# FR: passé composé / passé simple



## Petrie787

I'm new at French (in my first semester of college) but im interested to learn more. Can someone try to explain the difference of these two tenses to me. I've tried to research them a little bit but the subtleties are often overlooked in explanations.

For example, to say "I saw the girl yesterday" in the passe compose one woudl saw something along the lines of "J'ai vu la fille hier." How would I translate that using the passe simple.... but more importantly, why make the distinction and why would one be better or worse in a situation?

Long question but thanks 

[*Moderator note*: several threads merged to create this one]


----------



## Tayllc

To my understanding the passe simple has the same meaning as the passe compose but the verbs are conjucated differently (No auxillary verb -avoir or etre, plus other major differences) . In my experiences I have never heard anyone speak using the passe simple . I have only read it in historical books. The passe simple may be used in some very formal circumstances such as a political sermon as well. So the bottom line is passe simple is used in formal circumstances and the passe compose is normal, everyday talk. Often you will be required only to recognize the passe simple- not speak or write it. So: different conjugations with the same meaning and a formal emphasis when using the passe simple. Hope this helps!

(simple) Il vit = he saw
(compose) Il a vu =he saw

Je vis la fille heir =I saw the girl yesterday

http://french.about.com/library/weekly/aa122999.htm here's a quick overview of the passe simple


----------



## Stefan Ivanovich

Petrie787 said:


> "I saw the girl yesterday" ... How would I translate that using the passe simple.... but more importantly, why make the distinction and why would one be better or worse in a situation?


_Passé simple_ would be _Je vis la fille hier_.
The simple rule is_ Never use the_ passé simple _unless you are writing a novel_.
It is never ever used in speech any longer. It's simply a thing of the past!
There are so few simple rules in French, one should enjoy this one. 

Stef


----------



## Mateo34

Passé simple is often used (if you are writing a novel ) when you describe an action that occurs in the past.
For example, "je vis une fille" (often) implies that you can add "à ce moment là" in the front or at the end of the sentence: "à ce moment là, je vis une fille…"


----------



## Enitram

In written language, using the "participe passé" creates a link between the past (when the event occured) and the present.
using the "passé simple" is talking about the past, with no link with the present. 

La tour Eiffel a été construite en ? - (and it's still there, in the landscape)

La tour Eiffel fut construite en ? - (you are just talking about the time when it was built).

I'm not sure modern writers make the distinction...

Martine.


----------



## Le Bélier

J'ajoute tout simplement que même qu'on n'emploie pas le passé simple pour la parole quotidienne, on le voit de temps en temps dans les journaux, les revues, et d'autres narratives. Si je ne me trompe pas, en anglais on l'appelle quelques fois _narrative past_, n'est-ce pas?


----------



## Qcumber

Petrie787 said:


> For example, to say "I saw the girl yesterday."


 
_Le passé composé_ and _le passé simple_ belong to two different narrative frames: respectively to the present narrative frame and the past narrative frame. [I use the term "frame" because these are not tenses, but tense sets with a past, a present and a future.]

1) If the sentence is in direct speech (like yours), it belongs to the present narrative frame, so your verb will be translated in _le passé composé_.
*He saw the girl yesterday.*
*= Il a vu la fille hier. / Hier, j'ai vu la fille.*

2) In a novel written in the past narrative frame (most novels are), you'll find _le plus-que-parfait_ de l'indicatif.
*He had seen the girl the day before.*
*= Il avait vu la fille la veille. / La veille, il avait vu la fille.*

3) If, in the present narrative frame, you use the present progressive, you'll have _le présent_ in French. This present refers to a segmental event. [A segmental event can be represented as a segment on the axis of time.]
*From there, Josh can see the girl chatting with her (girl) friend.*
*= De là, Josh peut voir la fille en train de bavarder avec sa copine.*

