Talk:Leísmo

message: I learned Spanish informally in Mexico from books and pratice rather than lessons. I've never been able to get an understanding of things such as "Dile a ella ..."
I think the article isn't very clear on the fact that the reader must know something about Spanish's "personal a" first - is there a page for that by the way?
This article helps but I'm still pretty unclear. In particular, the 3rd example only gives an incorrect version and provides no correct equivalent. Is there one? Is it "Lo veo"? — Hippietrail 01:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lo veo it is. Thanks for pointing that out. Have done the necessary. –Hajor 02:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I think it would be appropriate to merge the three articles leísmo, laísmo and loísmo into a single leísmo, laísmo, loísmo article, because the three are closely interrelated (leísmo/loísmo is commonly paired with laísmo) and are instances/stages of one same phenomenon: the rearrangement of the objective pronouns caused by the asymmetry in the standard pattern. Having the information split into different articles makes it difficult to see and describe the underlying phenomenon: the loss of the accusative/dative distinction (accusative lo(s)/la(s) vs. dative le(s), a morphological distinction which is only present in these 3rd person pronouns and nowhere else in the language, not even in the other personal pronouns) in favour of the masculine/feminine distinction (which is commonplace in the language, including the nominative forms of the 3rd person pronouns), resulting in leísmo/laísmo/loísmo: masculine le(s) or lo(s) (depending on dialect) vs. feminine la(s), for both direct and indirect objects. Leísmo admitido (the use of le for masculine animate direct objects, nowadays admitted in the standard language) is a mild, embrionary form of the same phenomenon that already shows the underlying move from a primarily-case-based/secondarily-gender-based towards a gender-based-only pattern. Uaxuctum 14:38, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[laísmo]] and [[loísmo]]

message: I can't tell from reading this article what is prescriptively "bad grammar" (some native speakers do it, but it sounds nonstandard/uneducated) and what is descriptively "ungrammatical" (no native speakers do it, but foreigners learning the language might). It would be great if that were made clearer. Angr/talk 06:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what the prescriptive rules are; I'd need to consult the Real Academia Española. As for ungrammaticality, if a sizable group of (linguistically well-functioning) natives routinely employ an expression, then it is not ungrammatical; it's only a variant, though it might be nonstandard or prescriptively "wrong". Leísmo is defined here as a variant among native speakers, not as a mistake made by foreigners.  --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, what about Le veo meaning "I see it (the tree)", Dila que la quiero "Tell her that I love her", or La voy a dar un regalo "I'm giving her a present". Are they descriptively ungrammatical or prescriptively nonstandard? The article doesn't make it clear. Angr/talk 14:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Descriptively, leísmo, laísmo and loísmo are grammatical in some dialects (the ones that routinely use those pronouns in those ways), while they sound ungrammatical to the speakers of the other dialects (the ones that do not use them that way). Prescriptively, only the case of leísmo admitido (use of le for animate direct object, but not for inanimate) is accepted by the RAE. Uaxuctum 23:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Prescription and description]] 

message: The following paragraph has been added twice by an anonymous editor and removed twice, by me. 
:However, "le" is correct in all dialects if referring to something you saw on the person. For example, you can say "le vi los calzones" which literally means "I saw to her the underwear" or better, "I saw her underwear". In this case, a direct translation of the English, "yo vi sus calzones" would mean you saw her underwear, but not necessarily while she was wearing it; it could have been in her drawer.
The first sentence of the article currently defines leísmo as the use of le in place of lo (not la), so the proposed example is irrelevant. Furthermore, the style is not encyclopedic ("something you saw", "you can say") and the information is unsourced. This paragraph could be relevant in the Loísmo article, but it would have to be established, on the basis of published sources, that speakers of strict laísmo varieties would still use le in the calzones example. CapnPrep (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph removed 

message: better to teach english...I GIVE THR BOOK to him... and not I GIVE HIM thr book..both correct but for learning spanish its better to use subject verb then object that is connected to verb then second object...  some verbs are complete like I HIT.. so we say le pego.. but not complete is I SEE.. so we say lo veo..ver is a verb that requires or begs for you  to say what you see.. but hit doesnt beg for anything after...
if a verb begs..then use lo.. if it doesnt beg we use le..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.193.163 (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  word order