(Spanish) confusing pronouns in sentences

[P. dubium]

Hi all

(long-time member since the old website but first time posting) I've been learning Spanish by myself since the lockdown this April. Not doing much work in the summer because of various reasons but I resumed learning last month. After I more or less grasped the grammar, I focused on reading skills from short sentences on textbooks and dictionaries to longer articles. Now I read news articles on BBC Mundo (the Spanish version of BBC) as my major learning resource, as well as some short story books. They are certainly challenging for me but I feel I could understand the overall meaning and learn a ton of vocabularies with the help of dictionary. (not sure if this is the right approach or is there a more efficient one) My listening and speaking abilities are still unfortunately non-existent since I only focus on readings. I tried to watch beginner's videos on Youtube, but still found the speed too fast even with subtitles.

When I am reading news articles (or everything in Spanish in general), the grammar that bothers me the most is when there are multiple object pronouns adjacent to one another. I have no problem understanding sentences like "Se lo vendi a mi amigo" (I sold it to my friend), with "se" referring to the indirect object (my friend) and "lo" referring to the direct object (it). However there are instances that I feel totally lost.

For example, "no se te venga a la mente", which means "does not come to your mind". While I know "venir" and "venirse" both mean "to come", I have no idea why there are two pronouns here. Why isn't "no te venga a la mente" or even "no venga a la mente" sufficient? I have a hard time trying to understand what "se" refers to here. There have been many similar occasions but I could only remember this specific example. Sometimes it becomes frustrating. There's another example that I am not sure whether I've interpreted correctly. "se le ve....." (he is seen as...). In this case my understanding is "se ve" is an impersonal se, which means "one sees", and "le" as an in direct pronoun (him), so the direct translation would be "one sees him as....". In any case it is challenging.

On top of that, it seems to me that when "se" appears in a sentence, I have to pause and think through the sentence really hard, actively thinking whether this is a passive se, an impersonal se or a reflexive se. The passive and impersonal ones are particularly confusing, and I sometimes even feel a sentence can be interpreted either way. Is this something everyone encounters when learning a language?

Thank you very much for all your help.

Edit: one more example I just encountered:
"Sin embargo, una deficiencia de los datos del censo es que a los encuestados se les pregunta qué tan bien hablan inglés y no sobre su competencia en otros idiomas"

When I saw "se pregunta" I immediately think of the verb "preguntarse" (to wonder), only to realize after google translation that it is actually a passive se here. Than I became more confused about why "les" is needed here. I understand "les" is the indirect object for "preguntar", but why isn't this redundant since the indirect object "los encuestados" is already mentioned just beforehand? Can "les" be omitted here?

[tungemål]

I agree, "se" has been challenging for me as well.

"no se te venga a la mente", which means "does not come to your mind". While I know "venir" and "venirse" both mean "to come", I have no idea why there are two pronouns here. Why isn't "no te venga a la mente" or even "no venga a la mente" sufficient? I have a hard time trying to understand what "se" refers to here.

I believe I know the answer to this one: It is called accidental reflexive. Look up the grammar for that and you'll understand.

[P. dubium]

I agree, "se" has been challenging for me as well.

"no se te venga a la mente", which means "does not come to your mind". While I know "venir" and "venirse" both mean "to come", I have no idea why there are two pronouns here. Why isn't "no te venga a la mente" or even "no venga a la mente" sufficient? I have a hard time trying to understand what "se" refers to here.

I believe I know the answer to this one: It is called accidental reflexive. Look up the grammar for that and you'll understand.

Hi tungemål, thank you very much for your reply!

I did think of accidental se when I read the sentence, but from my understanding it is used when an "accident" happens, like something is broken or dropped. In this case (something does not come to one's mind) why is an accident involved?

[El Forastero]

I could write a whole book about this matter

Well, the situation can be explained like this: Sometimes the extra pronoun is for emphasis purposes, sometimes is for expressing willingness, closeness, togetherness or pertinence that wouldn't be expressed without that pronoun, and some times it simply sounds more natural with the extra pronoun.

A simple example

-Yo como una hamburguesa: I eat a hamburger (It sounds like a physiological action)
-Yo me como una hamburguesa: I eat a hamburguer, but I express willingness and motivation.

So, look at the imperatives (I'm going to use the "usted" form, not the "tú")

- Coma una hamburgesa (you: eat a hamburguer)
- Cómase una hamburguesa (you: have the willingess and motivation to eat a hamburguer)

But, in a familiar context (let's say, a mother try to make her stubborn child eat a hamburguer), the imperative can change to indicative and add the extra pronoun (me)

- Se come esa hamburguesa!: (Better for you if you want to eat this hamburguer)
- Se me come esa hamburguesa!! (You: eat this hamburguer, beacuse I order you to do so).

