# FR: ne pas <verbe> + article : partitif (du, de la, de l'), défini (le, la, l', les), indéfini (un, une, des) ou "de" ?



## py389

I am a new student of the French language.  I have been taught that you should always follow ne..pas by de instead of un, une, des etc.

I wrote a little paragraph the other day for school and when I wrote: 
D'habitude, je ne bois pas de lait et je ne mange pas de fromage.

The teacher corrected it and changed it to:
D'habitude, je ne bois pas du lait et je ne mange pas du fromage.

Can someone please explain why?  Thank you.

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


----------



## Agnès E.

Bonjour py389,
Welcome to the forum!
Are you sure you did not make a mistake in copying your sentences? Because for me, the right one is... the first one, that is to say : yours !


----------



## py389

No.  I didn't make a mistake in copying.  I was puzzled by the teacher's correction and that was why I decided to come to the forum and ask.


----------



## saramar

Hi,
I'm a student of the French language too and I've learned, as you say, that in the negative form you must use always "de" instead of du, de la, des, un/e (pronoms partitifs et indéfinis)
Regards
Sara


----------



## py389

Before I "question" the teacher, can I conclude from your replies that:
D'habitude, je ne bois pas *du* lait is definitely wrong?

Can I conclude that one cannot use du, de la, de l', des after ne...pas?


----------



## Agnès E.

Yes it is definitely wrong, py389... 

As for the use of du, de la, de l', etc...

Je ne bois pas de lait
Je ne bois pas de bière
Je ne bois pas d'eau
Je ne bois pas de boissons gazeuses
Mais je bois du whisky!!!
Hehe...


----------



## Whodunit

I once had this sentence. I wrote it with "ne ... pas de" and my teacher corrected it correctly to "ne ... pas les":

Ils n'aiment pas les livres.

My teacher explained that 'aimer' mustn't be followed by "pas de". Is that true?

Sorry, if that's a little off-topic, but I once asked it in another thread where I didn't get an answer.


----------



## Agnès E.

Bonjour Who,

The difference here is that "les" is definite and "de" and others are not. The rule formerly discussed does only apply to indefinite articles (de, de la, des, du, etc.).
And your teacher was right about "aimer", but I really cannot explain why...


----------



## py389

I think you can use ne...pas followed by definite articles le, la, les.  You just can't use un, une, des, du, de la etc.

Je vois la fille qui rit.  Je mange la pomme.  Il frappe l'homme sur le dos.
Je ne vois pas la fille qui rit.  Je ne mange pas la pomme.  Il ne frappe pas l'homme sur le dos.

Didn't know about aimer.  Learnt something new again.  Thanks!


----------



## Nywoe

I have never learnt this rule, but I can definitely think of circumstances under which you can correctly use un and une....

ex.: Je ne veux pas un câlin.

So, it seems to me that there must be other specifics to the rule (such as to which verbs it applies, or to which ones it does not).

N.


----------



## fetchezlavache

i'd say 'je ne veux pas *de* câlin'.

but i'd use 'un' in :_ je ne veux pas un câlin, mais plusieurs !_


----------



## charlie2

[…]

On "ne pas ...... de" :
I think you can see sentences like :
Je n'ai pas *l*'habitude de regarder la télé.
Je n'ai pas *l*'occasion de pratiquer mon français.
I hope my understanding is correct and has not confused anyone.


----------



## jorge_val_ribera

Hello everybody!

I've got a doubt...I was learning right now that you use the partitives this way:

_Elle mange *de la *viande._
_Nous buvons *du *vin._

I've also learned that in a negative sentence, you only use *de:*

_Elle ne mange pas *de *viande._
_Nous ne buvons pas *de *vin._

So far, so good, but then I have an exercise where I have to translate this phrase: "I don't have a car".

I wrote:                       _Je n'ai pas une voiture._
But the answer reads:    _Je n'ai pas *de *voiture._

So it's like they're using "car" as an uncountable noun! Is this right or is the answer wrong?

Merci beaucoup!


----------



## Agnès E.

Je n'ai pas de chien
Mon ordinateur n'a pas de virus
Mon voisin n'a pas d'enfant
Mon père n'a pas de dent
Ma ville n'a pas de McDo (I live in Utopia)

But I'm unable to give the rule.
Let's wait for Gil's answer.


----------



## Benjy

the rule is quite simple (apart from être) the indefinite article/partative article are not conserved when negating. et voilà


----------



## jorge_val_ribera

Hi, Benjy, what do you mean by "apart from être"? Is there some special rule for être? Could you give me some examples?


----------



## Agnès E.

Je ne suis pas un chien
Mon ordinateur n'est pas un virus
Mon voisin n'est pas un enfant


----------



## Benjy

jorge_val_ribera said:
			
		

> Hi, Benjy, what do you mean by "apart from être"? Is there some special rule for être? Could you give me some examples?



heres one i hear quite often:

c'est pas du bon français ça! 

basically with être the article is conserved.

c'est pas une voiture ça c'est une poubelle 

edit:haha agnès


----------



## jorge_val_ribera

Hm...so this is harder than what I'd thought.... OK, let me recap and please tell me if I'm right.

*Without être:*
You use *de *together with the article in a positive sentence (uncountable) or just the article (countable):

_J'ai bu *du* lait._
_Tu as bu *de l'*eau._
_J'ai *une *voiture._

In negative sentences, you use the *de *without an article, even if it's a countable noun:

_Je n'ai pas bu *de *lait._
_Tu n'as pas bu *de *eau._
_Je n'ai pas *de *voiture._

*With être:*
The article is conserved:

_Je suis *un* chien. ---> Je ne suis pas *un *chien._
_C'est pas *une* voiture ça c'est *une *poubelle _(someone needs some glasses)
_C'est pas *du *bon français ça!_

Correct me if I didn't get it right.

