Origins of Spanish repeated object pronoun

[Beachxhair]

I've tried to search for an existing thread on this topic, but I couldn't find one....(Sorry if one does exist and this has to be merged with it .)

In Spanish, a 'redundant' pronoun is often used, such as le in this (rather odd ) sentence I took from an online dictionary:

"Acostumbro a hablarle a mi perro"

Where does this "redundant" pronoun originate? Is it a relic from an earlier stage of the language where it was necessary?

Thank you

 

[Hulalessar]

I suspect it is because in Spanish (a) word order tends to be somewhat free and (b) where the direct object is a human or higher animal it needs to be proceeded by a, which also serves to indicate the indirect object. Throwing in the extra pronoun helps prevent ambiguity and has come to be used even when unnecessary or for emphasis.

 

[sotos]

Such expressions are also common in Greek. Some times they give emphasis, some times are just redundant words that give a special flavor to the speech or the speaker.

 

[Gavril]

As you may know, the direct object pronouns lo(s)/la(s) are also used redundantly when the object is fronted for emphasis:

Esa chamarra la compré el mes pasado. "I bought *that* jacket last month"

The difference between the use of la in the above sentence, and the use of le(s) that you mentioned, is that le(s) can be used redundantly regardless of whether the indirect object ("a mi perro" in your sentence) is fronted or not.

 

[fdb]

In Gavril's example la is not (I think) redundant. It is an obligatory resumptive pronoun, needed to encase the topic (esa chamarra) into the syntax of the main cluase.

 

[Nino83]

To clarify, in all Romance languages we can use pronouns redundantly and it's usual in spoken language.

For example: te l'ho detto a te, je te l'ai dit à toi, digo-te a ti, te digo a ti.

Neverthless Spanish language is the only one that requires redundant pronouns when there is a prepositional (dative) pronoun in one sentence.

Example: ho detto a lei di non andarci, j'ai dit à elle de n'y pas aller but te he dicho a ti.

I think, as Hulalessar said, that it's due to the fact that Spanish is the only language in which there is the so called personal a so after some verbs you can't say, without using a redundant pronun, if there is a direct or an indirect object.

Es. I hand him/I hand to him. In Italian one say consegno lui/consegno a lui, in Spanish if one say entrego a él/entrego a él it's not clear the meaning.
In Italian, French and Portuguese the preposition a indicates unequivocally an indirect object but in Spanish it doesn't.
If you say le entrego a él it's clear that there is an indirect object.

 

[Hulalessar]

You cannot say entrego a él; a él is only used for emphasis or where you need to make it clear you mean "him" rather then "her". You must say either le entrego or le entrego a él.

I believe Romanian also uses redundant pronouns to the same extent as Spanish and also has a construction similar to the personal a​.

 

[Gavril]

In Gavril's example la is not (I think) redundant. It is an obligatory resumptive pronpun, needed to encase the topic (esa chamarra) into the syntax of the main cluase.

In what sense is la obligatory in the sentence

Esa chamarra la compré el mes pasado

but not le in the sentence,

Al Sr. Urrutia le vendimos la casa de veraneo

?

 

[Peterdg]

In what sense is la obligatory in the sentence

Esa chamarra la compré el mes pasado

but not le in the sentence,

Al Sr. Urrutia le vendimos la casa de veraneo

?

Both "le" and "la" are mandatory in both your sentences.

 

[Gavril]

Both "le" and "la" are mandatory in both your sentences.

OK, but Fdb seemed to be implying in post #5 that "le" in the original sentence (Acostumbro a hablarle a mi perro) was less obligatory than the "la" in Esa chamarra la compré el mes pasado: he said that le in the former was redundant, but la in the latter wasn't. If both are obligatory, then I don't understand what distinction was being made.

 

[Nino83]

You cannot say entrego a él

Yes, in Spanish redundant pronoun is mandatory while in Italian, French and Portuguese it isn't.

 

[Quiviscumque]

Mandatory or "redundant"? Well, a difficult question. In depends on the historical period, the region and the register. See a summary in the Real Academia "Diccionario Panhispánico de Dudas":

http://www.rae.es/dpd/srv/search?id=elLl31yYnD65MTS9uF (#5)

That description corresponds just to present standard prose Spanish; according to it, all our poets and all our classics were solecists!

