From France, English is not my native language.
I understand the transitivity of the verb “to show”, but I don’t understand why we couldn’t make it implicitly intransitive and add the corresponding preposition “to” to emphase on the action. I’m not saying that “I will show you” is not correct (it is), I just don’t understand why “I will show to you” isn’t, if it isn’t :-)
Upon reflection, this is actually a very strange verb. If we change ‘show’ to ‘hand’, then we can say ‘I will hand you the ball.’, ‘I will hand it to you.’, or ‘I will hand the ball to you.’, but not ‘I will hand you.’ or ‘I will hand to you.’; and this is all normal: the indirect object is ‘you’, which can be replaced by the prepositional phrase ‘to you’ but cannot appear alone in either form.
However, with ‘show’, in addition to ‘I will show you the ball.’, ‘I will show the ball to you.’, and ‘I will show it to you.’, you can also say ‘I will show you.’. You still can't say ‘I will show to you.’, but somehow the indirect object ‘you’ can be reinterpreted as a direct object when it appears alone, and I really don't understand why that is allowed!
The missing direct object (it) could be a physical object (o carro, a cozinha) discussed before, when I think the full sentences would be Eu vou o/a mostrar para você → I will show you it / show it to you. However, in English, you often hear I will show you in connection with some earlier criticism or doubt about a quality of the speaker e.g. perseverance, resilence, capability etc and it expresses a determination to prove the critics / doubters wrong - or to exact revenge in the extreme. I am not sure if the very subtle Portuguese language also allows this meaning, but I would not be surprised.
I really am getting lost! I just got hit for saying "I will not miss this time" for leaving out the word 'it' (I will not miss IT this time) even though we would not require it in English. Now you say that with the word 'para' after the verb, no IT is used? Doesn't the word 'para' in this sentence mean 'to' and wouldn't it be wrong to say 'I will show to you' without an 'it' to make sense in the English?
'I am going to show IT to you' is accepted as a translation for 'Eu vou mostrar para você' even though a word for the direct object 'it' is missing from this Portuguese sentence also. As far as I know, 'para você' is one way of identifying the indirect object (the person who is going to be shown 'it'). AdrianoMai1 has given us the usage for this verb elsewhere on this page. I agree that reducing the expected translation to 'I will show you' has complicated the issue.
No. It could be "Eu vou lhe mostrar" or "Eu vou mostrar para você" if you are using "você". But if you are using "tu", then it could be "Eu vou te mostrar" or "Eu vou mostrar para ti". In Brazil, it is much more common to prefer "te" than "lhe" in spoken language, even though the speaker is actually using "você". Ex: "Você é meu amigo mas não vou te contar meu segredo" (You're my friend but I won't tell you my secret). It is not grammatically correct but it is very common.
Why should it be? Portuguese is not a mere translation of English so it has different structure and rules.
Verb "mostrar" usage goes as follows : mostrar algo para/a alguém. You have to memorize it. Examples: "Eu mostrei o livro para o estudante" / "Ela mostrou você para a platéia"
In Portuguese the sentence "Eu mostro você" means something like "I show yourself" (or in a passive form "you are showed by me").
When it comes to pronouns it gets a little harder since they can be the same for direct and indirect objects. But at this point, try to memorize how the IDEAS are expressed in Portuguese.