# FR: conditionnel passé 2e forme (il eût dû/pu/été, etc.) = subjonctif plus-que-parfait



## englishman

"il pensait avec humeur que celui qui héritait d'un trône eût bien dû hériter aussi la force de s'y tenir droit"

I'm having diffilculty in translating the subjunctive bit in the sentence above.
How does this sound ?

"he thought wryly that those who inherit a throne really ought to inherit the strength to maintain it properly, as well"

Is "ought to" a good translation here ?

*Moderator note:* Multiple threads have been merged to create this one.


----------



## mapping

I'd say : ... that those who inherited a throne also inherited the strength to sit up straight (on/in it?).

Basically the author says he thinks that when one inherits a throne one also inherits the strength to "maintain it" as you rightly said, that both things go together.


----------



## babyburns

englishman said:
			
		

> Is "ought to" a good translation here ?


 
Yes, I definitely think Ought to in this sentence/context works perfectly.


----------



## Gardefeu

> I'm having diffilculty in translating the subjunctive



That's because it's not a subjunctive at all.
Although many French people wouldn't be aware of it, this is actually a _conditonnel_ form, what we call _le conditionnel passé 2° forme._
Actually, it works exactly the same way conditionnel passé 1° forme does:
_
Il aurait dû hériter = il eût dû hériter
Elle serait venue = elle fût venue
Il aurait pris = il eût pris

S'il avait su que le voyage serait si long, il eût pris le temps de choisir son horaire = il aurait pris le temps...

_


----------



## englishman

Gardefeu said:
			
		

> That's because it's not a subjunctive at all. Although many French people wouldn't be aware of it, this is actually a _conditonnel_ form, what we call _le conditionnel passé 2° forme._


Are you sure ? 

"il eût pris" looks to me like the subjunctive pluperfect of prendre, the
indicative pluperfect being "il avait pris".

If this isn't the subjunctive, why are the subjunctive verb forms being used ?


----------



## zaby

Gardefeu is right, as you can see here, "conditionel passé 2e forme" has the same conjugation form than "subjonctif plus que parfait".


----------



## englishman

OK, this is depressing. So you're telling me that even though I first started learning French more than 30 years ago, there are *still* verb forms that I've never even heard of ? Go to the back of the class, englishman, and weep, weep in your ignorance.

However, I have to say that you French people are being a little tricky here, because this "conditionel passé 2e forme" looks exactly like the subjunctive pluperfect, no ? So I guess I shouldn't be too ashamed.

The next question is: why, given the original sentence that I posted, is it not a true subjunctive ? The sentence was:

""il pensait avec humeur que celui qui héritait d'un trône eût bien dû hériter aussi la force de s'y tenir droit"

and that "que" usually throws the rest of the sentence into the subjunctive in French - so why not here ?

And finally, how does one translate the verb forms in the "conditionel passé 2e forme": what would be the usual translation of "il eût dû" ?


----------



## Gardefeu

Don't be too depressed, englishman, because as I said in my post # 5, most French people have never heard of this tense either, and will also take it for a subjunctive form. In fact, it's probably the less useful tense (and therefore the less used) in French, as there really is no difference with the passé première forme (except that it's more tricky!). Don't even bother to learn it, it's only nice to recognize it for what is, when you meet it in a very literary text. Otherwise...

In your original sentence, *que* is _une conjonction de coordination_, linking both sentences, not a subjunctive _que.
_ It's often helpful to try with other tenses;try it in the present, for example:
_
Il pense *que* cet homme devrait hériter _(see? present, conditionnel, and the *que* is still there though there's no subjunctive in sight!)_
Il pensait *que* cet homme aurait dû hériter _(same)_
or: il pensait *que* cet homme eût dû hériter

_The *que* remains throughout, because that's its grammatical function, linking both sentences...


----------



## englishman

Gardefeu said:
			
		

> it's only nice to recognize it for what is, when you meet it in a very literary text.


It's from Le Reine Etranglée by Maurice Druon - does he count as "literary" ? He certainly stretches my knowledge of French, but then Tintin stretches my knowledge of French ...



			
				Gardefeu said:
			
		

> The *que* remains throughout, because that's its grammatical function, linking both sentences...


Right. Good point. "que" is a conjunction here. To get a subjunctive, the first part of the sentence has to express doubt, possibility, desire, etc, and I agree that we don't have that in my example. But that makes me doubly innocent, since there *was* a "que", and there *was* a subjunctive form. So I think blame must be shared between me, englishman, for out-and-out ignorance, and the French language, for out-and-out trickiness. 

