Dear anyone,
Your duolingo forum registration isn't automaticaly transferred to duome forum so in order to join duome forums you need to register with your existing or any other username and email; in any case it's advised that you choose a new password for the forum.
~ Duome Team

no le veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

Moderators: Stasia, xillegas

ElmerRamone
United States of America

no le veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

Post by ElmerRamone »

I just started reading a book in Spanish and this sentence came up. I don´t understand why the indirect object is here, and I need some help with the use of the word ´caso´ in this phrase. ´ I don´t see the case´ sounds clunky to me. I would have said, ¨I don´t see the need¨. What do you guys think? Is this one of those phrases that isn't literal but has a common interpretation? Thanks.

User avatar
gmads
Mexico

Re: no le veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

Post by gmads »

ElmerRamone wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:30 am

I just started reading a book in Spanish and this sentence came up. I don´t understand why the indirect object is here

In this case, from a strict grammatical point of view, it isn't really needed. The speaker used it or included it to emphasize how senseless was it for him having to spend time learning how to solve useless problems. He could have easily omitted the pronoun: "no veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles."

ElmerRamone wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:30 am

and I need some help with the use of the word ´caso´ in this phrase. ´ I don´t see the case´ sounds clunky to me. I would have said, ¨I don´t see the need¨. What do you guys think? Is this one of those phrases that isn't literal but has a common interpretation? Thanks.

The word "caso" can be translated in a few different ways. In this sentence one may translate it as: sense, need, point: "I don't see the need to learn how to solve useless problems."

I'd say it would have been best to use "sentido" or "necesidad" instead of "caso:"

  • no [le] veo el sentido de aprender a resolver problemas inútiles
  • no [le] veo la necesidad de aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

🦎  Imagination is the only weapon in the war with reality.  🦎
Antinomy - Imagination

🇲🇽 :us:  ·  :it: 🇧🇷  ·  :ru: 🇦🇪

User avatar
EranBarLev
Israel

Re: no le veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

Post by EranBarLev »

Why is it an indirect object? Shouldn't it be "No lo veo,,,"?

🇮🇱N 🇬🇧C1 🇪🇸B2 🇵🇹B1 🇫🇷B1 🇸🇦A1 🇷🇺A1

ElmerRamone
United States of America

Re: no le veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

Post by ElmerRamone »

thank you, gmads, this is exactly the answer I needed. I always forget that sometimes extra words are thrown in to emphasize things. I tend to want to make everything be logical. I'll have to get past that. I'm trying to read more superficially (not sure if that's the word I want), but just to get the gist and not to dig too deeply into the structure. When I dig, I always get confused. Hopefully, over time, things will come together, and I will be able to glean the meaning and understand the structure more. But slowly, slowly! I think that the more I read, the more often I'll encounter similar phrases and uses and they'll eventually take root.
Muchas gracias!

User avatar
gmads
Mexico

Re: no le veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

Post by gmads »

ElmerRamone wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 6:26 pm

thank you, gmads, this is exactly the answer I needed. I always forget that sometimes extra words are thrown in to emphasize things. I tend to want to make everything be logical. I'll have to get past that. I'm trying to read more superficially (not sure if that's the word I want), but just to get the gist and not to dig too deeply into the structure. When I dig, I always get confused. Hopefully, over time, things will come together, and I will be able to glean the meaning and understand the structure more. But slowly, slowly! I think that the more I read, the more often I'll encounter similar phrases and uses and they'll eventually take root.
Muchas gracias!

Hi, ElmerRamone, you are more than welcome!

I have gone through the same path with Italian and ended at the same conclusion :D I like grammar and I think it's good to delve into it to be able to understand how certain structures work, but only up to certain point because from then it starts to behave in literally inexplicable ways. So yes, I agree, it is best to just accept certain things and just flow with the language ;)

🦎  Imagination is the only weapon in the war with reality.  🦎
Antinomy - Imagination

🇲🇽 :us:  ·  :it: 🇧🇷  ·  :ru: 🇦🇪

User avatar
gmads
Mexico

Re: no le veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

Post by gmads »

EranBarLev wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:30 am

Why is it an indirect object? Shouldn't it be "No lo veo,,,"?