4) In the past narrative frame, _le présent_ (segmental) is replaced by _l'imparfait._
*From there, Josh could see the girl chatting with her friend.*
*= De là, Josh pouvait voir la fille en train de bavarder avec sa copine. *

5) If, in the present narrative, you use the present simple, then you'll have _le présent_ in French. In this case, the English tense and the French tense refer to a punctual event. 
[A punctual event is an event that can be represented as a point on the axis of time.]
*Josh takes a snapshot and goes away.*
*= Josh prend un cliché et s'en va.*

6) If you transfer this sentence into the past narrative frame, you'll have to use the preterit in English and _le passé simple_ in French. 
*Josh took a snapshot and went away.*
*= Josh prit un cliché et s'en alla.*

In brief, _le passé simple_ is the equivalent in the past narrative frame of _le présent_ in the present narrative frame when they refer to punctual events.


----------



## übermönch

It is obvious that this tense, passé simplé, is a literate one, most tutors want us to forget about as it is supposedly useless anyway and because we will be able to identfy it in books anyway with deductional methods. However, what I would like to ask is wether it really is completely unspoken - what I mean to ask is wether isn't used even by the most erudite bonhommes discussing Schoppenhauer on the highest imaginable niveau. Is it completely inacceptable use a shorten "Nous avons rencontré Francoise... to "Nous rencontîmes Francoise..." for instance or, at least, to use it in formal sentences when talking to bureaucrats or about history? ("Napoleon conquerit l'europe")


----------



## Rjunosuke

That's correct, judging by my experience. I've never heard a native speaker say something in passé simple. I also watch modern French cinema and I can't think of a time someone uttered sth in PS (unless they were quoting Balzac or sth ). I spot it from time to time in the papers, but never in conversations.
I don't think this depends very much on one's education; for example, I'm a student of philosophy from Slovenia (Slavic nation) and sometimes we discuss Schoppenhauer, but, like other Slovenians, we're completely neglecting the plusquamperfekt, which has been practically dead for some time now, like the French PS.


----------



## polaire

Rjunosuke said:


> which has been practically dead for some time now, like the French PS.


I believe that the passé simple is still alive and well  in literary and historical writing. 

Unlike in English, which does not have such a tense, when you come across the ps in French, it immediately signals that the writing is supposed to be of a certain level, formality, authority.  It's a useful tense (once you can read it easily.  )


----------



## Punky Zoé

The passé simple isn't very common in every day speech, we do use it mainly when telling a story (or history)

Another reason for not using it, maybe, is that, although it's name, it's not simple : "nous *rencontrâmes* Françoise" and "Napoléon *conquît* l'Europe" . But these sentences would sound weird or pedantic for native speakers.


----------



## Nil-the-Frogg

I do use it.  Not, often though, and I generally trigger frownings when I do so. I don't consider myself as a "young, very educated, highly literary person using unusual tenses when speaking to other members of his or her little group. These would be the kind of people who can quote poetry and first lines (incipits) off the top of their heads.", by the way. Far from it.


----------



## polaire

Nil-the-Frogg said:


> I do use it.  Not, often though, and I generally trigger frownings when I do so. I don't consider myself as a "young, very educated, highly literary person using unusual tenses when speaking to other members of his or her little group. These would be the kind of people who can quote poetry and first lines (incipits) off the top of their heads." Far from it.



I have the impression that people outside the kind of group I described would sound precious or pretentious.  (I'm sure you're not.)


----------



## Rjunosuke

Sorry, polaire, I wasn't clear enough. I know it's still used in literature and in historical writing (& in papers, like I said), I was concentrating mainly on the communication in everyday life.


----------



## ChocolateLover

Bonjour tout le monde,

Pouvez-vous me explicez la differance entre la "passe compose" et la "passe simple" s'il vous plait? 

Is it true that the simple past tense is hardly ever used and that it is really formal?

Merci


----------



## Monsieur Hoole

You'll get lots of different answers on this one - there seems to be a great variety of opinion, even amongst francophones.  I'll make a few observations that *generally* hold up.