 

[Hulalessar]

I think we need to distinguish between (a) redundant pronouns i.e. those which appear to be unnecessary and (b) emphatic or disambiguating pronouns. You can tell the difference because redundant pronouns refer to a noun, whilst emphatic or disambiguating pronouns refer to another pronoun.

In Le dio la carta a Juan, le is redundant - it refers to Juan. In Le dio la carta a él, a él refers to le. It is emphatic where you mean "He gave it to him" or "He's the one he gave it to"; it is disambiguating if you want to make it clear that what is meant is "him" as opposed to "her" or "you".

Omitting or using emphatic or disambiguating pronouns is never grammatically wrong.

Whether and to what extent redundant pronouns are compulsory and in what circumstance they should be avoided is not something on which I feel I can offer an authoritative opinion. Indeed, Googling suggests that authoritative opinion is divided. The best you can do I think is to give examples of where they are usually employed and which no one considers to be incorrect.

 

[Nino83]

For example in Spanish we have to say te digo a ti while digo a ti is grammatically wrong.
In this case we don't use a ti to disambiguate the person whom we speak to but also in this case the pronoun te is mandatory.

 

[Peterdg]

OK, but Fdb seemed to be implying in post #5 that "le" in the original sentence (Acostumbro a hablarle a mi perro) was less obligatory than the "la" in Esa chamarra la compré el mes pasado: he said that le in the former was redundant, but la in the latter wasn't. If both are obligatory, then I don't understand what distinction was being made.

Yes, and with reason. When the object (direct object or indirect object) appears before the verb, then the duplication is necessary. In "Acostumbro a hablarle a mi perro", the object appears after the verb and hence the duplication is not necessary. In "Esa chamarra la compré el mes pasado"​ the direct object appears before the verb and hence duplication is mandatory.

 

[Nino83]

I think that the real question is why in sentences like te digo a ti, le entrego a él "te" and "le" are mandatory.
This happens only in Spanish.

 

[Hulalessar]

I think that the real question is why in sentences like te digo a ti, le entrego a él "te" and "le" are mandatory.
This happens only in Spanish.

Put like that it suggests that the basic form is verb + a + pronoun or that you need pronouns both before and after the verb.

You can have le digo a él and le digo but not *digo a él. Le digo is the minimum possible and is just the way it is and is only mandatory in the same way that French je lui dis is mandatory.

 

[Beachxhair]

Put like that it suggests that the basic form is verb + a + pronoun or that you need pronouns both before and after the verb.

You can have le digo a él and le digo but not *digo a él. Le digo is the minimum possible and is just the way it is and is only mandatory in the same way that French je lui dis is mandatory.

In French, I think both direct and indirect pronouns are necessary, Je le lui dis...

 

[fdb]

Yes, but you can also say: je le dis à lui. It puts more weight on the indirect object.

 

[Nino83]

and is only mandatory in the same way that French je lui dis is mandatory.

So only in Italian and in Portuguese one can say dico a te, ho dato a lui, digo a ti, dei a ele as in English I tell (it) to him, I gave (it) to him.
But in French there are a few verbs that allow the construction verb + à + pronoun, for example Il pense à elle (in Spanish piensa en ella, with another preposition).

Therefore I'd say that this is the only difference because redundant pronouns are allowed and used in all Romance languages.

Italian and Portuguese allow the structure verb + a + stressed pronoun while Spanish and French (with some exception) allow only the structure (subject) + unstressed pronoun + verb + a/à + stressed pronoun.

 

[Hulalessar]

So only in Italian and in Portuguese one can say dico a te, ho dato a lui, digo a ti, dei a ele as in English I tell (it) to him, I gave (it) to him.
But in French there are a few verbs that allow the construction verb + à + pronoun, for example Il pense à elle (in Spanish piensa en ella, with another preposition).

Therefore I'd say that this is the only difference because redundant pronouns are allowed and used in all Romance languages.

Italian and Portuguese allow the structure verb + a + stressed pronoun while Spanish and French (with some exception) allow only the structure (subject) + unstressed pronoun + verb + a/à + stressed pronoun.

A pronoun is not redundant just because it is preceded by a.

 

[Nino83]

A pronoun is not redundant just because it is preceded by a.

I wouldn't focus on definitions. I may call it repeated pronoun instead of redundant if this closes this formalistic dispute.

In English, Italian and Portuguese one can say I give the book to you, do il libro a te, dou o livro a ti.
This construction is not allowed in French and Spanish.

