# se prononcer



## englishman

Given the following:

"les mots _heir,_ _honest,_ _honour_ er _hour_ .. se prononcent sans _h_"

I assume that "se prononcent" should be translated as "are pronounced" i.e. as a form of passive voice. However, my dico doesn't give any such translation for "se prononcer". Is this some kind of casual or colloquial use ?

And, following the same pattern, could I write:

"le mot _hour_ se traduit par _heure"_

for "the word _hour_ is translated by _heure"_ ?


----------



## Sel&poivre

You're right, it's a form of passive voice, but it's not colloquial at all, as:
s'écrire, se dire, se traduire, etc.


----------



## The Ho

Am I wrong if I say that the reflexive form is used when subject and object are the same?


----------



## Franglais1969

The Ho said:


> Am I wrong if I say that the reflexive form is used when subject and object are the same?


 
I would say that is exactly correct.


----------



## zaby

Hello,

You can apply that pattern to nearly any verb (as long as the subject is inanimate, I guess)

ex: 
Des immeubles se construisent dans mon quartier
Aujourd'hui les métaux se volent à prix d'or
Comment ça se cuisine, une bouillabaisse ?


> Am I wrong if I say that the reflexive form is used when subject and object are the same?


I don't know what you call object here. 
But I'd say you can use it when the agent (I mean what is following "by.." in a passive form) is unknown


----------



## Sel&poivre

The Ho said:


> Am I wrong if I say that the reflexive form is used when subject and object are the same?


Well again, not exactly. You're perfectly right in most cases where reflexive form is used :
Elle se regarge dans le miroir (elle regarde elle-même). Here yes subject=objet

But, in that particular case, no:
Ces choses-là ne se disent pas. --> ce ne sont pas les choses qui se disent elles-mêmes mais les gens, so here subject is not equal to subject. 

Is that clearer or not?


----------



## englishman

Sel&poivre said:


> You're right, it's a form of passive voice, but it's not colloquial at all, as:
> s'écrire, se dire, se traduire, etc.



Thanks. So can I convert any verb into the passive voice with "se + verbe" or is it restricted to a certain set ?

"L'homme se chauffe par le soleil" - "the man is warmed by the sun"
"L'homme se frappe d'un coup de poing" - "the man is hit by a punch"

Those look fairly strange to me.


----------



## Sel&poivre

Oops ! Last sentence is wrong "so here subject is not equal to *object*".
Sorry !


----------



## Franglais1969

"L'homme se frappe d'un coup de poing" - "the man is hit by a punch"

I would say this means:

*The man punched himself.*


----------



## Sel&poivre

englishman said:


> Thanks. So can I convert any verb into the passive voice with "se + verbe" or is it restricted to a certain set ?
> 
> "L'homme se chauffe par le soleil" - "the man is warmed by the sun"
> "L'homme se frappe d'un coup de poing" - "the man is hit by a punch"
> 
> Those look fairly strange to me.



Be careful, Englishman. You CANNOT replace every passive form with a reflexive form:
1- Lhomme se *ré*chauffe *au *soleil.  Yes but you could say: l'homme est réchauffé par le soleil (c'est le soleil le sujet *réel *de l'action)
2- 'L'homme se frappe d'un coup de poings' means he's hitting HIMSELF ! So it can be... If not, you should say: 'l'homme est frappé/se fait frapper d'un coup de poing --> hit by someone else.


----------



## The Ho

I think this use of the reflexive form is correct whenever it is possible to form a similar phrase with "on".

"le mot _hour_ se traduit par _heure"_
"On traduit le mot _hour_ par _heure_".


----------



## The Ho

_L'homme se frappe d'un coup de poing_ ne veut pas dire la même chose que _on a frappé l'homme d'un coup de poing_.


----------



## englishman

Franglais1969 said:


> "L'homme se frappe d'un coup de poing" - "the man is hit by a punch"
> 
> I would say this means:
> 
> *The man punched himself.*



Having read the other postings, it seems that this form cannot be used with animate subjests, otherwise it creates a reflexive verb, not a passive voice.

"Le chat se mord par un chien" - "the cat bites itself by a dog" 
"Le livre se mord par un chien" - "the book is bitten by a dog" 

Is that correct ?


