Talk:Spanish pronouns

First few discussions (titles added retroactively)

Ladino

Would it be possilbe to have a different page for Ladino pronouns? Though it is exhaustive, and Ladino certainly has its roots in Spain, It is difficult enough to try to figure out which pronouns apply to latin america and which ones apply to spain without also having to figure out which ones belong to Ladino. For the sake of learners of spanish as a second language I would be in favor of creating a different page for Ladino pronouns so as not to confuse the already easily confused english speakers trying to learn how to use spanish pronouns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.69.175 (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Ladino should not be in this article. deisenbe (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Cuyo

I updated the "cuyo" section to note that "cúyo" is used in questions, but noted that in the Americas "de quien" is preferred over "cúyo". Cheers, --seain 11:43 04 Sep 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcseain (talk • contribs)

I gave a short explanation for the function of "cuyo." Please do change the information presented should it be found inaccurate. Thanks. -Yazeed

Is cuyo really a pronoun? RAE calls it "Adjetivo relativo posesivo". --Error (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It's technically not a pronoun, because it precedes a noun; however it's very difficult to find an alternative category for it to be filed in an article (relative determiner ???). --Jotamar (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The idea is that relative pronouns are the closest family of cuyo, so it makes sense to file it with them. --Jotamar (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Direct object le/les

Hi. I'm the main contributor to this article. If anyone has any questions regarding Spanish grammar, I'd be happy to answer them, and incorporate the answer into the article. Fire away! — Chameleon 17:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your articles on the Spanish language have been great reading. Being a native speaker from Buenos Aires, Argentina, I wanted to make a few comments on direct-object le/les in practice.

I have never heard in spoken language in Buenos Aires the phrase "no quería molestarle", we always say "no quería molestarlo"

In Buenos Aires we use "la halagó" for "he flattered her" but we never say "le halagó" for "it flattered her", we say instead "la favoreció"

Finally, we always say lo "llevaron al hospital"

This is my first contribution to Wikipedia so I wouldn´t dare mess with your article, but I certainly consider myself an authority on how I speak and probably have a pretty good idea on how peolpe from Buenos Aires use the language. User:Zorko

Well, thanks!

Firstly, I can tell you that the stuff about usage isn't my own opinion or experience. It's research that I cited. I don't personally know what people in Buenos Aires say. I suspect that more people than you think do indeed speak as indicated.

Let's do some original research. If I Google for "lo molesta a usted", restricting the results to Argentinian websites, I get 1 result; "la molesta a usted" gets zero results, but "le molesta a usted" gets 6 results. If Buenos Aires is like Argentina in general, then these limited results would seem to indicate that le is indeed used when it refers to usted.

As far as I can tell from Google, you're right about lo llevaron though.

Perhaps we could add your testimony, but mark it as anecdotal. I think we have to give priority to linguistic studies where we have access to them. That's not to say that you are wrong. Thanks for your input. — Chameleon 30 June 2005 01:07 (UTC)

I don´t deny my testimony is anecdotal. And even though I am a newbie here, it is perfectly clear to me that the article should cite sources.

I mentioned the usage I am familiar with because it might suggest the work you cite is not accurate.

As to your original research, there is a difference in meaning between "lo molesta a usted" (he bothers you) and "le molesta a usted" (it bothers you). Both are used here although we get very few results because the "a usted" at the end sounds a bit artificial. Notice that in the "no quería molestarle" example the subject is always animated ("quería" is the clue here) whereas in "le/lo molesta" it might or not.

I think that for searching in google for pages in Argentina you should use google.com.ar instead of adding site:ar to your query. This will return pages in Argentina even if they don´t use the ar domain (of which there are quite a few).

My own little research in google.com.ar using "lo/la/le escucho a usted" returns 9 results for "lo", 1 result for "la" and no results for "le"

I chose the verb "escuchar" because it is almost never used with an inanimated subject.

So, it would seem that what I classified as point b2) Indirectness for humans — contrast with inanimate things applies to Argentina (e.g. the Juan lo molesta / Eso le molesta distinction) but not b1 or b3. I imagine that b4 applies. Point a doesn't seem to apply though. — Chameleon 30 June 2005 03:26 (UTC)

It would also seem that you don't listen to women much in Argentina ;) — Chameleon 30 June 2005 03:28 (UTC)

Point a doesn't apply an neither does b4 (we say se lo lee mucho for both meanings).