*** edited ***

I removed the answer, see my explanation below.

Last edited by gmads on Mon Aug 22, 2022 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

🦎  Imagination is the only weapon in the war with reality.  🦎
Antinomy - Imagination

🇲🇽 :us:  ·  :it: 🇧🇷  ·  :ru: 🇦🇪

User avatar
gmads
Mexico

Re: no le veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

Post by gmads »

@ElmerRamone

Since I wrote my answer there was something that was bothering me a bit. I reread everything and I think I should explain a bit more and fix a few issues.


*** 1 ***

In Spanish, the indirect object pronoun (IOP) has always been inserted along with the indirect object (IO). While the former could seem to be redundant and removable, what is actually optional is the indirect object!

As I mentioned in another post, it is becoming common to not include the indirect object pronoun when the indirect object is used. It is important to keep this in mind.

I'll explain this with an example. For this we need to have a verb that allows both a direct object and an indirect object, like "comprar" ("to buy").

  • Juan compra un libro a María (John buys a book to Maria)
    Here I have written the sentence as one would normally expect to have it —and in the way in which it is becoming more usual to see it (e.g. in Duolingo), that is, without the IOP. For me, however, this sounds just weird.
  • Juan le compra un libro (John buys her a book)
    To remove the indirect object ("a María") the IOP "le" has to be inserted. As with any pronoun, once it is present, the noun should be omitted.
  • Juan le compra un libro a María (John buys her a book to Maria)
    Having both the IOP "le" and the IO is strange, grammatically speaking, but this is how it has been traditionally done in Spanish. To me, this sounds just right.


*** 2 ***

Truth be told, the whole "no le veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles" sentence is pretty annoying. Although in everyday speech its meaning is perfectly understandable and one would not pay much attention to it, after writing the post I was left with "a splinter in my mind," so to speak: I had a general idea of what was bothering me, but I couldn't quite pin it down. I think I finally have it all.

What clearly bothered me was the initial preposition "a:" no le veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles.

Verbs that admit an indirect object use the preposition "a" to indicate that what follows is the indirect object. So, one has the following general structure:

  • subject + [IOP] + verb + direct object + "a" + indirect object

Just as shown in my previous example: "Juan [le] compra un libro a Maria."

When a verb does not admit an IO then a different preposition is used to indicate that a different kind of complement follows. For example:

  • Juan come un pastel de chocolate
  • María entregó un recibo para el inquilino
  • el niño corre con el perro

Note. Some time ago the preposition "para" used to be considered a preposition that also indicated that an indirect object followed, but this is not the case. In the following example, "para" introduces a differente kind of complement: it indicates the beneficiary of the action: Juan compra un libro para María. It should be noted that in this case the IOP "le" cannot be redundantly added: Juan le compra un libro para María.

Ok, now I can get to the point of this section.

1) The verb "ver" ("to see") is a transitive verb that in its regular use does not accept having both a direct and an indirect object: one just sees something... not something to someone. Thus, the preposition "a" should not have been used. If any, the sentence should have used the preposition "de:"

  • no veo el caso de aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

2) The { noun + a + infinitive } structure is a Gallicism and is incorrect to use it (see: 3. sustantivo + a + infinitivo, Sustantivo + «a» + infinitivo: «temas a tratar», temas por tratar, mejor que temas a tratar), except when the "a" is introducing an indirect object, for example, "toda la tarde me dediqué a pintar la habitación" (v. dedicar § 4. prnl). As the verb "ver" does not admit an IO, the sentence is, once again, wrong.

3) None of the meanings of the word "caso" really fit with the intended sense of "purpose": rae,
dpd, definicion.de,wordreference. The sentence just doesn't seem to work from any point of view.

