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 that they involve the use of pronouns unstressed ('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 as indirect object, 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 of dative 'illi' e 'illis' and the dative is the case of Latin declension in expressing the indirect object. The opposite is the case leísmo to 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 prestige, supported the use of 'you' instead of 'what' in terms of direct object when the referent is a person male: "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 is discouraged in educated speech "almost never saw him with girls." The leísmo not supported in any way the educated norm when the referent is inanimate ("I lent the book I read in one sitting" or "reports when you can send them to me." And not supported, general, when the referent is a woman, it is preferred use 'the' . For its part, 'it' comes from the Latin forms Illum (masculine singular) and illud (neuter 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.
'Le' and 'them' come, however, the Latin forms of dative 'illi' e 'illis' and the dative is the case of Latin declension in expressing the indirect object. The opposite is the case leísmo to 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 prestige, supported the use of 'you' instead of 'what' in terms of direct object when the referent is a person male: "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 is discouraged in educated speech "almost never saw him with girls." The leísmo not supported in any way the educated norm when the referent is inanimate ("I lent the book I read in one sitting" or "reports when you can send them to me." And not supported, general, when the referent is a woman, it is preferred use 'the' . For its part, 'it' comes from the Latin forms Illum (masculine singular) and illud (neuter 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 it a kiss 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 can be replaced usually 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, Avoid : "I just finished work, throw it out if you can" or "once recovered were reportedly set on 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 Peter's death has made dust. "
But all this is theory, and I think we are more interested in practice, because the difficulties arise when we know if using direct or indirect complement each of the pronouns referring to come. 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 example shown:
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 watched? (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 the two possibilities of the latter case (which is covered twice by the singular and plural), the questions are: Who gave you my permission? and what to who told him 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 their place 'you' and 'them' for doing the indirect functions.
But all this is theory, and I think we are more interested in practice, because the difficulties arise when we know if using direct or indirect complement each of the pronouns referring to come. 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 example shown:
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 watched? (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 the two possibilities of the latter case (which is covered twice by the singular and plural), the questions are: Who gave you my permission? and what to who told him 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 their place 'you' and 'them' for doing the indirect functions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment