Possessive adjective for parts of body

[arnoldsg72]

examples of action on the own part of body
Me lavo los pies. (correct) (I wash my feet)
lavo mi pies. (incorrect)
examples of action on the part of otherone body
le lavo los pies. (correct) (I wash his/her feet)
lavo sus pies. (correct) (I wash his/her feet)
examples of action on the part of something (independent of owner):
Me lavo la ventana de la casa. (correct) (I wash my house window.)
lavo mi ventana de la casa. (correct) (I wash my house window.)
le lavo la ventana de la casa. (correct) (I wash his/her house window.)
lavo su ventana de la casa. (correct) (I wash his/her house window.)
I want to know your ideas. Are they correct?

[Julvenzor]

Escrito originalmente por arnoldsg72

examples of action on the own part of body
Me lavo los pies. (correct) (I wash my feet)
lavo mis pies. (incorrect) [Correct, but Yoda's talking]
examples of action on the part of otherone body
le lavo los pies. (correct) (I wash his/her feet)
lavo sus pies. (correct) (I wash his/her feet) [Less frequent]
examples of action on the part of something (independent of owner):
Me lavo la ventana de la casa. (correct) (I wash my house window.)
lavo mi ventana de la casa. (correct) (I wash my house window.)
le lavo la ventana de la casa. (correct) (I wash his/her house window.)
lavo su ventana de la casa. (correct) (I wash his/her house window.)
I want to know your ideas. Are they correct?

"I wash my house window" can be translated simply as "Lavo la ventana de mi casa".

A pleasure.

[arnoldsg72]

Thanks Julvenzor,

Is "lavo la ventana de su casa." less frequent?

[Julvenzor]

Escrito originalmente por arnoldsg72

Thanks Julvenzor,

Is "lavo la ventana de su casa." less frequent?

No, it's common.

[arnoldsg72]

So as a result I say:

For body part the possessive adjective is less frequent. But for the part of other things, using (possessive adjective) or (indirect object pronoun before verb) have the same frequency.

For example:

Both "lavo la ventana de su casa." and "le lavo la ventana de la casa." are common.

ok?

[Julvenzor]

Yes, you have got the general rule. The basis of dative pronoun for body part and objects, that is to say, why it has not been lost through time maybe is due to that it serves for removing the ambiguity with "su".

For example:

She wanted to burn his car up.

(Ella) quiso/quería quemar su coche. (his car or her car?)


The solution:

1) If there is no context:

We interpret it as "her car".
We use dative pronouns in order to express the opposite:

(Ella) quiso/quería quemarle el coche.


2) If there is a concrete context:
We can interpret it as "his car".
Even so, dative pronouns are preferred.

[arnoldsg72]

"le" is for both feminine and masculine. So how can you interpret that "le" points to "her car"?

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

@arnoldsg72: You have a confusion between possessive pronouns and indirect object pronouns.

"Quería quemar su coche" can be confusing between his car and her own car, so the IO is preferred when it's his car she wants to burn: "Quería quemarle el coche". -> "a él"

[arnoldsg72]

@AngelicaDeAlquezar

I think Julvenzor has another idea because he wrote:

"(Ella) quiso/quería quemar su coche. (his car or her car?)"

he wanted to say we can not realize gender of car owner with "su".

Anyway for comparing our ideas. I translate those sentences in any imaginable situations:

1- (Ella) quiso/quería quemar su coche. :

possible translations:

She wanted to burn his car up.
or:
She wanted to burn her(another one) car up.
or:
She wanted to burn her own car up.

2- "(Ella) Quería quemarle el coche"

possible translations:

She wanted to burn his car up.
or:
She wanted to burn her(another one) car up.

3- "(Ella) Quería quemarle el coche a él" "

possible translation:

She wanted to burn his car up.

4- "(Ella) Quería quemarle el coche a ella" "

possible translation:

She wanted to burn her(another one) car up.

Let me know your idea If my sentences are false.