# EN: c'est amusant que vous m'écriviez aujourd'hui



## pimpampoum

Bonjour,
je cherche a traduire 'c'est amusant que vous m'écriviez aujourd'hui', mais je ne suis pas sure de la concordance des temps...si je dis 'it is funny that you wrote me today', c'est correct? (il me semble que non, vu qu'il y a présent et passé dans la meme phrase...)


----------



## envie de voyager

'it is funny that you wrote me today' sounds fine.  The tenses are different because you *are* talkng about something that *happened*.


----------



## Iznogoud

Couldn't it be : _It's funny that you should write me today._


----------



## mysterio626

Je dirais que… 
-- 'C'est amusant que vous m'écriviez aujourd'hui'
va traduire en anglais comme: “It's funny that you are writing to me today." Puisque vous utilisez le présent du subjonctif dans la phrase subordonnée, je crois qu'il est donc nécessaire d'utiliser le présent de l'indicatif ('is/are writing') en anglais. Mais, attention, bien que le verbe dans la phrase subordonnée soit au subjonctif en français, ce verbe en anglais est TOUJOURS à l'indicatif.
-- Mais (cas n1), si votre correspondant va vous écrire qqch., on dirait en anglais: “It’s funny that you’ll write to me today.” Bien qu'on utilise le futur de l'indicatif en anglais, gardez le présent du subjoncitf en français.
-- Mais (cas n2), si votre correspondant vous avait déjà écrite, vous utiliseriez le passé du subjonctif: “It’s funny that you wrote to me today.” Dans ce cas, il faut dire "C'est amusant que vous m'ayez écrit aujourd'hui.”


----------



## pimpampoum

Je comprends très bien le cas 2, (et vous avez raison, il vaut mieux dire 'c'est amusant que vous m'ayez écrit aujourd'hui' plutot que 'vous m'écriviez')

Par contre je ne vois pas dans quel cas on utilise le cas 1, car si mon correspondant va m'écrire _a priori_, c'est incertain, donc j'utilise le conditionnel ('it would be funny if you were writing to me')
Comment traduiriez vous 'It’s funny that you’ll write to me today'?


----------



## david314

Iznogoud said:


> Couldn't it be : _*It's funny* that you should write me today._


  That's excellent English.


----------



## francais_espanol

david314 said:


> That's excellent English.


 
I agree (I would vote for Iznogoud's suggestion)


----------



## mysterio626

Je vois le problème; mais de toute façon, j’utiliserais, “It’s funny that you’re writing to me today.”
Il y a de petites differences entre: “It’s funny that you will write to me today” (P1) et “It’s funny that you should write to me today.” (P2) Mais, les deux phrases sont un peu bizarres. D’abord, P1 donne l’image que vous savez que votre correspondant va vous écrire qqch mais que votre correspondant ne sait pas qu’il va le faire. P2 donne l’image que vous trouvez le fait qu’il vous écrive extraordinaire. Par exemple, “It’s funny that you should write to me today even though we got into a tremendous argument last night.” (Despite the extraordinary circumstance of our quarreling, you still had the nerve to write to me….etc. etc.)
Pour la plupart, en anglais, on garde le présent (ou passé) de l’indacatif avant et après le pronom relatif “que” / “that” avec la formule "c'est....que" or "il est....que". Si les circonstances sont un peu extraordinaires et on veut se servir de cette formule, on utilise le conditionnel apres "que". 
voici mes pensées…


----------



## FAC13

I don't agree that P1 means the correspondent doesn't know they are going to write in the future, but I think this phrase isn't a valid translation of the original text anyway.

I don't think "that you are writing" is much better because, as has already been said, the speaker is talking about something that has *happened*.

Like other contributors, I much prefer P2, this is indeed excellent English. I think it might be described as a pseudo-subjunctive - a construction which is rarely used but which is lovely when used appropriately.

In my opinion the original doesn't express amazement, it just notes an ironic coincidence, something which "It's funny that you should write" captures perfectly.


----------



## pimpampoum

je me fie a la majorité, 'it's funny that you should write me' me va très bien.

Est ce que cette formule se décline pour tout? 
Par exemple, est-ce qu'on peut traduire 'je suis contente que vous aimiez' par 'I'm happy that you should like it'? ou 'je suis surprise que vous partiez' par 'I'm surprised that you should leave'? ...


