"Yo le ofrezco fruta a ella."
Translation:I offer her fruit.
Why is it LE ofrezco and not LA ofrezco? It seems like the LE should either agree with fruta or ella, and either way it should be feminine, right?
"Le" agrees with "ella" but "ella" is the Indirect Object which is always "le" regardless of the gender (it has number, however, so you would say "Yo les ofrezco fruta a ellos"). "Fruta" is the direct object and it would be indeed "la", should the accusative pronoun be required, because it's a feminine word, for instance: "¿La fruta? Se la ofrecí a ella." ("The fruit? I offered it to her".)
Could you explain why the accusative pronoun is not required here?
I offer (whom? dative) her (what? accus.) fruit.
The fruit of knowledge. El fruto del conocimiento :)
"La fruta" is for literal fruit, and "el fruto" is for figurative or spiritual fruit.
The reason why the indirect object pronoun is needed is because of the verb which is an "exchange verb." Those types of verbs (dar, pasar, and many others) demand indirect object pronouns. That is key to understanding the "redundant" usage of indirect pronouns. Por ejemplo: Juan le da un beso a su bebe. The DL sentence here is of a different type (the indirect object isn't named), but they are similar in that the indirect object pronouns are necessary.
I understand that "Yo le ofrezco fruta a ella" translates as "I offer her fruit", but how would you go about substituting "fruta" with a direct object pronoun (i.e "I offer her it")?
Se lo ofrezco. = I offer it to her. or I offer her it. Spanish speakers dislike the sound of Le lo ... so when they come together like this, the LE morphs into SE. The indirect pronoun goes first; the way I remember this is: people are more important than things, so people go first. Kind of dumb, but it works for me, Joe! One more thing, if you need to be super clear you can add Se lo ofrezco a ella.
Perfect explanation, thanks so much. One more thing, does the rule of substituting "se" for the indirect pronoun apply for plurals ("les")?
yes. LE (a ella) object indirect, FRUIT is object direct. I offer her fruit or I offer fruit to her
"I offer her some fruit" should be acceptable. They are synonymous.
Why does it have to be "Yo le ofrezco fruta a ella"? Why can't it be "Yo ofrezco fruta a ella"?
I am completely confused as to when to use pronouns for indirect objects. Can someone explain this? I offered fruit to her..."Yo le ofrezco fruta a ella" I do not remember learning about this is my classes. If translating from English to Spanish I would have assumed it was "Yo ofrenza fruta a ella"
How would you translate this using only pronouns?
Could you write "yo la le ofrezsco? (i offer it to her?) or would the order go "yo le la ofrezsco"? is it allowed to do this at all, to mix indirect and direct object pronouns?
I think it would be "yo se la ofrezco".
Better to learn which verbs require the indirect object pronoun to be used along with indirect object. Usually verbs of exchange. Como Juan le da un beso a su novia (John gives his girlfriend a kiss.) The LE is needed to refer to the girlfriend. Write me if you cannot find the verb list.
I offer fruit to her is supposed to be correct because it said le not la right?
"I offer fruit to her." should work as a correct translation here as well as, "I offer her fruit."
Awkward phrasing, take out "to". Also it is just fruit, not some fuit I think.
Drat! I read ALL the comments, but just don't know when to use "the" in front of an object. If I offer an invitation to come to dinner, it is THE dinner, but wrong if I say I offer the fruit. Double drat.
I'm afraid that's a quadruple drat, skep.
You would invite someone to "the dinner" if it was a particular event, eg "the Annual Badminton Club Dinner" or "the High School Reunion Christmas Dinner", otherwise you would just say "come to dinner Thursday".
And "fruit" is also the plural of "fruit", so you can indeed offer the fruit (apples, oranges, grapes etc)!
Of course, if you really meant when to put in the "el/la" in Spanish --- no, I don't know either! :-(
Logically I would say "After lunching with my girlfriend, I still have a chocolate biscuit and an apple left in my lunchbox. I offer her the fruit."
This might be: "Después de comer con mi novia , todavía tengo una galleta de chocolate y una manzana dejado en mi fiambrera . Yo le ofrezco la fruta ." I'm not entirely sure that this is right. Would someone help please?
Hi, rog. Yes, I was actually trying to determine when to use the Spanish article, as I'm comfortable within context placing "the" in English sentences (native speaker). But in Duo-lessons, it seems when I get one wrong, & try it the opposite way in a similar sentence later, it's wrong, too (like the example of "la cena," or "fruta" by itself. I've learned not to let it upset me -- nothing upsets me now unless I lose a streak for no reason!
In English, of course, I can offer either a single serving or several fruit or types of fruit, without saying "the" fruit. ex.: "My mom cannot eat dairy products, so instead of ice cream, I offer her fruit." Or, "There was a choice of cake or apples, but my mom is on a low-sugar diet, so I offered her the fruit." I would ALMOST always use "the" in this context: "The fruit is spoiled," if I was pointing out the condition of bad fruit, but not if I was saying WHAT CAUSES that condition, like this: "Fruit is spoiled by being in a hot car for too long, or if it has been too many days since it was picked."
I'm NOT questioning your accuracy, because you're ahead of me, but I didn't get why, in your example, you used "de" before "comer," and "de" before chocolate? Seems like "galleta chocolate" would describe "chocolate cookie" just fine. In English, "Cookie of/from chocolate" would bring to mind something like a chocolate Easter bunny, an object formed entirely OF/FROM chocolate, not baked goods that are chocolate flavored by the chocolate added to the flour, sugar, etc. The verb form you used is just probably ahead of me in lessons, because I haven't seen "de almozar" used like the Spanish gerund (-ing) form, "lunching." It is simpler than saying "having lunch," which is the way I'd try to form it at my level, I suppose.