As I said, this is a very annoying sentence. From my point of view, it would have been best to express the idea as:

  • no veo qué propósito tenga aprender a resolver problemas inútiles


:hash:  ㆍespañol ㆍgramática

Last edited by gmads on Mon May 08, 2023 11:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

🦎  Imagination is the only weapon in the war with reality.  🦎
Antinomy - Imagination

🇲🇽 :us:  ·  :it: 🇧🇷  ·  :ru: 🇦🇪

User avatar
gmads
Mexico

Re: no le veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

Post by gmads »

[mention]EranBarLev[/mention]

I apologize but I must retract, therefore, I'm filing a motion to strike :D

gmads wrote: Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:53 am
EranBarLev wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:30 am

Why is it an indirect object? Shouldn't it be "No lo veo,,,"?

Because it refers to the situation, not to the need: one sees the need (the direct object) of something (the indirect object), like studying or working. Maybe the following sentence will make it clear:

le veo el cabello [a María]
se lo veo

Recall that when the "le" indirect object pronoun is used, the indirect object ("a María," in this case) may or not be included. Yes, it is redundant, so both are valid:

le veo el cabello
le veo el cabello a María

When you asked, instead of reiterating what I had already answered about the emphatic use of "le," I simply fell into a mental trap and tried to give it some sense by linking it to the situation, that is, learning to solve useless problems. Yes, I got carried away and diverged. Sorry.

In a normal use, it would be "lo" or "la" because it can only refer the direct object:

  • vi el carro → lo vi
  • vi a María → la vi

In the sentence in question we cannot have the "le" working as a real indirect object pronoun because of how the verb "ver" works. As I explained in my previous post the whole sentence is just weird from start to finish.

Nonetheless, there is an improper situation called "leísmo," in which people use "le" instead of "lo:"

  • vi a Juan → lo vi → le vi (because of the "leísmo")

While "leísmo" denotes an incorrect use of the "le" pronoun, in some cases it has come to be accepted, as in the previous example.

To finish all this topic related to the verb "ver" and the pronoun "le", you may come across the following expression: "verle las orejas al lobo." This is simply a verbal locution with indirect object (v. Locuciones verbales con complemento indirecto, p. 46 § 35.2.2f), that is, it is just a fixed expression that means
to get a sudden fright.


Having said the above, I will now reiterate: if the "le" hasn't anything to do with "leísmo", then one can only assume that its inclusion has to do with it denoting a more personal involvement in the action, as when one says, "me comí una rica pizza." The "me" pronoun is not a reflexive pronoun, it is just added to express that I enjoyed eating the pizza very much.

🦎  Imagination is the only weapon in the war with reality.  🦎
Antinomy - Imagination

🇲🇽 :us:  ·  :it: 🇧🇷  ·  :ru: 🇦🇪

wayfarer

Re: no le veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

Post by wayfarer »

Thanks for the extra posts. I'm glad you posted them because I, too, had been baffled by the use of the IOP with 'veo'.

I'd spent much time trying to find a translation of it that made sense in English, and failing. Because just like the Spanish verb 'Ver', the verb To See in English doesn't take indirect objects.

So your posts clear that puzzle up.

On your last point:

Having said the above, I will now reiterate: if the "le" hasn't anything to do with "leísmo", then one can only assume that its inclusion has to do with it denoting a more personal involvement in the action, as when one says, "me comí una rica pizza." The "me" pronoun is not a reflexive pronoun, it is just added to express that I enjoyed eating the pizza very much.

what kind of pronoun is the 'me' in 'me comí'; not reflexive, as you've stated, so is it a DOP or IOP or something else?

And I can see how a matching pronoun (me and comí are both in the first person) can express an enhanced involvement, but can a third person pronoun with a first person conjugated verb ( as 'le veo' would be, if veo took an IOP) also express the same kind of emphasis? If so can you give any more examples - correct ones like the 'me comí una rica pizza' but using 'le'? I'm struggling to get my mind around it.

Thanks

Cifi

Re: no le veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

Post by Cifi »

@gmads: so it is mostly the preposition a that causes the problems? However, in your first answer you had a few example with noun + de + infinitive, and you optionally inserted the IOP nevertheless:

gmads wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 3:43 am
  • no [le] veo el sentido de aprender a resolver problemas inútiles
  • no [le] veo la necesidad de aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

Does it sound better for you to include or ommit the pronoun here? And if you include it, what does it refer to?

Native: :de: Intermediate: :uk: Lower intermediate: :es: Beginner: :fr: Absolute beginner: 🇬🇷
(If there are errors in what I'm writing in either language, please do correct me - I'll never take it as offense or something like that.)

