Among the mistakes we make most often when speaking and writing, especially in central and northwestern areas of Castilla, are quite possibly the laísmo, the leísmo and loísmo.
All three have in common are the use unstressed pronouns ('the', 'the', 'le', 'them', 'what' and 'the') with a function that is not theirs, because they are used as direct object which are meant to be in addition indirect, or vice versa.
The six from the Latin pronouns. 'The' and 'the' do, respectively, and illas illam, which are forms of accusative, and the accusative is the case of Latin declension in expressing the direct object, consistendo laísmo precisely the use to supplement indirect.
'Le' and 'them' come, however, the Latin forms dative 'Illi' e 'illis' and the dative is the case of Latin declension in expressing the indirect object. The
leísmo opposite is the case laísmo, as is indicated by use pronouns direct object function. That is, using 'he' or 'them' in terms of direct object, instead of using 'I' (for singular masculine or neuter), 'the' (for masculine plural) or 'the' (for females).
The general rule is exposed on the leísmo but due to its growth among educated speakers and writers of reputation, it supports the use of 'you' instead of 'what' in terms of direct object when the referent is a male person, "Your father was not happy. [...] I never saw him happy. " However, the use of 'them' for 'the' when the reference is plural is not as widespread as when the referent is singular, so it is not advisable for the educated speech "almost never saw him with girls." The leísmo not supported in any way the educated norm when the referent is inanimate (the book you lent me I read in one sitting "or" reports when you can send them to me. "Nor is supported, in general, when the referent is a woman, it is preferred to use 'the'. For his part, 'it' comes from the Latin forms Illum (masculine singular) and illud (neutral singular) and 'the' in illos (masculine plural), all three are forms of accusative, which is the case in Latin declension for the direct object. And loísmo incurred when using pronouns stated in the indirect functions of male (person or thing) or neutral (where the antecedent is a neuter pronoun or a whole sentence), instead of using 'he' or 'them' as would be correct. With what, at bottom, is very similar to laísmo.
Examples of these three mistakes may serve the following:
laísmo: "I gave a kiss to Josefa" instead of "I kissed Josefa." Leisman
: "John, say those who saw him ...», instead of "John, say those who saw him ...».
Loísmo: "I gave my consent" or "I told them not to move out of here" instead of "I gave my consent" or "I told them not to move from here."
loístas applications are appreciated (and LAist) more frequent, even among speakers of a certain culture, with verbs that are constructed with a noun in direct object function and behave like verbal semilocuciones. Are cases such as "browse", "set fire", "polish", etc. The sequence formed by the verb plus direct object normally can be replaced by a simple verb meaning equivalent, leading to complement the direct and indirect operating element in the semilocución: take a look [something (indirect object)] = look or browse [something (direct object)]; set fire [to something (indirect object)] = burn [something (direct object)], which explains loísmo these cases, however, should be avoided: "I just finished work, throw it out if you can" or "once retrieved reportedly set fire ', had said "check out" and "set them on fire." These cases should not be confused with those of true verbal utterances formed by a verb and a noun, as' shattering 'or' to dust ', which complement each other is straightforward: "He threw the vase and smashed it'," the news of Peter's death has made dust. "
But all this is theory, and I think we are more interested in practice, difficulties arise because the time to know whether we are using direct or indirect complement each of the pronouns to which we have been discussing. In this regard, I can only give the same advice he gave me when I studied high school, and it has rained since then, is part of one of the examples set above ("I kissed the Josefa" / "I gave him a kiss Josefa ',' John, say those who saw him ...»/« Juan, say those who saw him ...», "I gave my consent" or "I told them not to move out of here '/' I gave my permission "or" I told them not to move here), and the question becomes one that, among the following is appropriate for the chosen example: In the first case, the answer to "who gave the kiss? will indicate an indirect object - 'Joseph'. Consequently, the pronoun that would replace Joseph would be 'you', not 'the'.
In the second example the answer to the question " Who saw it? (Which, if it were a person, what would they see?) Contains the direct object. As they saw John, he is the direct and it is up the pronoun 'you'. As for the latter case two possibilities (which is double for the singular include the plural), the questions are: Who gave you my permission? And who told her not to move?. The answers to the two supplements contain consequential consequently, as the 'what' and 'the' employees are replacing people who gave the authorization or told not to move (which are unwritten, as in the phrases are not concrete) should have been used in place 'le' and 'them' for doing the indirect functions. Now let's look
says the Royal Academy of English Language on this topic:
To properly use pronouns unstressed 3. the third person (s), la (s) le (s) according to standard learned the English general, it should be noted, first, the syntactic role played by the pronoun and, secondly, gender and grammatical number of the word referred. In The following table shows the distribution of forms and functions of these pronouns:
| ; singular plural |
| |||
| 3. ª pers. | compl. | direct masc. | what (also you when the referent is a man) 1 | the |
| fem. | the | the | ||
| neutral
| what | ¾ | ||
| compl. | indirect
you (or is to another pron. unstressed) |
them (or is to another pron. unstressed) | ||
1 In the outline of a new grammar of the English language (RAE, 1973) condemning the leísmo referring to something, but it allows the reference to person masculine singular, the plural leísmo always been censored by the Academy, since its low incidence since the earliest English texts attests that neither has ever sanctioned the use mainly of educated speakers.
The following is a summary of the rule governing the use of these pronouns:
-
When the pronoun acts as the direct object should be used as forms, the for masculine (singular and plural, respectively) and the , the for feminine (singular and plural, respectively):
Have you seen John? Yes, what I saw yesterday.
Have you seen John and children? Yes, the 've seen in the park. I bought
medicine and the di without anyone seeing me.
Have you picked up the girls? Yes, the picked before going to the workshop.[Given the large extension in the use of educated speakers of certain areas of Spain as he when the referent is a man, is allowed only for the masculine singular, the use of you add depending on direct person: Have you seen George? Yes, you saw yesterday in the park ].
-
When the pronoun acts as the indirect object should be used forms will , them (singular and plural, respectively), whatever the gender of the word which it relates:
Le I apologized to my mother.
Le told her sister to come. Les
gave a gift to the children.
Despite the apparent simplicity of the system, there are exceptional cases or apparently unique within the norm, and a huge variety in terms of effective uses in different English-speaking areas. If you want detailed information, see related articles Leisman, laísmo and LOÍSMO the Pan-Hispanic Dictionary of questions and entries dedicated to verbs that pose problems to speakers regarding the selection of third-person pronouns unstressed ( warn , help, heal , shoot, write , call, annoy , obey , paste, greet, etc.).
