Translation:We are not going to recognize him.
Then why is the "a el" necessary? Doesn't this translate directly to "we aren't him going to recognize him?
Without "a él" it could be translated as "We are not going to recognize it." In this case, they are specifically look for "We are not going to recognize him." It's not necessary and probably not as common, but in my opinion it's a good practice example for learning to recognize the dynamic use of "lo".
Duo uses it a lot in the translations. From what I undersand the 'a el' is not usually used in conversation because it is normal to know already that 'lo' means him.
It would be good for Duolingo to partner with this website so we could get more extensive explications. Thank you!
Isn't this redundant? Couldn't you either say "Nosotros no lo vamos a reconocer" or "Nosotros no vamos a reconocer a él."
The reason is that "lo" can mean him, it or formal singular male version of You. So, since these sentences are without context, Duolingo likes us to add a él or a usted as needed for clarity. "lo" is the pronoun needed to replace a noun as direct object. If you had "a Juan", you would not require "lo". In real speech, you would not need to clarify, because you would not use a pronoun for the direct object unless the person had already been mentioned.
Most text books do not teach to put the 'a el' when using DIRECT OBJECTS, however it is used very often in INDIRECT OBJECTS
@sevenyear 'lo' is absolutely necessary because it is the direct object and without it, the sentence would be incomplete. Most text books do not teach to put the 'a el' when using DIRECT OBJECTS, however it is used very often in INDIRECT OBJECTS
SevenYear: Duolingo says yes, it is necessary. I have never seen it required in other classes or books -- and I have studied a lot of them, so for purposes of Duo, I always put it in.
It isnt, you can say "nosotros no vamos a reconocer a el" and everyone will understand what you are saying, you can say "nosotros no vamos a reconocerlo" with the "lo" at the end of "reconocer" and you will sound more like a native speaker because that is the most common way to say it
The translation is missing the preposition "to" between "going and "recognize."
eseru: At the top of this page, correct Duo translation, the "to" is there.
the verb "ir" followed by "a" = "going to" it is a normal Spanish construction.
What are the rules concerning the need for a Direct Object Pronoun/Indirect Object Pronoun? Ive seen some sentences where I thought the pronoun should be present, and it was not. To sum up, I feel I understand DOP's and IOP's. I just dont understand when/not when they are necessary. Thanks
So you are using the direct object pronoun "lo" to mean "it". However, "to him" in your sentence would be an indirect object and would then require the indirect object pronoun "le" (le becomes se in front of lo), so your sentence would be "Nosotros no se lo reconocer a él." Yet, I think that reconocer means admit only as admitting someone to a party or event etc. because you recognize him as being invited.
Could that be formulated "Nosotros no vamos a reconocerlo" ? Is there a subtle difference in meaning between that and "Nosotros no lo vamos a reconocer" ?
The use of "lo" when referring to a person is, as far as I´ve understood, poor practice and even has a name in spanish, "loismo". Could anyone explain why "lo" is used in this sentence instead of "le"?
In Spanish 'lo' is the direct pronoun and it means 'him' or 'it'. In Spain the use of 'le' as a direct object pronoun to mean 'him', is used by some speakers. It is never used to mean 'her' or 'it'. So therefore, 'le' is bad form to substitute 'le' for 'lo'. "Le" is the correct indirect object pronoun but not used in this sentence because 'le' means 'to/for him', 'to/for her' or 'to/for you'.
as reconocer can also mean admit, how would one translate "We are not going to admit it to him."?
Either answer should be correct. We are not going to remember/acknowledge him
This sentence includes the "a él" at the end for clarity, meaning "him" -- usually objects and "its" are never described with "ella" and "él"
I went to the site suggested below for direct object and indirect object pronouns, and printed it. i recommend this to anyone struggling with this as i am.
Why can't I say "We are not going to admit him?" Doesn't "reconocer" contain the meaning of "admit?"
Just to make sure I understand this correctly: there are 4 possible ways to use object personal pronouns in this phrase:
1) No LO vamos a reconocer A ÉL. 2) No LO vamos a reconocer. 3) No LE vamos a reconocer A ÉL. 4) No LE vamos a reconocer.
Am I right? Are all these sentences grammatically correct?
Can someone please explain why "lo" is used instead of "le"? When do we use "le"?
La frase está mal dicha, literalmente dice "nosotros no lo vamos a reconocer el"