# FR: assise sagement



## MindBoggle

Bonjour à tous!

Dans mon livre il dit:

Assise sagement dans l'entrejambe d'un puissant chène, la cabane est toujours là malgré son apparence frêle.

Voilà ma traduction:

Sitting quietly in the crotch of a mighty oak, the hut is still there despite its frail appearance.

Voilà ma question:

Pourquoi le participe passé 'assise' (sat)? Pourquoi pas le participe present 'asseyant' (sitting)?
Est ce que c'est parce que 'assise' veut dire: 'Having been sat, i.e. placed, in the crotch'? Peut ètre la traduction meilleure est la suivante:

Having been quietly placed in the crotch of a mighty oak, the hut... (etc).

Qu'est ce que vous pensez?

Merci en avance
MindBoggle

Ah, je sais, je crois... 

Comme ça, c'est bien:

Wisely seated in the crotch of a mighty oak, the hut is still there in spite of its frail appearance.

C'est vrai?


----------



## Oddmania

Hi,

_Être assis _→ a *state*, that means _to be sitting_ (≠_ to be on your feet_).
_S'asseoir_ → an *action*, that means_ to sit down_ (≠ _to rise to your feet_).

English is confusing on this point, because _I'm sitting_ may mean either _I'm taking a seat or I'm seated_. If you said _*S'*asseyant sagement..._ then that would mean_ Being quietly (in the middle of) sitting down_.



> Wisely seated in the crotch of a mighty oak, the hut is still there in spite of its frail appearance.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Not "wisely". Sage (_wise_) = comme un vieux philosophe. Sage (_well-behaved_) = comme un enfant bien rangé. I think it's the second one here. And _to sit _= _être assis _more often than _s'asseoir_. So I'd say:

*Sitting quietly/demurely in the ...*


----------



## MindBoggle

Merci Odd et KB! 

Odd: Je connais bien la différence entre 'être assis' et 's'asseoir', mais merci quand même. Je m'étais demandé pourquoi il dit 'assise sagement...etc' en place de 'asseyant sagement...etc.' Quelle est la différence? Puisque vous m'avez dit que 'wisely seated... etc' est la bonne traduction, je suppose que la differénce soit comme j'ai ecrit ci-dessus. Me trompé-je?

Keith: The way I understand the sentence, _sagement_ is neither _comme un vieux philosophe _nor _comme un enfant bien rangé _but rather_ like somebody who, ahead of time, thought about the fact that the hut was going to be fragile and therefore made the intelligent decision to construct it in the safest place possible, i.e. in the crotch of a mighty oak, where it is going to be somewhat sheltered. _If I'm right about that - and if _wisely_ has a ring of old philosophers about it - I guess maybe the following translation should be preferred:

Prudently seated in the... etc.

What do you think?


MindBoggle.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Ah, and there I was thinking of it sitting quietly in its place.  If you think it means what you say, then I suggest:

*Set prudently...

*Assise is then the past participle of *asseoir*, not _s'asseoir_.


----------



## shadyRAT

To me, "assise" gives the feeling that the hut was placed there purposely--e.g. "her mother sat her in the chair"--whereas "asseyant" gives the impression that the hut simply happens to be sitting there. However, this could just be me! If this is true, then "seated" is definitely the more appropriate translation.


----------



## Oddmania

shadyRAT said:


> To me, "assise" gives the feeling that the hut was placed there purposely--e.g. "her mother sat her in the chair"--whereas "asseyant" gives the impression that the hut simply happens to be sitting there. However, this could just be me! If this is true, then "seated" is definitely the more appropriate translation.



Hi,

I couldn't say whether _seated _or _sitting _is the best option in English, but _s'asseyant_ merely sounds wrong! I find the English verb quite confusing (as I explained above), so let's say we're talking about a human (not to confuse anybody further).

→ If you say _assis_, then it's a past participle (_passive_) → a person could be comfortably settled in their armchair, for example.
→ If you say _s'asseyant_, then it's a present participle (_active_) → the person *was *standing up. *Now *they're *about to* sit down and in a short time they *will *be sitting(/seated?) onto a chair. I'm pretty sure it amounts to saying _Sitting down quietly in the crotch of a mighty oak..._, which probably doesn't make sense.

A hut simply cannot sit down, in any way! If you say that something is _assis_, then what you state doesn't imply it was standing up before. You just say _La cabane est assise_. It could've been sitting for ever, who knows! People simply don't imagine the hut sitting down when you say _Elle est assise_, so it sounds okay. On the other hand, if you say _S'asseyant sagement, la cabane etc.._. , then this amounts to saying _La cabane s'assoit_, which implies the hut is making a movement, bending its imaginary legs, and it doesn't sound right.