----------



## Franglais1969

"Le livre se mord par un chien" - "the book is bitten by a dog"

I would say:

Un chien mord le livre.


----------



## The Ho

Don't make the confusion between passive and reflexive forms!


----------



## Franglais1969

I'll try to explain as best I can.

Se traduire: = To translate itself as.  

The idea of a reflexive verb is that the Subject and Object are one and the same.  Not every verb can be used in a reflexive manner.


----------



## Franglais1969

Le livre se traduit - The book translates itself
Je me rase - I shave myself

The context is always that the subject is doing something to itself, or themselves.


----------



## Franglais1969

If we turn to the passive form in French:

L'homme a été mangé par le lion - the man was eaten by the lion.

However, the French would more usually use:

Le lion a mangé l'homme - the lion ate the the man.

Does this help at all?


----------



## englishman

Franglais1969 said:


> If we turn to the passive form in French:
> 
> L'homme a été mangé par le lion - the man was eaten by the lion.
> 
> However, the French would more usually use:
> 
> Le lion a mangé l'homme - the lion ate the the man.
> 
> Does this help at all?



No, because you're answering a different question from the one I'm asking. I'm well aware of how to form passive and active voices in French, as above, but it's the "se + verb" form that I don't fully understand. It's not quite clear to me when "se + verb" makes a reflexive sentence, and when it makes a passive voice. 

As far as I can tell, "se + verb" can only be used to form a passive with an inanimate subject, otherwise we end up with a reflexive verb. Am I right ?


----------



## englishman

Franglais1969 said:


> "Le livre se mord par un chien" - "the book is bitten by a dog"
> 
> I would say:
> 
> Un chien mord le livre.



Of course. But if you, in fact, chose to write the sentence above, does it generate a passive voice in French ? That's what I don't understand.


----------



## Franglais1969

englishman said:


> Of course. But if you, in fact, chose to write the sentence above, does it generate a passive voice in French ? That's what I don't understand.


 
To me, it just doesn't look _right._

I'll let a Français explain it better. I am sorry, I know what you are trying to do, but it seems to me you are overcomplicating the issue.

I am obviously not too great at explaining things.


----------



## catay

englishman said:


> Of course. But if you, in fact, chose to write the sentence above, does it generate a passive voice in French ? That's what I don't understand.


Le livre se mord par un chien....for me this translates as "the book bites itself by the dog" ?
I don't really know if you can translate this sentence into French in the present tense with the book as the subject in active voice. In English "The book is being bitten by the dog" - this is passive voice.
*se mordre - to bite oneself, to bite one's own....*
*La presse européenne se mord la langue*

Grammatically, I don't think of reflexive or pronominal verbs as a "passive voice."
In English, the European press bites it's (own) tongue. (active voice.)


----------



## englishman

catay said:


> Grammatically, I don't think of reflexive or pronominal verbs as a "passive voice."
> In English, the European press bites it's (own) tongue. (active voice.)



The whole point of the thread is about verbs used with an apparently "reflexive" syntax, but that have passive semantics. It has nothing to do with reflexive verbs per se.

Il y a des autochthones qui peuvent me donner une explication claire de cette matiére ?


----------



## zaby

Englishman,

Je n'ai pas trouvé d'explications claires dans des Grammaires. En général elles se bornent à dire que parfois un verbe pronominal a un sens passif... c'est un peu vague  

Voici les éléments que je vois :

Pour pouvoir mettre un verbe à la forme pronominal (pour éviter un passif), il faut
- *que le sujet soit inanimé*
- *qu'il n'y ait pas d'agent* (pas de "par..." dans la forme passive. Si on voulait former la phrase active, on utiliserait le pronom 'on')

*Mais ces conditions ne sont pas suffisantes*. 

