# FR: "ne" without "pas" - "ne" explétif / "ne" littéraire



## macta123

Hello friends,

is the _ne expletif _used for daily (formal) French  OR is it only used in written (literary) French only?

Merci en avance
Nikhil

*Moderator note:* Multiple threads merged to create this one. See also:
FR: plus que + (ne) (le) - "ne" explétif & pronom
FR: avant que + "ne" explétif
FR: savoir, pouvoir, oser, cesser - "ne" without "pas" in negative
FR: "pas" without "ne" - omitting "ne" in casual negation


----------



## pieanne

It's getting lost in everyday language, but it *should* be used there too...
Sorry, but you'd better use it!


----------



## greens628

hello,
I have come across the use of 'ne' without any other word to complete the negation (like pas, plus, rien, jamais, etc) and i was wondering what it means.  I vaguely remember reading somewhere, perhaps years ago, that it can be used for formal writing and it does not negate the sentence, but I am not sure.  Any help would be appreciated.
Merci beaucoup!!

'il ne saurait exiger la communication d'un projet de status...'
It is in reference to the formation of a french corporation.


----------



## panzemeyer

It has exactly the same meaning as "ne saurait pas". 

"Ne saurait _" is a formal, idiomatic expression that you may translate to "cannot".


----------



## flobel

I add that we never use 'pas' with 'savoir' in this kind of sentence, where the meaning is that the personn can't do the what come after "saurait" (here, "exiger").

I hope I'm clear.

Florian


----------



## polaire

This may help.  As others have said, it depends on the context.
Literary and Formal Negative Structures in French

The site above contains a link indicating that it's not necessary to use the "pas" with the conditional form of savoir, as others have suggested or said.


----------



## LaTexane

I've tried making sense of the other postings concerning "ne" and the "ne expletif" but I can't figure out what applies to the case I'm looking at.  To my understanding the expletive form "Ne" is not a form of negation?  Is this correct?  Is my sentence below an example of the "ne expletif"?
Here's the case I'm unsure about:

"Je ne pein mes tableaux de si riche peinture,
Et si hauts arguments ne recherche a mes vers..." 

Sorry for the lack of accents.  I'm assuming the "ne" here isn't negating anything?

Thanks!

And I forgot to add, just FYI, this is taken from the context of Du Bellay.


----------



## BMR

In this context (the poem of DuBellay) these "ne" are poetic form of *negation*.
Like in the first rhymes :   _Je ne veux point_ (here "_ne ... point_" = "_ne ... pas_")


----------



## LaTexane

Ah! So assuming it is not a "ne expletif", whenever he uses the "ne" by itself it *is* a (literary) form of a *negation*? 

Example: "I don't paint my canvases with such rich paint"

Thank you so much, I was wondering why nothing was making sense.


----------



## CallieBSweet

I came across this when searching for an address in Pagesjaunes.com:
*"Nous ne  pouvons vous fournir de réponse pour l'une des raisons suivantes..."
*Can someone explain why there is no "pas" in the "ne..." phrase?  Am I correct in my understanding that this would not be spoken this way (the tenancy is to drop the "ne" and keep the "pas")?


----------



## DearPrudence

Quite a recurrent question.
In formal sentences, you can omit "pas" with 4 verbs […]:
*"pouvoir, savoir, oser, cesser"*
but we haven't been able to know why 

And quite funnily, in colloquial speech, that would be the other way round, omitting the "ne" & keeping the "pas":
*"je sais pas"*


----------



## Paf le chien

I just found (in my Grevisse ) that with those verbs, "_ne_" can be omitted *if and only if* followed by an infinitive (most cases, in fact, but...).

So "je ne sais !" is wrong (you wouldn't say it, would you?): you have to say "je ne sais _pas_ !". Then you're back to the regular colloquial form "je sais _pas_ !" where you omit "_ne_" 

 En espérant juste avoir fait avancer le Schilimibimili... ibimimibili... mbilic


----------



## [Marc]

je ne sais s'il compte venir... c'est incorrect ?


