120 Comments
"A usted" is a clarification/restatement/emphasis of "lo." You have to have the "lo" as a direct object pronoun, and that "a usted" to make it clearer is optional.
1598
Search for similar phrases, and you'll find many with le and without the lo.
- 1598
i.e. Does it sound like a native said it? I know a trap when I see one ;-) Hablantes nativos! ¿Suena natural "Vamos a seguir a usted"? o suena como falta el "lo".
Mi problema es que no sé por qué es una trampa. Explícamelo, por favor.
- 1598
Y me contestó sofia2014julio: "No, no suena natural. Decimos: lo vamos a seguir ó vamos a seguirlo. El usted no se utiliza en este caso".
had to give you a lingot just for studying so many languages... that is my bucket list.. so you are an inspiration.. thanks
I believe this is something called "loismo" and describes spoken spanish in much of latin america. In spain the opposite effect occurs, where people will use le out of habit where they should use lo, called "leismo".
However, as it is at the start of the phrase, the IO should precede both, so the sentence would become: A usted le vamos a seguir, or use the subject Nosotros (le) vamos a seguir a usted. These sounds awkward because there is an excess of specification in pronouns and referents here - people don't talk taht way; another formulation that avoids the problem is to put the referent after the verb, which in this case would be realized by dropping it entirely: Vamos a seguir a usted. This is what would actually be said (the Le is implied)
Certain parts of Spain (including Madrid) they don't like using 'lo' or 'la' to refer to people. They go for the gender neutral 'le' instead
Just as vandermonde said, "usted" just clarifies who "lo" is, because if I say "Lo vamos a seguir" it is not clear wether I will follow you, a dog, a friend, a car and so on. "Vamos a seguir a usted" is incorrect.
- 1909
Is "Vamos a seguir a Usted" incorrect because the object is a pronoun? So, if it were not a pronoun, such as "Vamos a seguir a Juan," it would be OK without the clitic?
In response to the first question at the top here: Because the direct object LO stands for three things 1) him 2) it 3) you (masculine person), the sentence uses "a usted¨ for clarification--We are going to follow you (a man, for example, who maybe be standing among other people).
http://spanish.about.com/od/pronouns/a/redundant-pronouns.htm
It's redundant, and has no equivalent in English. Just one of those things you have to try to learn through examples.
this looks like loismo to me — it should be "Le vamos a seguir a usted", unless it is specific to spanish from a place that tends to use lo
I got this right, although I am still struggling to make the direct and indirect pronouns a part of my thinking.
How would you say "we are going to follow it to you?" (e.g. a trail)
Thanks for the help!
It seems like it would be: "lo vamos a seguir hacia usted." the "lo" here replaces some object (like trail) and you follow it towards or until "you"
I don't understand that sentence very well. Rephrasing would be useful, so I could say a possible translation. That one above is little meaningful to me in Spanish.
gnomeofdoom314's sentence above is not meaningful to me either. However, I agree that using "hacia" could cause the translation of the word "lo" to be the word "you" instead of being the word "it." Am I right, Duomail?
What follows is my version: "Vamos a seguirlo a tú" = "We are going to follow you," as well as "We will follow you." What is your opinion of my rewrite, Duomail? If I am wrong, why? Would my mistake here be loismo or leismo?
"Vamos a seguirte a ti," but the "a ti" is really redundant! Others in the discussion have said it should be "...hacia ti."
I have to stop over thinking these. I instantly saw "we are going to follow you". Then I began dwelling on that LO. My logical (but wrong) solution was "we are going to take it to you" --- Yeah I figured it out! Arrrgh no I didn't! Please explain the inclusion of "lo", thnx
Everyone is dwelling about "lo" when they should be asking about "a usted", the "lo" is essential to the construction, "a usted" isn't. "Lo vamos a seguir" means "We will follow it/him", if you add "a usted" it makes clear who you're following.
may be for you (and others!)Lavmarx But i don't find it clear at all, can't wrap (what's left of) my brain around this one! Ok phase one "we will follow it/him" - phase two " kind of 'to you'! lo vamos a seguir / a usted if I said "lo vamos a buscar" we'll search it and if I add 'a usted' I thought it is 'for you' ( i'd prefer para usted/ ti) But this is not it is it! I think i leave this one for "Ron"!
is the lo essential to the construction of the sentence? can you also say vamos a seguir a usted?