But you didn't answer my final question: how would one translate, say,

"il eût dû"

if it's in the conditionel passe 2e forme ?


----------



## Gardefeu

Same way as you would translate "il aurait dû", as the tense is only a duplicate of the 1° forme...


----------



## englishman

When you say it's a duplicate, do you mean that it can be used in precisely the same places as the 1° forme ? If that is true, how does one decide to use it ? To express great knowledge of French grammar ?


----------



## LV4-26

englishman said:
			
		

> When you say it's a duplicate, do you mean that it can be used in precisely the same places as the 1° forme ? If that is true, how does one decide to use it ? To express great knowledge of French grammar ?


 Spot on ! 
Seriously I'm not sure. I think nobody uses it except some writers who like to sound more "literary" or distinguished-like* than others. I also believe it was used much more often a century ago.

[…]

* but we can understand them, it's fun, isn't it?


----------



## Gardefeu

> do you mean that it can be used in precisely the same places as the 1° forme ?


I'm sorry, I thought I had made that point clear. Yes, both tenses are absolutely _interchangeables.

_


> how does one decide to use it ?


One doesn't. I thought I'm made that clear too: the tense is never ever used, except perhaps by monsieur Maurice Druon (de l'Académie Française, I believe), but I'll bet you won't find a conditionnel passé deuxième forme in Tintin!


----------



## verbivore

I've seen this in some lists of verb conjugations, but not all. It seems rather esoteric, and I'm not sure what use it really serves. In what genres of texts might one find this? It is in current usage?  Thank you.


----------



## Maître Capello

That tense is quite literary and you'll most probably never hear it. It's an alternative to the _conditionnel passé_.


----------



## itka

Verbivore, you're asking your questions in english and I don't know what is your level in french. It would be as well useful to know what use is french to you, before trying to explain such a complicate and useless tense !

Of course, if you're studying to become a teacher in french, you have to learn it... Otherwise...You'll never have to use it neither to write nor to speak french. When you read old texts, I assume you can understand the meaning since you know it's conditional...

My advice is : forget it ! There are a lot of things much much more important in french grammar. imho.


----------



## englishman

verbivore said:


> I've seen this in some lists of verb conjugations, but not all. It seems rather esoteric, and I'm not sure what use it really serves. In what genres of texts might one find this? It is in current usage?  Thank you.



Take a look at this threads:

FR: L'eût-on fait qu'elle n'eût rien voulu savoir - subjonctif plus-que-parfait à valeur conditionnelle


----------



## trancexaddict

There's an example of this in _Le Petit Prince_...

"J'aurais dû ne pas l'écouter, me confia-t-il un jour...Cette histoire de griffes, qui m'avait tellement agacé, *e**ût d**û m'attendrir*..." (25).

I'm having trouble translating that last part.....

-This story of claws, which had really aggravated me, *should have softened/touched me*? 

-And if I'm reading all your posts right, "J'aurais dû" is similar to "eût dû"?


----------



## Maître Capello

trancexaddict said:


> -This story of claws, which had really aggravated me, *should have softened/touched me*?
> -And if I'm reading all your posts right, "J'aurais dû" is similar to "eût dû"?


 You got it.


----------



## hungerfordjustice

Je lis en ce moment Le Rouge et le Noir de Stendhal, et je m'aperçois souvent des phrases qui semblent se servir du plus-que-parfait subjonctif au lieu du conditionnel passé. Par exemple:



> Elle eût sacrifié sa vie sans hésiter pour sauver celle de son mari, si elle l'eût vu en péril.



La seule traduction qui me semble possible est: "She would have sacrificed her own life ... if she had seen him in danger."  Mais pourquoi la forme "eût sacrificié" fonctionne-t-elle comme le conditionnel passé?

Je ne connais point l'usage du conditionnel au plus-que-parfait, et au début je pensais que c'était le passé antérieur jusqu'à ce que j'ai vu le circonflexe sur le "û". De toute façon, est-ce que c'est normal? Peut-être un usage littéraire?


----------



## djweaverbeaver

C'est bien l'équivalent littéraire du conditionnel passé. Le subjonctif plus-que-parfait  (ex : j'eusse parlé), est parfois appelé « conditionnel passé 2e forme », qui peut apparaître comme expression  du mode conditionnel dans des textes anciens ou littéraires.  A l'oral, on peut l'entendre très rarement pour ne pas dire jamais, mais je l'entends de temps à autre dans la phrase «Qui l'eût cru?» pour dire «Qui l'aurait cru?»


