Language desk
< September 14	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 15

Present Perfect Tense

Resolved

I am continually frustrated by the translation of the English present perfect tense (have followed by the past participle) in to French. Throughout the time I was learning French, no one ever said a thing about it, and the only possible literal equivalent (the passé composé) translates as the past tense. As far as I know, there are at least three translations of the present perfect:

The present indicative,
The imperfect, and
Venir de before the infinitive, but I believe that may only be used if the action has just been completed.

May I have some clear rules about when to translate the present perfect as which of the three? Inter change able|talk to me 03:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't going to find any clear rules, all the more so because the use of perfect tenses is not uniform in English. Stop trying to "translate" the tenses. French doesn't have the hardware required to do so, so that any rules would be so complicated as not to be useful. French, like most languages, doesn't have anything that remotely resembles the English perfect tenses, so the decisions an English speaker makes when chosing tenses simply never occur in the head of a French speaker (unless they are speaking English). Instead, concentrate only on learning how to use the French tenses correctly. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding your question right, you can usually express English present perfect using French passé composé. E.g., "I have read the book" (not in the experiential sense like "I've read that book at some point in my life", but the perfective sense as in "I was told to finish reading this book by today, and I finished doing it") could be translated as J'ai lu le livre. The other tenses you mention above carry different connotations:

Present indicative je lis le livre is probably not what you're looking for, unless I misunderstood the question.
Imperfect je lisais le livre ~~expresses the "experiential" sense I described above, not the perfective sense. (It could also~~ express a habitual sense, e.g. "[at some point in my life] I used to read that book every month" or something like that.)
Venir de (je viens de lire le livre) expresses, as you guessed, "I just read the book".

rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything except the experiential bit. I would translate "I have read Hamlet [at some point in my life]" only as "J'ai lu Hamlet" (whereas "j'ai lu Hamlet" could be translated into English as "I read Hamlet" or "I have read Hamlet" depending on context). "Je lisais Hamlet" in my experience implies either an unfinished action ("je lisais Hamlet quand le téléphone a sonné"), or, as you say, repeated action ("quand j'étudiais la dramaturgie, je lisais Hamlet chaque mois"). Lesgles (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, I think you're right. My French isn't what it used to be ;) rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No worries. It doesn't help that in other languages it does work that way (at least in Russian—я читал «Гамлет»). Lesgles (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. I had the hardest time figuring out the difference between perfective and imperfective in Polish. You just have to accept the fact that the tenses and aspects just don't match up, and get a feel for the language you are speaking without translating. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit Conflict]: When translating "J'ai lu le livre", "I read [as in past-tense 'read'] the book" and "I have read the book" are both perfectly acceptable, I think. It's just not an exact match, which is part of the fun about learning any language. As a sidenote, "I'm going to..." in German uses the verb "to become" not "to go" (Ich werde essen - very literally "I become to eat" instead of "I am going to eat"). I mention that not because you necessarily have an interest in German, but because it illustrates that different languages do things VERY differently. The best way to use French is to get to the point where you don't really have to translate it to speak it. If you aren't already there, it will take patience, but it is definitely possible. Falconus^{p t c} 05:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important point in what you said: translation does not work the same in both directions. As a rule of thumb, English present perfect maps on to French passé composé, but French passé composé can map either on to English present perfect or English simple past. One exception is sentences with depuis in French and since/for in English, in which French uses present (or sometimes imperfect) and English uses present (or sometimes past) perfect ("I have lived in New York for five years" = "j'habite à New York depuis cinq ans"[1]). In general, though, I support Dominus Vobisdu and Falconus's points about learning the tenses in the French context. Lesgles (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. So, in summary, it should be translated as the present tense when in accompaniment with since and for, the passé composé in most aspects, and venir de if the action has just been completed. Is that all correct? Inter change able|talk to me 15:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, but you can't really reduce translation to an algorithm. For example, you would not use the present tense to translate "I have cooked eggs for my family", even though that sentence includes the word for. You would use the present tense with depuis only when for is used in an English past perfect phrase to refer to duration. Marco polo (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a sophisticated enough algorithm could account for such cases. We just don't have them yet. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you all know what I meant. In addition, what about the present perfect subjunctive? Does "Do you think that he has been drinking" translate as Penses-tu qu'il boive/bût/ait bu/eût bu? Inter change able|talk to me 18:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even French people often can't agree on when to use the subjunctive :P. In this particular case I'm pretty sure it's not necessary. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subjunctive is required after verbs of believing and thinking when they are negative or interrogative but not negative and interrogative, and not when positive either. So yes, it is required. A better example may be Je crains qu'il ne boive/ne bût/n'ait bu/n'eût bu - which one(s) is/are correct? Inter change able|talk to me 20:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC) P.S.: Please stop bugging me with junk like "There's no literal translation". I am totally aware of that - I have long been aware that literal translation never works; if it were, we would not have things like Engrish and all languages would be easy to learn. Inter change able|talk to me[reply]

This is trickier. I would go with "Penses-tu qu'il aît bu?" and "Je crains qu'il n'aît bu". In the written language (high style), you could say "je crains qu'il ne bût" (imperfect subjunctive), "I fear that he was drinking", but we lose the sense of consequence in the present. Although normally the present subjunctive can replace the imperfect subjunctive in non-literary French, I don't think "boive" would work, since it would probably be misinterpreted as "I fear he is drinking". And "eût bu" is not an option unless the main verb is in the past tense (je craignis qu'il n'eût bu) or you have some other compelling reason to indicate anteriority to another past event. Lesgles (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. That really helps. Inter change able|talk to me 14:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latin: Pro bono publico

Is pro bono publico correct Latin? Does it literally mean "for the public good", or something slightly different? --Cybercobra (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the literal meaning. According to the OED, it dates back to the 15th century (Medieval Latin), and the earliest known use in English was in 1640. Lesgles (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See "Pro bono”.—Wavelength (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity problem in His Dark Materials series (specifically, Once Upon a Time in the North?

Lee Scoresby loses part of an ear in the warehouse fight, but I don't remember ever reading about it in the trilogy. Is this a continuity issue? Thanks. Imagine Reason (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not read Once Upon..., but I did read the original trilogy, and don't recall any mention of Scoresby's ear. However, unless the trilogy explicitly indicates that his ears are intact, it would not be a continuity error. AJ Cham 00:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought. It seems unlikely to me that Lyra's world could have reconstructed Scoresby's ear and to such an extent that no one noticed. I think he dies in The Subtle Knife and I don't think he talked about his ear at death. So it wasn't a continuity error, but it was something. Imagine Reason (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]