In all Romance languages one may repeat pronouns when there is a prepositional indirect object pronoun.

 

[fdb]

In English, Italian and Portuguese one can say I give the book to you, do il libro a te, dou o livro a ti.
This construction is not allowed in French and Spanish.

On the contrary.
Je te donne le livre : neutral
Je donne le livre à toi : to you, and to no one else

 

[Nino83]

You can have le digo a él and le digo but not *digo a él. Le digo is the minimum possible and is just the way it is and is only mandatory in the same way that French je lui dis is mandatory.

On the contrary.
Je te donne le livre : neutral
Je donne le livre à toi : to you, and to no one else

I'm not understanding.
Je donne le livre à toi is grammatically correct or not in French?

EDIT:

I found this page page http://french.about.com/od/grammar/a/indirectobjects.htm

With most verbs(3) and in most tenses and moods(4), when the indirect object pronoun is first or second person, it has to precede the verb:

He's talking to me = Il me parle, not "Il parle à moi"

When the pronoun refers to the third person, you can use a stressed pronoun after the verb and the preposition à in order to stress the distinction between masculine and feminine:

I'm talking to her = Je lui parle, à elle

However, with some verbs the indirect object pronoun has to follow the verb - see verbs that don't allow a preceding indirect object pronoun.

It seems that French doesn't allow this sentence structure.

On google I've found only 20 results for Je donne le livre à toi.

 

[Michael Visser]

In order to emphasize the direct or indirect object of a sentence, a redundant object pronoun may be placed before the verb. The redundant pronoun is required when the actual direct or indirect object precedes the verb.

This redundant object pronoun may be required or simply stylistic.

 

[RangerRichard]

I want to go back to "entregar."

I presume if I want to say "I am delivering it to him," that's "Se lo entrego a él."

I likewise presume if I want to say "I am delivering his son to him," that's "Le entrego a su hijo a él."

Also I presume if I want to say "I am delivering his son," that's "Entrego a su hijo."

Finally, I presume if I want to say "I am delivering him," that's "Entrego a él."

As a matter of translating from the Spanish, "Le entrego a él" could be either "I am delivery him (one person) to him (some other person)," where le and él refer to different people, or "I am delivering (something, someone) to him," where they do not.

 

[Cenzontle]

I presume if I want to say "I am delivering it to him," that's "Se lo entrego a él."

if I want to say "I am delivering his son to him," that's "Le entrego a su hijo a él."

The Butt & Benjamin grammar (Sec. 22.8) says usage used to be to omit the direct object's personal "a" in these cases:
"Mande el paciente al especialista", but that nowadays the tendency is to keep both "a".

I presume if I want to say "I am delivering him," that's "Entrego a él."

In "Lo entrego a él", the "Lo" is obligatory; the "a él" is optional, depending on whether you want to put emphasis on it.
"Le entrego a él" sounds incomplete: "Le" is an indirect object, so the "a él" seems to be clarifying the indirect object,
and—where's the direct object?

 

[RangerRichard]

Well surely including a direct object is a requirement in no language that comes to mind.

But that said, just to make sure I understand, whether "a él" is paired with le/se or lo is whether a él is a direct or indirect pronoun.

However, my understanding, and the RAE backs me up, is that the repetition of le/a él is standard bordering on required (so standard English speakers are taugh to use it in all cases, because it's never wrong), but that the repetition of lo/(a) él is considerably less standard, though it's normal in the spoken language of español rioplatense.

 

[Cenzontle]

Yes: for most speakers, "le" (turning into "se" before "lo(s)" or "la(s)") is an indirect object, and "lo" and "la" are direct objects,
and "a él" or "a ella" could be either one (and just maybe the "redundant" le functions to overcome the ambiguity).

 

[merquiades]

I'm not understanding.
Je donne le livre à toi is grammatically correct or not in French?
.

It works in this situation only.

Donne le livre à ma mère. Je ne serai pas là.
Non, je donne le livre à toi, et non pas à elle.

There is one example I can think of where à toi is correct and te is wrong.
Je pense à toi.
Different from Te penso.

 

[Gavril]

As you may know, the direct object pronouns lo(s)/la(s) are also used redundantly when the object is fronted for emphasis:

Esa chamarra la compré el mes pasado. "I bought *that* jacket last month"

Self-correction: not for emphasis, but as a topic. In which case the asterisks should probably be removed.

