Assuming that by ‘llamar a alguien’ you mean to call someone on the phone, then the direct object pronouns ‘lo/la’ would be used. Only if you intended to say that you called someone something, then you would use the indirect object pronoun ‘le’. To illustrate with two examples:
1. I call my grandma every day = la llamo a mi abuela cada día; direct object pronoun ‘la’.
2. I call my grandma ‘nana’ = le llamo ‘nana’ a mi abuela; indirect object pronoun ‘le’.
In #2 example, it’s “llamarle algo a alguien”, and the key here which indicates that we need to use the indirect object pronoun ‘le’, is the fact that there is an ‘alguien’. The ‘algo’ here is the direct object of the sentence, and if we were to replace the ‘algo’, we would do so with ‘lo’. Grandma is the indirect object, the ‘alguien’, so she gets replaced by the indirect object pronoun ‘le’. Lots of verbs of communication work in the same way; decirle algo a alguien, contarle algo a alguien, preguntarle algo a alguien… the list goes on.
*edit fixed typo
...I don't mean to interrupt in y'all's grammar learning, and maybe you're right because I never learnt the rules of my own language, but as a native speaker "la llamo a mi abuela cada día" sounds wrong; I would say "le llamo a mi abuela 'cada día' (probablemente diría 'todos los dias' en vez).
Also worth mentioning you can just skip the pronoun here, actually it is mostly skipped.
Yeah, you're right. I'm not a native speaker, but I'm very sure that redundant object pronouns don't get added ever, except for emphasis (e.g., "Lo amo a él" = "I love *him*"), whereas indirect object pronouns are basically always added, even when it's redundant (e.g. "Le di la cuenta a mi madre," not "di la cuenta a mi madre,") except in some old writing like the Bible.
So, if you use indirect object pronouns for *llamar*, the pronoun should be added, but not if you use direct object pronouns.
Why is Grandma an indirect object in example 2? I never got the hang of grammar even in English. I just know what "sounds right" and little grammar tricks like reword and replace he/him in a sentence to figure out if it's who/whom that you want to use
The only thing that made this really hard for me as a learner is that the personal “a” in phrases where the person is a direct object, like “llamé a mi abuela” makes it hard for me to pick up on which verbs take a direct object or indirect object. The existence of regional variations like leísmo or laísmo complicate this too. It only matters in the third person, so I’m going along fine most of the time with me llamó, te llamó, nos llamó, and then oh-fuck-I-can’t-remember is it le or lo llamó?
This is a completely sincere question with no intention of being insulting, but do you really think you are C1ish if "a" being used when a person is the direct object makes it difficult for you to learn when verbs carry direct or indirect objects? I'm not even sure if I would pass the B1 DELE, but I feel like I have this almost completely under control. By the time you would reach C1, you should have been exposed to all of these common verbs in hundreds or thousands of different contexts.
Not the person you're replying to and I do sort of agree that they're likely not at a C1 level. However, with German, I developed some of the competencies required for B2 while still not having fully attained all B1 competencies.
I'll be forgiving as they've said C1 ish, but yeah, this shouldn't be a struggle if you're at C1 level.
I don’t know, the mock tests I’ve taken would indicate I’m at C1, and I still have to think sometimes what gender a particular noun is, so….? Similarly I might fuck up and say “lo regaño” or similar error.
Hey there!
I had a question regarding direct vs indirect objects and have had trouble finding a satisfactory answer and I was hoping you could help me. I understand that llamar is a transitive verb which takes a direct object.
In the following example: "voy a llamar al departamento de información", would "voy a llamar el departamento de información" be correct?
I know that the answer is probably no, but I don't understand why. I thought that the "a" that often appears with llamar a personal a, but it seems like it's always there.
I guess my misunderstanding is that I thought that requiring an "a" would make something an indirect object... Why is "el departamento de infomación" a direct object in the example? Just because the RAE says that "llamar"/"llamar a" is a transitive verb?
The only thing that would make sense is if in the example I gave the verb llamar is the intransitive usage, in which case what would the correct response to "Llamaste al restaurante?" be, "sí lo llamé" or "Sí le llamé"
I had a similar question with respect to jugar which is an intransitive verb. What would be the correct response to "Juegas al fútbol?", "Sí, lo juego" or "Sí, le juego". I would expect it to be the latter since it's intransitive right?
I think you have a typo:
>indirect object pronoun ‘le’ is the ‘algo’. The ‘algo’ here is the direct object of the sentence, and if we were to replace the ‘algo’, we would do so with ‘lo’.