----------



## Paf le chien

Je me doutais bien qu'il faudrait que je tourne la page... 

Donc, toujours selon M. Grevisse, savoir est un cas un peu (voire très) particulier : 

1 s'il signifie _l'incertitude_, « pas » est facultatif ; 
2 s'il signifie la (mé)connaissance, « pas » est obligatoire(e.g. il ne sait *pas* lire) ;
3 s'il est au conditionnel, comme équivalent de « pouvoir », « pas » _est une faute_ (ex.: il ne saurait pas venir plus tôt) ;

En résumé :

« je ne sais *[pas]* s'il compte venir » => cas 1 => « pas » facultatif => OK 

Ouh que ça fait du bien de retrouver son brave Grevisse


----------



## mont627

I'm not able to understand the "ne"'s in french without the pas/que/plus/etc. coming after!  Does that make sense?  For example,

_L'élément  subordonné ne peut exister seul.
_
Would that be the same as "L'élément  subordonné ne peut pas exister seul."  If so, any rhyme or reason as to why they left out the "pas"?  This next phrase, I don't understand:

_Il est plus adroit que je ne le croyais._

Is the "ne" required in this last sentence?   Why is it any  different than "que je le croyais"?  Oh i feel like i'm losing my head, can anyone give me any simple tips on to when to just use the "ne" without the "pas" before i go crazy?!!

merci mille fois en avance à tous!


----------



## jann

> _L'élément  subordonné ne peut exister seul._
> Would that be the same as "L'élément  subordonné ne peut pas exister seul."


 Correct. Leaving off the "pas" has a sort of literary/formal effect, but it is only possible with a few verbs.  I believe it's called the _ne littéraire_ and you can read about it here.



> _Il est plus adroit que je ne le croyais._
> Is the "ne" required in this last sentence?


This is the _ne explétif._  It is not a negation, and there are only a few set expressions that must/may use it, so it's really quite simple.  You can read more on the _ne explétif_ here. I'm sure there must be a few forum threads too... 

Does that help?


----------



## timpeac

Is this "ne explétif"  always optional based on the register? Could you say "tu comprends plus que tu parles" rather than "tu comprends plus que tu ne parles"?


----------



## Canard

I was taught that it's de rigueur in formal situations and more careful writing, but in spoken/informal/general use, it's left out.

I remember using the ne explétif with a friend once online, and he responded "Mais tu viens d'utiliser le ne explétif avec moi ?"  He's from Quebec though. I've seen my friend in southern France use it with me, but he also uses the passé simple sometimes 

It can be used with all verbs, but it's not the verb that determines its presence... it's the grammatical situations presented in the link DearPrudence gave.


----------



## tilt

timpeac said:


> Is this "ne explétif"  always optional based on the register? Could you say "tu comprends plus que tu parles" rather than "tu comprends plus que tu ne parles"?


Does your example say _You understand more than you speak_?
I'm not sure to understand what it means! 

Anyway, the _ne explétif_ can be used in such a sentence, yes.


----------



## timpeac

tilt said:


> Does your example say _You understand more than you speak_?
> I'm not sure to understand what it means!


Yes, exactly - someone who sits there understanding much of what is said but who lacks the confidence or ability to speak as well as they understand - why does it not work as I put it? Edit - would "tu comprends plus que ce que tu ne parles" be better?


tilt said:


> Anyway, the _ne explétif_ can be used in such a sentence, yes.


Yes, I know - my question is whether it can be omitted in such sentences.


----------



## tilt

timpeac said:


> would "tu comprends plus que ce que tu ne parles" be better?


No, your first go was better, I just didn't get it, because opposing _understand _and _speak _didn't seem that logical to me at first glance.

And actually, I would keep the _ne_ in the sentence in normal speech as well as in formal one. My problem is that I can't say is this _ne _is _explétif _or not: there's a kind of a negation about speaking, in this sentence. And the verb being subjunctive rather indicative indicative rather subjunctive makes this case even more different to the opening sentence! Tough question...


