1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "Nosotros la podemos defender…

"Nosotros la podemos defender a ella."

Translation:We can defend her.

July 23, 2013



Is it possible to say "Nosotros podemos defender a ella" (without "la") for the same meaning?


You can translate: We can defend her:
- Nosotros la podemos defender a ella.
- Nosotros la podemos defender.
- Nosotros podemos defenderla.
I am a native Spanish speaker.


Already been answered in some of the other posts, but for those looking for the short answer: no. The object pronoun ("la" in this case) is not optional when it refers to a personal pronoun ("ella").

"a ella", on the other hand, is optional if it can be inferred from context.


And just to add to the confusion, I always thought that you had to have the direct/indirect object pronouns (so in this case the "la") and can only drop the clarification pronoun (the "a ella").


Ah...I found Mavry, a native Spanish speaker from Chile, saying this in reply to a comment on the sentence "Ayer los vimos a ellos escribiendo un libro." (http://www.duolingo.com/comment/887461):

We can say "Ayer los vimos escribiendo un libro." but not "Ayer vimos a ellos escribiendo un libro."..."los" is mandatory. A ellos is correct, but redundant...you would only say a ellos for clarification when is strictly necessary or for emphasis

So what I'm thinking is that for a sentence like that one, and this one, where the direct object is a pronoun, then the direct object pronoun lo/la/los/whatever is mandatory while the clarification is not. But when the direct object is a noun, like madre or pluma, then you don't need (or maybe it's even incorrect to use) the direct object pronoun as in the sentences "Él incluye a su madre." and "Tengo una pluma."


I had a lot of trouble trying to figure it out! thanks :)


I agree with hunter18288. The indirect object pronoun is obligatory; the direct object pronoun is not.


this has got nothing to do with indirect objects. it is a direct personal pronoun (not just direct object) and is thus mandatory.


That really confused me too :/


The LA is obligatory. The a ella is for clarity.


I was looking at this and I began to wonder... can anyone translate this sentence for me:

"We defended it to her" .... as if you were defending a object to a person, justifying it. I was thinking about it and can't figure out the translation.


That would be "Nosotros se lo (or la if the "it" is a feminine object) defendimos a ella"

The "to her" in that sentence is an indirect object while the "it" is a direct object. So you would have to have the indirect object "le" before the lo/la. And when you have both a "le" and a lo/la/los/las together like that, the "le" would turn into a "se". I heard it's because it's easier to say, se lo rolls off the tongue much easier than le lo. :)


I think I'm beginning to understand. So 'I see her' is 'La veo' or 'La veo a ella'. We have to use 'a' to show respect because it is a person we are talking about and not a thing. I'm still a bit confused as to why it is not 'Le veo' which would be literally 'I see to her', again conveying respect because we are talking about a person.


As you said, le veo would mean "I see to her." But we don't want the "to" in English. This isn't adding respect, it's just changing the grammar and is using the grammatically incorrect pronoun "le" instead of the grammatically correct pronoun "la." Le is an indirect object pronoun and la is a direct object pronoun, and in this sentence she is a direct object so we have to use la.


Elizabeth, here is a lingot for your patience.


Is "la" required in the spanish sentence and if so why?? I know the questions has been answered but the answers thus far differ. Could a Spaniard please reply with a definitive answer?


Yes, the "la" is required. I am not a Spaniard, but I have a quote from a native Spanish speaker for a different sentence but the same exact concept. The sentence was, "Ayer los vimos a ellos escribiendo un libro." In this case, the "los" serves the exact same purpose as the "la" in this sentence, and the "a ellos" serves the exact same purpose as the "a ella." (So you can just switch those in the following quote.) This is what the native Spanish speaker said:

"We can say 'Ayer los vimos escribiendo un libro.' but not 'Ayer vimos a ellos escribiendo un libro.'...'los' is mandatory. A ellos is correct, but redundant...you would only say a ellos for clarification when is strictly necessary or for emphasis"

Switching it in as if it were for this sentence...we could say:

We can say "Nosotros la podemos defender." but not ""Nosotros podemos defender a ella."..."la" is mandatory. A ella is correct, but redundant...you would only say a ella for clarification when [it] is strictly necessary or for emphasis.


Gracias por la excelente explicacion.


Encantada de ayudarte. :)


Is the use of "la.......a ella" linked to a special verb (like "dar") or a situation?


How about "we are able to" instead of "we can"? I don't hear any difference really, but Duo dinged it.


Why is "able to" not an acceptable alternative to "can"?


"La podemos defender a ella" is a redundancy, it is better "Nosotros la podemos defender". "A ella" is implied in "la".


So "We it can defend to her" is "we can defend her"?????


No, the "la" is not directly translated to "it". The lo/la/los/las/etc. are just direct object pronouns. A direct object is something (a thing or a person) that receives the action of the verb. For example, in the sentence "I touch it." the "it" is the thing being touched, so it is a direct object. And in Spanish, you would have to put the direct object pronoun lo (if the thing is masculine) or la (if the thing is feminine) before the verb. I touch it. = Yo lo toco.

If the direct object is a person, like in the sentence "We can defend her," you still use the Spanish direct object pronoun. Because "her" is feminine, you need to use la. Also, you always have to put the Spanish object pronouns either before the verb or attached to the end of an infinitive, gerund, or participle (so you can either say "la podemos defender" or "podemos defenderla"). Again, having the la in there is just saying that a feminine object is the thing being defended (so there is a "her" that gets put after the verb in English). And the "a ella" on the end does not mean "to her". That "a" is the personal "a" and is necessary in Spanish for all objects that are people. It is not translated in English, so you might get the idea that it is a useless word, but don't think like that because it is necessary in Spanish and is very insulting to not use it. It just clarifies and emphasizes that it is an "ella" who is the direct object the "la" had been referring to: We can defend her...yes, her!


Best explanation here. Thank you!


Got it right but looking for clarification on why a ella is used here.


Is it correct without the "a ella"?


It's a lot easier to say this in English thanks to these redundant pronouns...


so now how do I write "I defend it to her"? Because that was my answer here.


Sure you can, Mario. Suuuuuurrre....


Could it possible to say ¨Nosotros podemos defenderla¨ How about ¨Nosotros podemos defenderla a ella¨?


"We can defend it" should be accepted, right?


"We can defend it to her" was not accepted as an answer. Can someone please explain why this isn't a possible meaning? The "la" would be in reference to something else, e.g. "alguna cosa". Thanks.


We can defend her. From what?


Why is it necessary to use 'la' and 'a ella' in the same sentence?


I am working on training my ear, so I'm solely listening to the prompts (not reading) whenever possible. This one has to be the most egregious example of unintelligibility so far. Even knowing what it says, she is virtually saying "nosotr la podemo défenda aire." Incorrect stresses, missing syllables. Maybe someone who's a native speaker could figure that one out without looking? I'm thinking not.

Learn Spanish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.