DarkAngelBGE Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 Hey everybody. I had to write a small fable about smoking. here is what I could come up with.If anybody proofread this, I would be very thankful. Thanks in advance. Le renard, la fourmi et sa cigaretteLa fourmi au manteau magnifique, à la cravate noir comme une nuit, fumait une grande cigarette.La terrible bête, à vrai dire, lui faisait tort : elle lui prendrait l’air.Un renard, intelligent comme il est, proposait à la fourmi, de prendre une bouffée, mais la fourmi lui a dit – «Je voudrais bien vous donner une bouffée, mais vous savez, ma cigarette, elle n’est pas assez grande pur vouz, je crains.»Le renard insistait sur lui prendre une bouffée, mais la fourmi disait encore qu’il y a peut-être des matières, qui peuvent donner le renard au danger.Le renard prendrait une bouffée quand même, et tout à coup, il est tombé.Dans la cigarette de la fourmi, il y avait le crachat de la fourmi, que le renard n’avait pas supporté. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curufinwe Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 (Le renard, la fourmi et sa cigaretteLa fourmi au manteau magnifique, à la cravate noire comme une (la, not "une ... there is only 1 night ...) nuit, fumait une grande cigarette.La terrible bête, à vrai dire, lui faisait tort : elle lui prendrait l’air. (I don't get this part ... do you mean it was taking fresh air? in this case it should be ... Elle lui prenait l'air )Un (Le renard ... you have named it ... it is specified) renard, intelligent comme il est, proposait (not imperfect here ... better have the passé simple ... proposa) à la fourmi, (no coma needed here) de prendre une bouffée, mais la fourmi lui a dit (passé simlpe is more appropriate here ... lui dit ...) – «Je voudrais bien vous donner une bouffée, mais vous savez, ma cigarette, elle n’est pas assez grande pur (pOur ... ) vouz (-s at the end of vous ... but I guess that is a typo ) , je crains.»Le renard insistait (again, passé simple is better here ... it is a precise moment in the text ... hence, insista ) sur (wrong preposition ... à is better ) lui prendre une bouffée, mais la fourmi disait encore qu’il y a (the whole text is in the pas ... you can't have a present in the middle of it ... avait ) peut-être des matières, qui peuvent (same as previously ... past is needed ... imperfect : pouvaient ) donner (the verb is not very good here ... exposer is better) le renard au danger.Le renard prendrait (conditional is not the correct tense here ... passé simple is the best : prit ) une bouffée quand même, et tout à coup, il est tombé (I used the passé simple all the way, so here I have to use it too ... verb is : tomba ).Dans la cigarette de la fourmi, il y avait le crachat de la fourmi (we already know it is the ant's spit ... so son crachat is enough), que le renard n’avait pas supporté.There ... hope it is fine ...if you don't want to use the passé simple, use the passé composé instead ... should work just as fine Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkAngelBGE Posted September 28, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 Thanks Curu. Well looked insister up in a dic, there it said: insister sur qc. Well, thanks again. You and your passé simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yiuel Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 Here's my double-checkLe renard, la fourmi et sa cigaretteLa fourmi, au manteau magnifique [et] à la cravate noir comme une nuit, fumait une grande cigarette. La terrible bête, à vrai dire, lui faisait [du] tort : elle lui [prenait] [de] l’air.Un renard, intelligent comme il est, [proposa] à la fourmi de prendre une bouffée, mais la fourmi lui [répondit] - «Je voudrais bien vous donner une bouffée, mais vous savez, ma cigarette, elle n’est pas assez grande pour vous, je crains.»Le renard insista pour (1) lui prendre une bouffée, mais la fourmi [répétait] qu’il y avait peut-être des matières qui pouvaient [exposer] le renard au danger.Le renard [prit] une bouffée quand même, et tout à coup, il [tomba]. Dans la cigarette de la fourmi, il y avait son crachat que le renard n’avait pas supporté.Notes :About (1) : In Quebec, it seems we wouldn't use "à" in this situation but "pour". Maybe, and probably, "à" is the classical way to say it, as Curufinwe exposed it.I noted the vocabulary changes in [], as well when I changed times. Also, I wholly changed punctuation according to the Ministère de l'Éducation du Québec's guideline regarding punctuation : its rules are quite precise so I always rely