User avatar
gmads
Mexico

Re: no le veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

Post by gmads »

Cifi wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 2:00 pm

@gmads: so it is mostly the preposition a that causes the problems? However, in your first answer you had a few example with noun + de + infinitive, and you optionally inserted the IOP nevertheless:

gmads wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 3:43 am
  • no [le] veo el sentido de aprender a resolver problemas inútiles
  • no [le] veo la necesidad de aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

Does it sound better for you to include or ommit the pronoun here? And if you include it, what does it refer to?

Indeed I did. I shouldn't have.

🦎  Imagination is the only weapon in the war with reality.  🦎
Antinomy - Imagination

🇲🇽 :us:  ·  :it: 🇧🇷  ·  :ru: 🇦🇪

User avatar
gmads
Mexico

Re: no le veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

Post by gmads »

wayfarer wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 12:59 am

Thanks for the extra posts. I'm glad you posted them because I, too, had been baffled by the use of the IOP with 'veo'.

I'd spent much time trying to find a translation of it that made sense in English, and failing. Because just like the Spanish verb 'Ver', the verb To See in English doesn't take indirect objects.

So your posts clear that puzzle up.

Thanks

It's good to know they helped. You are welcome.


wayfarer wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 12:59 am

one can only assume that its inclusion has to do with it denoting a more personal involvement in the action, as when one says, "me comí una rica pizza." The "me" pronoun is not a reflexive pronoun, it is just added to express that I enjoyed eating the pizza very much.

what kind of pronoun is the 'me' in 'me comí'; not reflexive, as you've stated, so is it a DOP or IOP or something else?

Beware, you are walking into wholy ground... which reminds me, by the way, that I need to finish a series of posts I was writing about this. Anyway...

Depending on their use, personal pronouns can be classified as nominative (to name the subject: yo, tú, etc), accusative (to name the direct object: me, te, lo, la, etc) and dative (to name the indirect object: me, te, le, etc). These names come from the latin names used to classify grammatical cases. Spanish doesn't uses cases, instead it uses pronouns, but the nomenclature is used: Términos lingüísticos (v. acusativo, dativo).


wayfarer wrote: Tue Aug 23, 2022 12:59 am

And I can see how a matching pronoun (me and comí are both in the first person) can express an enhanced involvement, but can a third person pronoun with a first person conjugated verb ( as 'le veo' would be, if veo took an IOP) also express the same kind of emphasis? If so can you give any more examples - correct ones like the 'me comí una rica pizza' but using 'le'? I'm struggling to get my mind around it.

*** dativo de interés

In "me comí una rica pizza", the atone pronoun "me" is a dative, and given its particular use in the sentence, it is a "dativo de interés" (dative of interest") because the pronoun indicates the person or thing that benefits or is negatively affected by the action. So, in sentences like "se le perdió su mascota" ("she lost her pet"), the "le" is a dative of interest because the woman was negatively affected from having lost her pet.


*** dativo simpatético

In the case of "no le veo el propósito," the atone pronoun "le" is a "dativo simpatético" ("sympathetic dative" or "possessive dative") because it not only indicates the idea of someone or something being affected, but also some kind of "possessive" relationship (e.g. connection, proximity) between the indirect object and either of the subject or the direct object.

As I initially tried to explain, though not very well —given the arguments I gave to support the idea—, in this case the "le" not only denotes that the person is upset or bothered (from the situation), but it also refers to just a part ("el casopropósito") of the whole situation ("aprender a resolver problemas inútiles").

Ok. This particular dative is a bit more difficult to explain because of the way it comes to be. So, to begin with, to try and understand it one has to start by taking into account that its reason of being is not clear-cut, direct or grammatically logic as when using it in the regular way (e.g. "le compré una mascota a mi hija"), instead, it (just as the other two) arises from the natural evolution of how people think and speak.