Yes, "lo" is essential, if you say "vamos a seguir a usted" a native Spanish speaker might think "this person speaks weird"
Yes you can, your options are:
Te vamos a seguir
Te seguiremos
Vamos a seguirte
Lo seguiremos a usted
Lo vamos a seguir a usted
Lo vamos a seguir (which might be unclear on who you are following.)
- 290
@Lavmarx: for contrast, how would one say "we are going to follow it to you" (e.g., a ring/el anillo)?
I am sorry to reply a year later. I have been off the grid for a while. In that case it would be something like "Lo seguiremos hasta usted".
- 290
(No italics planned, but I would have italicized 'it' if I'd known how on this device.)
- 1820
Principito_Rojo, please clarify which two things you are referring to as correct. I'm struggling with this sentence construction.
See I was under the impression "Lo" is used as "It", clearly lo has other uses, what's the use here?
"Lo" (here) is a direct object pronoun that can mean "him, it, or formal you (singular) depending on the sentence or context. Here "a usted" makes it clear that the meaning is "you."
I recall reading elsewhere in DL that Spanish object pronouns can be added to the ends of Spanish infinitives and partiples. EX1: Lo pidí a ud. a contarme/I aked you to tell me. EX2: Lo he estado diciendo a ella/I have been saying it to her.
:Hola Linda. Tienes razón. And a lot of English-speaking people prefer to do it this way because the word order more closely follows English. But in your EX2 you didn't hang the pronoun on the end of the participle and use an accent to maintain the pronunciation , "He estado diciéndolo a ella."
I do not recall getting a direct object pronoun lesson on when to use "lo" before we got to this sentence. This does not seem right.
I don't remember which Skill this sentence came up in, but the Object Pronoun skill now has a good explanation in its Tips and notes section on the lessons page.
- 1800
So if i have this right...
On the fast audio, with some background noise, it sounded like "no vamos", but even if that's what i heard, the 'a usted' should raise a red flag because it would require 'lo' or 'la' in front of the verb?
Tj1983, yes, that's right. I heard "no vamos" as well but as soon as i heard the "a usted", realised it was actually "lo vamos".
No, the "a usted" would not have been the red flag. If there had been a "no" in the sentence, it would have said, "No lo vamos a seguir a usted." You would have the same sentence with "no" in front of it.
- 1820
Reverso translates "We are going to follow you" as "Vamos a seguirle." Google translates the same sentence as "Vamos a seguirte."
At linguee, many examples are given without the "lo" or "te" or "le". Here is the link: http://www.linguee.com/english-spanish/search?source=auto&query=We+are+going+to+follow+you.
All three of my spanish translation resources none used lo just vamos a seguir ???... ill use the link about... thanks for info
even tho' the common usage is "to follow" one of the definitions DL gives is "to take. lo would be the DO. '
The definition of "to take" (for seguir) is correct. It is used in the same sense as "to follow." Siga esta calle hasta el banco. (Take/Follow this street to the bank.) Vamos a seguir este camino. (Let's take/follow this road.)
IMO, DL is trying to get people to use the seguir in the sense of "taking a direction." For example, follow the road on the right–> take the road to the right.
Would this not just be "Le vamos a seguir" or "Vamos a seguirle"? At least, that's how I would say it.
This is leísmo. Read the comments at the beginning of the discussion, especially AshleyBlackwood's and my comment.
Definitely translated this as "We're going to follow it to you," because that's the best I could.
I'm reading the explanations but I still don't comprehend. My mind translates "we are going to follow it to you"! If "vamos a seguir a usted" isn't acceptable, is "lo vamos a seguir" okay?
Since sequir is also "to take", can lo vamos a seguir a usted mean we are going to take it to you? Or is there a different way to say that?
- 105
"llevar" is the word for "take/bring" most of the time (including your example). "Seguir" has pretty much the same exact meaning as "follow" in English in any translation. I can't think of how it could mean "take" other than "take a path/road," in which case "follow a path" would probably be a better translation. I can't think of any other reason your dictionary or Duo would give you "take" as a translation.