Je vois un cas où on ne peut pas passer le verbe à la forme pronominale (et il y en a sûrement d'autres) :
si le verbe a déjà le même sens sans le 'se'. Je m'explique : si je dis "des tonnes de déchets sont brûlés chaque jour." Je ne peux pas dire "des tonnes de déchets se brulent chaque jour" car la phrase "des tonnes de déchets brûlent chaque jour" a (presque) le sens cherché.
Bon c'est pas très rigoureux comme explication mais je n'ai pas mieux 

edit : et il y des verbes pour lesquels cela ne fonctionne que dans certains cas. Je pense à "manger" ou "boire" par exemple. 
" Le café se boit toujours à la fin du repas" est parfait mais "l'eau de la gourde s'est bue"  n'est pas correct
Et là, je n'ai pas d'explication (si ce n'est que cela passe mieux pour des généralités)


----------



## catay

englishman said:


> The whole point of the thread is about verbs used with an apparently "reflexive" syntax, but that have passive semantics. It has nothing to do with reflexive verbs per se.
> 
> Il y a des autochthones qui peuvent me donner une explication claire de cette matiére ?


 
Désolée d'avoir mis les pieds dans le plat.


----------



## The Ho

zaby said:


> edit : et il y des verbes pour lesquels cela ne fonctionne que dans certains cas. Je pense à "manger" ou "boire" par exemple.
> " Le café se boit toujours à la fin du repas" est parfait mais "l'eau de la gourde s'est bue"  n'est pas correct
> Et là, je n'ai pas d'explication (si ce n'est que cela passe mieux pour des généralités)


N'est-ce pas tout simplement parce que cette forme réflexive ne convient pas au passé composé ?

On ne dirait pas non plus : "Le café s'est bu à la fin du repas".


----------



## Gez

englishman said:


> Given the following:
> 
> "les mots _heir,_ _honest,_ _honour_ er _hour_ .. se prononcent sans _h_"
> 
> I assume that "se prononcent" should be translated as "are pronounced" i.e. as a form of passive voice. However, my dico doesn't give any such translation for "se prononcer". Is this some kind of casual or colloquial use ?
> 
> And, following the same pattern, could I write:
> 
> "le mot _hour_ se traduit par _heure"_
> 
> for "the word _hour_ is translated by _heure"_ ?



You can use this reflexive form whenever, in English, you can use "get".

"Les mots heir, honest, honour et hour se prononcent sans h"
"The words heir, honest, honour, and hour get pronounced without h"
"Le mot hour se traduit par heure"
"The word hour gets translated by heure"


englishman said:


> Thanks. So can I convert any verb into the passive voice with "se + verbe" or is it restricted to a certain set ?
> 
> "L'homme se chauffe par le soleil" - "the man is warmed by the sun"
> "L'homme se frappe d'un coup de poing" - "the man is hit by a punch"
> 
> Those look fairly strange to me.


Those would be
"L'homme se chauffe au soleil"
"L'homme se fait frapper d'un coup de poing" (or rather, "se prend un coup de point")


englishman said:


> Having read the other postings, it seems that this form cannot be used with animate subjests, otherwise it creates a reflexive verb, not a passive voice.
> 
> "Le chat se mord par un chien" - "the cat bites itself by a dog"
> "Le livre se mord par un chien" - "the book is bitten by a dog"
> 
> Is that correct ?


No. It's neither the cat nor an impersonal entity ("on" in French, "one" in English, "Man" in German, etc.) doing the biting, so you'll need to use the verb "faire" to keep the meaning.
"Le chat se fait mordre par un chien"
"The cat gets bitten by a dog"



Franglais1969 said:


> Le livre se traduit - The book translates itself


Nope. The book doesn't translate itself, it gets translated. 



Franglais1969 said:


> If we turn to the passive form in French:
> 
> L'homme a été mangé par le lion - the man was eaten by the lion.
> 
> However, the French would more usually use:
> 
> Le lion a mangé l'homme - the lion ate the the man.
> 
> Does this help at all?



It's perfectly fine to say:
"L'homme se fait manger par le lion."



The Ho said:


> N'est-ce pas tout simplement parce que cette forme réflexive ne convient pas au passé composé ?
> 
> On ne dirait pas non plus : "Le café s'est bu à la fin du repas".


Ah bon ? J'ai déjà entendu ce genre de chose. Même si en général se sera alors plutôt "s'est fait boire" que "s'est bu", ce genre de tournure existe.

