# FR: c'eût été



## narufe

Hello.
This may be a really daft question so apologies in advance. I was wondering how 'c'eut été' would be translated in this sentence:

"Sans les franchises, c’eut été un déficit supplémentaire"

Is this a past-historic (passé simple) carrying a conditional sense? If so is that usual? Finally, the sentence was reported speech, again, is a structure like 'c'eut été' usual in a spoken context?
Any help much appreciated.
Thanks


----------



## avenger26

Hi Narufe,
To my (limited) knowledge, this "c'eut été" is not a 'passé simple' but a 'passé antérieur' and yes, it carries a conditional sense (without = if not). I think you are also right in assuming that in spoken laguage 'c'eut été' sounds very formal, and 'cela aurait été' seems more likely to me.
Bonne chance!
avenger26


----------



## narufe

cheers. That's helpful.


----------



## jann

Actually, I wonder if it wasn't supposed to be _c'e*û*t été_.  

This would be the past conditionnal 2nd form, which is synonymous with the standard conjugation of the past conditional (_ça aurait été_) = "it would have been".


----------



## narufe

The article didn't have the cirumflex, but perhaps it was just a typing error. In that case would, or should, c'eut été (as a passé antérior) ever have a conditional sense?


----------



## jann

> In that case would, or should, c'eut été (as a passé antérior) ever have a conditional sense?


I'm not a native speaker, so I might be mistaken, but the passé antérieur is a tense in the indicative mood, so I don't see how it could ever take on conditional meaning (the conditional is a separate mood entirely).

The passé antérieur is used to indicate something that happened _before_ another event, when this other event is itself expressed in the passé simple.   In this sense, the relation between the two is like passé composé vs. plus-que-parfait.  So I guess if the previous few sentences use the passé simple to tell you that exemptions were made then this sentence could refer to the condition of things before those exemptions had been granted...


----------



## narufe

thanks. I think some long over due revision is needed on my part! C'eut just seemed unusual to me particularly in spoken speech... It's from a speech by Sarkozy, and having googled it have found an example of it where it is written _e*û*t_. The quotation as I originally saw it is:
 «Qui peut dire que ce n’est pas nécessaire ? Sans les franchises, c’eut été un déficit supplémentaire. C’est ça la vérité, il faut la regarder en face»
Thanks for help, especially with tense/moods.


----------



## Fred_C

avenger26 said:


> Hi Narufe,
> To my (limited) knowledge, this "c'eut été" is not a 'passé simple' but a 'passé antérieur' and yes, it carries a conditional sense (without = if not). I think you are also right in assuming that in spoken laguage 'c'eut été' sounds very formal, and 'cela aurait été' seems more likely to me.
> Bonne chance!
> avenger26


Hi,
No, it is not a passé antérieur.
It is a conditional past tense (second form), equivalent to "cela aurait été". 
Some grammars may say that it is a subjunctive pluperfect, that carries a conditional meaning. It is only a matter of convention, but no grammar on earth will claim it is a passé antérieur tense in the indicative.

The correct spelling for this form is c'eût été with a circumflex, whereas there is no circumflex in the passé antérieur, but it is certainly a typo.

Here is the conjugation for the conditional past second form (it is exactly like the subjunctive pluperfect)
J'eusse été
tu eusses été
il eût été
nous eussions été
vous eussiez été
ils eussent été.

whereas the passé antérieur is conjugated like :
J'eus été
tu eus été
il eut été
nous eûmes été
vous eûtes été
ils eurent été.


----------



## narufe

Thanks. Is the conditional past second form usual in spoken French? Indeed, is it something commonly found in written French? I assume it's fairly formal...


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

narufe said:


> Thanks. Is the conditional past second form usual in spoken French? Indeed, is it something commonly found in written French? I assume it's fairly formal...


 
You're right. This form is no more used in spoken French and less and less found in present texts.


----------



## Fred_C

narufe said:


> Thanks. Is the conditional past second form usual in spoken French? Indeed, is it something commonly found in written French? I assume it's fairly formal...



This conditional is based on a subjunctive pluperfect, and is used as often as a subjunctive pluperfect (or imperfect) in French.
That is : It can only be found in texts, only in certain forms, only with certain verbs.

The verbs must be irregular (no ER verbs, no regular IR verbs, their use in the imperfect subjunctive sounds ridiculous to a French ear)

It must only be used if the conjugation ends in the sound I, U, or possibly "ISSE" or "USSE".

This explains why you found "ç'eût été", it was in a speech written for Mr Sarkozy, the verb is "to be", an irregular verb, and the conjugation ends in the sound "U", which does not sound ridiculous to a French ear.