I didn't see this in the comments. Sorry if it has been touched on already, but if I wanted to say "we are going to follow it to you" as in, we are following a map in order to find someone. Se Lo vamos a seguir para usted? a usted? In my experience direct object pronouns are often left out if the speaker is going to use the direct object noun. This sentence is just as clearly stated as, "Vamos a seguir a usted." I am still getting used to hearing and processing these things, but it seems to my English-speaking brain that the sentence is clearer without the direct object pronoun or, if the pronoun is included, clearer without the "clarification." Can someone provide the natural way of saying, "We are going to follow it (the map) to you"? Thanks!
Me parece rara esa frase. Tambien mi amigo espanyol ha dicho que no se dice asì. Pues que sirve la parabla 'lo'?
- 1598
Then don't think about it. Just do the exercises. This isn't science - you get it by doing it, hopefully, a few minutes every day. With a cellphone, you can do it almost anywhere.
"Nos" is an object pronoun (direct or indirect) meaning "us." It doesn't work in this sentence. But you could say "Nosotros vamos ..." Although it is redundant.
Since the pronoun is clarified "a usted" it should be indirect "le"not direct "lo"
Since you cannot rephrase this sentence as "We are going to follow to you," the sentence does not have an indirect object. "Lo" is the direct object and is correct.
- 1598
Do tell. Notice that "Do tell" makes little literal sense, yet you knew within a small shade of meaning what I meant. I claim that trying to reason out a language gets in the way. Three-year-olds don't do it, and you don't have to do it. I agree that some rules make fair crutches while you're getting on your feet, but a lot of the time it's "just because" (a phrase that also makes little literal sense).
if you reversed the scenario from Spanish to English would you use the Lo, the indirect object pronoun. Thanks
- 1598
I think maybe I understand the question. Are you asking if you directly translate the lo? No, see below (the "a" doesn't change the object and lo isn't indirect). Or are you asking if you start in English, do you have to add the lo? Yes, also see comments about le. You already know the direct object is you. But had this exercise begun with la, you'd know a little something more about the other person. The English doesn't convey it, and you couldn't cram it in the English without more context.
It seems to me that if we were following "you", then we'd say "Te vamos a seguir". Is it because we're using usted instead of tu (mind the accent), or am I on the wrong track? I would understand this more if the translation was "We're going to follow him", and I get that the a usted just specifies who/what, so the only thing I'm caught up on is the te/lo thing here. Although I'm aware usted behaves differently than tu (accent :P).
"Te vamos a seguir" is a perfectly correct sentence if you are addressing someone with the informal or familiar ".you." But, "lo," in Duo's sentence, is a direct object pronoun for him, it or the formal "you" (usted). So, Duo has used the phrase "a usted" to clarify which pronoun "lo" refers to.
just got an email about this sentence! What can we say? Either it's right and we have to accept and learn it or there is a mistake....(I use to handled math this way if i could not understand...and seldom there was a mistake! :( But my concern here is why do we need "Lo"? I would have thought perhaps: "nos" vamos a seguir a usted. What is "lo" standing for? I understand this, the way it is: We are going to follow "it" for you I have no illusion I could be right but that is how I take it!
"a usted" clarifies that the direct object pronoun "lo" in this sentence means " formal you".
I see a lot of replies and confusion. The "a usted" is saying to whom it is addressed (you, formal). The "lo" is the direct object, the person to be followed. There are variations, as others have noted.
This reminds me a little about French with the use of "On" which, in french is considered bad word/pronoun usage but very common! So it would be "On va vous suivre" which more correctly should be "Nous allons vous suivre" . I realise we are not learning French here but for those who know, perhaps they would understand that often some linguistic choices are available. I would not know if "le" or "lo" is more correct in Spanish as the French example I give here, but I thought there may be some similarity in its choice of usage.
We are going to follow it to you? That's the literal translation of the sentence, should it be accepted. I hate prepositions, can't get my head round that at all. That and past tense, the rest is coming on well.
- 1800
That's a good question. I think "We are going to follow it to you" would be more like "Lo vamos a seguir hacia Usted". Using "a Usted" to me makes Usted want to be the direct object, which requires the redundant "lo" as direct object pronoun (see the thread above started by elsabedutoit).