[…]


----------



## LV4-26

You seem to have everything right jvr. […]

EDIT : sorry, there's just one thing wrong.
It should be _Je n'ai pas bu *d'*eau_


----------



## Benjy

ok. you have it just about right. but i am going to analyse in a slightly different way. if ther is one thing i have learnt about french articles it's to keep them seperate. ie don't think of them as contractions. contractions are something different.

d, de l', de la, (des) - partative article! not any combination of other articles
un/une, des - indefinite article
le/la, les - definite article

usage of the partative is often for uncountable things.
i bought some ham
j'ai acheté du jambon etc etc..

a mistake a lot of people make in my opinion is to try and conceive of the partative as "of the" ( "of the" ham in this case). in my opnion this just gets really confusing.

with negation you loose the partative/indefinite articles. they are replaced with de. apart from when it's être. the definite article is always kept.

*phew*

ps une poubelle can also mean a car in a very bad state  a banger in brE
pps i hope you don't think that i was implying that you never use the ne with être (ce n'est pas une voiture etc etc)


----------



## elroy

All the explanations that have been given have been excellent, with one tiny detail missing.

It's actually a LITTLE more complicated.

The article is maintained in negative constructions even when the verb is not être *when the following noun is modified or restricted.*

Je n'ai pas *d'*ami. (I do not have a friend - at all.)
Je n'ai pas *un * ami qui me fasse rire. (I do not have a friend who makes me laugh.)

In the second sentence, you are only saying that you do not have one specific type of friend.

Je ne veux pas *de* tarte. (I do not want a tart/pie - not one at all.)
Je ne veux pas *une* tarte que tu aies faite. (I do not want a tart/pie that you made.)

Again, the second sentence specifices a certain type of tart/pie.


----------



## Benjy

hum, since you bring it up (i wan't gonig to say anything lol) you can keep the un/une in the sense of un seul

as in j'ai pas un rond and other expressions of this type. however, the contructionthat you have used seems *really* awkward to me. but i am no where near perfect so i will wait for other peoples opinions


----------



## timpeac

Quelle expression est-ce que vous préférez ? -

Je n'ai pas d'ami qui me comprenne.
Je n'ai pas un ami qui me comprenne.

Où les deux conviennent ?


----------



## LV4-26

_Je n'ai pas d'ami qui me comprenne_ ne me pose pas de problème
_Je n'ai pas un ami qui me comprenne_ ne me convient qu'avec un gros accent tonique sur le "un"
_Je n'ai pas *un *ami qui me comprenne_
Auquel cas cette phrase se met à signifier :
_Je n'ai pas un seul ami qui me comprenne_


----------



## Agnès E.

Bonjour Tim,

Tu peux dire les deux, à mon sens, dans deux cas différents :

- Ce n'est pas parmi mes amis que je peux trouver quelqu'un qui me comprenne = je n'ai pas d'ami qui me comprenne (voix neutre, pas d'inflexion)
- Bouh que je suis malheureux, pas un seul de mes amis ne me comprend = je n'ai pas UN ami qui me comprenne (accent mis sur le UN) ; j'ajouterais même, ici : je n'ai pas UN SEUL ami qui me comprenne


----------



## Aupick

I've found a rule! I don't know if it's the same, but here it is:

-Dans une phrase à la forme négative, l'article indéfini est remplacé par _de_ : _J'ai vu *un* chat. / Je n'ai pas vu *de* chat._
Mais on conserve l'article indéfini pour souligner l'opposition : _Je n'ai pas vu *un* chat mais un chien._


----------



## OlivierG

Right, it's rather logical after all. The "un" in "un chat" means you saw a cat (and only one cat). In the negative form, you didn't see any cat (neither one nor two or more).
Note: you can also say "Je n'ai pas vu un seul chat", which means "not even one cat".

In "Je n'ai pas vu un chat mais un chien", you saw an animal (one animal), and it was not a cat but a dog.

In summary, if you are talking explicitely about one subject, you'll use "un" (j'ai vu un chat), otherwise "de" in a negative form (je n'ai pas vu de chat), or "des" for a plural affirmative form (j'ai vu des chats).


----------



## ESP

Yes, you are correct.... ne pas is followed by "de"

Je ne mange pas de gateau!
Je ne mange pas d'oeufs! 

Whether for singlular or plural.... it remains as de...

I am an American who studied in France and a French teacher.

Bon travail!


----------



## Gil

Just as a note, "ne pas" is not ALWAYS followed by "de".
[…]

Example
"Mais, ce n'est pas du lait qu'on m'a donné, c'est de l'eau"


----------



## OlivierG

Just to add some confusion , in some situations, "je ne bois pas le lait" could be correct. As Agnes explained earlier, it's a matter of definite or undefinite article.
For example:
"On m'apporte du lait et un gateau. Je mange le gateau, je ne bois pas le lait"


----------



## jaysocrates

Actually, while it is likely that the student initially posting had the correct response, there are in fact cases in which it is correct to say "pas du/des/etc." This happens when you are referring to something specific that is followed by a modifying phrase; thus the following are correct:

"Je ne veux pas de café."  (I don't want (any) coffee.)
BUT "Je ne veux pas du café que vous m'offrez. (I don't want any of the coffee you are offering me.)

"Je ne mange pas de gâteau." (I'm not eating (any) cake or I don't eat cake.)
BUT "Je ne mage pas du gâteau qui se trouve sur la table." (I'm not eating any of that cake on the table.)

A technicality, not used too often, but one should still be aware of it.


----------



## trikkinder

Hi everybody. 
I've found this sentence:
"Paul n’a pas de petite amie connue"
Why we use this construction and not instead this other one: "Paul n'a pas une petite amie connue"
There are difference in the meaning?
Thanks in advance.
Triks


----------



## lemonjelly

You can't say "Paul n'a pas une petite amie connue".

He has no girlfriend = Il n'a pas de petite amie​
He has a girlfriend  =  Il a une petite amie

Je n'ai pas de voiture.
Je n'ai pas d'argent.
Je n'ai pas de chance.

However you can find some expression such as : Il n'a pas une (seule) chance de s'en sortir.

When you ask a question you must use the definite article : As tu une petite amie?


----------



## Cyrrus

Yes, there's a difference.
In the first one, we assume that Paul has no girlfriend
 In the second one, it could mean : Paul has a girlfriend, but she's not famous.


----------



## geostan

While your second sentence is not one I would say, one could argue that the first one indicates mere absence, while the second one suggests that he has more than one known girl friend.

Cheers!


----------



## RJW

Hello

can someone help me, I am having trouble understanding the partitive article when using  e.g. aimer or using negation.