----------



## lrosa

Hi,

I'm reading a contemporary French novel at the moment which contains multiple uses of this use of "eût", which at first seemed jarring to me since, when I look it up in the dictionary, it is revealed to be the imperfect subjunctive conjugation of _avoir_. Can I accept that "eût" in this context always carries a conditional sense, that it is a formal equivalent of the more logical "aurait"? Just some examples:

"La fenêtre, au bout du hall, m'aspira comme l'eût (aurait?) fait le hublot brisé d'un avion."
"Je ne songeai même pas qu'il eût (aurait?) fallu me présenter à la réception."

In reading through the book, I gradually picked up that it must somehow have a conditional meaning, but it still makes little sense to me... It seems to me that _avoir_ is the only verb that can be used in this way. Any inspired explanations?


----------



## Thomas1

Hi,

This _eût _form is by definition le subjonctif plus-que-parfait. The conditional nuance is its additional trait. So the meaning of it may varry according to what it actually is.

For instance:
Bien qu'il eût fallu fermer la porte à clé avant le départ, on ne le fit pas.
Even though it was necessary to lock the door before leaving, it was not done.

So briefly, no êut, and by extension le subj-p.p., doesn't always carry the conditional sense.


----------



## Maître Capello

lrosa said:


> "La fenêtre, au bout du hall, m'aspira comme l'eût (aurait? ) fait le hublot brisé d'un avion."
> "Je ne songeai même pas qu'il eût (aurait? ) fallu me présenter à la réception."





> It seems to me that _avoir_ is the only verb that can be used in this way. Any inspired explanations?


The verbs in your examples are *not* _avoir_, but _faire_ and _falloir_ respectively; _avoir_ is the *auxiliary* used to construct these pluperfects…

Here is another example with _être_ as auxiliary:
_Je ne doutai pas qu'il *fût* parti plus tôt s'il l'avait pu._


Thomas1 said:


> This _eût _form is by definition le subjonctif plus-que-parfait. The conditional nuance is its additional trait. So the meaning of it may varry according to what it actually is.





> For instance:
> Bien qu'il eût fallu fermer la porte à clé avant le départ, on ne le fit pas.
> Even though it was necessary to lock the door before leaving, it was not done.


No. There *is* a conditional meaning in your example—it would be translated to:
_Even though it *would have been* necessary…_

Here is a better example:
_Bien qu'il eût fermé la porte à clef avant de partir, un cambrioleur parvint à s'introduire chez lui._


----------



## Thomas1

Maître Capello said:


> [...]
> No. There *is* a conditionnal meaning in your example—it would be translated to:
> _Even though it *would have been* necessary…_
> 
> Here is a better example:
> _Bien qu'il eût fermé la porte à clef avant de partir, un cambrioleur parvint à s'introduire chez lui._


Thanks for pointing this out.  I guess what I wanted to say _even though it was necessary to lock.._.
woud be
_Bien qu'il fallût fermer..._
right?


----------



## Maître Capello

Thomas1 said:


> I guess what I wanted to say _even though it was necessary to lock.._.
> woud be
> _Bien qu'il fallût fermer..._
> right?


Correct, but you would need to change the end of the sentence… 

“_Bien qu'il fallût fermer la porte à clé avant le départ, on ne le fit pas._” is correct from a grammatical standpoint, but it doesn't mean anything!


----------



## lrosa

Maître Capello said:


> The verbs in your examples are *not* _avoir_, but _faire_ and _falloir_ respectively; _avoir_ is the *auxiliary* used to construct these pluperfects…
> 
> Here is another example with _être_ as auxiliary:
> _Je ne doutai pas qu'il *fût* parti plus tôt s'il l'avait pu._



Thanks! So this peculiarity only works with the auxiliaries _avoir_ and _être_, as I understand it...


----------



## Maître Capello

lrosa said:


> Thanks! So this peculiarity only works with the auxiliaries _avoir_ and _être_, as I understand it...


Well, you're right, but only because there are no other auxiliaries in French!


----------



## itka

> Well, you're right, but only because there are no other auxiliaries in French!


 mdr !

Don't worry about these forms : just replace them by the "conditionnel present" and you'll get the meaning.
_"Sans les franchises, c’*eût été* un déficit supplémentaire"  
 = "Sans les franchises, cela *aurait été* un déficit supplémentaire" _(as jann said).

_"Je ne doutai pas qu'il *fût* *parti* plus tôt s'il l'avait pu".
= "Je ne doutai pas qu'il *soit parti* plus tôt s'il l'avait pu"._


----------