on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK_Thug AMish Posted September 28, 2004 Report Share Posted September 28, 2004 Isn't passé simple just for written text? I found it frequently in La Belle et La Bête, but I've never had to learn it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curufinwe Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 (not only for written text ... at least in here.Of course, I didn't say we use nous mangeâmes du poulet à midi et nous fîment une sieste, puis vous arrivâtes quelques minutes plus tard That is ridiculous ... but in some instances, we do use it ... as in il dit (meaning "he said" , not "he says" ...)It is rare indeed, but still use sometimes ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaas Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 I never learned the passé simple in school, I probably use it not knowing I do. Could you expand on that a little, when to use the passé simple and basic conjugation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkAngelBGE Posted September 29, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 Well I learned it once - but only in one lesson. Forgot most of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curufinwe Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 (Passé simple is basically a tense used to describe past events ... just like passé composé ...actually, it is just simpler andnicer to the hear to use the passé composé ... (avons pu, avez mangé, etc ... instead of pûmes, mangeâtes, etc ...)I don't think there is a major difference in French.As what was said previously, passé simple is usually used in written language (but not all the time), whereas passé composé (because simpler in its form) is used in oral speech ...I feel (just a personal feeling, not a linguistic explanation) that events described with the passé simple seem more in the past than those described with passé composé ... but that's just me maybe Simple conjugation ... êtreje fus - tu fus - il fut - nous fûmes - vous fûtes - ils furentAvoirj'eus - tu eus - il eut - nous eûmes - vous eûtes - ils eurentfirst group -erje ... aimai - tu ... aimas - il ... aimanous ... aimâmes - vous ... aimâtes - ils ... aimèrent2nd group -ir (and -issant in present participle)je ... finis - tu ... finis - il ... finitnous ... finîmes - vous ... finîtes - ils ... finirentThen, the 3rd group verbs are a nightmare I shan't start describing them all in here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaas Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 Well got my bescherelle bible for the 3rd group Thanks for the explanation Curu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yiuel Posted September 29, 2004 Report Share Posted September 29, 2004 There used to be a slight difference between "passé simple" and "passé composé".(For all my examples, I will use "manger" (eat))Passé simple, in elder days, was used to describ a definite action in past."Je mangeai une pomme." = For the people of the elder days, this meant that the action was in the past, finished and complete. ["Je mangeais (imparfait) une pomme" means that it may not be finished, may not be complete or was done along a long time.]Passé composé, in elder days, wasn't actually what it is now. People of elder days would say :"J'ai une pomme mangée" = This seems quite strange, but this is how they used to say it. Since an adjectif placed after a noun in French sometimes imply more than simply a quality (but a distinguished feature), the feature of the "pomme" one had was that it was "mangée". Hence, this time was used to describ something done but that was still relevant in the present.With time, one could lately say = Je l'ai mangée (implying the "pomme"), and finally, the past participle merged with the verb, to give what we now use as composed times. Most of those composed times kept there meaning of relevant completeness, but this was not the case with passé composé. The meaning of passé composé changed and finally replaced passé simple in causal speach (a distinguish speech would use "passé simple" where it should be used, but it would be considered as very snobish.)"Il y avait une pomme sur la table, je l'ai mangée.""Il y avait une pomme sur la table, je la mangeai."Both sentences would mean the same in casual speech. But, there is a difference between both : in the second sentence, the situation is somehow implying that the action is still relevant (why, the situation doesn't tell). In the second, the action is done, and nothing still relevant is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.