_J'aime la tarte aux oranges, mais ils n'ont pas ..... tartes_

thanks


----------



## marget

Bonjour and welcome to the forum!
In general, the partitive article changes to de in the negative, but the definite article, which is used with aimer, does not change, even if the verb is negative.


----------



## tilt

Marget is right:

_Au supermarché, je cherche *du* beurre et *du* lait.
-> Chez le boucher, je ne cherche pas *de *pain ni *de *beurre, mais *du* boeuf.

Ils ont *des *tartes.
-> Ils n'ont pas *de *tartes, mais ils ont *du* gâteau.
_


----------



## jann

> I am having trouble understanding the partitive article when using e.g.aimer or using negation.


Marget mentioned this above, but I just want to make sure it's clear... 

If you are using _aimer_ to make a general statement, "I like X" then you don't use the partitive!
_J'aime la glace, j'aime la plage, j'ai aimé le film, etc_
I like ice cream, I like the beach, I liked the movie, etc.

But if you use _aimer_ as way to make a request, "I would like some X" then you do use the partitive.
_J'aimerais de l'eau, s'il vous plaît._
I would like some water, please.

This is because the partitive is for indicating part of something.  You like ice cream (any ice cream, all ice cream) --> no partitive.  But you aren't asking for all the water in the world; you only want "some" water, part of all the water that exists --> partitive.

The opposite of "some" is "not any."  Thus a sentence that takes the partitive in the positive uses just _de_ in the negative:
_Ils ont des tartes --> Ils n'ont pas de tartes._
They have (some) pies --> They don't have any pies.

There is one notable exception to the "use _de_ instead of the partitive in the negative" rule:  when you are identifying something with _être_.
_Ce n'est pas du vin, c'est de l'eau !_
It's not (some) wine, it's (some) water!

Notice how you're not saying that there isn't any of the misidentified substance.  You're not saying, "it isn't any wine."  Instead you're saying that the "some" of the substance you do have isn't wine, it's water.  So you use the partitive even in the negative.

Many people find this article helpful.


----------



## tilt

jann said:


> There is one notable exception to the "use _de_ instead of the partitive in the negative" rule:  when you are identifying something with _être_.
> _Ce n'est pas du vin, c'est de l'eau !_
> It's not (some) wine, it's (some) water!


I'd say the rule involved here is more general than only using _être_.
_Du _is kept despite the negative sentence when the partitive refers to a specific "part of something", and not any part of it.
This rule works with any verb.

For example, you may say:
-> _Je ne bois pas *de *vin_, which means you never drink (any) wine,
But also:
-> _Je ne bois pas *du *vin_, which means what you're currently drinking is not wine.

In a sentence with _être_, like in _ce n'est pas du vin_, the subject (_ce_) refers to something specific (here the content of a specific glass or bottle), and then the partitive has to remain _du_.


----------



## DT4

Je viens de voir quelquechose qui dit que après pas un/une/du/de la/de l' deviennent de. Est-ce que c'est le cas avec les autres négations ex ne...rien, ne...jamais et caetera ?


----------



## Odyssée

Je ne comprends pas grand chose. Donc quelques exemples où "l'" ne devient pas "de" :
"je ne veux pas *le* voir maintenant"
"ce n'est pas *un* idiot"
"vous ne voulez pas *de* pain ?"


----------



## Gargamelle

Here's the rule as I memorized it in high school (and didn't understand until grad school).

"After the negative, the indefinite (un, une, des) and the partitive (du, de la, de l') become de, except in sentences with être."

What the @#*%$ does that mean?

OK, I think you know what the indefinite articles are. The partitive (de+definite article) means "some" of a singular thing that can't be counted. (If you're familiar with this term, the partitive is "some" of a mass noun.)

examples: *du* sucre (some sugar, you normally don't count sugar)
*de la* farine (some flour, normally you don't count flour)
*de l'ail* (some garlic, normally you don't count garlic)

In *most* negative sentences, the du, de la, and de l' turn into "de" after the pas (or the jamais or whatever). So....

Je n'ai *pas de* sucre.
Il n'emploie *jamais de* farine.
Vous ne voulez *pas d*'ail.

Two important exceptions...
If the main verb in the sentence is être, you do not change the partitive article to de.

So you would say (if you take your coffee black)

"Je *ne* voudrais *pas de* sucre."
*but* if you saw someone absent-mindedly putting salt in his coffee, you would say

Attention! Ce n'*est *pas *du *sucre, c'est du sel!

Or if someone asks if you're a student, (and you're not)  you would say,
"Je ne *suis* pas *un(e)* étudiant(e)."

The other exception is with ne...que.  You don't change the partitive with ne...que because ne...que is restrictive.  That means that it doesn't totally wipe out the sugar or salt or whatever grammatically, it just limits how much you have.  You still have *some*, so you still use the partitive.

Example:
"Avez-vous *du* sel et *du* sucre?"
"Non, je *n'ai que* *du* sucre."


Sorry the examples are so lame...I couldn't think of anything interesting.

It takes awhile to get it...bonne chance! (Really)

Gargamelle


----------



## edla

I'm just wondering what form the partitive takes with nouns modified by an adjective in a negative construction.  I.e. est-ce que c'est 

je n'ai pas bu *du* lait chaud   *ou*
je n'ai pas bu *de* lait chaud?

I'm learning all about 'de' at the moment and this is the one thing which remains unclear.  Merci d'avance!


----------



## Fred_C

Hi,
I have written a post recently about the preposition DE, and the articles, and I had left out the negative part.

So here is the remainder :
In negative sentences, the form of the articles (when direct object only) is :
Definite : "Le, La, Les". (unchanged)
Indefinite : "De, De, De" (instead of "Un, Une, Des")
Partitive : "De, De, De" (instead of "du, de la, des")

The affirmative form of your sentence is :
"J'ai bu du lait chaud" (partitive article), if you put it in the negative, it becomes : "Je n'ai pas bu de lait chaud".
It has nothing to do with the adjective.

You can transform other sentences using the above rule :

J'ai vu un lapin (indefinite) -> Je n'ai pas vu de lapin
J'ai écouté la radio -> Je n'ai pas écouté la radio
j'ai pris des vacances (partitive) -> Je n'ai pas pris de vacances.
J'ai préparé de la colle (partitive) -> Je n'ai pas préparé de colle.

