The Great Canadian Practice your French Thread

[lake of the nations]

Originally Posted by rousseau

This is a useful thread. I have a sudden question. Hope no one minds me bumping this thread for a bit.

How do you spell out French words that have accents over vowels? In English we obviously don't have this issue, so for "ready" you simply say "R, E, A, D, Y." But what about a word like "prêt," in French? What do you say for that "E" with the circumflex? And what about words like "là" and "l'été"?

We usually say:

é: e accent aigu (e "accute accent")

ê: e accent circonflexe (e "circumflex")

è: e accent grave (e "grave accent")

ë: e tréma (e "diaeresis")

ç: c cédille (c "cedilla")

etc.


Prêt: p, r, e accent circonflexe, t.

Là: l, a accent grave.

Été: e accent aigu, t, e accent aigu.


However, é and è are often simply spelled as pronounced.

[rousseau]

Okay, so you actually say the word for the accent? So for "prêt" you would say "P, R, E accent circonflexe, T."

Thanks. This also conveniently brings up one of my favourite distinctions between English and French (and most other languages) in tone when it comes to saying lists of things, such as numbers or spelling out words. In English you use a rising, inquisitive-sounding tone for each item in the list except for the last one, where you use a descending tone to indicate completion. As far as I know this is rather unique to English. I used to carefully explain this to students back in my ESL-teaching days.

So when counting from 1 to 4, for example, the tones go: "1 (up), 2 (up), 3 (up), 4 (down)." Or spelling out a word: "R (up), E (up), A (up), D (up), Y (down)." In French you don't do this, but native English-speakers speaking French do it instinctively, and it ends up sounding awkward.

If you don't do it in English it sounds weird, or it might express impatience, annoyance or insulting sarcasm (i.e. "yeah, I can count, you idiot...1 (down), 2 (down), 3 (down), 4 (down)").

[lio45]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Speaking of which, in English the answer to the question "what season comes between spring and fall" is "summer," but in French you'd say "l'été" with the definitive article, right? So what if someone asks, in French, how you spell "summer"? Do you include the definitive article?

I'd say you'd probably just say été in that case, though you might throw in the article too (in a way that would be somewhat similar to answering "it's summer" to that question as opposed to simply "summer"). On the other hand, if you're asked to spell "summer", it's definitely a three-letter word: e accent aigu, t, e accent aigu, period. The article doesn't "just come with the word" in the way you seem to think.

"Saison qui sépare le printemps de l'automne" in a crossword puzzle would be a three-letter word guaranteed (and way too easy a definition, for that matter).


(And your first question was answered already.)

[esquire]

So Jean Charest was appointed to head a fact-finding mission on rail line relocation in Winnipeg. I read an article in the Journal de Montréal to see what the buzz in the Québec media was. I have to say, the comments were way more amusing than the ones I typically see in the Winnipeg Free Press.

My favourites:

Gilles S 1 heure plus tôt

Entre amis faut s'aider y connaît quoi Charest dans les chemins fer une belle enveloppe de 400,000.00$ pour regarder le train passé .

ndrewd1979 2 heures plus tôt

@Boris LeDuc "Quelle autres provinces je pourrais aller "fourrer"...

Dave Mustaine 2 heures plus tôt

J'espère qu'il sera bien penché sur la voie ferrée pour recevoir le train dans l'....... le tunnel.

caseplace benvite 2 heures plus tôt

J'espère que le train va l'écraser cette sale ordure.

Stephane Lebeau 10 heures plus tôt

Je ne lui donnerais même pas la responsabilité d'un train Fisher-Price...

Charest clearly not a fan favourite among the JdM's readership?

http://www.journaldemontreal.com/201...es-de-winnipeg

[Hali87]

Kudatah!

[rousseau]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the subtle distinction between "nous" and "on" in French, but I'm not sure I get it.

Two recent examples come to mind. (1) A group of Me-Too supporters in Montreal reassured a woman speaking into a microphone by saying "on vous crois!" That would be translated into English as "we believe you," because nobody would ever say "one believes you." (2) One of a group of French kids (I could distinguish the accent) in Toronto yesterday standing around taking photos of the skyline eventually said "on y va," and they left. In school we were always taught to say "allons-y" for "let's go," but one of the other kids even responded to that first suggestion by saying "let's go" in English.

When do you say "nous" and when do you say "on"?

[Aylmer]

In Quebec anyways, "on" has essentially replaced "nous" for everything but very formal speech. The threshold for use is lower in writing, but even then, it's increasingly rare.

The times you hear "nous" as a subject in everyday speech are almost exclusively to highlight "on". For example:
"On s'en va" = We're leaving
"Nous, on s'en va" = WE are leaving.

"Nous" is still used as the object, since "on" doesn't have an accusative form:
"Il nous a accueilli" = He welcomed us
"Il on a accueilli" just doesn't make grammatical sense and sounds very wrong.

"On" as a general pronoun (akin to "one" as in "one would say...", but usable in more contexts to turn an active sentence into a passive one) is used throughout formal and informal speech, but is more common in formal speech. Informally, people tend to also use "tu" as the general pronoun in the same way that most people tend to use "you" as opposed to "one" in English.
"On m'a accordé une chance" = A chance was given to me [by an undefined subject "on"]
"On ne devrait pas courir" = One shouldn't run

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

"Il on a accueilli" just doesn't make grammatical sense and sounds very wrong.

lol, that doesn't just sound very wrong - as you no doubt know, it's 1000% incorrect!!!