----------



## Nicomon

tilt said:


> My problem is that I can't say is this _ne _is _explétif _or not: there's a kind of a negation about speaking, in this sentence. And the verb being subjunctive rather indicative makes this case even more different to the opening sentence! Tough question...


 
I'm puzzled.  If you were refering to timpeac's example "_tu comprends plus (le français)/que tu_ _*ne* (le) parles_"... I don't see a subjunctive, but rather a comparative _que _followed by indicative. And I would say that the _ne_ is indeed expletive.

imho, it is the same structure as _tu écoutes plus que tu (ne) parles/nous écrivons mieux que nous (ne) parlons._ It seems to be different in France, but Quebecers have no problem whatsoever omitting this _ne__._


----------



## tilt

My mistake!
I inverted both words in my sentence. I should stop contributing so late in the night! 

Well, you must be right, this _ne_ is probably _explétif_. But timepac's example does sound odd without it, in my opinion, whereas I have no problem saying _avant que je parte_. And I can't explain why!


----------



## LV4-26

I'm like tilt here.
I need the _ne_ in "_tu comprends plus que tu ne parles_" much more than I do in "_avant que je (ne) parte"_.


----------



## Nicomon

Just like I said... it seems to be different in France. And I'm sure some Quebecers prefer this ne as well.  Then again, I don't mind the _ne_ in _tu comprends plus que tu (ne) parles, _as much as I do in _Avant que je (ne) parte. _

Extracted from the BDL



> Elle est moins timide qu’elle *ne* le semble. (ou : qu’elle le semble; ou : qu’elle semble)


----------



## marget

LV4-26 said:


> I'm like tilt here.
> I need the _ne_ in "_tu comprends plus que tu ne parles_" much more than I do in "_avant que je (ne) parte"_.


 
I can understand why you feel more of a the need for the _ne_ in the first sentence.  My grammar states that "In an affirmative clause after a comparative  and que,...  the use of the _ne_ can be explained by the fact that the _que _clause contains a negative implication.  The idea is that you don't speak as much.


----------



## tilt

Nicomon said:


> Just like I said... it seems to be different in France. And I'm sure some Quebecers prefer this ne as well.  Then again, I don't mind the _ne_ in _tu comprends plus que tu (ne) parles, _as much as I do in _Avant que je (ne) parte. _
> 
> Extracted from the BDL


Or _qu'elle ne semble_, too. 



marget said:


> I can understand why you feel more of a the need for the _ne_ in the first sentence.  My grammar states that "In an affirmative clause after a comparative  and que,...  the use of the _ne_ can be explained by the fact that the _que _clause contains a negative implication.  The idea is that you don't speak as much.


That's precisely what I tried to say with _a kind of a negation about speaking_. And that's why I wonder if this _ne _is really _explétif_.
Thanks a lot for making it clearer.


----------



## Nicomon

marget said:


> I My grammar states that "In an affirmative clause after a comparative and que,... the use of the _ne_ can be explained by the fact that the _que _clause contains a negative implication. The idea is that you don't speak as much.


 
 I agree that the _ne_ reinforces the "inequality" but it is not necessary. 

_Tu comprends plus que tu (ne) parles =  Tu parles moins que tu comprends_.   
_Il cueille plus de fraises qu'il (n') en mange = Il mange moins de fraises qu'il en cueille_.  (for lack of a better example)

You may prefer with... but whether or not you use _ne/n'_ doesn't change the meaning of these sentences.  Yes, this _ne_ is explétif and always facultative.


----------



## tilt

I'd say:
_Tu comprends plus que tu (ne) parles =  Tu parles moins que tu (ne) comprends_.   
_Il cueille plus de fraises qu'il (n') en mange = Il mange moins de fraises qu'il (n') en cueille_.


It's difficult to state about _ne_ to be required or not only by referring to the meaning. _Tu parles pas _is definitely incorrect, but the meaning is obviously the same as _tu ne parles pas_.


