Volverse vs ponerse
 

Hi,

Why volverse loco, but ponerse nervioso? Is there some logic behind this case, or the usage is purely idiomatic?

These are very different verbs.
"Volverse" is to grow into becoming something that will be perceived as an inherent trait of your personality.
"Ponerse" is rather to happen to become something that will change as soon as the circumstance that provoked the change ends.

- Juan se volvió loco cuando falleció su esposa. -> He has never been the same and acts crazily ever since.
- Juan se puso loco cuando falleció su esposa. -> He did crazy things like breaking things, not washing himself or whatever a mad behaviour would look like, but as soon as he accepted the fact, his behaviour was the usual before the sad event.

- Karla se volvió nerviosa desde que robaron en su casa. -> She became a nervous person since she was robbed at home.
- Karla se puso nerviosa durante el asalto. She was nervous when she was being robbed.

- Los perros se volvieron agresivos en la casa donde los maltrataban. -> They are aggressive dogs, and probably that will not change.
- Los perros se pusieron agresivos cuando entró el gato. -> As soon as the cat goes away, they'll go back to normal.

- ¿Pero por qué te volviste así? -> Something happened to your personality and you've changed.
- ¿Pero por qué te pones así? -> There is something right now that is making you act differently to your behavior a moment ago.

Of course, they can't always be used with the same adjective, but I used these examples for contrast.

Thanks!

Second line questions :) :

Why robaron en su casa? Not robaron a su casa, or just robaron su casa, for instance?

Why los maltrataban, not les maltrataban?

It happens all the time, you know, and I'm still coping with it very inadequately :worried:

"Robaron en su casa" and "robaron su casa" may mean the same. Yet, for me, it's not only a matter of personal preference. In this case, I was thinking of a thief that entered a house and only took some valuable things. If I say "robaron su casa", I probably have in mind they took everything (not only valuables, but also furniture, clothes and anything else). It's not necessarily so, but that's how it came to me when I wrote the examples. :D
As for "robaron a su casa", it would make no sense. The house is not a person and there is no other case in which anyone would use this preposition.


"Les maltrataban" is "leísmo"; it is used in some places, but not where I live. You have a Direct Object, and the necessary pronoun is "los".


Don't worry, you're coping fine. It's only a matter of regular practice to assimilate most nuances and constructions. Keep asking until it's all clear, and if you stumble upon it again, ask again. That's the only way I know to learn things. :D

Thanks again!

So I can describe one of my real problems: I am not really good at distinguishing between direct and indirect object. If you could give me a couple of good examples "direct as opposed to indirect", so I could memorize them and apply them when in doubt :o

The range of possible meanings for direct object and for indirect objects in Spanish is rather broad, and it is different from the range of possible meanings in English. I do not know enough about Russian grammar to know how much similarity or difference there is between direct and indirect in Russian compared to direct and indirect objects in either English or Spanish.

However, one rule that works a lot of the time is to consider how the subject relates to the object.

If the subject acts directly on the object in some way, such as sensing/perceiving it (see, hear, smell, taste, feel), or manipulating/moving it, or changing it in some way, then usually it is a direct object.

However, if the subject does not directly interact with the object in some way, but the object has some type of interest or experiences some type of gain or loss as a result of the action, then usually it is an indirect object.

For example: "(le) escribí una carta a María" = "I wrote Maria a letter" OR "I wrote a letter to Maria". The direct object is the thing that I wrote, "una carta" = "a letter", and the indirect object is the recipient, "(le) ... a María" = "(to) Maria".

And another example: "(le) quité un lápiz a José" = "I took a pencil from Jose". The direct object is the thing that I took, "un lápiz" = "a pencil". The indirect object in Spanish is the person who lost the direct object, "(le) ... a José" = "from Jose".

It is important to note that "(le) ... a José" is an indirect object in Spanish, but "from Jose" is NOT an indirect object in English. In English only 2 prepositions can introduce an indirect object: "to" when the indirect object receives the direct object, and "for" when the indirect object benefits from the action on the direct object. This is an example of one of the differences between the range of possible meanings of indirect objects in Spanish and the range of possible meanings of indirect objects in English.