Personal "a"

[bobjenkins]

Hola , sé que se usa sin falta la "a" personal cuando el objeto directo es un humano, ya estoy casi completamente seguro de las pandas de humanos como "el equipo", "la panda", "ejército de tierra", ect. necesitan la "a" personal, no?:thinking:

No se lo digas al ejército de tierra
No le gustan los gatos a esa panda
ect.

[Rusty]

Bob, neither sentence you proposed contains a personal 'a'. The 'a' is the preposition used to introduce the indirect object. It is always needed, if the indirect object is stated.

~~~
et cetera (etc.)

[bobjenkins]

Bob, neither sentence you proposed contains a personal 'a'. The 'a' is the preposition used to introduce the indirect object. It is always needed, if the indirect object is stated.

~~~
et cetera (etc.)
Huy! Rusty, como dijiste los he mezclado, (mixed them , the direct and indirect objects):duh:

Quise pedir sobre esos casos con la "a" personal...

Veo al equipo
Llamaste a la panda
Conozco al ejército de tierra

Me parece correctos, pero a menudo me ha traicionado la razón :lol:

PD gracias por la corrección, lo había escrito así por muchos años!

[Rusty]

The last examples you posted are using a personal 'a' because the collective noun represents a group of human beings.
A personal 'a' may be used with pets, too (in case you didn't know), but not with other animals. If you want to personify something, like your country, that can also be preceded by the personal 'a'.

[bobjenkins]

The last examples you posted are using a personal 'a' because the collective noun represents a group of human beings.
A personal 'a' may be used with pets, too (in case you didn't know), but not with other animals. If you want to personify something, like your country, that can also be preceded by the personal 'a'.
Muchas gracias por aclararlo, y decirme sobre los otros casos en los que se usan la "a" personal:)

[bobjenkins]

.. una última cosa..

La "a" nunca se usa con tener, ¿verdad?

[irmamar]

A veces sí:

Me gusta tener a María como amiga.
Siempre tengo al vecino metido en casa.
Tenga a bien contestarme (dígnese a contestarme).
No tengo a nadie en el mundo.
etc.
:)

[bobjenkins]

Bueno, lo entiendo , muchas gracias!:)

[irmamar]

You're welcome. :)

[laepelba]

I'm just now seeing this thread, so I should have posted my other question about "tener" here. :)

I have another question about the "a". I am looking at the following sample sentence in a section on indirect objects: "El chico comprará ese libro a su padre." Why is it "a" and not "para"?

And another: "La bolsa de valores disminuyó el capital a los inversores." Why "a" instead of "para"?

[chileno]

I'm just now seeing this thread, also I should have posted my other question about "tener" here. :)

I have another question about the "a". I am looking at the following sample sentence in a section on indirect objects: "El chico comprará ese libro a su padre." Why is it "a" and not "para"?

I understand that phrase in two way, and that's how it is used, generally.

The kid is going to buy the book from his father.
The kid is going to buy the book for his father.

It is ambiguous, so I am not sure if the meaning of "for" should be there.

And another: "La bolsa de valores disminuyó el capital a los inversores." Why "a" instead of "para"?

In this last phrase, more context is needed before answering, because it isn't clear if by "capital" is referring to the investors capital or the capital being asked...

[laepelba]

I understand that phrase in two way, and that's how it is used, generally.

The kid is going to buy the book from his father.
The kid is going to buy the book for his father.

It is ambiguous, so I am not sure if the meaning of "for" should be there.

In this one, they were translating from the English to the Spanish, so they wanted it to be "FOR his father".

In this last phrase, more context is needed before answering, because it isn't clear if by "capital" is referring to the investors capital or the capital being asked...

The English they gave for that sentence was "The stock market decreased the wealth for the investors."


Thanks!

[CrOtALiTo]

Hola , sé que se usa sin falta la "a" personal cuando el objeto directo es un humano, ya estoy casi completamente seguro de las pandas de humanos como "el equipo", "la panda", "ejército de tierra", ect. necesitan la "a" personal, no?:thinking:

No se lo digas al ejército de tierra
No le gustan los gatos a esa panda
ect.

The word A is used when you need address you to someone.
For example.

A ella le di dinero ayer.
I gave her money yesterday.

[chileno]

Thanks!

Originally Posted by chileno http://forums.tomisimo.org/images/smooth-buttons-en-5/viewpost.gif (http://forums.tomisimo.org/showthread.php?p=77878#post77878)
I understand that phrase in two ways, and that's how it is used, generally.

The kid is going to buy the book from his father.
The kid is going to buy the book for his father.

It is ambiguous, so I am not sure if the meaning of "for" should be there.

In this one, they were translating from the English to the Spanish, so they wanted it to be "FOR his father".

Then "para" should be used.

In this last phrase, more context is needed before answering, because it isn't clear if by "capital" is referring to the investors capital or the capital being asked...

The English they gave for that sentence was "The stock market decreased the wealth for the investors."

Same thing. "para" should be used.



Now, I am not sure, but the word "inversor" I heard of it starting from mid eighties or later. I would use "inversionista"