A Case of Lo vs. Le

[deandddd]

List Members,

I rcently ran across this sentence: "Lo tacharon de ...".

Now, I would say something like:

"Dios lo hizo así" or "El ruído lo sacó de sus casillas".

I would do this because of, let's call it, the impersonal factor.

But couldn't I use "le" in the first sentence ?

Thanks ...

Dean

[Tyrn]

An example from the SpanishDict:

Sus compañeros lo tacharon de cobarde por pelearse con estudiantes más jóvenes.

I often wonder about le/lo usage, too. I suppose there's a great big gray area where you just have to know, and a rule of thumb for regular cases, if there are some

[deandddd]

Tyrn,

The only rule that I know of is when the subject has something impersonal about it. And I found those two examples, "Dios lo hizo así" and "El ruído lo sacó de sus casillas".

But in your example, people in the form of compañeros are used, and it is obviously an indirect object construction.

So I don't quite catch on either.

Dean

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

Lo tacharon de cobarde. = Le tacharon de cobarde.
Dios lo hizo así. = Dios le hizo así.
El ruido lo sacó de sus casillas. = El ruido le sacó de sus casillas.

The first sentences use the grammatically correct pronoun "lo" for a masculine Direct Object. The second sentences are common in some regions though, and they're cases of "leísmo".
I think the speakers there feel "le" shows more respect for the person, but from my own usage it's hard to understand and explain. I hope some of our members in Spain would come around and tell you more about it.

[deandddd]

Angelica, Tyrn,

Well, as long as I know that either way it works, and that I am not making a fool of myself, I can say it either way and not go over one of those "speed bumps" in the middle of a sentence.

I have a problem in distinguishing between the indirect object and the direct object in certain situations. If I as the person initiating an explnation to a second person, tell about what a third person did to a fourth person, then for me it is automatically the indirect object.

In that case, the complete structure should be "le tacharon de cobarde a él". I understand it this way as if it were cast in cement. I understand that this would be the structure that you set up in order to explain what a third person did to the fourth.

But when I say it, I would say "lo taché de cobarde".

And to the second person, I would say "tú lo tachaste de cobarde". In the first and second person form of address, I wouldn't expect to hear "le".

But there is something that I am not understanding. And this technicality has been in a holding pattern for me for years.

So I mostly just use le for people and lo and la for things.

Dean

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by deandddd

So I mostly just use le for people and lo and la for things.

This will only work in Spain (and just a few places elsewhere), and only if the person is male.

Using the correct direct object pronoun will be understood everywhere. But, as they say, "When in Rome ... ."

[pjt33]

Originally Posted by Rusty

This will only work in Spain (and just a few places elsewhere), and only if the person is male.

I can't speak to the first half, but the second half of that sentence is incorrect. You may be getting mixed up with another named variant of third person pronoun usage, laísmo, using la when the standard pronoun would be le to emphasise that the indirect object is a female person.

As evidence that this isn't just my opinion and experience, I offer the DRAE's definition of leísmo:

Originally Posted by DRAE

Empleo de las formas le y les del pronombre átono para el complemento directo, en lugar de las formas lo, la, los y las.

[Rusty]

It seems the RAE has adopted yet another change, because I thought it used to say something else. I did a quick search on what constitutes leísmo. Most sites (over 20) agree with my statement above. In fact, one of those sites quoted from the DRAE, and provided a link to the DRAE's statement. The quoted material from the DRAE agreed with what I stated above. By the way, the link no longer gets you to the same page that had the material they quoted, so I believe the RAE now supports both male and female referents in the case of leísmo.

I withdraw what I said, based on the current DRAE definition. (Many online sites need to be updated.)