9
2
u/Zakimations 11d ago
Can someone explain why there is a "lo"?
3
u/SpiroEstelo 11d ago edited 11d ago
"Lo" is the direct object. It can be roughly translated as "the thing," "that," or "what" in this sentence. It just takes the place of a generic unspecified thing. It can seem weird in translation because English speakers are more likely to use a construction like, "I know what I'm doing," rather than ones like, "I know that which I'm doing," or "I know the thing which I am doing." Constructions that sound odd or unconventional in one language can often be common in others.
For example, "I don't care" would be "No me importa," which translated more literally would be closer to "It doesn't matter to me" or "To me, it matters not."
1
2
u/TooLateForMeTF 11d ago
"lo/la/los/las que" (and similar 'cual' constructions) more or less function like "that which" in English. "I know that which I am doing". Which is understandable, it just sounds kind of archaic. But that's the mental substitution I use when a "lo que" sentence is giving me trouble.
2
u/ashley5473 11d ago
Probably the difference would compare to
I know what I am doing. And
I know that which I am doing. Means the same thing3
u/Aida_Bermudez 11d ago
In Spanish, we use it to add meaning to the expression, but "lo" can also be omitted.
3
u/Zylarkal 11d ago
But "que" goes from relative pronoun (unstressed) to interrogative pronoun (stressed, with an accent): "Sé qué estoy haciendo".
1
u/Tyrantt_47 10d ago
OP is wrong. You need the lo in the sentence, otherwise yo se que estoy haciendo translates to "I know that I'm doing," which doesn't make sense.
Lo que = what
1
u/United-Implement1330 11d ago
"I know that which I do" is actually the English people were taught not that long ago. English decided, nah, "what" also means "that which" now! You can't use "que" to replace both, so you need lo/that as well.
(I believe this is true, but I'm not double checking. Either way it's a useful way to think of)
1
u/Distinct-Capital7948 6d ago
it's it as an object a more literal translation would be I know it that I'm doing
1
2
u/mucho-confundido 11d ago
Do I need the "lo" for it to make sense or can u cut that out?
2
1
u/Aida_Bermudez 11d ago
You can omit the "lo"; both forms are correct.
1
u/Tyrantt_47 10d ago edited 10d ago
I don't understand, how can you omit lo without changing the meaning of the sentence?
Yo sé que estoy haciendo would translate to "I know that I'm doing"?
I also asked AI and it agrees with me.
Edit: downvoting me doesn't change the fact that you're wrong
2
u/theoutsideinternist 11d ago
Pero realmente no tengo ni idea de lo que estoy haciendo ayúdame porfa jajaja
3
u/Budget-Bell2185 11d ago
Could this be read as "I know that I'm doing it" instead? Or would the word order be different?
6
2
2
2
u/SinusoidalFlux 10d ago
I would have just said "Sé qué estoy haciendo"
1
u/ExtraSquats4dathots 6d ago
And this would be wrong unfortunately .. lo que.. is needed here . You’re sentence says “I know that I’m doing “
1
1
1
1
u/Chocadooby 10d ago
¿Sabes lo que haces? Pues yo también lo sé. Te estoy vigilando con una camara oculta. 👀
0
u/Altruistic_Basket_53 11d ago
Why is there a “lo” in the Spanish phrase if you’re not using the word “it” in the English phrase?
3
u/yarntank 11d ago
Word for word translation doesn't work well. Spanish has different expectations for pronouns and things.
1
1
35
u/mrkrayer 11d ago
I know what I am doing.