Voir par exemple les "conseils de dégustation" pour des vins: "Ce vin léger et pétillant se boira pendant le dessert", par exemple...

Ou ce que vous dira votre Tante Claudine, lors de la réunion de famille, vous trouvant bien maigre et voulant que vous vous resserviez de clafouti : "Allons, allons, ça se mange sans faim !"


----------



## zaby

The Ho said:


> N'est-ce pas tout simplement parce que cette forme réflexive ne convient pas au passé composé ?
> 
> On ne dirait pas non plus : "Le café s'est bu à la fin du repas".


Mais "De tout temps, le café s'est bu à la fin du repas" passerait 

En fait je crois que les 2 sont liés. Cette forme réflexive supporte bien le présent et l'imparfait, plutôt employés pour des généralités, et mal le passé simple et le passé composé, plutôt employés pour des faits brefs.


----------



## broglet

Perhaps a native French speaker could correct me, but it seems that "le livre se mord d'un chien" would mean "the book uses a dog to get itself bitten" (by analogy with "l'homme se réchauffe au soleil") - which seems to ascribe too much bookish intention to the event!


----------



## The Ho

broglet said:


> Perhaps a native French speaker could correct me, but it seems that "le livre se mord d'un chien" would mean "the book uses a dog to get itself bitten" (by analogy with "l'homme se réchauffe au soleil") - which seems to ascribe too much bookish intention to the event!


To translate "le livre se mord d'un chien" into English, I would say : The book bites itself of a dog.  

I think it's as meaningful as it is in French.


----------



## Gez

broglet said:


> Perhaps a native French speaker could correct me, but it seems that "le livre se mord d'un chien" would mean "the book uses a dog to get itself bitten" (by analogy with "l'homme se réchauffe au soleil") - which seems to ascribe too much bookish intention to the event!


No, it would mean "the book bites itself with a dog"... "Le livre se mord d'un chien" is completely incorrect, unless you want to write some sort of weird dadaist poetry. 

"Le livre se fait mordre par un chien", "the book gets bitten by a dog."

Remember to use "get + past participle" as translations for such reflexive forms.


----------



## broglet

Gez, when you say "No", I take it you mean "Yes".  After all, "The book bites itself with a dog", means pretty much the same as "The book uses a dog to get itself bitten", much as "The man shaves himself with a razor" means  "The man uses a razor to get himself shaved".  

I do agree that the concept has somewhat limited application.


----------



## englishman

zaby said:


> Pour pouvoir mettre un verbe à la forme pronominal (pour éviter un passif), il faut
> - *que le sujet soit inanimé*
> - *qu'il n'y ait pas d'agent* (pas de "par..." dans la forme passive. Si on voulait former la phrase active, on utiliserait le pronom 'on')
> 
> *Mais ces conditions ne sont pas suffisantes*.



Je n'ai pas saisi ce que vous voulez dire ici par "pas d'agent" - est-ce que vous pourriez me donner une exemple ? En dehors de cela, les autres points me semblent correct. Mais c'est les détails des conditions additionelles que m'ont confondu.



> Bon c'est pas très rigoureux comme explication mais je n'ai pas mieux


Votre exemple (supprimé) me suggère qu'on peut utiliser "brûler" en verbe reflexive sans qu'on écrit "se" - c'est correct ?

Il me semble que c'est une question subtile, et les détails ne sont pas particulièrement important (pour M. englishman, en tout cas - il suffit que je comprends la construction quand je la vois)


----------



## englishman

Gez said:


> No, it would mean "the book bites itself with a dog"... "Le livre se mord d'un chien" is completely incorrect, unless you want to write some sort of weird dadaist poetry.



So we have:

"Le mot X se prononce sans h"  
"Le livre se mord d'un chien" 

I'm confused. Both have an inanimate subject, but the second sentence isn't in the passive ? I don't see what difference there is between the two that causes this.


