the pronoun le with inanimate objects and animate subjects

[Nfqufktc]

¡Hola!

Would you comment on the following points:
https://i126.fastpic.org/big/2025/1121/7f/5f636559714caadedc3e9b90b7672e7f.jpg


1. Are the examples in the table above OK?



2. Based on the samples above, am I correct to deduce that the indirect pronoun le is employed if a sentence contains an animate recipient of the action (hands, as opposed to neckties, being an integral part of a man)?



3. I have also noticed that whenever the unstressed indirect pronoun le is used, it is used in tandem, as it were, with its clarifier, which introduced by the preposition a (not para). The preposition para is used, as you indicated in your explanation, when there is a specific need to point out for whom something is done.



So, would this variant be acceptable:



Ella lava las manos para él. She’s washing his hands for him.

Ella las lava para él. She is washing them for him.

Ella las está lavando para él.



Thank you.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

Some notes on the table:

· Ella está lavándolas. (Just the spelling.)

· Ella (le) lava las manos a él. -> If we're focusing on direct/indirect object, "de él" is not an acceptable complement.
All your sentences are correct, except "ella le lava las manos de él"; since "de él" is a prepositional complement, it's either "ella lava las manos de él" or "ella le lava las manos (a él)". :)

· "Ella le lava las corbatas (a él)" -> The indirect object pronoun already introduces whose ties we're talking about, so it would be redundant to say "ella le lava sus corbatas". In informal Spanish, it's very common to hear "me duelen mis pies" or "le lavé sus manos", but this is clumsy in formal speaking. So, you could hear "ella le lava sus corbatas (a él)", but this is an incorrect sentence in educated Spanish. ;)

· "Él le maquilló la cara (a ella)" -> "A ella" is superfluous, unless it's necessary to clarify or to emphasize. For example, if you were to emphasize that the makeup artist was him and not her, you'd say "Él le maquilló la cara a ella", just to make clear it was not the other way round, as the listener might have expected.


2. Based on the samples above, am I correct to deduce that the indirect pronoun le is employed if a sentence contains an animate recipient of the action (hands, as opposed to neckties, being an integral part of a man)?
Not really. Although we associate the indirect object pronoun with an animate recipient of the action, it can also be an inanimate thing:
- Le cortaron una rebanada al pastel. -> They cut a slice of the cake.
- ¿Le pusiste gasolina al coche? -> Did you fill gas in the car?
- ¿Qué pasa si les quito las etiquetas a las almohadas? -> What happens if I cut off the labels of the pillows?



Ella lava las manos para él. She’s washing his hands for him.
Ella las lava para él. She is washing them for him.

Ella las está lavando para él. :bad:
-> These sentences are not great in this context. For us, "to do something for someone", as doing something instead of someone else, is a usage borrowed from English. When we say "hacer algo para alguien" rather means that the other person will be the recipient of something done for them to enjoy, rather than replacing them doing the action.
In the case of "Compré un pastel para la niña", the child will be enjoying the thing, but I am not replacing the girl in the action of buying the cake. ;)

[Nfqufktc]

Thank you, AngelicaDeAlquezar.