Laísmos, Leísmos, Liísmos, Loísmos, Luísmos

This page from UnDiaDeFuria.org made me laugh and think. It says the following:

¿Que no nos entienden los madrileños que vienen a la costa?. La verdad es que yo tampoco los entiendo a ellos. Que no sé qué es peor, si el ceceo malagueño y el seseo cordobés o los la/le/li/lo/lu ísmos madrileños.

That the Madrilenians who come to the coast can't understand us? The truth is that I don't understand them either. I don't know what's worse, the ceceo from Málagua and the seseo from Córdoba, or, the la/le/li/lo/lu -isms from Madrid.

The text is written by an Andalusian, remarking of some features that occur in Madrid and not in Andaluzia. It pokes fun at some phenomena which occur in Spain, but especially in the Northern-Central regions. Each one of these confuses, so to speak, the third person object pronouns and their functions: leísmo, laísmo, and loísmo, each one named appropiately by the pronoun to which it refers. Of these, the most significant would have to be «leísmo» for having acquired partial literally acceptance by the Real Academia Española (RAE), the Spanish language academy. Leísmo, an innovation said to have begun in Castile, is the action of replacing the acussative object pronoun «lo» with «le»: A mi padre, no lo he visto »» A mi padre, no le he visto (I haven't seen my father). It has now spread to most of Spain and is standard in the literary language. «Leísmo» is only admitted by the RAE if the direct object pronoun refers to an animate male, and excluded, as incorrect, if it refers to female or anything inanimate. It has moved aside the scheme inherited from Latin, and is one of the few things which mark different the usage of the standard idiom between Spain and Latin America. This is because in America, the inherited Latin scheme is maintained; that is, one finds as standard the usage of «lo» as the direct object pronoun.
3rd person scheme as inherited from Latin, and current in Latin America

	Accusative	Dative
Male	lo	le
Female	la	le

3rd person scheme with leísmo as accepted by the RAE

	Accusative	Dative
Male	le/lo*	le
Female	la	le

*Le for animate; Lo for inanimate

Some examples of this would be:
[Am] Lo vi y le di un beso. ~ [Sp] Le vi y le di un beso. (I saw him and gave him a kiss.)
Here, the first sentence would be common in America. «Le» is reserved as the indirect object pronoun, while in Spain, it doubles as direct and indirect.
In the case of a male inanimate or female object, there would be no difference: [Am, Sp] La vi y le di un beso. (I saw her and gave her a kiss.) ¿Dónde está tu auto? No lo veo. (Where is your car? I don't see it.)
In America, this accepted «leísmo» is usually regarded as a hypercultism. In everyday speech, it is absent. However, it is found in the bible and in religious songs. For instance, saying «Al Señor, le alabo» (The Lord, I prase him). There we find «le» where we expected «lo», indicating «leísmo». Some grammarians label this use in Spain as plain wrong. People with this view claim that it was lunatic of the RAE to accept it. The RAE does say that even though it admits this type of «leísmo», it recommends that «le» be reserved as the dative object pronoun, abiding to the system derived directly from Latin and the one standard in Latin America. In the plural («les»), the RAE does not admit «leísmo», and calls it an 'incorrection' to use it in this case. Nonetheless, there is quite a debate on this and more times than not, the Spaniards will fall to the hands of «leísmo» and say, for instance, in a recent advertisement for Yahoo Spain: «¡Diles a tus amigos que les quieres!» (Tell your friends that you love them!). Here, the first «les» is used as the indirect object pronoun, and the second as the direct one. The same sentence, without «leísmo» incurred, would be: «¡Diles a tus amigos que los quieres!».
This argument, though not widespread, goes both ways. In Spain, many people claim that it is an audacity to use «lo» instead of «le» as the direct object pronoun. Remember that in «leísmo», «le» is used for animate male subjects, «lo» being restricted to things, and non-animate objects. Spaniards with this attitude say that by using «lo(s)» to refer to people is degrading, putting them on the same level as 'things'. Therefore, with this innovation, we have a pronominal system that sacrifices the distinction for case (acussative\dative), as did the derived Latin scheme, for one that distinguishes between animate and inanimate male objects.
Nonetheless, not all of Spain incurs upon «leísmo», nor is all of America free from it. There are regions in America that use «le» for the acussative, particularly some parts of Peru and Ecuador. Recently, in a Peruvian talk show, I heard a woman say to one of the panelists: «Pero es porque tú le mantienes.» (But it's because you support him.). In Spain, especially in Andalusia and the Canary Islands, such «leísmo» is virtually non-existent. These two regions share the American norm of reserving «le» as the third-person indirect object pronoun. Here, we would hear «Lo amo» (I love him), whereas in the rest of Spain we would find «Le amo». This takes us back to the text with which I began this entry. In the quote above, the writer shares her the attitude that the Madrilenians and Andalusians have towards each other with respect to the linguistics features each does or not have. In this ocassion, it is the «leísmo» that the Andalusians lack.
Indeed, in the places without «leísmo» in popular speech, it is felt as highly courteous when one hears «le» in place of «lo», particularly when it refers to «Usted»: «Usted es una gran persona. Le admiro mucho.» (You're a great person. I admire you very much.). This is usually called «leísmo de cortesía», or, courtesy leísmo. By this definition, it is admitted by the RAE even if it references a female object: «Señora, le buscan.» (Ma'am, someone is looking for you.).
The text quoted also mentions «laísmo» and «loísmo». «Laísmo» is another innovation from Castile that has spread to other areas. In this phenomena, «la» is used as the dative object pronoun for female objects. For instance, «La dije que viniera» for «Le dije que viniera» (I told her to come), or, «¡Dala el libro!» for «¡Dale el libro!» (Give her to book!). Unlike the «leísmo» discussed before, «laísmo» is labeled as incorrect and is socially disregarded. However, in the regions where it is found, particularly in Old Castile and Madrid, it has obtained some level of social acceptance. Generally, «laísmo» is found right along «leísmo». With this, the pronominal system is altogether changed, in these regions, to distinguish not for case, but for gender:

3rd person scheme with leísmo and laísmo coexisting:
	Accusative	Dative
Male	le/lo*	le
Female	la	la

*Le for animate; Lo for inanimate
«Loísmo», the least propagated of these, is when «lo» is used instead of «le» as the dative object pronoun for male objects, i.e.: «Lo di un abrazo» for «Le di un abrazo» (I gave him a hug), or, «Lo dije que no» for «Le dije que no» (I said no to him.). This is highly stigmatised and even considered vulgar. It could or not be accompanied by «laísmo». If it is, it holds then a distinction for gender, just as in the last case, except that instead of «le», it is so with «lo».
There is yet another phenomena of this kind. It is another type of «leísmo» which occurs other regions in Spain, particularly in the Basque Country. Here, we find «le» replacing «la» in the acussative for female objects, i.e.: «¿Dónde está tu hermana? No le he visto por aquí.» (Where is your sister? I haven't seen her around here.) This could be taken a step further, having «le» be used to reference things as well: «Ese árbol, no le habia visto.» (I hadn't seen that tree.).
The factor that contributes for all of these 'confusions' is, probably, that in Spanish, the «personal A» is used with verbs that call for a direct object, this having a parallel with the «A» used in verbs that call for an indirect object. For instance: DO «Veo a José» (I see José); IO «Digo algo a José» (I say something to José) Now with the pronouns substituting the object: DO «Lo veo a él» (I see him); IO «Le digo a él» (I say to him)
From here, we see that it's easy to confuse these forms, as do many students of Spanish often. By now then, you should comprehend quite well the title of this entry. :)