----------



## gilou

zaby said:


> Englishman,
> 
> Je n'ai pas trouvé d'explications claires dans des Grammaires. En général elles se bornent à dire que parfois un verbe pronominal a un sens passif... c'est un peu vague
> 
> Voici les éléments que je vois :
> 
> Pour pouvoir mettre un verbe à la forme pronominal (pour éviter un passif), il faut
> - *que le sujet soit inanimé*
> - *qu'il n'y ait pas d'agent* (pas de "par..." dans la forme passive. Si on voulait former la phrase active, on utiliserait le pronom 'on')


Le sujet peut tres bien être animé:
Le homard se cuit dans l'eau bouillante.
Les éléments que je vois dans la construction dans le cas ou le sujet n'agit pas sur/pour lui même:
- Le sujet est le COD de la forme non pronominale équivalente (pour mon exemple: On cuit le homard dans l'eau bouillante)
- Il n'y a pas d'agent mentionné.

A+,


----------



## gilou

englishman said:


> So we have:
> 
> "Le mot X se prononce sans h"
> "Le livre se mord d'un chien"
> 
> I'm confused. Both have an inanimate subject, but the second sentence isn't in the passive ? I don't see what difference there is between the two that causes this.


I think that the explanation is as follows:
In the second sentence, the dog would be the actor of the verbal action. 
When the construction in "se + verb" is used and when we are not in the case of a subject acting on/for himself, then the actor is unmentionned.

A+,


----------



## englishman

gilou said:


> I think that the explanation is as follows:
> In the second sentence, the dog would be the actor of the verbal action.
> When the construction in "se + verb" is used and when we are not in the case of a subject acting on/for himself, then the actor is unmentionned.
> 
> A+,



Right. zaby mentioned this above, but I didn't understand what she was trying to say. I follow now. So the "se + verb" construction only works if you can write an equivalent sentence using "on", is that it ? e.g.

"on traduit le mot peur par fear" -> "le mot peur se traduit par fear"
"En France, on boit du café" -> "En France, le café se boit"
"ici on ne voit jamais les flics" -> "ici les flics ne se voient jamais"

How do they sound in French ?


----------



## Gez

englishman said:


> So we have:
> 
> "Le mot X se prononce sans h"
> "Le livre se mord d'un chien"
> 
> I'm confused. Both have an inanimate subject, but the second sentence isn't in the passive ? I don't see what difference there is between the two that causes this.


Because it's not a question of animation! You could say "les moutons se tondent au printemps", and sheep are animated!

You can't say "le livre se mord" because, well, it's quite nonsensical. Though it's correct (if you leave out "d'un chien") if you were writing an essay on the art of biting books. It's an absurd notion, but who's to say absurdity can't be conveyed with proper grammar? So, you could say:
"Le livre se mord d'un franc mouvement de la machoire inférieure, dans la gaité et l'enthousiasme. Les livres de poche, avec leur couverture molle, se mord sans grand enthousiasme, le réel amateur préfèrera tenter sa chance avec des ouvrages volumineux à couverture rigide, comme les différents tomes d'une encyclopédie."
(Does it show that I'm having too much fun with that example?)

You'll notice here that I've replaced your dog by a firm movement of the lower jaw. That's why I didn't agree with "using a dog" for the translation, as in such a construction it's not so much the mean, but the way. The Ho's translation was more faithful to the original than mine, relaying entirely the incongruity of the sentence.



englishman said:


> Right. zaby mentioned this above, but I didn't understand what she was trying to say. I follow now. So the "se + verb" construction only works if you can write an equivalent sentence using "on", is that it ? e.g.
> 
> "on traduit le mot peur par fear" -> "le mot peur se traduit par fear"
> "En France, on boit du café" -> "En France, le café se boit"
> "ici on ne voit jamais les flics" -> "ici les flics ne se voient jamais"
> 
> How do they sound in French ?



They're correct, even if a bit odd.


----------



## englishman

Gez said:


> You can't say "le livre se mord" because, well, it's quite nonsensical. Though it's correct (if you leave out "d'un chien") if you were writing an essay on the art of biting books. It's an absurd notion, but who's to say absurdity can't be conveyed with proper grammar? So, you could say:
> "Le livre se mord d'un franc mouvement de la machoire inférieure, dans la gaité et l'enthousiasme.



Très drole. But you've confirmed what I wanted to know: "le livre se mord" is indeed passive, if rather silly, since presumably it is the passive equivalent to the rather odd "on mord le livre". 



