Según lo que - objeto directo?

Según lo que - objeto directo?
 

Hola,

En la oración: Madrid, una ciudad bonita, y según lo que Juan había oído, muy hermosa.


el "según lo que" - es el objeto directo?? por que Juan es el sujeto, había oído es el núcleo verbal.

Madrid, una ciudad bonita- Madrid- sujeto, la "coma" es el en vez del verbo "es" y una ciudad bonita el predicativo subjetivo obligatorio entonces.

I think the sentence is grammatically incorrect, but I'll leave that to the experts.

In any case, the lo que is definitely not a direct object. It is contained in a subordinate clause in a compound sentence (main clause: Madrid es hermosa) which does not have a direct object. In the subordinate clause clause, it is governed by the preposition según.

Oh, what part is it then ? its just that I have to mention which part of the sentence it is (subject, object, predicate etc).:confused:

Hmm... what could it be then? there is no way its subject nor object, so I have no idea :confused: what if we take the sentence on its own " según lo que Juan había oido", is there no way to analize it?

Now it looks as if you have edited your post after I posted. The sentence was

Madrid, una ciudad bonita, y según lo que Juan había oído, es muy hermosa.

Which is somehow wrong. But with your correction:

Madrid, una ciudad bonita, y según lo que Juan había oído, muy hermosa.

This is not even a sentence. The main clause does not have a verb.

:thinking::thinking:

You have a(n adverbial?) subordinate clause:

según lo que Juan había oído.

lo que Juan había oído is a noun clause governed by the preposition según

Yes I changed it because I wrote it wrong the first time, im sorry, i had to look again on the text, which goes like that:

Madrid, una ciudad antigua y, según lo que Juan había oido, muy hermosa.


(I guess the antigua doesnt change the sentence much)

Hmm.. I guess then that según lo que is the adverbial.. there is no other way :(

It is not a sentence - it is a phrase. What looks like a main clause does not have a verb!! :thinking::)

Madrid, una ciudad antigua ... muy hermosa.

Yep. Its a predicado nominal no verbal, if im not mistaken?

It doesnt make any sence, how am I supposed to figure out the sujeto,objeto etc... :confused: I guess we should just forget it then:D

You can't without a verb. The verb determines these functions. You could make a guess at ser as a verb, as a default if there is no other**, in which case Madrid is the subject, no object, and so on, but it seems a bit pointless.

**Greek and Latin do this.

I guess this clause is useless. I will continue analizing other sentences then. I already posted one, which I think is pretty straightforward, although I might be wrong there too :p

The analysis of "lo que" in this sentence is somewhat complicated. The pair of words "lo que" servers a variety of functions in Spanish: in this case they are a definite article (lo) + relative pronoun (que) that function to nominalize a relative clause. The head of a relative clause (in this case the pronoun "que") always fills a grammatical role within the relative clause: in this case "que" is the direct object of "Juan había oído". Placing the neuter definite article "lo" before this relative clause creates a noun phrase ("lo que Juan había oído"), which can function as the prepositional object of "según".

Hmm, so "lo que" could be the direct object ?

I think that is a distinct possibility; there's at two variations that I can see:

Prepositional phrase: "según lo que Juan había oído" has 2 parts:

Preposition: "según"
Object of preposition: "lo que Juan había oído", which we can try to analyse in different ways

One way is to treat "lo que" as a relative pronoun: as the head of the relative clause it causes the relative clause to function as a noun, and within the relative clause it functions as the direct object of "oír".

Another way is to treat "lo" as a definite article and "que" as the relative pronoun at the head of "que Juan había oído". The end result is basically the same, though: "que" is the direct object of "oír", "lo" is the determiner of the noun that consists of the relative clause, and the resulting noun phrase is the object of the preposition "según".

I think that the first one is the simplest effective analysis, but my knowledge of linguistics is rather idiosyncratic. If someone with better linguistics training than I thinks that I'm on the wrong track, I expect he or she will speak up sometime...

I don't want to sound picky, but surely with a finite verb that is a prepositional clause? Or perhaps we have different definitions of a phrase.

This thread has made me realize that there seems to be an overlap between linguistics and grammar, and I don't know where one stops and the other starts. :thinking:

Amen! Yes, grammar and linguistics are not the same; I think of grammar as being one component of linguistics.

And no, in Spanish there is no such thing as a prepositional clause. In Spanish a prepositional phrase is always:

[preposition] + [noun]

What makes this a phrase and not a clause is that there is no [subject]+[predicate] at the level of analysis of the prepositional phrase, there's only a [noun]. The content of the [noun] is irrelevant at this level of analysis, all that matters is that it is a [noun].

Thanks for the explanation. The problem here is of course the translation of Spanish 'phrase' which has a wider meaning than English 'phrase'. That, or the English 'phrase' has changed its meaning over the last half century.