In an attempt to get more evidence, I did yet another search, this time in the REAL ACADEMIA ESPAÑOLA: Banco de datos (CREA) [en línea]. Corpus de referencia del español actual. <http://www.rae.es> for lo/la/le escucho in Argentina.

Results were 10 cases for lo, 3 cases for la and a sigle case for le, which is not relevant to our discussion since it was le escucho decir.

This seems to agree with both what I say about usage in Argentina and your theory about our not listening to women.

OK, conclusion: loístas y machistas. — Chameleon 30 June 2005 13:09 (UTC)

Incomplete pronoun chart

"Se" is missing from the pronoun chart in the singular and plural third persons for inderect objects(without prepositions.) "Se" is used to replace le and les when there is a direct object pronoun and is used as a reflexive pronoun to refer to either direct or inderect objects of reflexive and recipricol verbs. For example: "Ellos se lavan los manos."-"They wash "Los manos" is the direct object and "se" stands for the indirect object, "(to/for)themselves." This kind of construction doesn't actually make much sense in English and the indirect object would not be used, but "se" is an indirect object for Spanish nonetheless. A better example in which the indirect object is reflexive that can be related to English is "Se da los dulces."-"He gives himself the candy.", or "Me doy los dulces."-"I give candy to myself." (These are just random examples.) 70.89.191.233 04:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of "cual?"

In article: "Los niños y sus madres, las cuales eran de Valencia, me impresionaron = "The children and their mothers, who were from Valencia, impressed me" (los cuales would have referred to the children too, and not just their mothers)"

Since this is a non-restrictive clause and the pronoun within the clause refers to the mothers, this appears to be saying that the children and mothers impressed the speaker but only the mothers were from Valencia. Is this right? Because it sounds like an odd statement. 69.28.40.34 19:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's correct. Sadly English has no gender, so its not that clear in the translation. Try this:

"The child and his mother (she was from Valencia) impressed me". Mariano(t/c) 07:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What is a circumstantial complement?

... as found in the table at the beginning of this article? What do the three forms represent in this column? Clearly, they are not interchangeable, given that the -go and -co (migo, nosco, etc.) forms come after the preposition con only. So what are the other forms for exactly? If they each have a separate function, this column should be divided into three columns, each with a meaningful heading.

Also, if "direct complement" and "indirect complement" mean direct and indirect OBJECT, then the table should say so, for clarity and also for consistency with the text below the table.

Wouldn't the table be simpler and just as correct with the following column headings only: Subject, Direct object, Indirect object, Object of preposition (except con), Object of preposition con? Tawagoto 02:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right, the column is a mess. Of the three forms in the same column, the first one represent the declined pronoum for most prepositions (a, ante, contra, de, ..., por, sobre) The second seams to be for con (conmigo, contigo,...etc), while the last is the nominative case (don't know what it does there) Since we already have the indirect compliment with preposition, I guess the only thin missing is the with/con instrumental case value. Shall we change the column to that? By the way, having migo as a word by itself has no use at all. I'll change it to that, revert if not a good solution. Mariano(t/c) 09:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better. Thanks.

Can "Complement" be changed to "Object", for consistency with the text below the table?

In the table, for consistency, I guess the alternate forms are "connosco" and "convosco" -- ?

I would think that "Indirect complement [object]" should have its own column. The two preposition columns would have a two-column-wide label at the top ("Object of preposition"), with the present two columns as is.

Sometime, the inconsistencies between the table and the text below it need to be worked on. Tawagoto 02:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, I think all 3 are Inderect object, without preposition, with any prep, and with con. Thus, I changed the text below to follow that idea. If you think something else should be change, you can give it a try. Mariano(t/c) 09:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

the table with the personal pronouns is mistaken! usted is 2nd person, not 3rd person! And probably vusted/vusia/vuecencia are so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.147.70.118 (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the pronouns are grouped in a row by the form of the conjugated verb, not by person

Netrapt (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

lo se

i have friend from spain.

and i want know what the answer if he ask me in spain "lo se"

Thank you for explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.242.130 (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Vusted, Vusia, Vuecencia