> They're correct, even if a bit odd.


What is odd about them ? I would have thought that the first one, in particular, is perfectly OK, isn't it ?


----------



## Gez

The first is perfectly fine. It's the two others that are a bit odd, because the reflexive form will always sound odd when it's used without a complement after the verb.

The following sentences are not odd:
"Le café se boit en France."
"Les flics ne se font jamais voir par ici."

For the last one, I cheated. You could say "ne se voient jamais par ici" but then it's still odd because, well, because "se voir" already exists and has a different meaning. "Je me vois bien Président de la République un jour", "I can see myself as a President of the Republic one of these days." If "les flics ne se voient jamais ici", then they're just not imagining themselves going there, which isn't the same meaning as saying we don't see them here. Note that ambiguity is still possible if you have more than one person, since "se voir" also has the meaning of seeing each others. "Ma copine et moi, on se voit à l'Elysée." -- does this sentence means the speaker and his girlfriend want to become president, or that they get to see each other at the Elysée Palace, maybe because they simply both work here ? Impossible to determine without more context.


----------



## Outsider

This structure also exists in other Romance languages. Here's how I would explain it:

1) The pronoun _se_ has more than one meaning. It is *not* always reflexive.

2) Englishman was right from the start; constructions like "les mots se prononcent" and "les mots se traduisent" *are passive*.

3) When you use the pronoun _se_ to construct a passive voice, *the agent of the action is deleted*. You cannot say _Le livre se traduit par moi_.


----------



## Fred_C

englishman said:


> No, because you're answering a different question from the one I'm asking. I'm well aware of how to form passive and active voices in French, as above, but it's the "se + verb" form that I don't fully understand. It's not quite clear to me when "se + verb" makes a reflexive sentence, and when it makes a passive voice.
> 
> As far as I can tell, "se + verb" can only be used to form a passive with an inanimate subject, otherwise we end up with a reflexive verb. Am I right ?


Hi. You are right, "se + verb" can only be used to form a passive when the subject is inanimate, *and when the agent is not stated*.
That is why "le chat se mord par un chien" sounds very strange to all the francophones on this thread, I think. But it is perfect to say "les pommes se mordent".
As to tell the difference between passive and a true reflexive form, try just consistency : By default, a reflexive verb is a true reflexive verb, so "les pommes se mordent" should mean "apples are biting themselves", but because it does not make much sense, it means : "apples are bitten".

This is the reason why this "pronominal passive" cannot be used with an animate subject. because if you say "les chats se mordent" the meaning "cats are biting themselves" cannot be completely ruled out.


----------



## hippolyta

I think it's also to do with the context, to an extent:
Our teacher told us that the reflexive is used to indicate a _habitual/continuing _behaviour. 
He used: _Le jambon se mange froid par les francais._
Similarly, les mots _heir,_ _honest,_ _honour_ er _hour_ .. se prononcent sans _h_
is not referring to a particular occurence but to the way things _are._
I don't know whether this is relevant here, I'm just pointing out that when used in this context, the reflexive form seems more natural than when it is used to describe a particular event and can sound 'awkward'.
This is the case also for 'se dire', 'se traduire', 's'ecrire', it seems to me.


----------



## Gez

Fred_C said:


> Hi. You are right, "se + verb" can only be used to form a passive when the subject is inanimate



Les moutons se tondent au printemps. Le sanglier se chasse en automne. Les moustiques s'écrasent tout au long de l'année.


----------



## Outsider

Merci, Gez ! J'étais sûr que cela n'était pas vrai, me je n'ai pas réussi à penser à un exemple.


----------



## broglet

Gez said:


> Originally Posted by *englishman* [URL]http://forum.wordreference.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/URL]
> Right. zaby mentioned this above, but I didn't understand what she was trying to say. I follow now. So the "se + verb" construction only works if you can write an equivalent sentence using "on", is that it ? e.g.
> 
> "on traduit le mot peur par fear" -> "le mot peur se traduit par fear"
> "En France, on boit du café" -> "En France, le café se boit"
> "ici on ne voit jamais les flics" -> "ici les flics ne se voient jamais"
> 
> How do they sound in French ?
> 
> They're correct, even if a bit odd.