I must say, I enjoy the nuances of language more in my native tongue! HA! :-)
Nothing personal skep. I wondered whether I had misunderstood, hence my last comment, but I left it as is 'cos it might help someone else.
You are entirely welcome to question my accuracy, skep. In fact I rely on it.
To "de" or not to "de"? I would like to say "because it looks right" (oh, how I wish that was so!). In the real world it looks like I just pasted it from the translator. (I can't get away with anything round here!)
It isn't "de before comer" but "de after después". The dictionary (WordReference) says "after" translates to "después de".
In English, "chocolate biscuit" doesn't mean a biscuit made entirely of chocolate, but a chocolate-coated biscuit. (Of course a dog biscuit has no dog in it at all - as far as I know!) So I guess I assumed that "galleta de chocolate" is a similar shorthand to "chocolate biscuit". I haven't yet found a reference for "chocolate biscuit" in Spanish, but "ginger biscuit" is "galleta de jengibre" so I guess I'm not a million miles off.
Would a chocolate Easter bunny be candy rather than cookie?
Careful with that "Spanish gerund". There is no gerund in Spanish. Instead, Spanish can use the infinitive as a noun, so "almorzar" would be appropriate instead of "comer". Do you know, now you've made me think about it, I used "lunching" without thinking. I guess I could have said "After lunch with my girlfriend" etc and retained much the same meaning.
Would that the Spanish flowed as easily as the English. It is amazing how our native language goes from thought to speech so easily - although by-passing the logic-centre of my brain isn't always a great idea!
Hi, again, Rog! Amazingly, I am back at the computer instead of at the Duo-app on my phone. I "got a kick out of" your reply (there's an idiom for you!), & don't worry, there was no offense taken from the "quadruple-drat" or any ideas that might help; I am "a babe in the woods" in Spanish language. (Another idiom - it must be my day for speaking tritely.)
So, "después de" is the reason for the "de"! Quizas I may have heard that before, in the dim recesses of my brain; thanks for bringing it to the surface. Una luz como un bulbo eléctrico ilumina dentro de mi cabeza.
It took me a ridiculous amount of time to figure out how to say the sentence above, so if it's CLOSE to the meaning of the cartoon-like person shown with a light bulb portraying an "illuminating thought," then that's good enough for me today!
So, you must be from England or Canada, ¡sí? (Couldn't find an upside-down Q-mark on my character map, so subtly slipped in an exclamation point instead, on my questioning "...yes?") I ask about Eng./Canada/maybe Australia (?) because "biscuits" usually accompany breakfast here in the Southern U.S., & the closest thing we have in the U.S. to a chocolate-covered "biscuit" is a doughnut (also spelled donut). And the small snacks they call "galletas" in Costa Rica are cookies, here, with dozens of popular flavors, favorites being chocolate-chip or sugar-cookies (sometimes decorated or shaped for Christmas), chocolate with nuts, or oatmeal, with or without raisins. I'm making myself hungry!
And yes, a bunny of chocolate would be candy, that's why it would be odd to think of "cookie of chocolate," you see? That's why putting "de" in there sounded odd to my brain. We would just say "chocolate cookie." So, don't eat any DOG biscuits! ;o)
I thought we were only supposed to call them "donuts" if we are prepared to dunk them - sorry, 'em! (I used to think that Duncan Donut was the guy who founded the company, and I wondered if he was related to the Hollywood film star Robert Donut.)
Sorry about the biscuits (French - twice-cooked). I did get the candy right though (or is that tho?). I'm still working on my English for English-speakers.
Incidentally, WordReference (my usual EN-ES dictionary) says we can translate cookie (EN) to cookie (ES). I bet DL wouldn't accept it though! However, WR also has "pasta" for "cookie". What's the difference between galleta and pasta?
Incidentally #2: now I look again, WR didn't say chocolate-coated, it said chocolate-flavoured (or in English I guess chocolate-flavored).
Incidentally #3: You mention oatmeal galletas. I eat a type of savoury cookie confusingly called "oatcakes" even though they are thin biscuits*. They are great with cheese or chutney or relish (or all three!), but good with jam/jelly too. They are originally a Scottish speciality (specialty) but are available all over the UK now - and I understand in Spain where they are called "torta de avena".
And yes, it's England - at least officially. Since I was born only 40 miles south of the Scottish border with a Scottish grandfather and a grandmother with Viking ancestors, I don't always admit to being English!
* I have to add that a local special(i)ty round here is Gingerbread. Except it isn't bread, it's a sweet cake; not a cake as in a one-bite-and-it's-gone pastelito or torta, but a large cake - traditionally rectangular, not round - that we cut into slices. Moreover, although it contains jengibre, the main flavo(u)r is treacle/molasses/melaza. It should not be confused with "gingerbread men" which are thin biscuits/cookies/galletas, nor should we be thinking of the type of gingery denser cookie (like a thick torta de avena) which is called Ginger Parkin. It's not only the Spanish that is confusing!
Would "Yo le ofresco fruta" also be accurate? Doesnt the le imply "her" on its own?
I answered "I offer the fruit to her." That should come up correct. It's the same thing.