This rule does not explain the use of verbs that need the prepositon "de" like "avoir besoin de" or "avoir envie de", though.

I hope this is useful...


----------



## darras

Hello edla, It appears that "de" is used when the noun can be preceded by "aucun(e),aucune quantité de", as in "Il n'y a plus de vin; Il ne fait pas de fautes" (Source: Grevisse).
"Du" is used if the object takes a more restricted meaning, as in oppositions for ex.,as in "Ils n'ont pas utilisé du béton, mais du bois."
It's a ticklish point: let's not lose heart!


----------



## va08

how do you change Nous faisons de la photographie to the negative?


----------



## itka

_Nous faisons de la photographie ---> nous ne faisons *pas de* photographie._


----------



## janpol

Tilt, je n'opposerais pas "tartes" à "gâteau" car je range les tartes dans la catégorie des gâteaux "tout court", sauf, bien sûr, si elles sont aux oignons ou aux poireaux. Par ailleurs, je serais tenté de mettre "gâteau" au pluriel. J'opposerais la tarte, gâteau  aux fruits, à une sorte de gâteaux très différente : "ils n'ont pas de tartes mais ils ont DES gâteaux au chocolat/DE magnifiques gâteaux au chocolat.


----------



## tilt

Je t'accorde que _tartes _étant au pluriel, il eut été assez logique que _gâteau _le soit aussi. Mais pour le reste, tu chipotes !


----------



## Rory Melough

Also, could someone clarify what a partitive negative object is with an example. Thank you.


----------



## Fred_C

The object of the verb is for example "du vin" in the sentence
"je bois du vin".
If the sentence is negative, it becomes "Je ne bois pas *de* vin",
because "de" is the form of the partitive article when it is the _object_ of a negative sentence.
"de" is also the *feminine* partitive negative object article.
Je renverse *de la* farine -> Je ne renverse pas *de* farine

Same for the indefinite article :
"Je vois un chien" -> "Je ne vois pas de chien".
Je mange une grive -> Je ne mange pas de grive.
This true also in the plural :
Je plante des clous -> Je ne plante pas de clous.

It works only if the article is part of the object. Not when it is attribute :
"Je suis un petit malin" -> "Je ne suis pas un petit malin". (un remains un because it is not object, but attribute)


----------



## Mademoiselle_Nathalie

Bonjour,
J'ai des questions concernant des articles.

1. Pourquoi l'article DE est dans la première phrase, et l'article DES est dans la deuxième phrase?
Je ne fais pas DE dépenses.
Je ne fais pas DES dépenses inutiles.

2. Pourquoi l'article DE est dans la première phrase, et l'article DE LA est dans la deuxième phrase?
Je ne mange pas DE viande.
Je ne mange pas DE LA viande tous les jours.

3. Pourquoi l'article D' est dans la première phrase, et l'article DES est dans la deuxième phrase?
Vous n'avez pas D'amis.
N'avez vous pas DES amis?

Merci d'avance
Cordialement,
MN


----------



## Thomas1

Bonjour Nathalie,

Voici mes réponses :

1. D'habitude on met de dans la négation s'il remplace l'article indéfini où partitif. Cependant, il y a des exceptions. Si l'on veut mettre l'accent sur la négation, on peut laisser "des". En d'autres termes, la négation n'est pas absolue, elle est partielle. Donc, la deuxième phrase dit que quelqu'un ne fais pas des dépense inutiles, mais généralement, il les fait. Par exemple : il paie des factures de gaz/ d'électricité (des dépenses pas inutiles).

2. C'est une situation pareille :
Je ne mange pas de viande. négation est absolue
Je ne mange pas de la viande tous les jours. négation est partielle, on mange de la viande, par exemple, tous les trois jours.

3. Vous n'avez pas d'amis. exposé des faits (négation absolue)
N'avez vous pas des amis? question, on demande quelqu'un s'il a des amis.


----------



## jolieaimee

On offre pas de fleurs à homme.

For the `de fleurs’ here, fleurs is plural, I could not understand why not using plural –des?
Thanks!


----------



## Donaldos

In a negative sentence _des_ is usually replaced by _de_.

_J'offre *des* fleurs.
Je n'offre pas *de* fleurs._​


----------



## Alphonso2728

aux phrases négatives il faut changer les articles partitifs de "de la, du, etc." à "de" mais ce que je me demande est si l'on doit faire le même aux questions négatives.

Ne donnes-tu pas de leçons particulières?

ou

Ne donnes-tu pas des leçons particulières?



Merci de votre aide.


----------



## snarkhunter

_Tu donnes des leçons particulières._

mais :

_Tu *ne* donnes *pas* de leçons particulières._

Toutefois, sur le mode _interro-négatif_, il me semble que les deux seraient à considérer comme corrects.


----------



## Fiddledeedee

I totally agree with snarkhunter.

That said, I'd more naturally say "Ne donnes-tu pas _*de*_ leçons particulières?".


----------



## iguy

Quand transforme-t-on l'article *des* en *de*? J'ai cru qu'après chaque phrase négative il faut changer les articles indefinis et les articles partitifs (du, de la, de l', des, un, une ,des) en de. 

eg J'ai des pommes.
Je n'ai pas de pommes.

Mais 'Il faut porter *des *bijoux' change en 'ne portez pas *des* bijoux', pourquoi?

Merci!


----------



## Maître Capello

_Ne portez pas *des* bijoux_ est possible dans certains contextes, mais généralement on dit : _Ne portez pas *de* bijoux._


----------



## Dediteach

Hi!  Please can you clarify the use of de in negative sentences.  I understand that when it means some/any then you can only use de or d' in a negative sentence eg je n'ai pas de pommes, je n'ai pas mangé de poisson etc but when the de does not mean some or any do the normal rules apply? For example, je n'ai pas écouté de la musique (not de musique) or je n'ai pas fait de la natation (not de natation)?
Merci d'avance.
Also, if you say 'je n'ai pas écrit une lettre de ma tante' - should it  actually be de lettre?   And 'je n'ai pas bu une tasse de thé' - should  that be 'de tasse de thé'?