It would be interesting to understand what makes them odd.

I think the first seems odd because it appears to state a general truth when, in fact, it is not. According to this theory, "le mot 'peur' ne se traduit pas toujours par 'fear' " should sound less odd. Does it?

Does the second one seem odd because the complement precedes the passive verb? (ie it should be "Le café se boit en France"). And if "Ici les flics ne se voient jamais" were intended to mean "The cops never see one another round here", would it still seem odd? Presumably "Les flics ne se voient jamais ici" is more likely to mean "Cops are never seen round here"

Qu'est-ce qu'on pense?


----------



## The Ho

How (often) they would be used, according to me :

"on traduit le mot peur par fear" (50%)-> "le mot peur se traduit par fear" (50%)
"En France, on boit du café" (100%) -> "En France, le café se boit" (0%) _Not really the same meaning as stated by Broglet_
"ici on ne voit jamais les flics" (90%) -> "ici les flics ne se voient jamais" (0%), _but more certainly "ici les flics ne se montrent jamais" because, once again, we have subject = object._


----------



## The Ho

hippolyta said:


> I think it's also to do with the context, to an extent:
> Our teacher told us that the reflexive is used to indicate a _habitual/continuing _behaviour.
> He used: _Le jambon se mange froid par les francais._
> Similarly, les mots _heir,_ _honest,_ _honour_ er _hour_ .. se prononcent sans _h_
> is not referring to a particular occurence but to the way things _are._
> I don't know whether this is relevant here, I'm just pointing out that when used in this context, the reflexive form seems more natural than when it is used to describe a particular event and can sound 'awkward'.
> This is the case also for 'se dire', 'se traduire', 's'ecrire', it seems to me.


Tell your teacher : "Le jambon se mange froid en France" or "Les français mangent le jambon froid" or "On mange le jambon froid, en France".


----------



## gilou

Outsider said:


> This structure also exists in other Romance languages. Here's how I would explain it:
> 
> 1) The pronoun _se_ has more than one meaning. It is *not* always reflexive.
> 
> 2) Englishman was right from the start; constructions like "les mots se prononcent" and "les mots se traduisent" *are passive*.
> 
> 3) When you use the pronoun _se_ to construct a passive voice, *the agent of the action is deleted*. You cannot say _Le livre se traduit par moi_.


Usually, this construction is named the impersonal mood or impersonal voice: 
1- The subject of the transitive verb is deleted (it can be reintroduced as an oblique argument or complement in some languages. I don't think that it is the case in french, and this differ from the passive construction).
[There exists impersonal constructions with intransitive verbs in german ( _Es wird von dem Kindern geschlafen_ ) but I don't think that it is the case in french ]
2- The object of the transitive verb becomes the subject of the impersonal construction.
3- Use of se + verb conjugated at the third person

A similar construction occurs also in spanish, where step 2 does not take place (the object of the transitive verb remains the object of the impersonal construction): Se vende un violin, Se come pizza...

Note: I don't feel "les mots se prononcent" and "les mots se traduisent" as passive as the following phrases: "les mots sont prononcés" and "les mots sont traduits".

A+,


----------



## Outsider

gilou said:


> [There exists impersonal constructions with intransitive verbs in german ( _Es wird von dem Kindern geschlafen_ ) but I don't think that it is the case in french ]


The same happens in Spanish and Portuguese, with _se_. 
I'm not sure about French. I think you would be more likely to say _On mange bien dans ce restaurant_ than _Se mange bien dans ce restaurant_. The latter doesn't sound good at all to me.



gilou said:


> A similar construction occurs also in spanish, where step 2 does not take place (the object of the transitive verb remains the object of the impersonal construction): Se vende un violin, Se come pizza...


_Violín_ and _pizza_ are the subjects in those constructions, just like in French.



gilou said:


> Note: I don't feel "les mots se prononcent" and "les mots se traduisent" as passive as the following phrases: "les mots sont prononcés" and "les mots sont traduits".


Well, one thing they're not is reflexive: they don't pronounce/translate _themselves_!


