3

I saw an ad that says Sabores que encantarán a todos.
Annies-Encantan.jpg

I thought todos was the indirect object of encantar and therefore required the pronoun even if you also state the indirect object, this case todos, explicitly.

Can the les be omitted?

Charles J Gervasi
  • 31
  • 3
  • 4
    Does this answer your question? When is the indirect object pronoun required in sentences with an indirect object? – pablodf76 Jul 01 '21 at 19:02
  • @pablodf76 If todos is ineeded the indirect object, my understanding is les is required. After reading this, I am no longer certain of what I thought I learned 30 years ago: the le/les pronoun is always required when there's an indirect object. Sabores que encantan a todos sounds wrong to me, but I am not a native speaker. – Charles J Gervasi Jul 03 '21 at 16:50
  • It's not common, but it's not wrong. The only (minor) problem of this is that it's ambiguous, since encantar can be a conventional transitive verb too. It's highly doubtful that someone could interpret this as if the flavours would put a charm (as in fairies or witches) over people. – pablodf76 Jul 03 '21 at 20:49
  • 1
    It means: Flavors that will enchant everyone, and therefore does not require les. However, if gustar is used, it will always require a pronoun. – Lambie Jul 08 '21 at 16:45

1 Answers1

1

It's a pun, and may not be so easy to catch for all the Spanish speaking countries.

Means both they'll be charmed by the flavors and they will love the flavors.

Sergio Velasquez
  • 318
  • 1
  • 6
  • On the face of it your two suggestions are the same. Has something got lost in translation? – mdewey Jul 08 '21 at 12:43
  • @mdewey, I think the difference is maybe subtle and that Lambie translated one half of it better, but I believe the distinction lies in who is interpreted as the subject/agent, i.e. flavors that will charm / enchant / put a spell on everybody vs. everybody will love the flavors. I think (could be wrong) that if les were included in the original phrase, the first interpretation might not work, since in that interpretation todos is a direct object (despite the "personal a", I believe), so if anything would use los (unless maybe this were a case of leísmo or something). – Max Starkenburg Feb 12 '22 at 21:29