I have seen on another page on wikipedia that Spanish uses Vusted, Vusia, and Vuecencia, along with usted, tu, and vos. Can anyone confirm this, and explain where in fact they do use these pronouns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.242.125 (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Usía and vuecencia are obsolete now. I haven't heard the others. Jotamar (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete pronoun chart - Ladino

hi all There is a problem with describing the pronouns table as containing Ladino pronouns, it hardly contains any, for example: it lacks the forms con tí, con mí which are special in a sense because they prove that the origin of conmigo_tigo is from reanlyning latin irregular ´mecum, tecum´ as the pronoun without the preposition. another thing is the absence of the number declination of ´se´ which in plural is ´sen´ .the I.pl forms are mozotros,mozotras II.pl are vozotros_as, (this last thing can be regarded as phonology but it isn´t exactly so because such changed didn´t occur in the rest of the phonologic system)

Someone already made a comment about that three years ago, but nothing happened, so I intend to change it if there won´t be any objections. I need advice how to do it because the table is growing too big on one hand , but i´m not sure it´s better with more special tables for Ladino ( there is a lot to add, there is also a different demonstrative for example dito/ditash). any guidance would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.199.228 (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Spanish "{v}ustede/s" forms are a 2nd person, not 3rd person.

Hello all, In the table of personal pronouns, I noticed that the forms "{v}ustede/s" are placed in the 3rd person line. But, those forms are 2nd person. Following the rules of Wikipedia, I did not want to correct anything for myself without general consensus. Respectfully, Roman — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanCaceres (talk • contribs) 14:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The forms are semantically 2nd person but for all grammar points they work as 3rd person. Jotamar (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. I was not aware of that. Thanks, Roman — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanCaceres (talk • contribs) 13:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Vosotros

Hello:

From what I understand, "vosotros" was also used for the singular, second-person, not just the plural as it is now used, in Old Spanish (e.g. Vosotros Juan tenéis leche?) The article does not describe this, which is slightly misleading. It would need a reference, however. If anyone can verify this through a book of sorts (perhaps Spanish scholars out there), it might help to improve the article on pronouns.

Happy writing. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.45.98 (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

70.72.45.98 (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I have never heard about vosotros as singular, for any country and for any point in History. Jotamar (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Here is an example from the Goethe's story "El Cuento de la Serpiente Verde." When the old man sees the woman, he asks:

" —¿Qué traéis? —clamó el anciano.

  —Son las legumbres que los fuegos fatuos os deben —replicó la mujer, mostrándole su mercancía. Cuando el viejo observó dos de cada uno de los géneros se puso de mal humor y aseveró que no podía aceptarlos. La mujer le rogó encarecidamente que las aceptara, le contó que en ese momento no le era posible volver a casa y que la carga le sería muy pesada en el camino que tenía por delante. El barquero insistió en su desdeñosa respuesta asegurándole que ni siquiera dependía de él."

Then he continues to speak in "vosotros" to her in the singular:

" —No, el más mínimo. Meted vuestra mano en el río —continuó el viejo— y prometed que queréis pagar la deuda antes de que transcurran veinticuatro horas.

  La anciana lo hizo así. ¡Pero cómo se asustó al sacar su mano del agua, negra como carbón! Increpó vehementemente al anciano asegurando que sus manos habían sido siempre lo más hermoso en ella y que, a pesar del trabajo duro, ella había sabido mantener estos nobles miembros blancos y gráciles. Miró su mano con enorme disgusto y exclamó, con desesperación:"

Note she is not a queen or any such thing. So, you see, it is quite possible.

Here is another example from the story:

" —¡Vais con la hermosa Azucena! —exclamó él—. Entonces llevamos el mismo camino. ¿Qué regalo es el que lleváis con vos?

  —Señor mío —contestó la señora, algo cambiada—, no es justo que después de que vos rechazárais mis preguntas tan secamente, interroguéis ahora con tanta vivacidad por mis secretos. Si de otro modo queréis aceptar un intercambio y contarme vuestras aventuras, entonces no ocultaré cuál es mi situación ni qué clase de regalo es el mío."

I hope that helps! :-) Oh, for references you can find the book on formarse.com under "libros gratis." 70.72.45.131 (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is also a blog for reference on vosotros in the singular. :-) http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120924233218AA52gyC 70.72.45.131 (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, what you are speaking about is the formal vos. It's no longer used, but I'll edit the page to mention it. Jotamar (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Article underemphasizes "standard Spanish" (or "majority Spanish")

This article overemphasizes usage of small groups, to, I assume, the confusion of many. Vos is used by what, 10%? And a geographically isolated 10% at that. Ladino is a fraction of 1%. Yet the article makes it sound like you don't know Spanish until you know them all. Treat them, sure, but keep them separate. deisenbe (talk) 12:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Three final questions

