"She has not introduced me to her parents."
Translation:Ella no me ha presentado a sus padres.
Why is there no "le" (to them) here, modified for clarification with "a sus padres" at the end of the sentence?
No, I am pretty sure the sentence does need an indirect object pronoun. Even when the indirect object is included as a noun phrase (a sus padres), grammatical Spanish inserts the indirect object pronoun before the conjugated verb, even though it may seem redundant. The indirect object for "to them" is "les" (not "le" as TilEulenspiegel suggests). So I would say "Ella no les me ha presentado a sus padres." But when the direct object is 3rd person (lo/la/los/las), then the indirect object le/les changes to "se". So "She has not introduced him to her parents" would be "Ella no se lo ha presentado a sus padres."
Rolling, this is the best and most concise explanation of this subject I have seen in a long time. Gracias!
I'm pretty sure the sentence does not need an indirect object pronoun (according to item #5.1 here), though it would not be ungrammatical to include one. If you did add the unstressed pronoun, you would need to reverse the order of "me" and "les." It should be, "Ella no me les ha ...." "Ella no se lo ha ..." is the right order.
Yes, there is no other place for the "no". Jerrymack, I see you are at level 10. I am at 9 and may get to 10 today!
Spanish grammar allows you to attach pronouns to the infinitive (presentarme - to introduce me), to the present participle (presentándome - introducing me), and to the imperative (presénteme! - introduce me!), but not to the past participle. In that situation, the object pronoun must go before the conjugated verb, as in the example: Ella me ha presentado - She has introduced me.
The translation is backward. It should be "she has not introduced her parents to me. In this sentence in Spanish the 'me' seems to be the IOP and the 'a' in front of 'sus padres' is a personal 'a'
There is a problem of knowing too much about English grammar and too little about the Spanish language. The sentence works perfectly in Spanish. When in doubt I check these issues with my native speaking Venezuelan wife.
You're quite right about Duo's Spanish sentence being correct.
However, the issue for those of us not married to your wife is that we often have to determine the correct construction on our own. And at times like that it helps to know both English and Spanish grammar. Knowing the English grammar helps to set up the Spanish sentence correctly. Unfortunately, the lack of understanding Spanish grammar is what leads to the confusion and the second guessing of Duo's proposed translation.
That's interesting. I also see this - "introduce" is acting upon the DO "sus padres", leaving "me" as the IO.
I wonder if a linguist or someone with an excellent command of Spanish grammar can confirm or refute?
That's right, Duolingo seems to have gotten it backward. Here's how I look at it: The Spanish "me" can be either the direct object English "me" or the indirect object English "me." The phrase "a sus padres" also can be either the direct object "her parents" or the indirect object "to her parents." So the only way to tell WHO has not been introduced to WHOM in this case is the presence or absence of the indirect object pronoun "les." If the English sentence is "She has not introduced me to her parents," "les" has to be included in the Spanish translation: Ella no LES me ha presentado a sus padres." If the "les" is not included in the sentence, then "a sus padres" has to be the direct object and by default, "me" is the indirect object: "She has not introduced her parents to me."
What about: Ella no me LOS ha presentado a sus padres. Either way, if there ever is a case for "redundancy", this is it.
Rollingstock, I think that you are spot on. This sentence is a bit tricky because 'introducing' is a bi-directional activity; but I believe your first translation is correct because the direct object receives the action of the verb, which is 'me' in the above sentence. The IDO is to whom the DO is directed (a sus padres), i.e. She hit the ball to me. Ball =DO; me = IDO. So... I think a correct translation should be: Ella no les me ha presentado a sus padres. See the link below which is really helpful. http://studyspanish.com/lessons/iodopro.htm
Not quite. Duo doesn't have this backward, in spite of the fact that we are often taught that it's the indirect object that needs a corresponding object pronoun. That "rule" doesn't really exist.
Here, the rule is simple. You must include the object pronoun for an object that is a personal pronoun, whether it's an indirect or direct object. In this sentence that's "mi." The fact that it's the direct object is not relevant. That's the one that needs the object pronoun.
Well, you've got a couple of issues here. "ella" is the subject and should go up front just as in English. "les" is an indirect object pronoun and is completely unnecessary, since you have "a sus padres." If you want to keep "les," I would place it after "me." Moving "ella" and dropping "les" gets you the official Duo sentence.
There is a fair amount of discussion regarding the presence or absence of indirect versus direct object pronouns in the Spanish version of this sentence. In fact, several have questioned whether Duo has it backwards somehow.
I find the issues both fascinating and frustrating. It's fascinating because there is clearly a lot for English speakers to learn about object pronouns in Spanish. It's also frustrating, however, because so much of the information is either unclear or wrong.
Most who disagree with Duo's translation believe the indirect object pronoun (IOP) is required. While that is often true, there are plenty of situations where an IOP is optional. Confusingly, in this case, it is generally accepted that an IOP should be included specifically to distinguish the indirect object from the direct object. Clearly, there is ambiguity in the Spanish, "Ella no ha presentado a mi a sus padres," since there's no way to tell which "a" is the preposition "to" and which is the so-called personal "a." So, the "rule" is to use an IOP to identify the indirect object. Applying that "rule," the indirect object should be "me" and one of the sentences is backwards.
The problem is that there is no such "rule." It's merely a convention to include the IOP to identify the indirect object. It seems it's okay to insert the direct object pronoun instead. Apparently, Duo's Spanish sentence is a perfectly good translation of the English sentence.
EDIT: I've since learned another rule. When the object is a personal pronoun, there must be a complementary unstressed object pronoun. This applies to both direct and indirect objects. This is the main reason Duo has the sentence as it is. It has nothing to do with which object is the direct object and which is the indirect object.