whimsy-writing-tangents

[whimsy-writing-tangents]

Learning French #4

Today I am going to talk about what I’ve learned about setting up a complex sentence in French.

This will build upon the use of qui and que from last time. A complex sentence in English will look something like this:

"I went to the supermarket, because I was out of groceries."

This sentence could technically be cut off after the first part: I went to the supermarket. Technically we don't need the second: because I was out of groceries. This is a complex sentence, where the sub-sentence "because I was out of groceries" only adds information; it does not complete the sentence. There is a difference between the types of sub-sentences existing in French:

La subordonnée nominale (The principal phrase)

La subordonnée interrogative (Interrogative sub-sentence)

La subordonnée relative (Relative sub-sentences)

La subordonnée adverbiale (Extra info sub-sentences)

NOMINAL:

These are the main complex subordonnée structures we care about in a complex sentence. The interrogative is a sub-type of the nominal. And the nominal is usually what would be functioning as a noun in a complex sentence like this:

Je pense qu’il est noir.

Here "qu'il est noir" functions as the noun for pense (think). So it becomes I think X. You think what? X then becomes the subordonnée nominale. This would also be a subordonnée nominale complétive, because the noun clause completes the sentence. Underneath we will have an example of a nominal subordonnée that is non-complétive:

Que le chat est noir est vrai.

Here "Que le chat est noir" is the subject of the verb est vrai (is true). The whole sentence becomes "That the cat is black is true." It sounds a bit funny in English but there are other expressions that make more sense.

Ce qu’il dit est drôle.

"What he says is funny." Here "what he says" becomes the subject and is also not a complement of the verb — it's the subject of the sentence, so it's non-complétive.

INTERROGATIVE:

So interrogative is a sentence that gets asked like a question. These can be indirect and direct. And they are a subtype of the nominal.

Comment ça va ? (How are you doing?) is interrogative. But this is just a straight-up question, not directly an interrogative sub-sentence.

Je sais où il est. is a completive sentence. "I know where he is." is an interrogative sub-sentence, because "where he is" is a COD of je sais. So interrogative complex sentences usually answer or imply a question.

Interrogative follows the same rules as nominal because it is a nominal — it can be non-complétive or complétive. The sub-sentence can be a subject or a COD (a noun). If it’s a noun of the verb it’s complétive and if it’s a subject it’s non-complétive. This is how a non-complétive looks:

Ce qu’il fait est bizarre. (What he does is strange.)

Here "what he does" (ce qu’il fait) is the subject of "is strange". This makes it non-complétive because it does not complete the verb but is the subject of the verb.

RELATIVE:

This subordonnée in a complex sentence adds a layer of extra information about the thing we talk about, and can be removed. The fact that it can be removed here is key. If it cannot be removed it’s usually a subordonnée adverbiale type (below this section). This is how a relative subordonnée looks:

Le chat qui est noir marche dans le parc.

Here "qui est noir" is a relative sentence because: "Le chat marche dans le parc" still works on its own. This is how we usually can tell if it’s a relative. We usually figure out whether or not it’s a nominal or not, then we check if it’s a relative, and then if nothing fits it’s usually adverbial.

ADVERBIAL:

This subordonnée can be many different types of sentences. Usually they are constructed with an explanation connection word such as because, or if.

Je parle souvent parce que je veux mieux parler. (I speak often because I want to speak better.)

Je danse beaucoup, malgré cela je déteste danser. (I dance a lot, despite this I hate dancing.)

Both these are adverbial because they work as extra information that modify the original clause. Even though we can remove it, the sentence means something slightly different if we remove it. This is usually how we can tell the difference between adverbial and relative. Because relative also gives extra information but it usually doesn’t modify the sentence, so it causes no impact to remove it. There are several categories inside of adverbial:

Le temps (time) La cause (cause) La conséquence (consequence) Le but (reason) La condition (condition) La concession (admission) La comparaison (comparison)

If you take a look at these you can see that, I speak often because I want to speak better is maybe a subordonnée adverbiale de but (reason), since that is the reason for the action that occurred. But it does get a little muddy distinguishing this in extremely complex sentences. So do what the teacher decides is right, and take it up with academics later xd. Something could technically be a reason, a consequence, or a condition, but it gets a bit murky after a while.

Le temps (time): Quand il pleut, je reste chez moi. (When it rains, I stay at home.)

La cause (cause): Je suis fatigué parce que j’ai mal dormi. (I am tired because I slept badly.)

La conséquence (consequence): Il a tellement crié que tout le monde l’a entendu. (He shouted so much that everyone heard him.)

Le but (goal/purpose): Je travaille dur pour que mes parents soient fiers. (I work hard so that my parents are proud.)

La condition (condition): Si tu viens, je serai content. (If you come, I will be happy.)

La concession (concession): Même s’il est malade, il va au travail. (Even though he is sick, he goes to work.)

La comparaison (comparison): Il court comme s’il était poursuivi. (He runs as if he were being chased.)