By the way, how obligatory is the direct object pronoun in this case (as compared to indirect le)?

I have some memory of hearing sentences like "Esa chamarra compré yo también", even if the version with "la compré" is more common.

 

[Hulalessar]

According to my Spanish grammar, a "redundant" object pronoun is required when the direct object precedes the verb.

 

[merquiades]

According to my Spanish grammar, a "redundant" object pronoun is required when the direct object precedes the verb.

Yes, that's the official rule with the direct objects. He visto a Juan esta mañana. A Juan le he visto esta mañana. Ya he lavado la camisa. La camisa ya la he lavado.
With indirect objects it is different, it's also fine when the object follows. Le escribí una carta a María Elena. Os di el el dinero a vosotros.

 

[Sardokan1.0]

Yes, that's the official rule with the direct objects. He visto a Juan esta mañana. A Juan le he visto esta mañana. Ya he lavado la camisa. La camisa ya la he lavado.
With indirect objects it is different, it's also fine when the object follows. Le escribí una carta a María Elena. Os di el el dinero a vosotros.

This thing of the repeated object pronoun is present also in Sardinian (but not in Italian).

He visto a Juan esta mañana. = Happo bidu a Juanne custu manzanu.
A Juan le he visto esta mañana. = A Juanne l'happo bidu custu manzanu.
Ya he lavado la camisa. = Happo ià samunadu sa camisa/camìja.
La camisa ya la he lavado. = Sa camisa/camìja ià l'happo samunada.

Le escribí una carta a María Elena. = L'happo iscrittu una littera a María Heléne.
Os di el el dinero a vosotros. = Bos happo dadu su dinari a bòis(àteros).

 

[Gavril]

According to my Spanish grammar, a "redundant" object pronoun is required when the direct object precedes the verb.

OK. It seems to me that this guideline is occasionally contravened in actual speech*, but I can see how the use of redundant object pronouns would be encouraged by the lack of case endings and desire to avoid ambiguity.

*For example, I remember once hearing someone say Miedo no tengo a ninguno de ellos, rather than no lo tengo. Though maybe one could claim that miedo is not a "normal" direct object in this case, as it's part of a widespread phrase tener miedo.

 

[jmx]

I have some memory of hearing sentences like "Esa chamarra compré yo también", even if the version with "la compré" is more common.

The version with a redundant pronoun is a case of topicalization, while without the pronoun it is a case of focalization.

Check this: eso no lo entienden

 

[Swatters]

It works in this situation only.

Donne le livre à ma mère. Je ne serai pas là.
Non, je donne le livre à toi, et non pas à elle.

There is one example I can think of where à toi is correct and te is wrong.
Je pense à toi.
Different from Te penso.

It'd still be "Non, je te donne le livre à toi, et pas à elle." in your first sentence.

"À toi, j'ai donné un livre" (in an enumeration of people that were given something) feels slightly archaising and literary but remains possible, but contrastive stress consistently triggers doubled pronouns in the modern language.

One last possibility for non-doubling is disfluencies, where the speaker wasn't intending to use a pronoun when they produced the verb but inserts one afterwards (Je l'ai donné en premier à... à toi, en fait), but that's a special case.

 

[Gavril]

The version with a redundant pronoun is a case of topicalization, while without the pronoun it is a case of focalization.

Check this: eso no lo entienden

Ah, OK.

Indirect pronouns aren't sensitive to topicality in this way, correct?

For example, I'm pretty sure the sentence Al chico le regalaron un nuevo bolígrafo requires the le regardless of whether or not al chico functions as the topic.

 

[jmx]

Indirect pronouns aren't sensitive to topicality in this way, correct?

For example, I'm pretty sure the sentence Al chico le regalaron un nuevo bolígrafo requires the le regardless of whether or not al chico functions as the topic.

Indirect objects are reduplicated most of the time by unstresssed pronouns anyway, so the difference would be mainly in the intonation: the focalized element would be more stressed.

 

[Hulalessar]

I'm pretty sure the sentence Al chico le regalaron un nuevo bolígrafo requires the le regardless of whether or not al chico functions as the topic.

Yes. That is because Spanish has the "personal a". "Regalaron al chico" (where "chico" is the direct object) and "Le regalaron al chico" (where "chico" is the indirect object) are distinguished.