# FR: died of hunger



## clarr002

Hi everyone, first post on WR.com 

In grammar lessons we've been learning about verbs which traditionally take _être _and when they should take _avoir _

Do here's my question: Should this sentence read either:

(a.) Les soldats sont morts de faim avant nôtre arrivée

(b.) Les soldats ont mort de faim avant nôtre arrivée

Would it b (b.) because 'nôtre arrivée' is a direct object?  Or am I completely wrong and 'nôtre arrivée' is in fact an indirect object? Thanks everyone


----------



## mnewcomb71

I am unsure about where the direct of indirect object comes in.

A direct object is who or what did something and an indirect object is to whom (what) or for whom (what) was the action done.

So, "notre arrivée" is neither who or what was done nor for whom or what (to whom or what) it was done.

Answer A is correct but note that "nôtre"  is incorrect.  It should be "notre" because it is describing "arrivée" and is not a pronoun.


----------



## jann

Welcome Clarr002! 

I understand your question.  You probably learned that some _être_ verbs occasionally need _avoir_ instead when they have a direct object.  It sounds to me like you need a little more detail for this rule to be helpful! 

First off, there is no "future perfect" here.  
The soldiers died (preterit = _passé composé_) of hunger before our arrival.  
If you wanted a future perfect (_futur antérieur_) you would need to say, "They will have died before we arrive." 

Second, _notre arrivée _is not a direct object.  In fact _mourrir_ can never have a direct object, because you can't die "something" or die "someone," you just plain "die."  Verbs that cannot have objects are called "intransitive."  _Mourrir_ will always be conjugated with _être_.

The rule your teacher taught you applies to _être _verbs that are intransitive in some situations and transitive in others, depending on what you want to say.  _Descendre_ is a classic example.

When _descendre_ is intransitive it means "to descend" or "to go down(stairs)" or even "to get off (of)."  You don't descend something, you just descend.  There is no direct object.  The verb takes _être_.
_Je suis descendu(e) à la cave_ = I went down to the wine cellar.
_Je suis descendu(e) à la gare Montparnasse_ = I got off at Montparnasse station.

If you take something down or lower it out, you can also use _descendre_, but this time it is transitive because that thing you move is the direct object, and now you must use _avoir_.
_J'ai descendu les valises = _I brought/took the suitcases down.
_J'ai descendu la table du grenier_ = I brought/took the table down from the attic.

This page contains more helpful examples, as does this one and part 3 on this page.
Also there are a few threads on the forums that might be interesting, including these two:

FR: auxiliaire être ou avoir - monter
FR: passer - auxiliaire avoir ou être


----------



## geostan

jann said:


> In fact _mourrir_ can never have a direct object, because you can't die "something" or die "someone," you just plain "die."  Verbs that cannot have objects are called "intransitive."  _Mourrir_ will always be conjugated with _être_.



I'm sure you know it's mourir. It's just that you spelled it the same way twice.


----------



## radagasty

jann said:


> Second, _notre arrivée _is not a direct object. In fact _mourrir_ can never have a direct object, because you can't die "something" or die "someone," you just plain "die." Verbs that cannot have objects are called "intransitive." _Mourrir_ will always be conjugated with _être_.


 
I wonder if cognate objects are permitted in French, e.g., _to die a gruesome death._


----------



## Maître Capello

radagasty said:


> I wonder if cognate objects are permitted in French, e.g., _to die a gruesome death._





jann said:


> In fact _mourir_ can never have a direct object, because you can't die "something" or die "someone," you just plain "die."


There is one exception. Although _mourir_ is usually intransitive, it can be transitive if the direct object is a cognate object as hinted by Radagasty, i.e., _mort_ or a synonym, e.g., _Il mourut une mort atroce._


----------



## geostan

Maître Capello said:


> There is one exception. Although _mourir_ is usually intransitive, it can be transitive if the direct object is a cognate object as hinted by Radagasty, i.e., _mort_ or a synonym, e.g., _Il mourut une mort atroce._



I'm curious to know why you used the passé simple rather than the passé composé. Might it be because _il a mort une mort_ is unthinkable?

