Help with use of se ve

[elchocoano]

I'm seeing this usage of "se ve" often. Here is an example that I noticed today in semana.com.

"En el clip, que dura al menos 2 minutos, se ve a una mujer joven, ..."

I can't understand the usage of "se ve" here. I though that "se ve" was a passive reflexive usage. So I translate this as "a young woman is seen." But if a young woman is the subject of verse, then why is there the preposition a? Wouldn't that only be used if a yound woman was the object of the verb?

It is as if the meaning is "one sees a young woman," which would them make a young woman the object.

Help!

[Rusty]

It can be translated as 'one sees' or 'they see' (using the accepted conversion from 'one' to 'they' singular) 'a young woman'. The woman is the object, as you surmised.

There are many uses of the pronoun 'se', all of which are explained in other threads. The sentence you posted is an impersonal sentence (no subject). You can read more about impersonal sentences here or here.

[elchocoano]

Thanks. Yes, I now remember those two previous discussions.

I have to admit that I don't really understand this area very well. But the main thing that I wanted to be certain of in my example was that the "personal a" was correct. So it seems to be an impersonal sentence using a pronominal verb and having a direct object.

[wrholt]

Originally Posted by elchocoano

Thanks. Yes, I now remember those two previous discussions.

I have to admit that I don't really understand this area very well. But the main thing that I wanted to be certain of in my example was that the "personal a" was correct. So it seems to be an impersonal sentence using a pronominal verb and having a direct object.

Yes, the 'personal a' here is correct. When the direct object is a known or identifiable person or personified thing using 'personal a' is generally required.

[elchocoano]

Today I read this in elcolombiano.com regarding prohibited campaigning on the metro in Medellín.


"Al candidato Federico Gutiérrez se le vio en el metro de Medellín, de jeans y camisa blanca, haciendo proselitismo."


In English: "Candidate F.G. was seen on the Medellín metro, in jeans and white shirt, campaigning."



This use of "se ve" seems to be exactly the same as in my original question, except that the direct object of the action (ver) is brought to the front, thus demanding the use of a personal pronoun later. But I would expect that we should see "lo", not "le", since we have a personal direct object.



That is, I would expect the sentence to be:
"Al candidato Federico Gutiérrez se lo vio en el metro de Medellín, de jeans y camisa blanca, haciendo proselitismo."


I therefore believe that this sentence has a grammatical error. Can anyone verify this?

[Rusty]

This is a case of leísmo, often used (and accepted as proper grammar when the direct object is a male) in Spain.

[elchocoano]

But this is taken from a Colombian newspaper, so I doubt that it is leísmo.

[Rusty]

I've seen and heard leísmo used in many places besides Spain. This is such a case.

[elchocoano]

Thanks.

[elchocoano]

I just found this online:
http://www.hispanoteca.eu/Foro/ARCHI...%20lo%20ve.htm

It looks like this issue of lo/le and also the issue of passive se versus impersonal se is rather confusing. I'm going to have to carefully go through this article.

[Rusty]

Nice find!

It looks like grammarians argue for either the accusative or dative pronoun, based on perception and/or context. I've only learned that there is a difference between impersonal and passive reflexive 'se' usage, but which to use is not so easily mastered by those of us learning the language (and by some native speakers ).

Remembering that grammatical errors, and deviations from what is taught by prescriptive grammar adherents, occur every day in every spoken tongue, I sometimes choose to go with the flow (when in Rome ...). This sometimes means I've used correct grammar, and sometimes I've not.

[elchocoano]

Rusty, you are correct!


https://www.rae.es/dpd/le%C3%ADsmo


What I was asking about in the original sentence is a special case of leísmo which exists even in non-leísta areas!

4. El panorama, sin embargo, dista mucho de ser sencillo. Por una parte, el leísmo no es un fenómeno que se dé uniformemente en las zonas consideradas leístas; por otra, en las zonas no leístas se documentan casos de leísmo, algunos solo aparentes, explicables por distintas razones


f) Es habitual que en las oraciones impersonales con se (? se, 2.1.a) el complemento directo, especialmente cuando es masculino, se exprese con las formas de dativo y no con las de acusativo, como correspondería a la función desempeñada: Se le considera el mejor actor de su tiempo; Se les vio merodeando por la zona. Parece demostrado que este tipo de oraciones se construían originariamente en castellano con pronombres de dativo. El uso de le(s)
se ha mantenido mayoritariamente, tanto en España como en gran parte de América, cuando el complemento directo es masculino:

«A su bisabuelo hoy no le hubieran permitido vivir como vivió: se le consideraría como un ejemplo de inmoralidad» (TBallester Filomeno [Esp. 1988])

;

«Se le vio [al niño]algunas veces contento» (VLlosa Tía [Perú 1977])

;

«Se le obligó a aceptar el régimen de encomienda» (Fuentes Ceremonias [Méx. 1989])

;

«En los puertos y rincones del Caribe se le conoció siempre como Wito» (Mutis Ilona [Col. 1988])

;

«Al rey se le veía poco» (UPietri Visita [Ven. 1990])

; sin embargo, cuando el complemento directo es femenino, lo normal es usar

la(s)

:

«Se la veía muy contenta» (VLlosa Tía [Perú 1977])

; aunque no faltan ejemplos de

le(s)

:

«Tan enamorada se le observaba, tan desencajadamente arrebolada se leveía» (Vergés Cenizas [R. Dom. 1980])

. Se trata, pues, de un caso especial en el que se emplean desde los orígenes las formas de dativo en función de complemento directo. No obstante, muchos hablantes, conscientes de que la función que cumple el pronombre en ese tipo de oraciones es la de complemento directo, emplean en estos casos los pronombres de acusativo, uso generalizado en los países del Cono Sur:

«Se lo veía zigzaguear entre los autos» (Cortázar Reunión [Arg. 1983])

;

«¡No se lo puede andar molestando por trivialidades!» (Magnabosco Santito [Ur. 1990])

;

«Nunca se lo vio ladrar ni gruñir» (Allende Casa [Chile 1982])

.