----------



## Nicomon

This is "_ne... pas_" which is completely different, and I know you know it is. It would be equally incorrect to say _tu ne parles (français_) - and nothing after -to mean _tu ne parles pas (français)._ 
_Tu ne parles français qu'en présence de tes amis _would be OK... and the _NE_ would not be _explétif_ in that case. 
_Ne explétif_ is #877 in Grevisse - _Le bon usage_


----------



## jooleeya

Hello,

I'm wondering why there is a ne in the following sentence:

Enfermé dans une caisse, le petit ne peut s’ébattre.

It looks like a negation but there is no pas..

How does this change the meaning of s'ebattre and is this a negation?

Merci!

Jooleeya


----------



## Donaldos

This is indeed a negation. The "pas" is omitted, which makes this sentence slightly more formal/literary.


----------



## jooleeya

Thank you, Donaldos, for your quick reply.  

It certainly makes sense in context that it's a negation.  So why is it possible to do this?  Can I omit the pas anywhere to make it negative?  Or is there something special with pouvoir which allows me to this?

Merci encore!


----------



## °° Cocotte °°

I think you can especially omit it with verbs like "pouvoir", "vouloir", "accepter" etc... But I wouldn't be able to tell the rule !!


----------



## Phileas Fogg

pourquoi on ne dit pas: Il ne pouvait PAS en croire ses yeux.

on ne nécessite pas "pas" ou ce n'est que qqch informal?


----------



## papamac

Phileas,

There is a small group of verbs that, in formal French, can be negated with just "ne" rather than "ne ... pas".  "Pouvoir" is one of them.

In informal French, you would often still add the "pas".


----------



## Asr

Hello,

I've heard of only four such verbs:

Pouvoir, savoir, oser, cesser. (Would love to hear if there is any more)

and here is a nice article : Banque de dépannage linguistique - Ne pouvant être employé seul


----------



## itka

On peut ajouter à cette liste les expressions synonymes et quelques autres verbes peu employés.
Vous trouverez plus d'explications ici, à partir de la page 871.


----------



## Asr

wow, all in French and quite detailed, was a bit scary at first... But very useful indeed! Thanks a lot Itka! 

so here is a note for Phileas Fogg : If those afore mentioned verbs are not followed by an infinitive, you'd better stick with "pas". ( I believe I got that right, and didn't know it before.)


----------



## san mateo

I've noticed that sometimes "pas" is left out of the negative construction, "ne...pas". For example, this is a sentence that I just came across in *La planète des singes*.

"Voilà deux mois que je n'ai vu mes anciens compagnons de captivité..."

Why is "pas" excluded? 

thanks


----------



## Zoulllien

Originally (understand: a very long time ago), the negation was made exclusively with "ne". "Pas", which means "step", was added to emphasize the negation ("Je ne vois pas" = "I can't see a step"). "Pas" progressively became fully part of the negation and has now lost its emphasis purpose, but it can still be excluded sometimes. Grammaticaly it means the same, the exclusion of "pas" is just more literary.


----------



## french_learner06

I have seen this quite a few times in signs as well as correspondences.

The rule is that "ne" must accompany "pas" or "jamais," etc.  But I have seen sentences where "ne" is not accompanied by "pas."

For example:  "Je ne connais Londres."

Is this grammatically correct?  When does one omit the "pas"?


----------



## Thomas1

There is also ne called explétif with which you don't use pas:
Lorsque le locuteur sent dans le contexte une idée de négation, il introduit parfois dans les propositions conjonctives un ne que l’on appelle explétif, à la fois parce qu’il peut toujours être omis et parce qu’il ne correspond pas à une négation objective. Ce ne est donc facultatif, même si les grammairiens ont essayé de rendre son emploi plus rigide.
Dans une phrase comme Je crains qu’on ne me trompe, la pensée s’arrête sur l’idée de n’être pas trompé. De même, Avant que Louis ne parte implique l’idée que Louis n’est pas (ou pas encore) parti. 
Source: _Le bon usage_, Grevisse
The ne explétif is often used with verbs/nouns expressing fear, anxiety e.g.: craindre, avoir peur, s'inquieter, etc; or with those expressing doubt or negation, e.g.: douter, nier, etc. Also with avant que.