So, in this case the atone pronoun "le" somehow makes reference to just part of a whole, and this is why it was previously known as "possessive." Then, if I say (speaking of my girlfriend), "le tomé la mano" ("I took her hand"), the "le" is a sympathetic (possessive) dative because "tomé su mano" ("I took her hand"), I am dealing with just a part (the hand) of her. The same if I say, "ella me tomó la mano" ("she took my hand" —"ella tomó mi mano").

If you think about the "de" preposition when I said it would be best to express the idea as: "no veo la necesidad de aprender a resolver problemas inútiles," you may see how it is expressing possession, just as when one says, "el carro de mi papá" ("the car of my father / my father's car").

Note. I initially said that "In this case, from a strict grammatical point of view, it isn't really needed." I thought that in general terms the three datives were removable without really affecting the meaning, and eventhough in the sentence in question it doesn't seem to change its sense, the sympathetic dative does need to be present because its absence can change the whole sense of what is being said. It is not the same, "se me descompuso el carro" ("my car broke") that "se descompuso el carro" ("the car broke").


*** dativo ético

Finally, we have the "dativo ético," which indicates that the person has some kind of interest or that in some way s/he is being affected indirectly, usually in an emotive way. For example, if I say:

  1. cuídate, this can be both a suggestion or an order, I am telling you to take care of yourself

  2. te cuidas, here I separated the clitic and put it before the verb; in this case it is not so much of an order, but recomendation "to take care of yourself"

  3. te me cuidas, by having added the atone pronoun "me," now I am definitely making you know that I am interested in your well-being, so I am asking you to take care of yourself on my behalf; one could express the same, but in an imperative way by saying: cuídateme



*** more information

There is an online version of the "Nueva gramática de la lengua española (2009)." It consists of scanned images, therefore, one cannot search for a particular text on them, however, it has its own search engine.

One just needs to enter the term in the first text box, for example, complemento indirecto, to get a series of links, either to where the term is used or to the main section, for example: Complemento indirecto.

Given that the images are opened on an overlay, what I just do is: right click on the Previous Page icon, and then select, Open link in new tab. A faster way to achieve this is to just Ctrl-Click on the icon.

Dativos:


:hash:  ㆍespañol ㆍgramática

Last edited by gmads on Mon May 08, 2023 11:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

🦎  Imagination is the only weapon in the war with reality.  🦎
Antinomy - Imagination

🇲🇽 :us:  ·  :it: 🇧🇷  ·  :ru: 🇦🇪

User avatar
gmads
Mexico

Re: no le veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

Post by gmads »

By the way, it is important to note the expression "posesión inalienable" ("inalienable possession") when talking about the sympathetic dative in § 35.1e (the emphasis is mine):

[...] permite entender que las muelas pertenecen (posesión inalienable) a ese individuo, rasgo característico del dativo simpatético o dativo posesivo

Translation:

[...] allows us to understand that the molars belong (inalienable possession) to that individual, a characteristic feature of the sympathetic dative or possessive dative

This means that the possessive relationship must be beyond superficial: there has to be a strong bond between the elements in question.

🦎  Imagination is the only weapon in the war with reality.  🦎
Antinomy - Imagination

🇲🇽 :us:  ·  :it: 🇧🇷  ·  :ru: 🇦🇪

ElmerRamone
United States of America

Re: no le veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

Post by ElmerRamone »

Wow, seems I struck a nerve. What a wealth of information and thirst for answers! I live for this!

User avatar
gmads
Mexico

Re: no le veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

Post by gmads »

ElmerRamone wrote: Thu Sep 08, 2022 3:32 am

Wow, seems I struck a nerve. What a wealth of information and thirst for answers! I live for this!

More than enough to go crazy :D

🦎  Imagination is the only weapon in the war with reality.  🦎
Antinomy - Imagination

🇲🇽 :us:  ·  :it: 🇧🇷  ·  :ru: 🇦🇪

User avatar
gmads
Mexico

Re: no le veo el caso a aprender a resolver problemas inútiles

Post by gmads »

¿Listas y listos para enfrentar el siguiente reto?

Le gasté todo el dinero...

🦎  Imagination is the only weapon in the war with reality.  🦎
Antinomy - Imagination

🇲🇽 :us:  ·  :it: 🇧🇷  ·  :ru: 🇦🇪

Post Reply

Return to “Language”