Talk:French grammar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	France Portal French grammar is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.

French grammar has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents 1 Article split 2 French-style guillemets 3 Italian 4 a little help 4.1 deep incompetence 5 Peer Review 6 relative pronouns 7 Weak/strong pronouns 8 Continuous aspect 9 A or À 10 Verbs 11 Text removed from "Negation" 12 "Ne" explétif

[edit] Article split

I was looking through the Spanish grammar article, and the authors have split the sections into separate articles:

1. Verbs
2. Nouns
3. Adjectives
4. Determiners
5. Pronouns
6. Prepositions

I think this is a very good idea, as it would cut down the enormous length of the article while allowing more information to be added to each, like specific external links (the Conjugator etc), example sentences, etc.

For example, in the Verb section: in addition to tenses and conjugations, one could go into specifics of savoir v. connaître, fully conjugate the irregular but often-used être, faire, and avoir (or possibly have a separate article for all non-standard verbs, like é->è (acheter), c->ç (commencer), etc).

Deus ex machina 02:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I think splitting the article into sub-articles is a good idea, though I think the main article should give a bit more information than does Spanish grammar. (Also, I don't think the bulk of the main article should be a self-contradicting discussion of a minor point of English grammar, of all things, but yeah.) Ruakh 18:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I've started the process: I've moved the info from the "Verbs" section to French verbs. BTW, I'm not so sure that full conjugation tables are exactly encyclopedic; they seem better suited either to Wiktionary or to Wikibooks. Ruakh 18:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say Spanish grammar was perfect (but of course I'm biased), just that the information was more organized. I think that partial conjugation tables is encyclopedic, but not necessarily full ones. The article could give the stems and endings instead of writing out each conjugation. I'll work on separating and fleshing out ASAP. Deus ex machina 02:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] French-style guillemets

(I apologize for forgetting the spaces between the opening guillemet + the first word and last word + the closing guillemet in an earlier edit.)

I believe that it is imperative that this article use French-style guillemets (quotes) when enclosing French example sentences.

Usage:

« La phrase. »

Deus ex machina 22:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's imperative, but that is a good idea. I've noticed that you've already changed the current text to use that style; I'll make sure that my edits use that style, too. Ruakh 00:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Italian

The rules in French on choice of auxiliary, agreement when using "to be" but not when using "to have", and several others are IDENTICAL in Italian. Almost spookily so. I'm wondering if this is worth a note in either language, but I want to ask the community before proceeding.

Even if it's not worth inserting a note, it could save us some work. The Italian Grammar article is less developed than, and could easily steal many paragraphs from, the French, with the examples changed appropriately. I'll be happy to do it.

Qu'est-ce que vous pensez? Steverapaport 12:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

French and Italian both took the basis for their rules from Vulgar Latin, and then French adopted some further details from Italian during the High Middle Ages, thereby increasing the similarity. I don't know whether that's worth a note, as it's not really relevant to explaining the modern grammar of either language, but definitely feel free to steal paragraphs for the Italian Grammar article, provided they apply. Ruakh 03:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Explain how it's spooky when they both came from Latin? As a ton of this is not finished I will get to work on all the stuff on the bottom when I have time. Theloniouszen 18:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] a little help

Please explain the exact meaning of "s'est rompu" and tell which of the following it's nearest to, ranking the others by nearness: "broke" (what part of speech??), "is broken", "got broken", "became broken", "is being broken", "was broken", "has been broken", "broke itself", "is breaking itself", "has broken itself", "is getting broken". lysdexia 01:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes in French the reflexive is used in such a construction. The general translation for something like "La verre s'est rompu" would be "The glass broke" or "the glass became broken". In translation the first would work but what is important is that the agent of the breaking (whoever or whatever broke the glass) is not stated. If I said "Il a rompu la verre" that would be "He broke the glass". When an agent is not stated, often the reflexive is used.

The same construction also appears in an action which has no external agent. For example, "La bombe s'éclate" would mean "The bomb exploded", and I believe the reflexive is used because the bomb explodes itself, even though if someone used a remote control to blow it up, the bomb seemed to have no visible external agent.

I remember an account in a French newspaper about a plane crash and the verb "to crash" (which I can't remember now) in the headline was reflexive - "The plane crashed itself", meaning it was not shot down, or made to crash by a well-known specific agent, it just crashed. Ranking the possible [E]nglish translations by part of speech is ludicrous because you can't really quantify a translation like that.--Theloniouszen 13:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Could you say it's an implicit middle voice? I asked mainly because the se is on the est, rather than the rompu, which you didn't explain. It's not ludicrous... Anything can be quantified. Look at the work I've done at elision. :) lysdexia 20:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry Theloniouszen, but your newspaper headline example is invalid. s'écraser is the correct and only translation for to crash. The verb s'écraser has a meaning completely distinct from écraser (to crush, pressure on, etc.). It has nothing to do with the plane not being shot. "L'avion est touché par un missile est s'écrase." (The plane is hit by a missile and crashes) is semantically perfectly correct. S'est rompu is the "passé composé" of the se rompre; the particle "se" (roughly equivalent to "oneself" or "itself") becomes "s'" for reasons of pronunciation when placed before a vowel. Thus, the only reason we have "s'armer" (to arm, equip oneself) instead of "se armer" is to avoid a hiatus. To take the example at hand, "le bâton se rompt" (roughly the stick becomes broken) and "le bâton s'est rompu" (the stick became broken) are both instances of the verb "se rompre". Reflexives are very tricky in French... Phils 15:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Did you mistake et for est? lysdexia 12:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] deep incompetence