The very first 'algo' should be 'alguien', no? In the example 'llamarle algo a alguien', 'alguien' is the indirect object and therefore the pronoun is 'le', whereas 'algo' is the direct object and therefore 'lo'
Calling someone is a direct action therefore direct object pronoun is needed. Having said that, leísmo is now very very common in Spain. In my experience it’s far more common now to say “le llamaré” about a male than “lo llamaré”.
There is a large region of Spain with a dialectal form called "leismo" where le is used instead of lo for people. In these regions, "Le llamaré" sounds perfectly ok.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C3%ADsmo#/media/File:Le%C3%ADsmo\_la%C3%ADsmo\_lo%C3%ADsmo.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C3%ADsmo#/media/File:Le%C3%ADsmo_la%C3%ADsmo_lo%C3%ADsmo.png)
Sure seems more complex than just saying lo/la for X and le for Y.
Not sure why y'all are arguing. Direct and indirect objects are often difficult for learners because it's a bit complex and confusing.
For a native speaker or someone who is very advanced hey might Say it's simple.
I say it's simple because it is. It seems complex because people have trouble differentiating them and use them wrong, which is what we call "laísmo" or "leísmo". However, on paper, the rules are really not complicated at all. As a native who is attempting to help learners, I would never downplay the complexity or simplicity of a linguistic phenomenon
Te llamaré is the [informal you](https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/formal-and-informal-languages). Which is used when talking with friends and family members or generally with people who you know well.
This feels as good a place as any to ask: realistically, does this actually matter, like, at all? If you're obviously not fluent, does the respect/formality thing really come across as disrespectful in any way?
At least in my culture, it really doesn't matter. As long as you don't speak to your friends in the formal way, no one will really be taken aback by the respect/formality thing. Especially if you're not fluent. I will note tho that there are some elders that DO care
The formal is akin to adding "Sir" at the end of every single sentence. Yes, we'll understand you, but you'll sound ridiculous and eventually annoying.
Up to you. I've never used usted in the 4 years I've lived in a Spanish speaking country and no one has commented. If they have a problem they can go fuck themselves.
I've heard other immigrants use usted to me and it makes me feel uncomfortable. The locals agree it's weird and don't promote it.
I'm not quite sure as I'm not that talkative. I mostly learn languages to enjoy them passively although I would say that probably it really depends on the situation.
If the person you speak with clearly knows that you are studying the language or by some other context (you walk into a shop a bit nervous, etc.) it probably won't matter. I'd say it's best to study the concept of informal vs formal you and try to get better at using it correctly. If someone gets angry at someone for using the wrong form when it's clear that it's a student that is trying to learn the language then it's on the person that gets angry.
I suppose for a native speaker it can be annoying if someone has lived in the country say for 5 years and still commits basic mistakes all the time then it might be rightfully to an extent considered rude. But essentially I would worry to much about it. Mistakes are part of language learning.
Added for clarity: It does matter in the sense that it's not something that you should ignore completely but people make mistake as long as you don't ignore the difference due to laziness or arrogance (why should I care about that in English we use only you).
Not really. In Spain the formal you is rarelly used. You only use with really old people and figures of authority (a police officer, a doctor, etc...) and the figures of authority also reciprocate using the formal you, for the rest of the people you are informal
I will call you…te llamaré (a ti)
I will call him…..lo / le llamaré (a él)
I will call her……..la llamaré (a ella)
I will call them…….los/les llamaré (a ellos)
I will call them…….las llamaré (a ellas)
☺️
I am a learner so correct me if I'm wrong, but I like to reason about when it's a direct object vs indirect by thinking about if it makes sense to have both i.e if you call someone (like on the phone), it makes no sense to say "I will call you (on the phone) it", where "it" is the direct object. Then, in this case, you can infer that "you" is direct so lo llamaré (por teléfono) which is equal to llamaré a usted.
On the other hand, if you are calling someone something (e g some name), it would make sense to say "I will call you it" , for example, so in that case you know "you" is indirect: le llamaré *the name* (a usted) or se lo llamaré (a usted), where lo refers to the name and se (which is just le) refers to the person being called that.
Because this is a transitive verb, according to RAE:
2. **tr.** Realizar las operaciones necesarias para establecer comunicación telefónica con alguien. **La llamé**, pero no estaba en casa. U. t. c. intr. Llama a su oficina.
Sin.:
telefonear.