----------



## shadyRAT

Oddmania, you're completely right- I knew there was something strange about that one, but I hadn't quite hit upon it. In any case, now that you've pointed that out I would even more definitely go with "seated" or something similar.


----------



## MindBoggle

Merci à tous! 

I agree with Shady that *assis* gives the impression of purpose whereas *asseyant* does not. And I'm happy that we agree on that, as that was sort of my question. I think I understand now why past p. was used in stead of pres. p.
Further, regarding the translation of *sagement*, the above considerations also give me the feeling that the point of using past p, is to give the reader the feeling that the location of the hut has been carefully selected. I believe that *sagement *is intended to underline this, which is why, after some thought, I think I prefer to translate it with *prudently*.
Finally, I think that maybe Keith is right that* set *is preferable to *seated *as the latter feels a bit like the hut seated itself (and Odd is right about the oddness of that), whereas *set* more clearly indicates 'by someone else'.

So, in the end, I think I'm going to go with Keiths suggestion *Set prudently...
*
Thanks to everybody!
Merci à tous!


----------



## Ange8

Dear Mind Boogle,
Hi, I'll say prudently : Seated in etc. For example, you have to read a famous tales of Hans Christian Andersen the Ole-Luk-Oie - The Dream-God. See you.


----------



## shadyRAT

Although I suggested seated, I think you're correct to go with set.


----------



## Maître Capello

Keith Bradford said:


> *Sitting quietly/demurely in the ...*


Exactly! 


MindBoggle said:


> Keith: The way I understand the sentence, _sagement_ is […] _like somebody who, ahead of time, thought about the fact that the hut was going to be fragile and therefore made the intelligent decision to construct it in the safest place possible, i.e. in the crotch of a mighty oak, where it is going to be somewhat sheltered._


Keith's first suggestion is the only one that makes sense in this context. To mean what you had in mind, the phrase would have been: _Intelligemment/Sagement *construite*…_ As a matter of fact, with _assise_, there is no implied purpose at all. It is merely descriptive.


----------



## MindBoggle

Maître C: Fair enough, but then I'm back where I started: Why did the author use *assise* in place of *asseyant* (i.e. not _s'asseyant_)?

If I were to translate back from *sitting sagely *I'd go *asseyant sagement*. Would that be wrong? Or, if it's not wrong, in what way does it describe a different state of affairs compared to *assise sagement*?

Normally, past participle is different from present participle in that the former indicates a finished action whereas the latter indicates an ongoing action. So, if* assise *indicates that the action of sitting has finished, then I'd translate by *seated* or *set*, as suggested above, whereas if the the action is still going on - the hut is still sitting - then I'd expect the author to have used the present participle of asseoir i.e.* asseyant*.
I realise that this logic may be wrong. But if so - why?


----------



## timboleicester

When you say "assis" there is not action involved at all. This part partcicple used as an adjective is there to decribe (like adjectives do) a state of being. The use of the "..ant" form of the verb to describe a state is not possible there has to be an action of some kind and clearly the hut is incapable of action action of sitting. The confusion arises in that sitting is sometimes used for seated making you think that there is some action of the verb. This is not true. I wait with baited/bated breath.

This link might prove useful

http://french.about.com/od/grammar/a/presentparticiple_2.htm


----------



## MindBoggle

PS.

The dictionary here at WR indicates that *asseoir* may be translated as* to seat. *If so, this makes sense of Shadys claim that the use of *assise* gives the reader a feeling of_ purpose_. This feeling, most likely, comes from the fact that *to seat *is transitive whereas *to sit *normally is not. In other words: If the hut was *sitting/asseyant* it was doing the sitting to itself (so to speak), whereas if it was *seated/assise *the seating had been done to it by somebody else - which means_ by somebody for a reason_. And there we have the purpose. Maybe that's where Shady got his feeling? At least it's where I get mine.
Again: Maybe all this is wrong, but if so why?

Timbo: In English we say that the hut is sitting, despite the fact that it has no legs. It's not involved in the movement of sitting itself down (as Odd suggested would be the implication if s'asseyant was used), it is involved in the state of sitting, something which a hut clearly can do. Why would *asseyant *imply a movement (and so the use of legs)? Doesn't it mean *sitting* - exactly as in English? Doesn't it act like an adjective describing a state - like sitting?