Cheers!


----------



## Maître Capello

geostan said:


> I'm curious to know why you used the passé simple rather than the passé composé. Might it be because _il a mort une mort_ is unthinkable?


That's right!


----------



## radagasty

I was reading the introduction _Les conciles de la réforme _earlier to-day, and I came across the parenthetical remark

_et il mourut trente-six cardinaux sous le seul règne de Jules II_

which I interpreted as

_trente-six cardinaux moururent sous le règne de Jules II_

What, though, is the function of _trente-six cardinaux _in the original sentence? Was this a transitive use of _mourir_?


----------



## Maître Capello

radagasty said:


> What, though, is the function of _trente-six cardinaux _in the original sentence? Was this a transitive use of _mourir_?


Yes it is. But this is a another special case because the subject is impersonal (_il_) as in _il fait beau_ or _il pleut_…


----------



## viera

Maître Capello said:


> There is one exception. Although _mourir_ is usually intransitive, it can be transitive if the direct object is a cognate object as hinted by Radagasty, i.e., _mort_ or a synonym, e.g., _Il mourut une mort atroce._


I think that mourir is always intransitive. 
_Il mourut *d'*une mort atroce._ This sounds more natural to me.

It works fine with the passé composé too:  Il est mort d'une mort atroce.


----------



## Maître Capello

viera said:


> I think that mourir is always intransitive.


Nope!  See Grevisse's comment:


> Certains verbes qui se construisent normalement sans complément  d’objet direct reçoivent parfois un complément d’objet direct qui représente la  même idée que le verbe. On appelle souvent ce complément objet interne. Tantôt on trouve dans le  complément la forme même du verbe : _Je veux vivre ma vie__.__ Jouer gros jeu. __Faut-il mourir une mort qui n’est plus utile à  personne ?_ (Maulnier, _Jeanne et les juges_, VII.) Tantôt la parenté du verbe et du  complément est sémantique, mais non formelle : _Pleurer toutes les larmes de son corps. Dormir son dernier sommeil._





viera said:


> _Il mourut *d'*une mort atroce._ This sounds more natural to me.
> It works fine with the passé composé too:  Il est mort d'une mort atroce.


 Your examples are correct, but it doesn't mean mine were not!  In fact I think mine are a bit more literary than yours…


----------



## radagasty

_Il mourut trente-six cardinaux_ _sous le règne de Jules II._



Maître Capello said:


> Yes it is. But this is a another special case because the subject is impersonal (_il_) as in _il fait beau_ or _il pleut_…


 
Could I then replace _trente-six cardinaux_ with a direct-object pronoun, e.g., _il les mourut sous le règne de Jules II_ or _il en mourut trente-six sous le règne de Jules II_?


----------



## Maître Capello

_Il les mourut sous le règne de Jules II_  → _Ils moururent sous le règne de Jules II_ 

_Il en mourut trente-six sous le règne de Jules II 
_


----------



## radagasty

Maître Capello said:


> _Il les mourut sous le règne de Jules II_  → _Ils moururent sous le règne de Jules II_


 
Explanation?

Doesn't this suggest that _trente-six cardinaux_ is not in fact the direct object in the original sentence and therefore the verb intransitive?


----------



## Maître Capello

radagasty said:


> Doesn't this suggest that _trente-six cardinaux_ is not in fact the direct object in the original sentence and therefore the verb intransitive?


I should have written _Il *les* mourut sous le règne de Jules II_  → _Il *en* mourut sous le règne de Jules II_   (or: _Ils moururent sous le règne de Jules II_ )

The _en_ is necessary because the direct object of _il meurt _(impersonal) has to be a *given number* or *some quantity*:

_Il mourut trente-six cardinaux.
__Il mourut beaucoup de cardinaux.
Il mourut un grand nombre de cardinaux.
Il mourut les cardinaux. _


----------



## radagasty

Thanks for that explanation. It makes perfect sense. Is this a particular instance of a more general rule, or does it only apply to the verb _mourir_?


----------