This "come" is not the imperative for "tú", is the present indicative for "usted", so grammatically, it's not an imperative sentence but an affirmative sentence. However, the intonation (maybe agresiveness) in this context make this sentence an imperative one.

The "se" is the reflexive pronoun for "usted". For "tú" is "Te me comes esa hamburguesa", but it sounds a bit unnatural in Colombia (in México it's ok). "Se" is also the impersonal pronoun [se dice: it is said], so you have more opportunities to use it:

You look sad:
Te ves triste
Se te ve triste
Te me ves triste (This "me" means: You look sad, my poor baby. Sounds more natural "no te me pongas triste").

[Querneus]

I agree this is a long topic. And you rightfully complain about it.

I can answer your various specific questions, but honestly, unless you're a weirdo like I am and you actually enjoy this grammar stuff, I feel that for most people there's a point past which the study of grammar is just not that useful... A sheer, epic amount of exposure is more useful instead.

If there's something below that seems too confusing, my pre-emptive comment is there is something to be said for not caring about it anyway... Judging just from your post, it seems to me your main problem is probably not even a lack of grammar, but not knowing all the many constructions specific words can appear in. And that is a vocabulary problem. This is best fixed with plenty of input.



Regarding the specific questions you asked:

For example, "no se te venga a la mente", which means "does not come to your mind". While I know "venir" and "venirse" both mean "to come", I have no idea why there are two pronouns here. Why isn't "no te venga a la mente" or even "no venga a la mente" sufficient?

(Esa cosa) se me viene a la mente, (Esas cosas) se me vienen a la mente is an idiom on its own. The thing being remembered is the subject of venir. And you need both the se and the indirect obj. pronoun.

I don't think there's any real reason for the indirect object pronoun (no se me viene, que no se te venga). It's just part of the construction. The pronoun se refers back to the subject (practically always a third-person entity: the thing or human/animal that is remembered). It is just idiomatic.

Think of what English sometimes looks like from the point of view of Spanish. "I'm enjoying myself". If someone says this, they're not enjoying their own self, they're enjoying the time, the situation they're in, so is there a reason why the reflexive pronoun "myself" is used? (The answer is this is an idiom in English.)

Or, "I already put the book on the table". Is there a reason why English speakers always need to say where anyone puts anything, even when the location is obvious? In Spanish you can perfectly say Ya puse el libro if a location like a table is clear from context (it often is), but English speakers don't usually accept "I put the book" as a complete sentence. (The answer is that this is a special grammatical property of the English verb "to put", absent in most other English verbs.)

By the way, venirse only means (the literal sense of) 'to come [from a place]' in Latin American Spanish. But in Spain, it mostly just means 'to have an оrgаsm'. Beware!

Sometimes it becomes frustrating. There's another example that I am not sure whether I've interpreted correctly. "se le ve....." (he is seen as...). In this case my understanding is "se ve" is an impersonal se, which means "one sees", and "le" as an in direct pronoun (him), so the direct translation would be "one sees him as....". In any case it is challenging.

Your interpretation of this le as the indirect object is correct.

I think impersonal verbs with se in general can't take direct object pronouns. You must use the indirect ones (le, les). Compare:

Las veo felices. 'I see them happy. I see that those women feel happy.' (A ellas las veo felices.)
Se les ve felices. 'They seem happy.' (Impersonal. More literally, "one sees them happy".) (A ellas se les ve felices.)

More commonly we prefer to use plain verse though, which is reflexive, and has a subject (so it's not impersonal): Se ven enojadas (Ellas se ven enojadas.). Or instead: Parecen enojadas (Ellas parecen enojadas). But sure, people do say, and especially write the likes of se les ve felices sometimes.

The passive and impersonal ones are particularly confusing, and I sometimes even feel a sentence can be interpreted either way.

That's because your feeling is correct. Passive and impersonal can be ambiguous. I'm not sure if in such cases it matters much though.

You especially see this in formal written Spanish with impersonal verbs that can take direct objects: Se tala un árbol cada año. If I tried to make the tree plural in some way, I could use Se tala demasiados árboles por mes (impersonal: singular se tala) or alternatively Se talan demasiados árboles por mes (passive: plural se talan). Both work!

(And as mentioned above, direct obj. pronouns don't work with impersonal verbs that use se. For the impersonal use, I actually need to use se les tala cada mes if I want to turn (se talan) demasiados árboles into a pronoun, even though the full noun phrase doesn't take a: we don't say *se tala a demasiados árboles cada mes...)

(And note that, in contrast, in the alternative passive use, the verb does has a subject that it agrees with, and no object: Esos se talan cada mes.)