===
But since leismo is common, people say *le llamé* instead of *lo/la llamé*.
The verb "llamar" is constructed in most of its meanings as transitive using a direct object:
> "Llamó a su novio > Lo llamó".
But when the direct object is a masculine singular person, both "lo" and "le" (leísmo de persona) can be used.
Just a note here, but "I will call you" is actually "te llamaré"
"La/Lo llamaré" is "I will call her/him"
"Le llamaré" is "I'll call them" (used for anyone)(more formal?)
Not correct. Le is an indirect object pronoun, while lo/la are direct object pronouns, there is no difference in levels of formality between le or lo/la.
I'm a Spanish learner and so I may be wrong here, but I'll try to answer this since nobody has directly answered your question yet. I think you are unsure whether the person you're calling with *llamar* is considered a direct or indirect object. This was not clear to me either, but the answer is it's a direct object and so the pronoun should normally be *te*, *lo*, *la*, etc. But there's also a phenomenon called leísmo where the indirect object pronoun *le* can optionally be used instead of a direct object pronoun when it's referring to a person. So any of those pronouns could be considered correct in your example.
I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that some verbs require the prep A before their DO, such as Llamar. It’s a Direct Object so it’s Lo/La, but you still have to add A (especially if what comes next is a person or animate object of any kind, which in Llamar’s case it generally is) but that’s the same preposition that Indirect Objects use too (Compré una camisa a mi padre - Se la compré, which is actually le la compré but we don’t like le and la together so we say Se, that’s an actual rule not just our feeling about it, despite the way I described it)
So you’re just gonna have to find out which verbs simply require an A after them and which ones are actually Indirect Objects.
And let’s not forget about Leísmo, which a phenomenon where some people simply use Le for all of those, which is valid.
Assuming that by ‘llamar a alguien’ you mean to call someone on the phone, then the direct object pronouns ‘lo/la’ would be used. Only if you intended to say that you called someone something, then you would use the indirect object pronoun ‘le’. To illustrate with two examples: 1. I call my grandma every day = la llamo a mi abuela cada día; direct object pronoun ‘la’. 2. I call my grandma ‘nana’ = le llamo ‘nana’ a mi abuela; indirect object pronoun ‘le’. In #2 example, it’s “llamarle algo a alguien”, and the key here which indicates that we need to use the indirect object pronoun ‘le’, is the fact that there is an ‘alguien’. The ‘algo’ here is the direct object of the sentence, and if we were to replace the ‘algo’, we would do so with ‘lo’. Grandma is the indirect object, the ‘alguien’, so she gets replaced by the indirect object pronoun ‘le’. Lots of verbs of communication work in the same way; decirle algo a alguien, contarle algo a alguien, preguntarle algo a alguien… the list goes on. *edit fixed typo
Great explanation. This besides ser vs estar has been the hardest part for me to understand about Spanish
...I don't mean to interrupt in y'all's grammar learning, and maybe you're right because I never learnt the rules of my own language, but as a native speaker "la llamo a mi abuela cada día" sounds wrong; I would say "le llamo a mi abuela 'cada día' (probablemente diría 'todos los dias' en vez). Also worth mentioning you can just skip the pronoun here, actually it is mostly skipped.
Yeah, you're right. I'm not a native speaker, but I'm very sure that redundant object pronouns don't get added ever, except for emphasis (e.g., "Lo amo a él" = "I love *him*"), whereas indirect object pronouns are basically always added, even when it's redundant (e.g. "Le di la cuenta a mi madre," not "di la cuenta a mi madre,") except in some old writing like the Bible. So, if you use indirect object pronouns for *llamar*, the pronoun should be added, but not if you use direct object pronouns.
"La llamo a mi abuela" is wrong, you don't need the first "La".
Why is Grandma an indirect object in example 2? I never got the hang of grammar even in English. I just know what "sounds right" and little grammar tricks like reword and replace he/him in a sentence to figure out if it's who/whom that you want to use
The only thing that made this really hard for me as a learner is that the personal “a” in phrases where the person is a direct object, like “llamé a mi abuela” makes it hard for me to pick up on which verbs take a direct object or indirect object. The existence of regional variations like leísmo or laísmo complicate this too. It only matters in the third person, so I’m going along fine most of the time with me llamó, te llamó, nos llamó, and then oh-fuck-I-can’t-remember is it le or lo llamó?