Thats it for this time, exam season is soon and i am probably going to fail but at least i am learning things see you next time xd!

Bonne jornée!

[whimsy-writing-tangents]

Learning French #3

Qui or Que, subordonnée relative (sub sentences)

Next thing on my agenda is to setup a little more complex sentences. And both within french and english we do that by using connective words, to make 2 sentences into 1.

The car is blue. The car is old.

These two sentences looks very strange because we are repeating car twice, and we dont have to. We can connect the sentences and replace it with a relative pronoun used to introduce a subordinate clause and replace a noun. The way we do this in english is like this:

The car that is blue is also old.

Here "that" is a relative pronoun. It refers back to car. Im unsure of the grammar here in english, but most of the time we use who or whom for a person specifically most of the time and that or which if we dont refer to a person. In french it is slightly different.

The universial rule is:

qui to replace a subject

que to replace a direct object.

First, we need to determine if the noun being replaced is the subject or direct object in the second sentence. In french this is recognicable if we have a direct object or an indirect object if we are using a preposition as mentioned in a previous post.

Je parle à mon frere. Mon frere est gentil.

I speak to my brother. My brother is nice.

Here mon frere is an indirect object in the first sentence but the subject in the next, because of à in the first sentence. Which means the correct relative pronoun to use is qui. Which means we can modify two simple sentences into a complex sentence by using it. It cant be que because we dont have a direct object.

Je parle à mon frere qui est gentil.

I speak to my brother who is nice.

Now if we look at the first sentence we looked at in english.

The car is blue. The car is old.

La voiture est bleue. La voiture est vieille.

Which because of what we learned earlier, here the "this" we are reffering to is actually a the subject the car. It is not old or vieille that we are trying to refer to with that we are trying to refer to the subject. So the sentence becomes.

La voiture qui est bleue est vieille. (The car that is blue is old)

La voiture qui est bleue est aussi vieille. (The car that is blue is also old)

Here french follow the same position order as english. I don't know why, magic perhaps. Anyway if we look at the next sentence we can try to deduce what we need to use.

Le chat mange la pomme. La pomme est bonne

The cat eats the apple. The apple is good.

Since we have no prepositions we can assume that the apple is a direct object. But it is not because the second sentence The apple is the subject of is good or est bonne which means we actually have to use qui here. And then we can collect the sentence into one sentence by using qui.

Le chat mange la pomme qui est bonne.

In this sentence below we finally have a direct object. Because the thing that the subject Is "I" but the thing "I" love is "the car" so we are refering to the car the direct object of the first sentence in the last sentence. That means the correct thing to finally use here is que.

C’est une voiture. J’adore cette voiture.

Now to transform the sentence:

C'est une voiture que j'adore. (It is the car that I love.)

Now technically you have also learned how to construct a subordonnée sentence in french. Subordonnée means sub-sentence. The type we just constructed was a relative subordonnée.

[whimsy-writing-tangents]

Learning French #2

This one is going to be about indirect obects and how prepositions affect a sentence.

I struggled a lot with understanding this because in english and french direct objects and indirect objects in a sentence have different roles. And since french then is my 3rd langauge this became confusing really quick. If anyone of you noticed my english grammar is not 100% this is why.

So indirect object in english usually follow a very simple rule. If its not the main thing the verb is acting on its the 2nd or indirect object. Such as: I talked to him in my car.

I = Subject

talked = Verb

to = Preposition

him = Direct object

in = Preposition

my = Possesive Pronoun

car = indirect object

This becomes very clear because i could be trying to talk to my car but it would be a bit strange. So talked to relates to him first, which makes him the direct object.

However this is not how direct object works in french. The sentence:

Je parle avec lui dans ma voiture.

Technically has no direct object and this gets confusing. This is because anything that usually follow a preposition in french is never a direct object but always a indirect object. I dont know if this is absolut across every place but so far i dont know of any exceptions so please correct me if im wrong. The sentence then becomes:

Je = Subject

parle = Verb

avec = Preposition

lui = Indirect Object*** (Technically Indirect Pronoun)

dans = Preposition

ma = Possesive pronoun

voiture = Indirect Object

Technically as far as i understand "Je parle avec lui dans ma voiture" Is not gramatically wrong however there is one problem with it: Prepositions in a sentence makes whats after it a indirect object which means we dont really need avec unless we want to specify how he is talked to.

Je parle avec lui dans ma voiture. (I speak with him in my car.)

Je parle à lui dans ma voiture. (I speak to him in my car.)

The first sentence sort of becomes correct because we specify that we are talking with him, like collaboratory. But the second sentence is technically gramatically correct but lui (him) is in french a indirect pronoun which means the à (to) is implied already and usually we change it to:

Je lui parle dans ma voiture. (I speak to him in my car)

We move lui before the verb because it sounds more natural (I dont know why, ask the french) But Je parle à lui. is not technically wrong it just sounds a little stranger (According to the research ive done)

But saying Je parle avec lui. Is more okay because à (to) is implied in lui, but avec (with) is a different preposition. Which means it changes the slight meaning of the sentence. However it is incorrect to write:

Je parle avec le. (I speak with him.) X

Because le is a direct object pronoun. And even though we have avec before le it dosent automatically makes le indirect. It just makes it two things we dont add together. If there is a preposition its indirect object or a indirect pronoun like lui. To use le correctly as a direct object pronoun we could for example say.