EDIT:
Some other cases when one has to omit "pas":
--with "ni":
Je ne l'estime ni ne l'aime.
--with "que" in the meaning "pourquoi" in exclamative sentences:
Que ne l'as tu dit plus tôt ?
--in the expression «n'avoir que faire»
 ... j'ai l'impression d'écouter malgré moi à une porte et de recueillir des confidences dont je n'ai que faire. 
http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/avoir
and by the same token with "n'avoir que répondre".


----------



## LaChuna

I have to pick up again the topic for my question  :

I only found on 2 pages in the internet (Literary and Formal Negative Structures in French, Banque de dépannage linguistique - Ne pouvant être employé seul) the remark that you also can use the "ne littéraire", so omitting the "pas" in a negation, after a conditional sentence introduced by "si" expressing a negation, eg:

"Si tu ne rentres (pas) à 6 heures, tu auras des ennuis."

But I'm wondering whether it's really common to omit the "pas" in a sentence introduced by "si", because I think, I've never read a text (or at least I don't remember it...) where this had been done... Even more, this kind of usage isn't mentioned as often as the others- so to me it seems like after "si", the literary ne is rarely used.

Do you agree that the other uses of the literary ne are more common than this kind of usage?

Thank you in advance!


----------



## bloomiegirl

Hello LaChuna... I can't launch the "about French" site just now, but the Québec BDL site specifies:

Il est aussi possible d’employer _ne_ sans autre adverbe de négation lorsqu’il suit un _si_ conditionnel servant à atténuer la négation (_si je ne m’abuse, si je ne me trompe_, etc.). [underline added for emphasis]​But the verb in your example is _rentrer_, which does not weaken the negative meaning, so I think the sentence must be: "_Si tu ne rentres pas à 6 heures..._" [with _pas_].


----------



## LaChuna

Thank your for your response!
Seems like I didn't read the paragraph on the Québec BDL site precisely enough...

So the about French site seems wrong telling us that 
   "In addition, the _ne littéraire_ may be used with just about any  verb in si- clauses:"
...


----------



## Maître Capello

The literary _ne_ is just that: literary. In other words, most people would never use it in speech*, but it isn't that uncommon in literary writing…

That said, because your sentence seems to be part of a dialog, the literary _ne_ is not really suitable.

(* Except when the verb is one of the four mentioned before: _savoir_, _pouvoir_, _oser_ or _cesser_.)


----------



## LaChuna

Yes, I actually know that you wouldn't use it in spoken language but still you are right, my example wasn't a good one, I just was looking for a simple one and didn't concentrate on your aspect...
But by the way the others examples with "Si je me trompe..." and "Si tu ne manges..." (on about French) seem to come from a conversation, too...


----------



## bloomiegirl

I'll try to remember to check the About French site later, when it's working properly.

EDIT: I can launch the About French site again, but I have to defer to Maître Capello and the other Francophones on this point.


----------



## LaChuna

Okay, but not all verbs you use predominately in spoken language are verbs curbing the negation. In this point the about- French site sill contradicts the other site.


----------



## Maître Capello

There are some set expressions that we do use in speech (_si je ne m'abuse, si je ne me trompe_…), but this doesn't apply to all verbs by any means!


----------



## David Latapie

LaChuna said:


> Do you agree that the other uses of the literary ne are more common than this kind of usage?


Except for colloquialisms (_si je ne m'abuse_), proberbs (_absence de preuve n'est preuve d'absence_, _nécessité n'obère urbanité_) and poetry, a *single negative* (_ne_ without _pas_, _que_…) is so uncommon that it might be misunderstood for a positive statement (the _ne_ either going unnoticed or considered a typo).

Avoid it except if you really know what you are doing.


----------



## undergreenwoodtree

Paf le chien said:


> I just found (in my Grevisse ) that with those verbs, "_ne_" can be omitted *if and only if* followed by an infinitive (most cases, in fact, but...). So "je ne sais !" is wrong (you wouldn't say it, would you?): you have to say "je ne sais _pas_ !".


