#direct objects

[spanishskulduggery]

Hola, I wanted to ask for a clarification on something. I think I confused myself with reflexive verbs and gustar and verbs like it. Reflexive verbs use the "me/te/se/nos/os/se", but gustar uses "me/te/le..." etc. Because a reflexive verb is usually an action being done to yourself, we use se. But why don't we use se for gustar? Or le/les for reflexive verbs? I'm a little lost trying to understand why they're different.

What you're asking is the difference between a reflexive and an indirect object; and I'm going to start with a reflexive because I find them easier to understand

A reflexive is when the subject and object are the same - something one does to themselves (or in reciprocal/plural, something multiple people do to each other)

The basic example that I always like to use is lavar "to wash" - you can lavar la ropa "wash clothes", and lavar a alguien "to wash someone", and in this case the "clothes" and "someone" are considered direct objects [things that receive the action of the verb, as in, the clothes are what is getting washed etc]

A reflexive would be lavarse "to wash oneself"

You have lavarse las manos "to wash one's hands", literally "to wash oneself the hands" - the idea being that it is yourself, the hands are just part of you and obviously part of you (this is a thing that happens with many body parts where ownership is considered implied) - so you are the one washing and the one being washed. That's reflexive. And what is being washed is "the hands", which are the direct object here

Please note - there are other ways reflexives are used, and specifically times se shows up that aren't truly reflexive, and I don't want to confuse you or bog you down with more information than you need but just be aware there's the basic true "reflexive", and then also there are times when se shows up for seemingly no reason and it's just grammatical quirks of Spanish

-

An indirect object (also called dative in linguistics and languages with case systems, like German, Latin, Russian etc) is to mark who is the intended recipient of an action, who is benefiting, who something is done for

"to whom or for whom something is done"... that's why it's indirect

[Note: "who" is often a subject, "whom" is an object; if you take German you'll see this more but it's one of the carry-overs from German just in English as far as "whom" taking an extra letter]

You do something to something (directly), but it's for someone else... so that's why it's indirect

A common example I use is mandar la carta "to send a letter", the one "sending" is the subject, the "letter" is the object... but who is it going to?

le mando la carta "I am sending the letter to him/her"... where the "him/her" is receiving the action of sending the letter but not being acted upon directly... an indirect object

-

Here's where we get into the double-edged sword of gustar

On the one hand, super common absolutely everywhere, needs to be taught

On the other hand, it is often taught as "to like" which is basically true but becomes confusing for people later on when they come across the indirect objects. Teachers do their best to mitigate it but it's kinda unavoidable

gustar is NOT "to like" when used with indirect objects; it is "to be pleasant to" or "to be pleasing to"

When you say me gusta el libro "I like the book" what you're actually saying is "the book is pleasing to me"; and me gustan los libros "I like the books" is "the books are pleasing to me"

This is why gustar is showing up in 3rd person - they're the true "subject" and that's why gustar is often conjugated like this

This also extends to gustar-like verbs like fascinar, apetecer, interesar, importar, preocupar, and so on...

As in me sorprende is "it surprises me", literally "it evokes surprise in me"

...

To be clear here - a reflexive is when the subject and object are the same

Direct object and indirect object phrases are not phrased like that. Direct objects have one subject acting on something [mandar la carta for example], and indirect objects mention who benefits from something being acted upon [mandar(le) la carta (a alguien)]

A reflexive would have you doing the action and being the recipient, so in theory you could say me mando una carta "I send myself a letter"

Many verbs can be reflexive if they apply to the subject; if they apply to someone else, they're often direct or indirect objects

While not super common, me gusto can be used as "I like myself"

-

Also just to be clear about the object pronouns:

Direct objects: me, te, lo/la, los/las, nos, os

Indirect objects: me, te, le, les, nos, os

Reflexives: me, te, se, nos, os

For yo, tú, nosotros/nosotras, and vosotros/vosotras the objects are the exact same

Which means that ~in general but not always~ you don't have to worry too much about whether a sentence is technically direct or indirect

The big issue is 3rd person (+ usted/ustedes which conjugate like 3rd person) - whether it's going to be lo or le or se

In general though it will depend on the context of the sentence. As an example alegrar "to make someone happy" uses indirect objects, while alegrarse is "to become happy"

Whether you're saying le alegra "it makes them happy" or se alegra "he/she is happy/they are glad"

-

Also for more information:

Anatomy of Spanish: Direct Objects

Anatomy of Spanish: Indirect Objects

[389]

Ron Arad Concrete Stereo 1983

[naturecalls111]

I love the way you draw male characters. I have always had trouble drawing male and male-presenting characters. Do you have any advice for or could you explain your process of drawing male characters?

Thanks so much! Oh man, this is a difficult question… I tried to illustrate my process below but I’m going to TLDR it as well: use reference for the type of masculinity you want to go for. I totally get what you’re asking for, so I tried to focus on that for this “tutorial”, but really I would just focus on portrait studies so you don’t get pigeon-holed into drawing male characters under “rules” of male character design. Male character design shouldn’t exist - good character design should. Focus on the latter! :3c

[leglimh]

จระเข้ + ตะเกียง airy and american alligator

[kyouka-supremacy]

Actually. Atsushi slowly allowing less and less people to address him as “Jinko” until Akutagawa is the only one left who can call him that. Atsushi will firmly deny the fact that he's doing it on purpose when asked

[nxvaca1nefa1ry]

i ♡︎ trinkets

[bullrunpicnicker]

one really fun thing to think about with gordonverse shit is serious stoic traumatized scientist gordon prime looking at loud neurotic complainer hlvrai gordon and being like. oh so he got carried through black mesa? and he didnt even deal with half of xen? he never got frozen in time and lost his whole world? and hes complaining about going to a birthday party??

like damn this idiot is constantly whining but his dumbass dimension didnt have to deal with the combine 😐<-internally shaking with resentment

[bonefall]

what about bb grey wing though xey have the pronouns

Xey DO have the pronouns...

