling them) are used with high frequency in Spanish. So ignore A ella le interesa esta clase at your peril.
I put "la" instead of "le," which is also correct, but it was not accepted.
No, la is not correct here. Verbs like gustar (encantar, interesar, importar, etc.) require the INdirect object pronoun (me, te, LE, nos, LES) not the direct object pronoun (me, te, LO, LA, nos, LOS, LAS).