----------



## david314

pimpampoum said:


> je me fie a la majorité, 'it's funny that you should write me' me va très bien.
> 
> Est ce que cette formule se décline pour tout? I'm afraid not.
> 
> 
> 
> Par exemple, est-ce qu'on peut traduire 'je suis contente que vous aimiez' par 'I'm happy that you should like it'?
> 
> 
> 
> ou
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'je suis surprise que vous partiez' par 'I'm surprised that you should leave'?  ...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 I think that's right, but I can't say why.


----------



## Dsimson

Something else, pimpampoum said "write me" (I don't mind the tense) but mysterio said "write to me. What's the difference ?


----------



## Tim~!

^^ 
The usage without "to" is curiously American.

In BrE, we keep the sense that the letter (direct object) is written to somebody (the indirect object).  When we wish to say "écris-moi!", we keep in mind that because the direct object is the letter, we should keep say "Write (a letter = direct) to me!"

For some reason, the American usage is to allow 'write' to be doubly transitive (using two direct objects).


----------



## jann

> For some reason, the American usage is to allow 'write' to be doubly transitive (using two direct objects).


No Tim, that's not quite accurate.   There are definitely not two direct objects when you say "please write me a letter," and the word "me" is definitely still an indirect object even if we sometimes drop the "to" and say "please write me."  If "me" is understood as a direct object, then the "Please write me" means "Please write the word _'me.'_"

It is true that in American English we sometimes drop the "to" before the indirect object of the verb "to write," even when the direct object is not stated.  However, we by no means do this all the time... and I distinctly remember thinking as a child that "please write me" sounded very wrong and didn't make sense because we obviously meant "please write to me."


----------



## Tim~!

^^

Rephrase then: "For some reason, the American usage is to allow 'write' to _appear_ doubly transitive" 

I think the difference is that we (the non-US) maintain the presence of the 'to' that indicates the indirect object even when we drop the direct object, so "When you get a moment, write to me", even though our regular word order would be "When you get the time, write me a letter".

(I'm not mentioning the word order which means that we can drop the 'to' if both objects appear and the indirect precedes the direct; that is universal.)

We're not perfectly consistent though, since we'd think it perfectly fine to say "If you're busy, you can tell me later", where we drop the 'to', and leaving it in there would make it appear that we didn't have English as our first language. 

I'm so glad that I never had to learn English


----------



## Fred_C

Hi,
What about those :
Send me a parcel,
Ask me a question,
Tell me a lie.


I cannot believe they are all American usage. (correct me if I am wrong)
My guess is that it is common to omit the to for the attribution complement, and for the precise example of "to write", British English for some reason
 does not consider the destinee of the letter to be a complement of attribution.
Perhaps it is a phenomenon that shows that some kind of disjunctive/non disjunctive pronouns opposition can appear in English, like in French, to some extent.

(For "ask me a question" it might be a really doubly transitive verb, though. Something completely different, that is.....)


----------



## jann

Fred, when BOTH the direct AND the indirect object appear in the sentence, we often drop the "to" before the indirect and this is by no means unusual or specific to American usage.  But when the direct object is ommitted, and only the indirect object appears, we are more likely to include the "to"... as a function of the verb. 

And for the verb "to write" in particular, the is a small difference in usage between BE and AE:  specifically, American usage occasionally drops the "to" before the indirect object, but British usage doesn't.  Remember, we are only talking about sentences where the direct object is unstated.

I think we're beginning to stray a bit far from the original topic of this thread from post#1, but the matter of English object placement is interesting.  If you want to discuss it further, or in reference to other verbs besides "to write," please open a new thread! 


PS.  ask a question to me  --> ask a question *of* me, ask me a question, ask me, ask it


----------



## FAC13

david314 said:


> I think that's right, but I can't say why.



I agree, I'm struggling too.  

In my post I described "that you should" as pseudo-subjunctive because it seems to me that that it is the mood it most closely resembles. 

Pimpampoum's question is very interesting because it is basically: "So, do you use the subjunctive in these examples too?" to which David314's answer is (correctly) "No, not in both, but I'm not sure why".

I was hoping others would jump in and comment but the thread has gone in a different direction.


----------