----------



## Oddmania

Hi,

I would say _Je n'ai pas écouté de musique_,
_................__Je n'ai pas fait de natation_,
_................__Je n'ai pas écrit de lettre,_
_................__Je n'ai pas bu de tasse de thé_...

If you keep the structure of an affirmative sentence (_de *la *musique, *une *lettre, *une *tasse,..._) then it sounds like you purposely repeat the sentence in order to set the record straight and make sure the person you're talking to understands what you mean.

_— Est-ce que tu as écrit une lettre à ta tante?
— Non, je n'ai pas écrit une lettre, j'ai écrit trois lettres!_

Here, you couldn't say _Je n'ai pas écrit de lettre_. You must specify _une lettre_ (otherwise, it would amount to saying _I didn't write *any* letter, I actually wrote three letters_, which doesn't make much sense).

You know, it's much like the Present Perfect Continous tense. It's hardly ever used in a negative sentence. Even though you could say_ It's been raining for 3 days_, it would sound strange to say_ It hasn't been raining for 3 days_ (it's much more common to say _It hasn't rained for 3 days_). If you use the Present Perfect Continous, then it sounds like you intentionally repeat a affirmative sentence : _"You're wrong, it hasn't been raining for 3 days: it's been raining for 3 hours"._


----------



## Gary123

Hi all,

I have a question regarding what follows a negative in French.  I have seen a thread on this previously but  cannot find it, sorry!  

We were always taught in school that after a negative, the following article becomes _de_, the exception being if the verb was être.

eg. 
J'ai un crayon >>  Je n'ai pas de crayon.  

But this doesn't seem correct to me in some circumstances.  For example, _je ne joue pas de foot_ doesn't seem correct to me, or is it?

The sentence I was actually thinking about was with vouloir:
Je voudrais une pizza.
Je ne voudrais pas de pizza / je ne voudrais pas une pizza.

Is that difference that when using _de_, you say that you would not like _any _pizza whereas _une _suggests that you don't want _a_ pizza?

Thanks in advance for your help!


----------



## jann

Gary123 said:


> We were always taught in school that after a negative, the following article becomes _de_, the exception being if the verb was être.


 You misremember every so slightly.  You need to know a little more about the nature of the article. 

The *definite* article is not affected by negation; not even when it's part of a contracted form like _à + le = au_.  Hence no replacement with _de_ for sentences like "I don't play soccer."

But you remember correctly that the *indefinite* article and the *partitive* article become _de_ unless you're 
(a) identifying something with _être _(examples), 
(b) negating/correcting the quantity (example), the direct object (example), or the adjective that describes the subject complement (example) rather than the verb itself
(c) emphasizing "not a single one" with an expression like _pas un seul_ (example)
(d) in a negative interrogative (example)

Your pizza sentence could fall into category (b) depending on your intended meaning (e.g., wanting pizza vs. wanting stromboli, wanting a slice vs. wanting a whole pizza, wanting one pizza vs. wanting two pizzas, etc.)  But if the distinction is just the basic one between wanting vs. not wanting, you'll need _de_ in the negative.

[…]


----------



## ride7359

Aupick said:


> Dans une phrase à la forme négative, l'article indéfini est remplacé par _de_ : _J'ai vu *un* chat. / Je n'ai pas vu *de* chat._
> Mais on conserve l'article indéfini pour souligner l'opposition : _Je n'ai pas vu *un* chat mais un chien._



What if you don't mention the thing in opposition?

For example.  Today I am not wearing jeans; I am wearing a skirt.  Can I say *Je ne porte pas un jean *even if I don't go on to say*Je porte une jupe ?  *Does using the indefinite article suggest that I am wearing something other than jeans?  

Now that I think of it, does *Je ne porte pas de jean* mean that I am wearing nothing over my _culotte_?


----------



## Oddmania

ride7359 said:


> Can I say *Je ne porte pas un jean *even if I don't go on to say* Je porte une jupe ?*Does using the indefinite article suggest that I am wearing something other than jeans?



It sounds okay to me  



ride7359 said:


> Now that I think of it, does *Je ne porte pas de jean* mean that I am wearing nothing over my _culotte_​?



No, because the word _jeans _is specific enough. On the other hand, _Je ne porte pas de pantalon_ is much more likely to be understood as _I'm not wearing anything over my underpants / I'm not wearing pants._ 

Language is not an "exact science", though. I can definitely imagine a situation where a girl would be talking to her boyfriend on the phone, saying _"Je ne porte pas de pantalon"_. Her friend could ask _"Tu es nue ?!" _and then she would cool him down saying _"Non. Je porte une jupe"_. You can perfectly play with this ambiguity.

Note that _Je ne porte pas de jean_ might be understood as a habit: _I (usually) don't wear jeans._

If a friend of mine made a compliment on my "jeans" (which actually aren't jeans), and I wanted to correct him (however unfriendly it might sound!), I would say (in order of preference):

.....1. _Ce n'est pas un jean que je porte.
_.....2. _Je ne porte pas de jean*, là* _(= "maintenant").
.....3. _Je ne porte pas un jean._


----------



## Elusive Eleven

Bonjour à tous,


Pourriez vous m'expliquer la difference entre ces deux phrases [en ce qui concerne l'article defini et partitif en negation]
 parce que je ne suis pas sure si les deux signifient la meme chose?


example:

1] Je n'ai pas d'eau courante
2] Je n'ai pas l'eau courante

3] Je n'ai pas de farine
4] Je n'ai pas la farine


Merci beaucoup!


----------



## Nino83

C'est une règle grammaticale. 
Quand il y a une négation on ne utilise pas _du, de la, des_ mais simplement _de_. 
Quand on dit _Je n'ai pas l'eau courante_, il signifie qu'il n'y a pas un aqueduc qui porte l'eau dans votre maison. 
_Je n'ai pas de farine_ est la phrase exacte.


----------



## janpol

Les phrases 2 et 3 sont correctes.
L'eau courante" est une expression figée.


----------



## Polilotte

Je n'ai pas *de* l'eau courante, but "Je n'ai pas de farine" (in general)


*avoir l'eau courante* -have running water _- neg. n'avoir pas de l'eau courante;_


----------



## snarkhunter

Hello, and welcome to this forum!