Is this something everyone encounters when learning a language?

Yes. And hilariously (since you speak native Mandarin and I've studied it for quite a while), I've had a lot of trouble getting used to the opposite problem: you guys drop a lot of pronouns, even in comparison to English! Given a conversation, 認為是必要的 can mean any of "I think it's necessary", "he thinks those things are necessary", "she thinks she's indispensable", "she thinks this stuff is necessary"... This sort of pronoun omission in changes of subject within a sentence is peculiarly confusing (for a speaker of a European language learning Mandarin anyway).

(Conversely, this often shows up in Mandarin speakers' English too. Someone I know from Taiwan recently sent me the message: "the glue says should wait 15 to 20 minutes", omitting the "you" in "you should".)

"Sin embargo, una deficiencia de los datos del censo es que a los encuestados se les pregunta qué tan bien hablan inglés y no sobre su competencia en otros idiomas"

When I saw "se pregunta" I immediately think of the verb "preguntarse" (to wonder), only to realize after google translation that it is actually a passive se here. Than I became more confused about why "les" is needed here. I understand "les" is the indirect object for "preguntar", but why isn't this redundant since the indirect object "los encuestados" is already mentioned just beforehand? Can "les" be omitted here?

Well... it's an impersonal. Preguntarle algo a alguien, used as an impersonal. There's no subject to be found or that can be added to the verb pregunta; "los encuestados" is the indirect object (as you say). The construction is fairly literally "A deficiency is that, to the surveyed people, it is asked to them how well they speak English" (where se les pregunta = "it is asked to them", still more literally "it asks itself to them, one asks oneself to them").

The term "passive" is normally applied when the verb has a subject of some kind, as in los proyectos a veces se terminan a tiempo 'projects are sometimes finished on time'. (Admittedly, some grammar authors may disagree about this definition.)

Anyway, regarding your question, the les is needed because the object has been moved before (to the left of) the verb. This is the same pattern found in:

- A mi madre se le pidió subir al escenario. (Pedirle algo a alguien, used as an impersonal.) 'My mother was asked to go up to the platform.'
- A mi madre se le animó con más fuerza. (Animar una persona, animarla, used as an impersonal.) 'My mother was encouraged (by the audience) with greater noise.'

- A mi madre le gusta el té de burbujas. (Gustarle.) 'My mother likes bubble tea (boba tea).'
- A mi madre le interesa el huayno. (Interesarle.) 'My mother is interested in huayno music.'
- A mi madre se le acabaron los ingredientes. (Acabársele.) 'My mother ran out of ingredients.'
- A mi madre se le olvidan las llaves. (Olvidársele.) 'My mother forgets her keys.'
- A mi madre la vi ayer. (Ver algo, verla.) 'I saw my mother yesterday.'
- A mi madre la llamé por teléfono, y a mi padre lo vi en persona. (Llamar algo, llamarla, llamarlo.) 'I called my mother by phone, and saw my father in person.'

[Querneus]

Anyway, regarding your question, the les is needed because the object has been moved before (to the left of) the verb. This is the same pattern found in:

- A mi madre se le pidió subir al escenario. (Pedirle algo a alguien, used as an impersonal.) 'My mother was asked to go up to the platform.'
- A mi madre se le animó con más fuerza. (Animar una persona, animarla, used as an impersonal.) 'My mother was encouraged (by the audience) with greater noise.'

- A mi madre le gusta el té de burbujas. (Gustarle.) 'My mother likes bubble tea (boba tea).'
- A mi madre le interesa el huayno. (Interesarle.) 'My mother is interested in huayno music.'
- A mi madre se le acabaron los ingredientes. (Acabársele.) 'My mother ran out of ingredients.'
- A mi madre se le olvidan las llaves. (Olvidársele.) 'My mother forgets her keys.'
- A mi madre la vi ayer. (Ver algo, verla.) 'I saw my mother yesterday.'
- A mi madre la llamé por teléfono, y a mi padre lo vi en persona. (Llamar algo, llamarla, llamarlo.) 'I called my mother by phone, and saw my father in person.'

Looking at this with a fresh mind hours later, I think I'm definitely wrong here.

I... am not quite sure what's going on in A los encuestados se les pregunta sobre su inglés actually (and the identical construction in A mi madre se le pidió subir al escenario). It seems to have something to do with the regular good ol' repetition of the indirect object pronoun (le pregunté a mi amigo), apparently due to the verb being an impersonal one with se?

You can tell I'm wrong because one can move the noun phrase afterwards and the le is still necessary:
- Se le(s) preguntó a los encuestados sobre su inglés. (Needs le(s); the use of -s may vary per dialect.)
- Se le acabaron los ingredientes a mi madre. (Needs le.)