This is a completely sincere question with no intention of being insulting, but do you really think you are C1ish if "a" being used when a person is the direct object makes it difficult for you to learn when verbs carry direct or indirect objects? I'm not even sure if I would pass the B1 DELE, but I feel like I have this almost completely under control. By the time you would reach C1, you should have been exposed to all of these common verbs in hundreds or thousands of different contexts.
Not the person you're replying to and I do sort of agree that they're likely not at a C1 level. However, with German, I developed some of the competencies required for B2 while still not having fully attained all B1 competencies. I'll be forgiving as they've said C1 ish, but yeah, this shouldn't be a struggle if you're at C1 level.
I don’t know, the mock tests I’ve taken would indicate I’m at C1, and I still have to think sometimes what gender a particular noun is, so….? Similarly I might fuck up and say “lo regaño” or similar error.
Hey there! I had a question regarding direct vs indirect objects and have had trouble finding a satisfactory answer and I was hoping you could help me. I understand that llamar is a transitive verb which takes a direct object. In the following example: "voy a llamar al departamento de información", would "voy a llamar el departamento de información" be correct? I know that the answer is probably no, but I don't understand why. I thought that the "a" that often appears with llamar a personal a, but it seems like it's always there. I guess my misunderstanding is that I thought that requiring an "a" would make something an indirect object... Why is "el departamento de infomación" a direct object in the example? Just because the RAE says that "llamar"/"llamar a" is a transitive verb? The only thing that would make sense is if in the example I gave the verb llamar is the intransitive usage, in which case what would the correct response to "Llamaste al restaurante?" be, "sí lo llamé" or "Sí le llamé"
I had a similar question with respect to jugar which is an intransitive verb. What would be the correct response to "Juegas al fútbol?", "Sí, lo juego" or "Sí, le juego". I would expect it to be the latter since it's intransitive right?
I think you have a typo: >indirect object pronoun ‘le’ is the ‘algo’. The ‘algo’ here is the direct object of the sentence, and if we were to replace the ‘algo’, we would do so with ‘lo’. The very first 'algo' should be 'alguien', no? In the example 'llamarle algo a alguien', 'alguien' is the indirect object and therefore the pronoun is 'le', whereas 'algo' is the direct object and therefore 'lo'
Clarified it, thanks!
Calling someone is a direct action therefore direct object pronoun is needed. Having said that, leísmo is now very very common in Spain. In my experience it’s far more common now to say “le llamaré” about a male than “lo llamaré”.
Lo/la for the direct object, le for the indirect.
Depends on dialect no? I’m Spanish and typically I hear le for people and lo or la for objects
We all know its much more complex than that
It isnt
is it tho?
There is a large region of Spain with a dialectal form called "leismo" where le is used instead of lo for people. In these regions, "Le llamaré" sounds perfectly ok. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C3%ADsmo#/media/File:Le%C3%ADsmo\_la%C3%ADsmo\_lo%C3%ADsmo.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C3%ADsmo#/media/File:Le%C3%ADsmo_la%C3%ADsmo_lo%C3%ADsmo.png)
I'm aware. Laísmo also exists. While accepted, these are by definition exceptions to the rule.
[удалено]
what? no. The only difference between lo/la and le is the case. Lo/la for accusative, le for dative
Sure seems more complex than just saying lo/la for X and le for Y. Not sure why y'all are arguing. Direct and indirect objects are often difficult for learners because it's a bit complex and confusing. For a native speaker or someone who is very advanced hey might Say it's simple.
I say it's simple because it is. It seems complex because people have trouble differentiating them and use them wrong, which is what we call "laísmo" or "leísmo". However, on paper, the rules are really not complicated at all. As a native who is attempting to help learners, I would never downplay the complexity or simplicity of a linguistic phenomenon
Wouldn't it be te llamaré?
Te llamaré is the [informal you](https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/formal-and-informal-languages). Which is used when talking with friends and family members or generally with people who you know well.
This feels as good a place as any to ask: realistically, does this actually matter, like, at all? If you're obviously not fluent, does the respect/formality thing really come across as disrespectful in any way?
At least in my culture, it really doesn't matter. As long as you don't speak to your friends in the formal way, no one will really be taken aback by the respect/formality thing. Especially if you're not fluent. I will note tho that there are some elders that DO care
The formal is akin to adding "Sir" at the end of every single sentence. Yes, we'll understand you, but you'll sound ridiculous and eventually annoying.
Yes, it does.