Si! On le dirait. On peut dire 'Je ne sais encore', 'Je ne sais comment', 'Je ne sais pourquoi' etc.


----------



## bloomiegirl

The "About French" site is back and I'm back on this thread too. Here's a link to their "French Literary Ne - Formal French" webpage. And here's some of the content, exttracted:

The _ne littéraire_ is used with seven verbs:​_Cesser, oser, _and_ pouvoir never need pas.  [...]
Bouger, daigner, and manquer may be used without pas,  but this is less common than with the above verbs. [...]_​The seventh verb, _savoir, _is a special case. It doesn't need_ pas _when it​
1) means "to be uncertain"  [...]​
2) is in the conditional [...]​
3) is used with a interrogative word  [...]​
However,  _savoir_ does need _pas  when it means to know a fact or how to do something: [...]_​
In addition, the _ne littéraire _may be used with just about any verb in _si clauses: [...]_​[...]​
There's more, including examples for each case. 

And the introduction points out that it is a literary use, and that omitting the "_ne_" is optional in these cases – I would say a matter of (formal) style.


----------



## leolucas1980

The word "ne", just like its cognates in other Latin languages, was the negation particle per se in Old French, and the "pas" (that meant "step") only reinforced it. I think that's why the "ne without pas" is still used in formal register.


----------



## enola

Is this an example of the _ne explétif_ or is it negative? 

Full sentence: Elle ne s’en inquiète, maquillées de roses et de jaunes, sa blancheur est au soleil, offerte.

She is worried, made up with pinks and yellows, her whiteness is offered to the sun. 

Thanks for your help!


----------



## Oddmania

Salut,

C'est une négation (aussi appelée « _ne _littéraire »). Un _ne explétif_ n'est jamais présent dans une proposition principale. Il apparaît seulement dans
les propositions subordonnées. Par exemple, _Je crains qu'elle *ne *parte_ (mais pas _Je ne crains_... ).

Le _ne explétif_ doit être précédé par un verbe "déclencheur" (comme _craindre_ _que..._) ou une expression (comme _avant que..._). Une phrase ne peut pas commencer par Sujet + _ne _explétif.


----------



## Prince Of The Infidels

Est-ce nécessaire qu'on utilise le Ne Explétif quand on dit "N'es-tu pas content que je aille..." donc la phrase deviendrait "N'es-tu pas content que je n'aille..." Je pense que, à cause de la négation, elle signifie la doute.


----------



## olivier68

Bonsoir,

A mon sens : non. Et je recommanderais même de ne PAS l'utiliser car il risque d'induire une effective négation dans la proposition subordonnée... d'où un potentiel problème de sens.


----------



## Prince Of The Infidels

Merci pour votre réponse. Donc, le Ne Explétif est seulement pour les phrases qui expriment la peur ou qui utilisent le verbe douter?


----------



## Maître Capello

On ne peut pas employer le _ne_ explétif à tout va. Ce n'est en effet que dans certains cas, notamment après certains verbes comme les verbes de crainte ou après certaines conjonctions comme _avant que_, qu'il est possible. Par ailleurs, _ne_ employé seul peut aussi dans certains cas être une négation, notamment dans la langue littéraire. Vous changez donc totalement le sens de la phrase en ajoutant _ne_ dans votre exemple.

_N'es-tu pas content que j'aille…_ (ne pas oublier l'élision !) ≠ _N'es-tu pas content que je *n'*aille…_ = _N'es-tu pas content que je *n'*aille *pas*…_



Prince Of The Infidels said:


> Donc, le Ne Explétif est seulement pour les phrases qui expriment la peur ou qui utilisent le verbe douter?


Avant tout pour les verbes de *crainte*, presque jamais pour les verbes de *doute*.

Voir aussi :
FR: nier / douter + "ne" explétif ?
FR: craindre / avoir peur que + "ne" explétif
craindre / douter + "ne" explétif ? (forum Français Seulement)


----------