I'm afraid the previous replies are _mainly_ correct, but still deserve some extra bits of information.

_"1] Je n'ai pas d'eau courante" _may be considered correct if that means you usually do, but it's not working at the moment. Otherwise (i.e. if it's a permanent condition), option <2> is needed.

_"4] Je n'ai pas la farine"_ should be basically wrong... unless we're talking about some specific use for said flour.

For instance (_"... to cook that cake you asked me to."_).


----------



## silica

Hi! I came along this question today:

Moi, je ne veux pas ___ vin mais ____ eau.

The given answers are *du*, *de l'*, i.e.: _Moi, je ne veux pas du vin mais de l'eau_.

I was wondering if it were acceptable to say_ je ne veux pas *de* vin_, _mais de l'eau_ instead?


----------



## atcheque

Bonjour,

Actually, _du vin_ or _de vin_ are *both *correct _depending the meaning_.

_du : de le_, definite article (*the *_wine_) ;
_de _: indefinite article (_wine_).

I was not so clear. So:
Yes we are talking about partitive.
_du _: some of the wine ;
_de _: some of wine.

I have hesitated to write _that wine (the one we are dealing with: definite article_), so as not to develop the discussion around the demonstrative.


----------



## Maître Capello

atcheque said:


> _du : de le_, definite article (*the *_wine_) ;
> _de _: indefinite article (_wine_).


I beg to disagree. In this context _du_ is *not* the contraction of the preposition _de_ with the definite article _le_. Both _du_ and _de_ are indeed *partitive articles*. In other words, both _*du* vin_ and _*de* vin_ mean "(some) wine".

When there is a negation, the partitive article _du_ usually becomes _de_. It is however possible to keep the original article when there is an opposition.

_Je veux *du* vin._ (partitive article)
_Je ne veux pas *de* vin._ (partitive article changed to _de_ because of the negation)
_Je ne veux pas *du* vin._  (usually not appropriate, but may be used in some contexts)
_Je ne veux pas *de* vin, mais *de l'*eau._
_Je ne veux pas *du* vin, mais *de l'*eau._ (original partitive article maintained to insist on the wine/water opposition)


----------



## Gargamelle

I also beg to disagree with atcheque (for the most part) and agree with Maître Capello.


atcheque said:


> Actually, _du vin_ or _de vin_ are *both *correct _depending the meaning_.
> _du : de le_, definite article (*the *_wine_) ;
> _de _: indefinite article (_wine_).





> I have hesitated to write _that wine (the one we are dealing with: definite article_), so as not to develop the discussion around the demonstrative.



I think atcheque is wise not to develop discussion around the demonstrative ("this" or "that")

The *opposition* between (some) wine and (some) water is what determines whether you use "Je ne veux *pas de* vin" and "Je ne veux pas *du vin,* mais de l'eau." You don't want (some of) one drink, instead you want (some of) another drink.



Maître Capello said:


> In this context _du_ is *not* the contraction of the preposition _de_ with the definite article _le_. Both _du_ and _de_ are indeed *partitive articles*. In other words, both _*du* vin_ and _*de* vin_ mean "(some) wine".
> 
> When there is a negation, the partitive article _du_ usually becomes _de_.** It is however possible to keep the original article when there is an opposition. […]
> _ Je ne veux pas *du* vin, mais *de l'*eau._ (original partitive article maintained to insist on the wine/water opposition)



It should be noted that it is highly unlikely that you would ever encounter a context where you would absolutely need to use _"Je ne veux pas *du* vin, mais *de l'*eau._" It's also unlikely that if you were to say "Je ne veux pas *de* vin, mais *de l*'eau" that someone would correct you in real life. This is a very fine point of grammar that _may_ come up on an very difficult exam, but almost never on a day-to-day basis. When using negation, it is safest to say to say "pas de [noun]" because "pas du [noun]" is, as Maître Capella says, "usually not appropriate."

The take-away: if the opposition between, for instance (some) water and (some) wine is really important, _"Je ne veux pas *du* vin, mais *de l'*eau_" is very correct (très soutenu). But in almost all situations, "Je ne veux *pas de* vin" is fine, while "Je ne veux *pas du* vin" is incorrect. Err on the side of "*pas de* [noun]."


----------



## AnneSoSFO

jaysocrates said:


> "Je ne veux pas du café que vous m'offrez. (I don't want any of the coffee you are offering me.)
> "Je ne mage pas du gâteau qui se trouve sur la table." (I'm not eating any of that cake on the table.)



Hello, since no one commented on this post I wanted to make sure that y'all knew it was incorrect...

"Je ne veux pas du café que vous m'offrez." would be "Je ne veux pas *le café* que vous m'offrez." because with the defining of the coffee being the one that you offered me, it becomes definite/ defined so to speak and thus needs a definite article.

Same exact thing with "Je ne mange pas du gâteau qui se trouve sur la table." It should be "Je ne mange pas * le gâteau* qui se trouve sur la table."

Hope that's helpful! Cheers


----------



## geostan

Welcome to the forum.

Are you sure about that? To me the sentence means I don't want any of *the* cake that is on the table. It has been specified, so it is definite. The same logic applies to the first sentence. I think the use of _*du*_ is correct in both cases.

Cheers!


----------



## Maître Capello

Geostan is correct: Jaysocrates's sentences are fine. Even more so, they are more appropriate than your own suggestions, AnneSoSFO, as there is a nuance between _vouloir qqch_ and _vouloir *de* qqch_, respectively _manger qqch_ and _manger *de* qqch_.

_Je ne veux pas *du* café que vous m'offrez._ 
_Je ne mange pas *du* gâteau qui se trouve sur la table._


----------



## mavemax

elroy said:


> The article is maintained in negative constructions even when the verb is not être *when the following noun is modified or restricted.*


hello - ELROY is right -
I've got one question however : when you talk about 'modified' and 'restricted', is that also the case with just one adjective ...?
eg  J'ai un velo. --> je n'ai pas de velo.
mais : j'ai un velo vert  --> je n'ai pas un velo vert  OR  je n'ai pas de velo vert ??
merci


----------



## geostan

I would say Je n'ai pas de vélo vert. I would only say un vélo vert if I were contrasting it with a colour I do have.