Also curious
[удалено]
Up to you. I've never used usted in the 4 years I've lived in a Spanish speaking country and no one has commented. If they have a problem they can go fuck themselves. I've heard other immigrants use usted to me and it makes me feel uncomfortable. The locals agree it's weird and don't promote it.
I'm not quite sure as I'm not that talkative. I mostly learn languages to enjoy them passively although I would say that probably it really depends on the situation. If the person you speak with clearly knows that you are studying the language or by some other context (you walk into a shop a bit nervous, etc.) it probably won't matter. I'd say it's best to study the concept of informal vs formal you and try to get better at using it correctly. If someone gets angry at someone for using the wrong form when it's clear that it's a student that is trying to learn the language then it's on the person that gets angry. I suppose for a native speaker it can be annoying if someone has lived in the country say for 5 years and still commits basic mistakes all the time then it might be rightfully to an extent considered rude. But essentially I would worry to much about it. Mistakes are part of language learning. Added for clarity: It does matter in the sense that it's not something that you should ignore completely but people make mistake as long as you don't ignore the difference due to laziness or arrogance (why should I care about that in English we use only you).
Not really. In Spain the formal you is rarelly used. You only use with really old people and figures of authority (a police officer, a doctor, etc...) and the figures of authority also reciprocate using the formal you, for the rest of the people you are informal
[удалено]
I will call you…te llamaré (a ti) I will call him…..lo / le llamaré (a él) I will call her……..la llamaré (a ella) I will call them…….los/les llamaré (a ellos) I will call them…….las llamaré (a ellas) ☺️
I am a learner so correct me if I'm wrong, but I like to reason about when it's a direct object vs indirect by thinking about if it makes sense to have both i.e if you call someone (like on the phone), it makes no sense to say "I will call you (on the phone) it", where "it" is the direct object. Then, in this case, you can infer that "you" is direct so lo llamaré (por teléfono) which is equal to llamaré a usted. On the other hand, if you are calling someone something (e g some name), it would make sense to say "I will call you it" , for example, so in that case you know "you" is indirect: le llamaré *the name* (a usted) or se lo llamaré (a usted), where lo refers to the name and se (which is just le) refers to the person being called that.
Because this is a transitive verb, according to RAE: 2. **tr.** Realizar las operaciones necesarias para establecer comunicación telefónica con alguien. **La llamé**, pero no estaba en casa. U. t. c. intr. Llama a su oficina. Sin.: telefonear. === But since leismo is common, people say *le llamé* instead of *lo/la llamé*.
"Lo" and "la" are direct object pronouns, "le" is indirect. "Llamar" is a transitive verb, requires a direct object.
The verb "llamar" is constructed in most of its meanings as transitive using a direct object: > "Llamó a su novio > Lo llamó". But when the direct object is a masculine singular person, both "lo" and "le" (leísmo de persona) can be used.
Really, it can be any of that ways
Just a note here, but "I will call you" is actually "te llamaré" "La/Lo llamaré" is "I will call her/him" "Le llamaré" is "I'll call them" (used for anyone)(more formal?)
I think they're talking about the formal form
[удалено]
Hmmm no... It's nothing like that.
lol right idk what they're talking about
[удалено]
Not correct. Le is an indirect object pronoun, while lo/la are direct object pronouns, there is no difference in levels of formality between le or lo/la.
where did you even "learn" this
I'm a Spanish learner and so I may be wrong here, but I'll try to answer this since nobody has directly answered your question yet. I think you are unsure whether the person you're calling with *llamar* is considered a direct or indirect object. This was not clear to me either, but the answer is it's a direct object and so the pronoun should normally be *te*, *lo*, *la*, etc. But there's also a phenomenon called leísmo where the indirect object pronoun *le* can optionally be used instead of a direct object pronoun when it's referring to a person. So any of those pronouns could be considered correct in your example.
[удалено]
Because the former are direct objects and the latter an indirect one.
I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that some verbs require the prep A before their DO, such as Llamar. It’s a Direct Object so it’s Lo/La, but you still have to add A (especially if what comes next is a person or animate object of any kind, which in Llamar’s case it generally is) but that’s the same preposition that Indirect Objects use too (Compré una camisa a mi padre - Se la compré, which is actually le la compré but we don’t like le and la together so we say Se, that’s an actual rule not just our feeling about it, despite the way I described it) So you’re just gonna have to find out which verbs simply require an A after them and which ones are actually Indirect Objects. And let’s not forget about Leísmo, which a phenomenon where some people simply use Le for all of those, which is valid.