Le gâteau est délicieux. Je le mange. (The cake is delicious. I eat it.) Here the use of le is correct in the second sentence because le refers to the cake. However if we write "Je le mange." Without anything else it becomes a little problematic because we dont know what le (it) refers to yet. This is almost the same rule as english follows.

Please comment and correct me if you find any mistakes, I am very new to french only (5 months) so I don't know if there is any mistakes yet. I know more since last post but i am still struggeling xd.

[whimsy-writing-tangents]

Learning French #1

Hi everyone, I did something silly and started studying french at uni level without knowing any french. Hehehe.... Anyway, right now I've survived the first exam but I have to survive the other ones so I am going to log my learning progress here so that I can review stuff.

I'm going to essentially try to focus on my weak areas and maybe someone else out there is also struggeling, and this will help.

Okay first on the agenda:

Verbs that you speak with:

Expressing having done something:

Aka when you speak, You usually start a sentence like this: I have studied today. = J'ai étudié aujourd'hui.

You use the past form called "Passé composé" in this instance which is usually equal to when you in english say "I have + (verb) this". So you can say, I have called mom today = J'ai appelé maman aujourd'hui.

The Passé composé form of the verb is usually constructed with the verb AVOIR which is to have and a nonchanging form of the verb in passé composé form.

So the passé composé of chantir (to sing) is chanté with present for of AVOIR like this.

J'ai chanté = I have danced. Tu a chanté = You have danced. Il/Elle chanté = He/She has danced. Nous avon chanté = We have danced. Vous avez chanté = You(plural) have danced. Ils/Elles ont chanté = They have danced. Here you can see the verb chantir actually dosent change based on person. But the verb avoir does thats connected to it. ______________________________________

Common Verbs:

Other sentences that one use is for example: - I did this/X - I worked a lot. - Can you do X? - I want ice-cream. There is many verbs we use when speaking in english. Primary did (to do), can (to can/able to), going (to go), and want (to want). These verbs are; To do = FAIRE To can = POUVOIR To go = ALLER To want = VOULOIR The issue with many of this verbs is that they mostly have irregular verb conjugation. Which means they don't follow the common pattern with many verbs for example like PARLER (to speak): - Je parle -- parl + e - Tu parles -- parl + es - Il/Elle parle -- parl + e - Nous parlons -- parl + ons - Vous parlez -- parl + ez - Ils/Elles parlent -- parl + ent (some verbs also use ont instead of ent as common spelling) The redux "parl" is combined with the common conjugated form of the present, which is very often: (e, es, e, ons, ez, ent/ont) The issue with the previously mentioned verbs is that they dont have common spelling. In french grammar they catagorize verbs in 1st (premier), 2nd (deuxieme) and 3rd (troisieme) category. And FAIRE is and irregular -re verb which is usually in the 3rd category. TO BE (être) and TO HAVE(avoir) is also verbs that are so irregular they are in the 3rd category. FAIRE: (to do, also works as to make in french) - Je fais = I do (X wrong, faise) [ fai + s ] - Tu fais = You do (X wrong, faises) [ fai + s ] - Il/Elle fait = He/She do (X wrong, faise) [ fai + t ] - Nous faisons = We do (Standard, faisons) [ fai + sons ] - Vous faites = You do (X wrong, faisez) [ fai + tes ] - Ils font = They do (X wrong, faisont) [ f + ont ] I added wrong (inside here), which would be what would happen if you were to follow standard spelling but it dosen't. It even changes its redux at "Ils" where fai becomes f to account for the + ont. POUVOIR: To can/be able to - Je peux -- peu + x - Tu peux -- peu + x - Il/Elle peut -- peu + t - Nous pouvons -- pouv + ons - Vous pouvez -- pouv + ez - Ils/Elles -- peuv + ent Here you can see the redux (the start stem) of the verb changes several times, and 1-3 person uses x and t for its bending, which is not regular. ALLER: To go - Je vais -- va + is - Tu vas -- va + s - Il/Elle va -- va - Nous allons -- all + ons - Vous allez -- all + ez - Ils/Elles vont -- v + ont VOULOIR: To want - Je veux -- veu + x - Tu veux -- veu + x - Il/Elle -- veu + t - Nous voulons -- voul + ons - Vous voulez -- voul + ez - Ils/Elles -- veul + ent

I'm not going to lie, I keep confusing the difference between aller and vouloir when people are speaking, because my hearing ear is not very good. This is one of the things I am going to try to work on probably in the next text because I can't currently understand a lot of what people are saying because of the sound in my head getting mixed up. Please comment and correct me if you find any mistakes, I am very new to french only (2-3 months) so I don't know if there is any mistakes yet.