----------



## ipman1608

Moi j'ai appris que dans une construction infinitive on a le choix entre "de" et l'article indéfini, est-ce correct ?

Donc on peut dire "Il n'a pas pu trouver une solution" ou bien "Il n'a pas pu trouver de solution"


----------



## Maître Capello

Les deux sont possibles, mais _de_ est plus naturel pour moi.


----------



## linda_evangelista

Trop d'enfants ne prennent pas de petit-déjeuner.
Est-ce que c'est correcte de dire 'ne pas *de*' ou est-ce qu'il faut que j'écrive 'trop d'enfants ne prennent pas *le* petit déjeuner'?

Merci d'avance


----------



## jann

hi Linda,

It sounds like your context is some sort of health survey results.  In that situation, both options are grammatically possible.

If you use "le," there's a slight orientation towards the action/habit (of not eating breakfast), whereas if you use "de," there's a slight orientation towards the quantity of food eaten for breakfast (none, not eating _any _breakfast).  Generally speaking, the definite article is probably more frequent.


----------



## Maître Capello

Both options are indeed possible, but _de_ sounds much more natural to me.


----------



## manbrasil

Hi!
I would like to know the difference between the negation with "pas le" and with "pas de" in these examples.

So, in these cases, what's the difference between
"Nous n'avons pas l'eau courante / l'electricité / le gaz de ville / le chauffage"
and
"Nous n'avons pas d'eau courante / d'electricité / de gaz de ville / de chauffage"

Thank you so much in advance!


----------



## Maître Capello

In those examples, the definite article implies that running water, electricity, etc. is not *installed* at your place, maybe because you are living in a hut lost in the woods.

The partitive implies that running water, electricity, etc. is not *working* at your place, maybe because of maintenance work or a temporary shortage.


----------



## jacques songo'o

I was wondering if there is any way an indefinite article "des" can remain "des" in the negative to express something specific like you can with "du" and "de la"?

I know it seems like an oxymoron as indefinites are non specific , but I've seen the following sentences on linguee.fr.


Je n'ai plus des maux de tete

Je n'ai plus des infections aux sinus qui m'affaiblissaient à tous les trois mois.


Can the above translate as "the" or "(not) any of the"+noun?


----------



## OLN

Both sentences sound wrong and were certainly not written by French native speakers.
You cannot use _de_ (du, de la) as you would in "Je ne veux pas du café que vous m'offrez" or in the positive sentence "Je veux bien du café que vous m'offrez".

1.-"Je n'ai plus des maux de tete"
Je n'ai plus *de* maux de t*ê*te. J'ai encore *des* maux de tête. (indefinite)​Je n'ai plus *les* maux de tête dont j'ai souffert pendant des années. J'ai toujours* le *mal de tête que j'avais hier. (definite article)​2.- "Je n'ai plus des infections aux sinus qui m'affaiblissaient à (sic) tous les trois mois"
Je n'ai plus* les* sinusites qui m'affectaient tous les trois mois (definite article) or simply : Je ne souffre plus de sinusite tous les trois mois.​​


----------



## Maître Capello

While I agree the second sentence is clearly not written by a French native, the first would certainly not be impossible, although it would be more common to use _de_ instead of _des_.

_Je n'ai plus *de* maux de tête_.​_Je n'ai plus *de/des* maux de tête tous les soirs / lorsque je bois de l'alcool_.​
By the way, in the second sentence you could also use _de_ (or the indefinite article if you tweak the sentence a bit):

_Je n'ai plus *les* sinusites qui m'affectaient tous les trois mois._​_Je n'ai plus *de* sinusites*,* qui m'affectaient tous les trois mois._​_Je n'ai plus *des* sinusites comme j'en avais autrefois._​


----------



## OLN

I'm not sure I understand the question « Is there any way an indefinite article "des" can remain "des" in the negative to express something specific like you can with "du" and "de la"? ».
What would be the affirmative forms using the specific "du/de la" if not partitive?

By the way: 


jacques songo'o said:


> Can the above translate as "the" or "(not) any of the"+noun?


No.
_I don't have *the* headaches any more _(specific ones): You'd have to say _Je n'ai plus_ _*les* maux de têtes 
I don't have *the* sinus infections/headaches I used to have_: _Je n'ai plus *les* sinusites/*les *céphalées dont je souffrais.

I do*n't* have *any of the* pills I used to take: Je *n'*ai (plus) *aucun des* comprimés que j'avais l'habitude de prendre. _
des = de (préposition)+les


----------



## jacques songo'o

OLN said:


> _I do*n't* have *any of the* pills I used to take: Je *n'*ai (plus) *aucun des* comprimés que j'avais l'habitude de prendre. _
> des = de (préposition)+les




I think the problem is I am confusing the contraction of "de" and "les" with the indefinite article "des".

So if I wanted say "I don't have any of the pills" in reply to "avez-vous les comprimés(que je vous ai donnés?)

Would it not be possible to say

"je n'ai pas des comprimés". 

If possible, I'm not sure if the above is a contraction of "de+les" or the indefinite article "des".

Quote Reply


Maître Capello said:


> While I agree the second sentence is clearly not written by a French native, the first would certainly not be impossible, although it would be more common to use _de_ instead of _des_.
> 
> _Je n'ai plus *de* maux de tête_.
> _Je n'ai plus *de/des* maux de tête tous les soirs / lorsque je bois de l'alcool_.



Is the "des" above a contraction of "de"+"les"?



Maître Capello said:


> By the way, in the second sentence you could also use _de_ (or the *indefinite article* if you tweak the sentence a bit):
> 
> _Je n'ai plus *les* sinusites qui m'affectaient tous les trois mois._​_Je n'ai plus *de* sinusites*,* qui m'affectaient tous les trois mois._​_Je n'ai plus *des* sinusites comme j'en avais autrefois._​



Why is an indefinite article possible in the final sentence? If this isn't a contraction of "de"+"les", what would the direct translation for this sentence be?

Thanks in advance for any responses and previous replies.


----------



## Maître Capello

jacques songo'o said:


> Is the "des" above a contraction of "de"+"les"?


No, in all those examples, _des_ is the indefinite article, not the contraction of the preposition _de_ with the definite article _les_.



jacques songo'o said:


> Why is an indefinite article possible in the final sentence? If this isn't a contraction of "de"+"les", what would the direct translation for this sentence be?