----------



## timboleicester

Just like "laver" means "to wash" so "asseoir" means "to seat". But you are not describing an action when you say sitting in a tree. What you are decribing is a state. The confusion comes from the work sitting which can be a substitute for seated.

The hut is sitting ....does not have the same structure as the "hut is burning" say. The use of ...ing is confusing as what we have here  is english having a few "...ing" forms that are used as adjectives to describe states and not actions.

Imagine that you are about to shoot someone and the signal to let him have it is when someone tells you that the victim is in the process of sitting...you might be expected to hear them tell you....   shoot now 

il s'assied.....ie in the action of sitting.....he is sitting......you are not decribing the state here but the action.

it follows therefore that if you say  "il est assis"  you are now just decribing the state his seatedness and in english you could conceiveably say he is sitting but you don't mean the action of sitting.


----------



## MindBoggle

Timbo: Thank you for your link! Following it I got the following explanation of present participle in French:  [...] Although this has the purpose of educating us about the difference between a present participle and a gerund, we get the useful piece of information that the present participle _modifies a noun_. The text also gives this example:
_
Ayant faim, il a mangé tout le gâteau._
   Being hungry, he ate all of the cake.

Here the pronoun *he *is being modified. In what way is this different from

*Asseyant sagement, la cabane *etc.
Sitting quietly, the hut etc.

Here the noun *hut* is being modified. It certainly looks kosher to me.

If the above is a legal sentence, and the author's intended meaning was *sitting quietly*, then why did he write *assise sagement, la cabane *etc? Probably because there is a difference in meaning between the two. No? But what is that difference, exactly, if not that the action described has ceased?

Wouldn't a very literal translation be *Sat quietly, the hut *etc. which, in more proper English, becomes *Set quietly, the hut* etc. as Keith suggested? And doesn't both of these translations, unlike the translation *Sitting *etc, give the reader an impression of an agent (with a purpose) who has sat/set the hut?


----------



## Oddmania

MindBoggle said:


> Timbo: In English we say that the hut is sitting, despite the fact that it has no legs. It's not involved in the movement of sitting itself down (as Odd suggested would be the implication if s'asseyant was used), it is involved in the state of sitting, something which a hut clearly can do. Why would *asseyant *imply a movement (and so the use of legs)? Doesn't it mean *sitting* - exactly as in English? Doesn't it act like an adjective describing a state - like sitting?



I feel like I'm repeating myself 



> Why would *s'asseyant *imply a movement (and so the use of legs)?



Because _s'asseyant_, from the verb _s'asseoir_ (=_ to sit *down*_) is a present participle, and therefore implies an *active *action; unlike _assis_, which is a past participle, and which implies a *passive *state.



> Doesn't it act like an adjective describing a state - like sitting?



But sitting doesn't always implies a state!

_I feel so lazy... I'd rather stay sitting, and I don't want to stand up!_ → this expresses a state, right.
_Are you really going to move back his chair while he is sitting (down)??_ → this implies a movement (_to be sitting *down*_), and it expresses an action, a verb.



MindBoggle said:


> *A**sseyant sagement, la cabane *etc.
> Sitting quietly, the hut etc.
> 
> Here the noun *hut* is being modified. It certainly looks kosher to me.



Don't forget _*s'*asseoir_ is a reflexive verb  _ Asseoir _(without a _s'_) must be followed by a complement (asseoir  quelqu'un : to sit somebody down). If the person is sitting down on  their own (because they're not a child anymore, or not an old dodderer  yet and therefore don't need help) then you must use the reflexive  version, _s'asseoir._

What is confusing is the English verb_ to sit_, which can mean a lot things according to the context. 

In the sentence _Sitting quietly, the hut etc..._, do you agree  that the hut is not actually sitting down? Do you agree that the hut is  not making an action? If so, then you must probably agree that the word _sitting _doesn't act like a verb, and is therefore closer to an adjective (_How is the hut? What's its position? Well, it's sitting_) than anything else (this is the reason why assis is the right word).
.


----------



## MindBoggle

timboleicester said:


> il s'assied.....ie in the action of sitting.....he is sitting......you are not decribing the state here but the action.



I completely agree that* il s'assied *indicates the action of sitting oneself down, but what about *il assied *with no reflexive *se*. Isn't that what we are talking about here? Where is the *se* in the original sentence? It doesn't say *S'assise *but* Assise*. There is a difference between *s'asseyant *and* asseyant*, right? Isn't the difference that *s'asseyant* means _I'm (in the process of) sitting myself down_, whereas *asseyant* means _I'm (in the state of) sitting (down)_. This would correspond exactly to the example given before *ayant faim, il *etc. He is (in the state of) having hunger (i.e. being hungry).

