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)
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).
It's redundant, and has no equivalent in English. Just one of those things you have to try to learn through examples.
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?
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"!
: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."
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.
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).
"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!
Since the pronoun is clarified "a usted" it should be indirect "le"not direct "lo"
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).
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!
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.
Maybe I'm getting used to Spanish after all these years, but "Lo vamos a seguir a usted" sounds perfectly correct an understandable. In my other language, German, I usually give it the "sounds right to me test" and it usually is. The sooner I stopped fighting that test, whether of not it makes logical sense, the more fluent I became. Believe me, in German there are a lot of things that sound screwball but after a while, you think, "That's the only way to say it because it sounds right."