----------



## Little Star

Bonjour,

Est-ce que c'est juste si on dirait qu'elle ne s'utilise jamais dans les conversations? (j'aimerais déduire de la mettre à côté maintenant que je suis encore au début!)

Merci d'avance


----------



## Zabuha41

Le conditionnel passé deuxième forme utilise les mêmes formes que le subjonctif plus-que-parfait (certains disent même qu'ils s'agit du même temps, ça se discute). 
Il est également vrai que les deux sont rarement utilisés à l'écrit et presque jamais à l'oral (comme le subjonctif imparfait, ils prètent à sourire). Petite exception : "Le nez de Cléopâtre : s'il eût été plus court, toute la face de la terre aurait changé".
Cela dit, il est toujours bon de les connaître ;-)


----------



## Einhard

Bonjourm

Is _eût peut-être été oublié _the passive form of the passé antérieur?

Merci.


----------



## jann

Very close.   Actually, it's the passive form of the pluperfect subjunctive (or the conditionnel passé 2e forme).

It would have been the passive form of the passé antérieur if there had not been an accent circonflexe on U of _eût_.  Here's the complete conjugation of être, if you want to compare forms...


----------



## Lacuzon

Bonsoir,

Jann is right, what is the whole sentence?


----------



## Einhard

Thanks for the response. Am I correct in thinking that, in this instance, the difference between the two forms, doesn't have an effect on the translation?

The full sentence is:

_Ce fait, extrêmement grave em lui-même, eût peut-être été oublié comme tant d'autres, si, trois semaines après, il ne se fût reproduit dans des conditions identiques._

I think I'm correct in translating _eût peut-être été oublié _as "would have been forgotten", but I don't see why this tense is used rather than the past conditional? Any ideas.

Merci encore.


----------



## Maître Capello

It is indeed the past conditional II tense as suggested by Jann. It is just a literary way to say the same thing as the standard past conditional.

Anyway, your translation of that tense is correct: _eût été oublié = would have been forgotten._


----------



## djamal 2008

Bonjour;

Moi ce qui m'intrigue c'est l'emploi du subjonctif dans la deuxième partie de la phrase; je pense que le passé simple plus approprié.
Parce que trois semaines plus tard nous sommes certains de la reproduction du fait,donc l'indicatif.

Merci;


----------



## Maître Capello

djamal 2008 said:


> Moi ce qui m'intrigue c'est l'emploi du subjonctif dans la deuxième partie de la phrase; je pense que le passé simple plus approprié.


Il s'agit en fait d'un tour littéraire où le subjonctif plus-que-parfait est employé au lieu de l'indicatif plus-que-parfait. Toutes les phrases ci-après sont donc équivalentes du point de vue du sens:

_Ce fait *eût été oublié* __s'il ne se *fût reproduit*_.
_Ce fait *aurait été oublié* __s'il ne se *fût reproduit*_.
_Ce fait *eût été oublié* __s'il ne s'*était** reproduit*_.
_Ce fait *aurait été oublié* __s'il ne s'*était** reproduit*_.


----------



## Tupp

I'm reading Amélie Nothomb's "Biographie de la faim" and have come across what seems to be an example of plus-que-parfait subjunctive (seriously, who even knows how to conjugate that??) without a "que."  Can anyone explain this to me?

*Les ressortissants du Vanuatu eussent pu légitimement s'offusquer d'avoir à justifier sur un pareil sujet.*

My understanding of the sentence is: "Vanuatu nationals might legitimately have taken offence at having to justify such a subject." 

But why no "que?"


----------



## misterk

?? Where would you have expected a "que"?


----------



## Tupp

It was my understanding that subjunctive mood is always introduced by “que.”


So something along the lines of: “Bien que les ressortissants du Vanuatu eussent pu légitimement s'offusquer d'avoir à justifier sur un pareil sujet.... (with more to the sentence here)

Why not just use “auraient pu”?


----------



## Cléa715

It's not subjonctif plus que parfait, it's conditionnel passé deuxième forme (rarely used) : https://leconjugueur.lefigaro.fr/regle/conjugaison/passe_conditionnel.html


----------



## Tupp

Wow, thanks Cléa. I learnt something... won’t ever use it but always love to learn. 

The big question is why not just use “auraient pu”?  Is the second form more literary?


----------



## Maître Capello

Yes, both forms mean the same. The second is just more literary.


----------