Or is the problem that the verb a*sseoir *cannot be used analoguously because it _inherently_ describes the action and not the state? But if so, the sentence *Asseyant sagement, la cabane *etc. is just wrong. Is it?


----------



## Oddmania

MindBoggle said:


> I completely agree that* il s'assied *indicates the action of sitting oneself down, but what about *il assied *with no reflexive *se*. Isn't that what we are talking about here? Where is the *se* in the original sentence? It doesn't say *S'assise *but* Assise*. There is a difference between *s'asseyant *and* asseyant*, right? Isn't the difference that *s'asseyant* means _I'm (in the process of) sitting myself down_, whereas *asseyant* means _I'm (in the state of) sitting (down)_. This would correspond exactly to the example given before *ayant faim, il *etc. He is (in the state of) having hunger (i.e. being hungry).
> 
> Or is the problem that the verb a*sseoir *cannot be used analoguously because it _inherently_ describes the action and not the state? But if so, the sentence *Asseyant sagement, la cabane *etc. is just wrong. Is it?



See the last paragraph of my post #18 

_Asseoir + complement_ (like in _Asseoir un enfant_) → _To sit somebody down_ (like in _To sit a child down_).
_S'asseoir_ → _To sit down_. The _*s'*_ is a reflexive pronoun meaning _oneself_. _Je *m'*asseois _is like _I'm sitting *myself *down_ (but this is not what English people say).

Both _s'asseyant_ (from_ s'asseoir_) and _asseyant _(from _asseoir_) refers to a verb, an action, not a state, in any way.

_Assis _is an adjective and therefore must not be used with a reflexive pronoun.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Really, this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

In English: 
*to sit (down)* is an active verb, with a present participle *sitting *- it describes a movement by oneself, to bend the legs and place your bottom somewhere = _s'asseoir _with the present continuous form _s'asseyant _and the past participle _assis.
_*seated/sitting/set* are also adjectives - placed in a fixed position = _assis_

The hut can't do the first because it has no legs. So "assis" can't be the past participle of s'asseoir; it must be an adjective, meaning (in my view) *set*.

Can I go to bed now?


----------



## MindBoggle

Oddmania said:


> _Asseoir _(without a _s'_) must be followed by a complement (asseoir  quelqu'un : to sit somebody down).



Ah!  This clears up everything! 
Looking again at the WR dictionary, I suddenly notice that *asseoir *_is always transitive. _This is unlike the English* to sit *which can be both but is usually _intransitive_.

So - in short - there *is *something inherent in the word asseoir that forbids* asseyant sagement, the hut *etc. and this is why the author has chosen *assise* etc.

*Asseyant* and *sitting* don't have the same meaning at all!

Thank you everybody!
Merci à tous.


MB


----------



## Maître Capello

Summary:



.*English*
*French*
*Present Participle*
On-going state:
Sitting on his chair, he lit up a pipe.

On-going action:
Sitting down on his chair, he lit up a pipe.On-going action:
_S'asseyant sur sa chaise, il alluma une pipe._
(= Sitting down on his chair, he lit up a pipe.)

_Asseyant sur sa chaise, il alluma une pipe. _
(In the sense "to sit" or "to sit down," _s'asseoir_ must be reflexive.)
But: _Asseyant sa réputation_, …
(= Establishing his reputation, …)*Past Participle*
State:
Seated on his chair, he lit up a pipe.

Completed action:
Seated by the waitress, he lit up a pipe.State:
_Assis sur sa chaise, il alluma une pipe._
(= Seated/Sitting on his chair, he lit up a pipe.)

_S'assis sur sa chaise, il alluma une pipe._ 
(A bare past participle can never take a reflexive pronoun.)


----------



## MindBoggle

That diagram clears up a lot. Thank you for that, MC! 

I see now that my confusion was due partly to the fact that I mistranslated *asseoir*, and partly to the fact that I wasn't aware of the information in the above diagram.
*Asseoir* is not (as I thought) equivalent to* sit*, in fact it is not equivalent to any English word at all. [...] Any confused student, speaking both English and German, should find this discussion very enlightening. At least I know I did. 

Thank you all for your patience. You have been very helpful.


----------



## lucas-sp

Always remember that there are no hard-and-fast "equivalences" between words in any two languages. As for how to translate "assise" here, I would suggest "tucked" or "nestled," or the more neutral "placed."


----------