Both articles are possible in this case but _des_ seems more natural than in other examples, although I'm afraid I can't tell why… The meanings are however the same:

_Je n'ai plus *de/des* sinusites comme j'en avais autrefois._ → I no longer have sinusitis as I used to have in the past, i.e., unlike in the past.


----------



## Locape

jacques songo'o said:


> So if I wanted say "I don't have any of the pills" in reply to "avez-vous les comprimés (que je vous ai donnés?)
> Would it not be possible to say
> "je n'ai pas des comprimés".


That would be 'I don't have pills', 'any' would be 'aucun' : (non) 'je n'en ai aucun', or 'je n'ai aucun des (_de + les_) comprimés (que vous m'avez donnés)


----------



## declaum

Bonjour !

In #22, it is said that:


elroy said:


> The article is maintained in negative constructions even when the verb is not être *when the following noun is modified or restricted.*
> 
> Je n'ai pas *d'*ami. (I do not have a friend - at all.)
> Je n'ai pas *un * ami qui me fasse rire. (I do not have a friend who makes me laugh.)



On the other hand, in another thread (Ça ne coûte pas un/de gros effort) it said that

"ça ne coûte pas *un* gros effort" and
"ça ne coûte pas de gros efforts"

are both possible.

I don't understand how "ça ne coûte pas de gros efforts" is possible if "efforts" is modified by "gros". Thus, I also don't get if there is any difference in meaning between the pair. Could somebody help me out? 

Merci d'avance !


----------



## Bezoard

In "ça ne coûte pas un gros effort", _effort_ is singular, while in "ça ne coûte pas de gros efforts", _efforts_ is plural. The meaning is however nearly the same.
Use of "de" before an adjective modifying a noun is regular.
_J'ai une belle jambe / je n'ai pas une belle jambe
J'ai de belles jambes / je n'ai pas de belles jambes._


----------



## declaum

Merci, Bezoard. After reading your answer, plus #36, and #83, I understand that, despite the rule laid out in #22, the indefinite article isn't necessarily maintained when only an adjective modifies the noun, even if the adjective comes after the noun. According to the mentioned previous posts, for example, all of these clauses are possible, depending on meaning and context:

1) Paul n’a pas de petite amie connue. (Paul has no girlfriend)
2) Paul n'a pas une petite amie connue. (Paul has a girlfriend, but she's not famous.)

3) Je n'ai pas de vélo vert (if I don't have any bikes)
4) je n'ai pas un velo vert (contrasting it with a colour I do have)

But how about in this passage from Le petit prince (context: the little prince asks for a drawing of a sheep and, instead, is offered the drawing of an elephant inside a boa constrictor):

"- Non ! Non ! Je ne veux pas d'un éléphant dans un boa." (I don't want an elephant inside a boa)

Is the indefinite article used here because "dans un boa" restricts "éléphant" or for some other reason? And is another construction possible or is the only grammatically correct one in this context (because of the general rule in #22 that states that: "The article is maintained in negative constructions even when the verb is not être *when the following noun is modified or restricted*")? For example, would:

"- Non ! Non ! Je ne veux pas d'éléphant dans un boa." (I don't want any elephant inside a boa - meaning I don't want any elephant at all)

also be possible? Finally, why?

I was expecting this last construction, since the little prince asks for the drawing of a sheep, and therefore I presume he doesn't want the drawing of any kind of elephant.


----------



## Locape

declaum said:


> 1) Paul n’a pas de petite amie connue. (Paul has no girlfriend)
> 2) Paul n'a pas une petite amie connue. (Paul has a girlfriend, but she's not famous)


Here it means totally different things because of the two meanings of _connu _(_known _and _ famous_), but the meaning will be slightly the same with another adjective like _intéressante_.


declaum said:


> 3) Je n'ai pas de vélo vert (if I don't have any bikes)
> 4) je n'ai pas un velo vert (contrasting it with a colour I do have)


If you don't have any bike, you're more likely to say _Je n'ai pas de vélo_, except maybe in a sentence as: 
- Tu me prêtes ton vélo vert ?
- Je n'ai pas de vélo vert. D'ailleurs, je n'ai pas de vélo du tout.


declaum said:


> "- Non ! Non ! Je ne veux pas d'éléphant dans un boa." (I don't want any elephant inside a boa - meaning I don't want any elephant at all)
> 
> I was expecting this last construction, since the little prince asks for the drawing of a sheep, and therefore I presume he doesn't want the drawing of any kind of elephant.


I agree with you, otherwise if he says _Je ne veux pas d'un éléphant dans un boa_, you would expect he would like another animal inside a boa. I'm wondering if it's not just an emphasis in spoken language.


----------



## declaum

Merci beaucoup, Locape !

Allow me to insist on one previous question: would "- Non ! Non ! Je ne veux pas *d*'éléphant dans un boa." also be possible, or would it not as a consequence of the rule laid out in #22? In other words, do I have to use the indefinite article because éléphant is modified by "dans un boa"?


----------



## Terio

Je ne veux pas d'un éléphant dans un boa stand for Je ne veux pas que tu me dessines un éléphant dans un boa: He doesn't want him to draw an elephant inside a boa. (He wants him to draw a sheep).

Je ne veux pas d'éléphant dans un boa would means : In a boa, I don't want an elephant. Maybe he wants something else, maybe he does't want anything at all.


----------



## Maître Capello

elroy said:


> The article is maintained in negative constructions even when the verb is not être *when the following noun is modified or restricted.*
> 
> Je n'ai pas *d'*ami. (I do not have a friend - at all.)
> Je n'ai pas *un * ami qui me fasse rire. (I do not have a friend who makes me laugh.)





declaum said:


> despite the rule laid out in #22


There is no such rule. At best, it is only a tendency. As a matter of fact, I would much more naturally say, _Je n'ai pas *d'*ami qui me fasse rire_.

To me, the difference is as follows:

_Je n'ai pas *d'*ami qui me fasse rire._ → I don't have *any* friends who make me laugh.
_Je n'ai pas *un* ami qui me fasse rire._ → I don't have *a single* friend who makes me laugh.


----------