Very true, here in Quebec it would make you like a recent French immigrant to use "nous" as first person plural subject in speech.

rousseau's two examples both highlight this. In proper traditional French, you'd have said "nous vous croyons!" and "allons-y" (for the imperative tense in this case - and "nous y allons" as the present tense equivalent of "on y va").

P.S. it's "on vous croit", not "on vous crois". Sounds the exact same though.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

"On" as a general pronoun (akin to "one" as in "one would say...", but usable in more contexts to turn an active sentence into a passive one) is used throughout formal and informal speech, but is more common in formal speech. Informally, people tend to also use "tu" as the general pronoun in the same way that most people tend to use "you" as opposed to "one" in English.
"On m'a accordé une chance" = A chance was given to me [by an undefined subject "on"]
"On ne devrait pas courir" = One shouldn't run

Typical example would be the classic "On dit que..." which would best translate to "Rumor has it that..." or "People say that..."

On is technically "the undefined pronoun", meant to be used that way. Haven't you heard at school that "'on' exclut la personne qui parle" ? Traditionally correct, and technically too I guess if you're not a hardcore proponent of l'usage fait la règle, but definitely not true anymore in today's Quebec.

[lio45]

So, one last little post to make sure we answer rousseau as clearly as possible (Aylmer did a good job anyway)... if your goal is to just speak, then you can consider that "on" can always serve as first person plural, which is nice because you've got less conjugations to learn as it's actually the third person singular without any exception.

(i.e. no need to know "nous croyons" as long as you already know "il croit"; no need to know "nous allons" as long as you already know "il va", etc.)

On the other hand, I don't think anyone would ever blame you for using perfect more-formal-than-the-colloquial-Quebec-average speech, so I'd say feel free to use the first person plural as first person plural even when speaking.

[rousseau]

Thanks very much for the explanations, that's really helpful.

Originally Posted by lio45

Very true, here in Quebec it would make you like a recent French immigrant to use "nous" as first person plural subject in speech.

If French people use "nous" more then Quebeckers, then I wonder if the French kids I overheard were exchange students in Quebec (maybe on a weekend trip to Toronto) who had picked up the "on" usage there?

Though I thought I heard "on" a fair bit in the French TV show "Disparue" that my wife and I watched on Netflix recently. Then again, I'd trust a native French speaker to have a more definitive take on that.

[Acajack]

Well, it may be true that we use "on" as opposed to "nous" more than the French (similar to how we also use "tu" more than "vous") but it's definitely quite common over there as well. No one from France would be taken aback by the use of "on" instead of "nous" if someone meant "we".

I mean, the classic sports chant in France is "on va ga-gner! on va ga-gner!", and by that they don't mean that some random Joe Schmos are gonna win, but rather "we're gonna win!"

[Loco101]

A lot of francophones in Timmins say "voyons" when they need to pause for a moment to remember what they were going to say or as a form of hesitation. They only say that word. I'm pretty sure I've heard it Quebec as well. I've heard "voyons donc" but I'm wondering if people are meaning the same thing but just shortened it to simply "voyons"?

[GlassCity]

I guess that would be like "let's see"?

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I guess that would be like "let's see"?

That's what it directly translates as. But it also seems to mean "hold on" and "come on" and a few other things from what I can tell.

[vid]

I have a coworker from Hearst (or as they call it, 'Urst), and I cannot understand a single thing he says in French. Can't pick out a word. Might as well be Finnish. And he says it so fast.

I can actually pick out a few words and sounds, enough to know that it is French, but it's all so jumbled together that it's very hard to identify words, unlike the news on Radio Canada which I can often get the gist of by picking up individual words and phrases though still not really understand.

[Acajack]

"Voyons" is something you'd often say when trying to do something but not succeeding the first time or multiple times. Like let's say you're tying a word and make a typo, and then you try again and spell it wrong again. You might exclaim "voyons!" Or trying to open a bottle or a jar, and not being successful at it until you've tried several times.

"Voyons donc" and "ben voyons donc" are a bit different. Like "come on" or "gimme a break".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I guess that would be like "let's see"?

It can mean that too. Although for "let's see" it's more common to say "voyons voir" which is almost saying the same thing twice.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It can mean that too.

Among possible meanings, there's generally "c'mon, that's completely ridiculous!" [edit: I see you covered that in your other post. I started reading the thread from the bottom up.]

For it to mean "let's see", it has to be "voyons voir".

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I've heard "voyons donc" but I'm wondering if people are meaning the same thing but just shortened it to simply "voyons"?

The answer to that is no. "Voyons" would be when something's obviously not working for you (and usually because your attempts have got spectators), while "voyons donc!" would be "OMG you've got to be kidding!"

I see Acajack didn't seem to manage to find a way to directly translate the former sense into English (same here)... something like "ok, now come on" would be the closest, maybe? When you're trying to do something that you should've been able to do and failing, and it looks like the people who are watching are expecting you to succeed...