The indirect object , also called indirect object , is a syntactic function that is associated with the dative case. It is performed by an unstressed dative pronoun or a prepositional phrase that designates the beneficiary , the addressee , the receiver or other actors involved in the situation denoted by the verb they complement.
It can be said that the indirect object is that syntactic constituent that is governed by a transitive verb , whose referent is designated by a benefactor, addressee or receiver of the action that the verb expresses. The indirect object, in this way, corresponds to who benefits or is harmed by the action carried out by the subject of the sentence.
Just as the direct object can be replaced by "los" , "lo" , "las" or "la" , the indirect object can be replaced by "le" and "les" . On some occasions, it can also be changed to "se" . On the other hand, the indirect object answers questions like "To what?" or "For whom?" .
Let's look at an example : "Silvia added mustard to the hamburger." As you can see, "to the hamburger" is the indirect object of this statement, since it can be replaced by "le" : "Silvia added mustard." On the other hand, if we ask "What did Silvia add mustard to?" , the answer will be the indirect object ( "to the hamburger" ).
Let's take another case: "Mauricio wrote a letter for his son." When asked "Who did Mauricio write a letter for?" , we will arrive at the answer "for his son" , which is the indirect object. Said indirect object, meanwhile, can be replaced by "le" ( "Mauricio wrote him a letter" ).
In everyday speech, many confusions arise about the indirect object, as occurs with the direct object and many other topics of grammar , since we learn to use them naturally, through listening and speaking, and generally we do not know how to explain them. . One of the most common errors when using the indirect object is related to the number of the personal pronoun, which is usually put in the singular ("le") even though the noun it refers to is plural.
Let's look at a sentence to better understand this common error in everyday speech and even in many written works, both in journalism and literature. If a person has given a gift to a group of friends, they should express it in the following way: "I gave them the gift," since the personal pronoun "them" refers to "to my friends." However, since “gift” is in the singular, we tend to get confused and say “I gave him the gift.”
Similarly, if we replaced the direct object "the gift" with a pronoun, the correct sentence would be: "I gave it to him " ("se": "to my friends"; "lo": "the gift"). But in everyday speech it is very normal to incorrectly alter the number of "lo" because the agent complement ("my friends") is in the plural: "I gave them to them " , an incorrect sentence.
The error of putting the indirect object in the plural instead of the singular is perhaps less frequent than that of the direct object, although both could be completely eliminated if in school we were taught to distinguish them correctly from the beginning. Precisely, when looking at the list of pronouns and noticing that it is not possible to exchange them, it seems difficult to understand why someone would make a mistake.
On the other hand, we have the case of the verbs to love and to want : in some countries we say “I love him/I want him,” while in others, “I love him/I want him.” There is an eternal discussion that tries to determine once and for all if the use of the pronoun "le" indicates a leismo , or an improper use, or if both should be accepted. The truth is that the dictionary tells us that the two verbs are transitive, so the object that complements them should be direct and, therefore, be replaced by "los" , "lo" , "las" or "la". .