My work on Spanish grammar here on Wikipedia is almost finished; I have three final questions, however:

1. Apparently, some of what I wrote about clitic doubling is wrong; constructions such as Siempre ofrezco café a mis invitados and Dar parte a alguien en… seem to be acceptable. The common theme there seems to be that they have impersonal direct objects; is that what renders clitic doubling unnecessary? If so, can the same thing be done with pronouns (Siempre lo ofrezco a mis invitados or even Siempre lo ofrezco a ellos), and either way, is clitic doubling mandatory in the passive, where direct objects don't exist at all? And can somebody please explain the Ese regalo se lo di a él example on Clitic doubling? I thought impersonal direct object pronouns couldn't be stressed as such at all.
2. Do predicative adjectives that modify clitic pronouns have to come immediately after the verb with the clitic pronouns, or can they be placed elsewhere? Thus, is Eso lo oigo hablado yo a) right b) the only way of saying it?
3. Can que and el que be used as relative adjectives ("all of which things", "during which time", etc.), or does it have to be el cual? Esszet (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Please provide an example of No. 3.

No. 2 I don't know what you mean by "predicative (I was taught the term "predicate") adjective". Do you mean "hablado" is a predicate adjective modifying "lo"? The example sentence seems substandard Spanish as I know it, or an Anglicism. It would be correct, and better, without "hablado". "Eso lo oigo yo" is correct and inserting "hablado" adds nothng I can see.deisenbe (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

For #2, see predicative expression. I mean things like Yo lo oigo hablado and Manténgase informado. Do adjectives like that have to come immediately after the verb, or, if you want to put the words in a different order (as in my original example), can it be placed elsewhere? As for #3, say, por dos meses, en el cual (or el que?) tiempo… Esszet (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for "predicative". Never heard it.

With "manténgase informado", if I understand your question, the two words have to be in that order. "Yo lo oigo hablado a menudo" would be more correct than *"yo lo oigo a menudo hablado". But it sounds like an overliteral (and incorrect) translation of "I hear it said". deisenbe (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was looking for. You obviously wouldn't say "I hear it spoken" much in English, either, but you may hear it when talking about languages; see here for an example in Spanish. What about #1 and #3? Esszet (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

deisenbe? Esszet (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Jotamar? Esszet (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Esszet, I can't answer your questions. As a native speaker, I can tell you if a sentence feels right or wrong, but I can't define the grammatical rules if I don't look them up in a grammar book, exactly as it happens in your case. --Jotamar (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Resolved, generally

I'm very sorry about the very long delay (I'd really rather not get into it right now), but I looked around online, and my other two questions have been more or less resolved. According to this page, which contains a passage from the Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas, the general rule with clitic doubling is that it's optional with non-pronominal indirect objects when they come after the verb, but there are exceptions (see page for details). As for the other two things, I found a very good resource for resolving minor grammatical issues in other languages: linguee.com, which you can use to look for things that may or may not be right and see what comes up. Through that, I found that dative clitic doubling is indeed always optional in the passive (search something like Fue dado a él and you'll see what I mean) and that the bare form cual is what's used as the relative adjective (en cual caso, a cual tiempo, etc.). If no one has issues with any of that, I'll add it to the article, but since I'm going to include a passage on modifying clitic pronouns, I have one final question for all of you about Spanish pronouns: can clitic pronouns be modified by attributive adjectives? Thus, is Te vi a un ti muy feliz the right way to say "I saw a very happy you"? Esszet (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A un ti or a un tú is not natural in Spanish at all. --Jotamar (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

So then would it just be A ti muy feliz? Esszet (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That, or rather convoluted alternatives, such as una versión muy feliz de ti. --Jotamar (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks, I'll add it all to the article in the next day or two. Esszet (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Combinations

If Me le arreglaron la moto generally means Le arreglaron la moto para mí, can it also mean Me arreglaron la moto para él? Esszet (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. No way to tell which of the datives is ethical. --Jotamar (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Esszet (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I'm happy to fix other things like that if there are any left. Esszet (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

"Como", "cuando", "donde"—pronouns?

Why does an article on Spanish pronouns have a section on the adverbs "como", "cuando", and "donde"? Kotabatubara (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

They're traditionally seen as relative adjectives/pronouns. They're certainly not adverbs. --Jotamar (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I wonder what is it for English, for instance, in a sentence such as this is the town where I live, what's the role of where? --Jotamar (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)