The problem you have is that you are looking at it like the direct object pronoun, instead of the reflexive pronoun. "te" actually is both. In this case, it is reflexive. If the sentence was he/her instead of you, it would be "se" instead of "lo/la" and that would not be ambiguous.
you would use "llévese." lleva is an informal command, lleve is a formal command. Also using llévese is like saying "take your daughter with yourself" whereas using "llévele" is like saying "take your daughter to...(insert name of someone else)" se is the reflexive pronoun. le is the indirect object pronoun. I hope that kinda makes sense
'Take' has stricter implications than 'bring.' If someone tells you to 'take' your daughter somewhere it implies that your daughter has no choice in the matter. If someone tells you to 'bring' your daughter somewhere, then it seems that she doesn't have to go if she chooses not to go. Aslo, 'take' can imply that you wouldn't be going to your destination if not for the object that you're taking. 'Bring' would normally mean that you are going to go to your destination whether you have the object with you or not.
Example: "I know you would rather sleep, but take your daughter to the movies." vs. "You are planning to go to the movies; bring your daughter."
After typing all of that, I realize that this is a comment based entirely on the implications of the English words 'take' and 'bring' and I don't know if the Spanish words 'llevar' and 'traer' have the same implications. So "Bring your daughter" doesn't necessarily mean the same as "Take your daughter" in English, but I'm not sure if that rules out "Bring your daughter" as a correct translation for "Ll'evate a tu hija."
Hey folks. In this sentence the verb llevar is used reflexively to draw attention to the point of departure. Similarly this can be done with many verbs of motion such as ir, traer, volver etc. The best discussion of this is in the text: A New Reference Grammar of Modern Spanish, chapter 26. section 26.6., by John Butt & Carmen Benjamin. ¡Peace!
I think "llévate" IS reflexive here. I looked up imperative reflexive verbs and there it was, "llévate". The grammar book says that with the imperative form of reflexive verbs,the pronoun ("te") MUST be attached to the verb (as here). The dictionary says this reflexive verb means "to take away, to carry away". Seems to fit. I think translating this sentence as "take" or as "take with you", as suggested above, is consistent with this analysis. ("a" is just the "personal a") imho.
By default, whenever a word ends in a vowel, the stress goes on the 2nd-to-last syllable. An acute tells us if the stress goes somewhere else.
profesora = pro-fe-SO-ra ✔️ (no acute needed)
llévate = LLE-va-te ✔️ llevate = lle-VA-te ❌
América = a-ME-ri-ca ✔️ America = a-me-RI-ca ❌
manatí = ma-na-TI ✔️ manati = ma-NA-ti ❌
Not a silly question at all!
The "a" that means "to" is different from this one, and just as olgaz007 says, it is called a "personal 'a'". It is not translatable to English. It is used when the direct object of a verb is a person or an animal whom the speaker has personal connection with (respect included), like -- but not limited to -- a "pet". An example is one of Duo sentences:
"Amo/Me encantan a los animales" ("I love animals")
-- The speaker is talking about animals in general, not his pet, yet the "personal 'a'" is used. This is the same with people: "Necesito jardinero" = "I need a gardener" (there's no personal "a" since this is about any gardener, not anyone that someone knows. But "Yo ví al jardinero" = "I saw the gardener" (this is a specific gardener).
objects can come before or after a verb. when they come after, without an intervening preposition, they attach to the verb. The tilde may become necessary for spelling when this occurs. It does not otherwise change the meaning of the object.
An object with a trailing "a <>" specifies which specific object is meant, such as "le ... a ella" indicating that the personal pronoun in question refers to a topical woman.
Take your daughter 'WHAT." This is a very incomplete thought. Translating DL's 'statement' I get "Take your daughter." But, if I use the same translator and translate the English "Take your daughter." I get "Lleva a tu hija." Why is the subjunctive used? It seems that would change the meaning of the statement. I still think this is a very incomplete statement! AND (Note to DL) most of the comments are very old and obviously you have made some changes because these old comments are using different words than those in the current statement,