(Zen, space your paragrafs.) All of this chatting is nice, but I wanted my questions answered within the scope of the questions. The lack of grammatical rigor in language lessons worries and bothers me. When I looked for why être was used, I found a bunch of être verbs with the same quality of explanation as above. Whenever a language explanation is given, only at the end if at all is the reason given: In this case, it was for intransitive verbs! That I could fully understand, and in so much fewer words! See, it isn't tricky if you know what you're talking about—nothing is.

When a foreigner uses so many sayings it blows my mind when one can't even conjugate the simplest. In my third year of [precollege/university] French, I lost my trust in language teachers because of all the handwaving nonsense, mindless busywork, and sheer and lazy ignorance of the rules and teachings of each language. Explanations were filled with foolish chattering, rather than considerations for parts of speech and their purpose. The authorities claim that the passé composé is equivalent to any number of English constructions, which is flat-out wrong, or that it means a deed done in the past, which is also flat-out wrong. The latter nonsense allows the former. After looking at hinted source (french.about.com), I realised from the examples that it was equivalent to the present perfect, because it was done in the present, not to the past perfect or imperfect.. which would be the imparfait.

To answer my question, because only I could, "s'est rompu" = "has broken" and nothing else, because it's the present perfect intransitive middle voice. However, because of French's and everyone's crude treatment of tenses, it also passes for "has been broken". The different auxiliary, I guess, is that French is treating the intransitive verb as an adjective, which English also does but has a choice of whether to make the participle an adjective (by "be") or a verb (by "have"). Stop mistranslating! If you check the correlations I made in the French section of elision, you'll see a great discrepancy between what you've learnt and what I've self-learnt, and that you've been lied to by the ignorant and incompetent. lysdexia 12:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Calm down. Nobody here is responsible for you having to deal with incompetent teachers. By the way, I am a native French speaker with 7 years education in francophone schools (although no longer now). If anything, my English is lacking. Phils 18:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a common trait of translators anywhere to give up before finding perfect translations; and there are perfect translations for anything. People still think that "ce" means "this" or "that". lysdexia 19:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The notion of "perfect translation" is absurd. You completely ignore context. How would you translate "Ma mère habite Fort-Bellau, ce château sur la colline" without using "this" or "that"? Phils 16:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(I've been on lots of other sites, which is why it takes so long for my replies.) Phils, why do you ask me such an absurd question when I already answered it at the link I'd given in my last reply? And how do I ignore context? lysdexia 01:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(1) Note that être is only used with a few intransitive verbs. The vast majority of intransitive verbs, like all transitive verbs, use avoir. (2) The passé composé can have a wide range of different English translations depending on context, because the distinctions that French makes are not quite the same as the distinctions that English makes. "Je l'ai déjà fait" is "I've already done it" (present perfect), but "Je l'ai fait hier" ("Je le fis hier") is "I did it yesterday" (past), and due to the French use of historical present where English would use the historical past, "Il l'a fait" can sometimes be "He had done it." (3) "La fenêtre s'est rompue" ("La fenêtre se rompit") is not (semantically) in a middle voice, as the emphasis is on the window, not the breaking. It translates to English "The window broke" or possibly "The window was broken," though the latter is ambiguous as it could also mean "La fenêtre était rompue." Ruakh 03:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I liked your reply the best; it was very deep. (2) Well, sometimes English does that too: http://www.bartleby.com/61/90/H0219000.html. (3) In those English equivalents I see no emfasis on either the noun or predicate, so I can't see how leaving the "se" in would not make it a middle voice. lysdexia 01:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

Just want to let know that I've commented on this article on Peer Review. — mark ✎ 12:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note that the Peer Review request is now archived because there hasn't been a response in two weeks. — mark ✎ 15:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And here are the comments the listing on Peer Review generated:

1. General — The article lacks references. This could well be one of the reasons for the confusion in the debate at the Talk page.
2. General — Take leave of the idea that there is only one 'accurate and precise translation'. Languages simply don't map accurately and precisely onto each other, so it's hardly a surprise if there are various possible translations of a given construction.
3. General — There is nothing on question formation. What are the different ways to ask questions? What question words are there? What syntactical and intonational devices?
4. Verbs > tenses — This section is in desperate need of simple sample sentences. In general, it needs more structure and more didactics; the reader should be taken by the hand and led along the different tenses, every single of them supplied with a sample sentence. The main distinction (simple vs compound) should be explained before the reader starts to worry about it. Sample sentences help to intuitively visualize this distinction. And so on. Incidentally, I have found the neat format used at Nafaanra_language#Tense_and_aspect (bulleted sentences, bolded morphemes) to be handy.
5. Verbs > tenses — 'Aside from these tenses, there is an imperative, a participle, and the infinitive, each of which can be inflected for tense (present and past), although the past imperative is quite rare.' :) But that's not a peculiarity of French; I'd say that's for obvious semantic reasons.
6. Verbs > Compound tense auxiliary verbs — I count only the sixteen motion verbs, but the text says that 'Those sixteen verbs, plus three common compounds, are: (...)'. Where are the compounds? What's the meaning of 'compound' in this context?
7. Verbs > The Past Participle — It reads that participle-as-an-adjective '...follows all the regular agreement rules of the language...', but the reader has not yet come across those regular agreement rules; clarify expressions on first use.
8. Verbs > Conjugation — Contains no text.
9. Nouns — What morphosyntactical consequences has the gender of a noun? Does the conjugation of the verb change? Does the form of the adjective have to agree with it?
10. Adjectives — I miss the 'agreement rules' previously referred to. What determines the form of an adjective? Examples of this agreement would be nice.
11. Word order — Could do with an example sentence.

Quite a list... but that's it for now. — mark ✎ 09:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently making conjugation tables. I'll hopefully have them up in a few days. StradivariusTV 1 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)

[edit] relative pronouns

The article on the concept of a relative pronoun has been greatly expanded. It is not meant to be about any one language, though not surprisingly the problems with the English pronouns fill the largest part of it. Would any of you like to write a short section on "Relative pronouns in French" to put at the bottom of this page? --Doric Loon 11:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weak/strong pronouns

Would like to see some discussion on weak/strong pronouns in french, such as elle/la/l', and the relative contexts they can be used in (co-ordination, stress, accompanied by ostensive pointing, etc). A subject of much linguistic debate!

[edit] Continuous aspect

French may not have a verb tense for the continuous aspect, but i believe "être en trainde faire qqchose" should be mentioned as an equivalent. --24.77.35.110 16:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A or À

Nothing important, but the omission of accents on capital letters is only a bad habit caused by french keyboards not allowing to type them (easily) under Windows, or from newspapers who find they make the letters too tall. It is only tolerated and is absolutely not a rule. Besides, for A especially, A is an entirely different word from À. Any dictionary or simply fr:Typographie agree with me. Once again, it is not really important, but I wanted to point it out. → SeeSchloß 08:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

After reading up on the subject, I agree. My experiences in France (signs, billboards, etc) taught me that capital A never took an accent. Sorry for changing it. Deus ex machina 02:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Verbs

The information in this section is not accurate and in contradiction with the French verbs main article. In particular, I don't know what is meant by "participial" or "geundive" mood. CapnPrep 12:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like French verbs is in contradiction with itself. As it says in the first sentence of French verbs, French has three finite moods (the indicative mood, the imperative mood, and the subjunctive mood), and three non-finite moods (the infinitive, the participle, and the gérondif). Thanks for pointing out the contradiction; I'll take care of it. Ruakh 14:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Text removed from "Negation"

I just major-edited this section and I think these examples go into too much detail. They should probably wait until the day French negation becomes a separate article…

Note that some of these negative words have positive meanings in other contexts (without the ne particle):

• Jamais — "ever":
  • « Tu l'as jamais vu? » — "Did you ever see him/her?"
• Personne — "person":
  • « Il y a une personne ici. » — "There is a person here."
• Plus — "more":
  • « Il y en a plus. » — "There is more (of it)."

CapnPrep 12:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A big thumbs-up to your edit. :-) Ruakh 15:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Ne" explétif

The list of verbs, conjunctions, and comparatives was removed from the article for "copyright violation," because I copied it from the About.com. Please note from official policy, Wikipedia:Copyrights:

Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves.

This is a factual list. There's no way to reformulate it -- what do you want, to mix up the order of the list? To change the translations in English slightly? This isn't "creative expression" that About.com invented itself, it's a factual list that can't be claimed as copyright. To say that this is a copyright violation is like saying that List of Presidents of the United States is a copyvio because it took the list of presidents in chronological order from WhiteHouse.gov.

I'm restoring it; please discuss further if you still believe it to be copyvio. Dylan 08:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is always a way to reformulate the ideas so that the result doesn't look plainly "inspired" by another website. I have rewritten the restored section. CapnPrep 17:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The principle, though, is that not reformulating this list does not violate a copyright. Dylan 12:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not exactly a factual list; about.com chose which expressions warranted exclusion, chose how to group those expressions, and how to order the expressions within each group. Such presentational decisions are definitely covered by copyright law. —Ruakh_TALK 16:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)