----------



## gilou

Outsider said:


> _Violín_ and _pizza_ are the subjects in those constructions, just like in French.


 Yes, you are right. 
_Se venden pizzas_ clearly shows it.



hippolyta said:


> I think it's also to do with the context, to an extent:
> Our teacher told us that the reflexive is used to indicate a _habitual/continuing _behaviour.
> He used: _Le jambon se mange froid par les francais._


This sentence sounds incorrect to me.
_Le jambon est mangé froid par les francais._ is the correct equivalent.
If you introduce the agent of the verbal action as a an oblique argument or complement, you must use the passive.

The impersonal construction expects a complement: _Le jambon se mange_ sounds incomplete.  _Le jambon se mange froid_ is OK.
The complement can express temporal or spatial location, mean, manner, etc: _Le jambon se mange en hiver. Les fourchettes se rangent dans le tiroir. Le jambon se mange avec du pain. _
But the complement cannot be the agent. 



Fred_C said:


> But it is perfect to say "les pommes se mordent".
> As to tell the difference between passive and a true reflexive form, try just consistency : By default, a reflexive verb is a true reflexive verb, so "les pommes se mordent" should mean "apples are biting themselves", but because it does not make much sense, it means : "apples are bitten".


Unless you are writing some dadaist poetry, it is not perfect to say "les pommes se mordent".
Either you add a complement: "Les pommes se mordent à pleines dents".
Or you can use the "impersonnal subject" On: "On mord les pommes".

A+,


----------



## CapnPrep

hippolyta said:


> I think it's also to do with the context, to an extent:
> Our teacher told us that the reflexive is used to indicate a _habitual/continuing _behaviour.
> […] when used in this context, the reflexive form seems more natural than when it is used to describe a particular event and can sound 'awkward'.


This is mostly true: _Ce livre s'achète par correspondance._ vs. *_Ce livre s'est acheté hier._
But according to A. Zribi-Hertz, it is sometimes possible to refer to a specific event: _La question s'est discutée hier. Le crime s'est commis ce matin.

_By the way, this construction in French is known as the "mediopassive" and this use of the reflexive pronoun is known as "_se moyen_" (as in "middle voice").


----------



## hippolyta

Ok, sorry - badly phrased example. Should be _Le jambon se mange froid en France. _There shouldn't be a subject mentioned in the same sentence.


----------



## Gez

broglet said:


> It would be interesting to understand what makes them odd.



I answered it, but my post was the last on the previous page, so you may have missed it.



> The first is perfectly fine. It's the two others that are a bit odd, because the reflexive form will always sound odd when it's used without a complement after the verb.



Though I should amend that: the complement is actually not always necessary. For example :
"Est-ce qu'on peut dire _'il gêlera en enfer avant que...'_ en français ?"
"Oui, *ça se dit.*"

But still, try to put a complement after such a sentence. Just to be safe.


----------



## broglet

Thanks Gez - I had indeed missed your post. I'd be grateful for your views on the other suggestions in mine, namely:

_I think the first seems odd because it appears to state a general truth when, in fact, it is not. According to this theory, "le mot 'peur' ne se traduit pas toujours par 'fear' " should sound less odd. Does it?_

_And if "Ici les flics ne se voient jamais" were intended to mean "The cops never see one another round here", would it still seem odd? Presumably "Les flics ne se voient jamais ici" is more likely to mean "Cops are never seen round here"_


----------



## Gez

broglet said:


> _I think the first seems odd because it appears to state a general truth when, in fact, it is not. According to this theory, "le mot 'peur' ne se traduit pas toujours par 'fear' " should sound less odd. Does it?_


I don't think so, because "fear se traduit par peur" is correct and doesn't sound odd at all. 



broglet said:


> _And if "Ici les flics ne se voient jamais" were intended to mean "The cops never see one another round here", would it still seem odd? Presumably "Les flics ne se voient jamais ici" is more likely to mean "Cops are never seen round here"_


I think it's just that, in that case, we wouldn't use "voir" at all.
"Les flics ne se retrouvent/rencontrent/font rendez-vous ici."
"Les flics ne se montrent jamais ici."


Now that I think about it, "rencontrer" can be used in both meanings.


----------