The other examples with indirect objects are irrelevant too. This is just plain old repetition of le with a stated indirect object phrase... darn:
- Le pregunté a la encuestada sobre su inglés. (Needs le for me, but dropping it miiight be acceptable in Spain too?)
- Le gusta el té de burbujas a mi madre. (Needs le.)
- Se le animó con más fuerza a mi madre. (Needs le. Animar una persona, animarla, here used as impersonal, so the restriction against impersonal se lo/la applies and it becomes se le.)

The pattern I mentioned does apply to plain direct objects though (A mi madre la vi ayer ~ Vi ayer a mi madre).

Uhh... I'll have to find out later then... I just wanted to mention I just noticed I'm wrong here. Fun.

[yossarian]

With regards to

Sin embargo, una deficiencia de los datos del censo es que a los encuestados se les pregunta qué tan bien hablan inglés y no sobre su competencia en otros idiomas

it's simply a case of the passive voice, or the impersonal se.

The question

¿Qué tan bien habla usted inglés?

is asked (passive voice)

Se pregunta

les simply refers to the people being asked the question (los encuestados). Literally, the question is asked to them.

The sentence could be rearranged.

Se les pregunta (it is asked to them, or they are asked) "¿Qué tan bien es su inglés?" (the question being asked) a los encuestados (we need to specify who "they" are).

I think the les is optional in this case, but it adds extra emphasis. A native speaker can correct me if I'm wrong.

I think the awkwardness comes from the fact you probably wouldn't say "Se les pregunta sobre su competencia", since this france doesn't refer to a concrete question. To me it would be more natural to say "Les preguntan sobre su competencia".

Again, would need a native speaker to confirm!

[Querneus]

I think the les is optional in this case, but it adds extra emphasis. A native speaker can correct me if I'm wrong.

Ah, I see! I was wondering about this above, since you beautiful people from Spain like to drop le(s) some of the time when the full indirect object is also present. In much of Latin America, the use of le(s) is mandatory (I'm from El Salvador and I can't drop it, as usual). You can see things like Han dicho a varios medios que... (without le or les) in formal Latin American Spanish like that of newspapers, but it doesn't happen much.

I think the awkwardness comes from the fact you probably wouldn't say "Se les pregunta sobre su competencia", since this france doesn't refer to a concrete question. To me it would be more natural to say "Les preguntan sobre su competencia".

I don't feel how the latter is more concrete than the former. hmm

[tarvos]

Honestly my issue with the "se les pregunta sobre su competencia" just is that it sounds clunky and doesn't feel natural. You can use third person plural to make a passive sentence without getting into all this "se" stuff. You can just leave out the subject then and you'll be ok, the third person plural leaves it opaque as to who is doing the questioning, because it probably doesn't matter who did it.

"Les preguntan sobre su competencia, les informan que..." etc. It just seems much more effortless, even if the "se les pregunta" construction is totally valid and works. I just don't understand why anyone would use that in this context. Also "preguntarse" sounds like you're wondering or asking about something:

"Me pregunto si Juan puede venir esta noche" ("I'm wondering if John can come tonight").

As for the dropping of "le", I honestly like that because every word that you can skip for the sake of brevity is a good one, especially since formal Spanish tends towards the flowery and I'd rather people get to the point. Id al grano, pero ya...

[El Forastero]

I honestly like that because every word that you can skip for the sake of brevity is a good one, especially since formal Spanish tends towards the flowery and I'd rather people get to the point. Id al grano, pero ya...

Concision, that's the point. It's is much more appreciated in english than in spanish. Indeed, one of the features I like the most about my native language is that capability to become delirious and rambling when you speak without actually losing the focus, only for decorative purposes, sometimes for snobbery and pomposity. And the literarure I like to read sometimes exacerbates this (Being the epitome "The Autumn of the patriarch", a 200-page headless Garcia-Marquez' delirium), so for us it's very natural "no ir al grano". That's why being concise in english is an extra obstacle in the learning process, besides grammar and pronunciation. That extra pronoun usage is not a problem in spanish, even though it doesn't make sense syntactically speaking.

In such a context, not only does this apparently non-sensical pronoun proliferations sounds elegant and natural, but also the alleged natural syntax the average faithful rule-follower spanish learner should certainly use more frequently is totally overshadowed by the overdone option, becoming a misfortune for the succintness lovers, who surely are in a dreadful discomfort with this couple of very circumloquacious paragraphs.
--

Sorry . That was an example of how a slightly pretentious spanish-speaker's mind can be (I thought in spanish to write it). We often think that way and at least in spanish, it can sound natural.