Looking down from heaven, face buried in xeir paws, in absolute agony that xeir brother has decided to open up a mine for kids. Xey try to send a note from heaven, fluttering down on a butterfly's gentle wings, that says "CUT IT OUT."

Clear Sky reads the note, nods decisively, and announces, "GRAY WING THE WISE HAS SENT ME A MESSAGE! WE NEED TO CUT THE COAL OUT OF THE MINE. WORK FASTER, CHILDREN."

Heaven's screams fall silent on self-idolizing ears.

[r8kirani]

look at my objects boy

[pandoratheprocrasticreator]

the no spoiler rule in later ace attorney games is stupid because it never followed up on the gavin brothers, thalassa gramarye, locked beloved characters in the basement never to be seen again, etc etc etc but the missed potential that i havent been able to stop thinking about is that the phantom should have been callisto yew from investigations.

like. an assassin/spy from a foreign government? murdering the parent of a weird little girl and then framing said weird little girl for murder seven years later? who is a genius at disguising themselves as other people and worming their way into investigations?

like just change some stuff about the psychology profile of the phantom. like instead of having no readable emotion they force themselves to experience extreme emotions when putting on a front. like giggling uncontrollably. the way callisto yew does. idk it's not a very hard fix the opportunity was RIGHT there but they couldn't do that because theyre not allowed to acknowledge the investigations games existed ever.

[spanishskulduggery]

I was wondering if you’d made a post at any point talking about how to know when to use “lo/los” vs. “le/les”. Like I know the textbook definition of their differences and when you should use them but sometimes in practice it gets a little more dicey, especially when there are prepositional phrases after the verb and i can’t tell if the prep phrase contains the direct object or if its just adding info. For example, if you’re saying “a él le/lo trato de usted”, is the person you’re talking about the direct object or is “de usted” the object and the person is receiving that action?

There are some verbs like the ones that use gustar that you're supposed to use indirect objects, and some verbs that tend to take direct objects

But whether you use le or lo for people in some cases is regional - in general (and this is a big generalization) - Latin America tends to use direct objects, while Spain tends towards indirect objects

That's often called leísmo and loísmo which you can read about on Wikipedia where it's very involved, and a bit difficult to explain without going into linguistics but there are also some other dialects like laísmo that get involved

Standard general Spanish in Latin America is to use direct objects which better shows the gender of someone, but they will sometimes use indirect objects for formality

In my textbooks we were shown something like this:

Es un placer conocerte. = It's nice to meet you. [tú] Es un placer conocerlo. = It's nice to meet you [usted masculine] Es un placer conocerla. = It's nice to meet you [usted feminine] Es un placer conocerle. = It's nice to meet you [formal, but ambiguous]

The main issues with this, grammatically speaking for non-natives, is that out of context you might mistake lo for "him" rather than usted... and that le is entirely ambiguous

In fact, le or les is sometimes preferred in Latin America for very formal settings

They understand you either way, so don't feel like you need to 100% know every difference

Other links just for explaining the differences:

Anatomy of Spanish - Indirect Objects

Anatomy of Spanish - Direct Objects

[389]

Défi Fantastique by Erwan Frotin Défi #4 : The Sleeping Disaster 2006

[imaginal-ai]

"Him" (0005)

(More of The Homo Glamorous Series)

0004

0003

0002

0001

[forget-me-not-automaton]

“I am excited for Echoes Of Wisdom and will play it when it comes out” and “I hate what’s happened to Zelda games over the past few years and I want it to stop now” are statements that can and DO coexist. (In me. They exist in me-)

[lionheartedmusings]

"no one is expecting this"

i can assure you a bitch on tumblr has written a 500+ word essay on whatever's happening as a theory, and it's buried underneath gay headcanons and shitposts

[eldritch-muppetshow]

continued fairly oddposting abt a hypothetical take on fairy!timmy bc that post re-sparked sth in my brain

i feel like another interesting route that could go (though to be clear, i don’t see the live-action trilogy as canon to a new wish— in my headcanon for this scenario, timmy wished himself into a fairy for Personal Crisis Over Growing Up reasons and jorgen didn’t take issue for one reason or another) is fairy!timmy having a dynamic w his hypothetical godkid that’s basically the reverse of dev and peri’s relationship.

his godkid just wants relatively normal, grounded wishes, and would never think to misuse magic— instead, it’s timmy who encourages them to go bigger, more over-the-top, and more indulgent with their wishes, and has no issue with pointing out the loopholes in da rules/jorgen’s words. he’s not evil/intentionally manipulative to be clear, but i can kind of see him seeing his godkid as a way to vicariously relive his childhood.

he’s not without his good qualities though, i can also see him as the type to immediately pick up on when his godkid is being mistreated bc of his own godawful childhood and encourage them not to let people bully them. he’s someone who encourages his godkid to have fun with magic and think outside the box, which could very well be what a kid needs

(idk if i picture his godkid being hazel or not, but i’m leaning towards his godkid just being an oc/background character so his hypothetical reunion with cosmo and wanda could feel more organic)