1) passe simple is usually only used in written French, and usually fairly literary writing at that, however there are lots of exceptions. (I've heard it used in news bulletins on the radio, for example)

2) if in doubt, you're better off using the passe compose.

3)  you never combine the two.  use one or the other.

Hope this helps.  I'm sure there'll be plenty of other opinions.

M.H.


----------



## joueurdebasson

The passé simple can also be used in formal speeches and addresses.  When studying the passé simple, it is more important to be able to recognize it than it is to be able to form it, unless you intend on writing novel in French.


----------



## mnewcomb71

To make things simpler people...don't worry about the passé simple until your professor instructs you on it.  You will have enough to worry about with the other verb tenses.

You will never, ever have to use the passé simple outside of the classroom unless you are a professional translator or author; however, you will have to recognize it.


----------



## itka

I completely agree with Monsieur Hoole and with mnewcomb71, and I think their answers should be inscribed in golden letters at the top line of this forum !


----------



## JoeSouthern

I was just wondering why when ever I recieve a reply to a post the responder always uses passe simple in their answer rather than passe compose.

Is this any more formal or what???

Thank You


----------



## Franglais1969

The past historic is generally the equivalent of the passé composé, but in a literary sense.

If you are writing a book, or maybe an essay, (depending on your instructions), it will be done in the past historic.


----------



## mtmjr

Un ami français a relu mon compo et il m'a conseillé d'employer le passé simple dans certains cas.  Je ne l'était jamais enseigné à l'école, alors, c'est un peu bizarre...  J'ai lu ce temps dans les histoires, mais est-ce qu'on l'utilise dans les rédactions?  Voici les cas de mon compo:

_La guerre entre la France et l'Algérie a plongé le monde dans une noirceur qui *touchait/toucha* chaque pays._

_Mais, à cause de la guerre, ce qui devait être une visite heureuse et chaleureuse *était/fut *plutôt angoissante et dangereuse._


----------



## cropje_jnr

L'emploi du passé simple dans un tel contexte est tout à fait plausible, à mon avis, mais il faut noter qu'il n'est généralement interchangeable qu'avec le passé composé ; il est normalement fautif de s'en servir afin de remplacer l'imparfait, comme dans tes exemples.

Dans ta première, l'usage du passé simple me semble logique dans le cas du verbe "plonger" (plongea), accompagné de l'imparfait (toucher - "touchait").


----------



## mtmjr

Puis, est-ce je devrais utiliser le passé composé dans la première?


----------



## cropje_jnr

A mon avis il est possible d'utiliser soit le passé composé soit le passé simple, mais uniquement pour le verbe "plonger" - je préférerais garder "touchait" à l'imparfait.


----------



## mtmjr

En parlant avec lui, il a dit quelque chose à l'effet de: "You can mix passé composé with the present and you can mix passé simple with the imperfect."  Bien sûr, je ne l'avais jamais entendu...  De quoi est-ce qu'il parle?


----------



## samlibere

Il parle de la concordance des temps


----------



## mtmjr

Oui, je le comprends, mais ça m'étonne bien parce que mes profs ne me l'ont jamais enseigné.  Alors, le passé simple est-il très courant?  Si en fait, c'est une règle de grammaire, pourquoi est-ce que les cours de français évitent souvent le passé simple?


----------



## itka

Le passé simple n'est pas *très* courant. C'est aujourd'hui un temps réservé à l'écrit qu'on n'est jamais obligé d'employer et c'est sans doute pourquoi tes professeurs ne te l'ont pas encore enseigné.

Dans tes phrases, le passé simple changerait le sens. Lorsque tu utilises l'imparfait, tu décris une situation. Si tu emploies le passé simple (ou le passé composé) tu fais de ces éléments le centre de ton récit, ce qui serait, il est vrai, plus normal ici.

_La guerre entre la France et l'Algérie *plongea* le monde dans une noirceur qui *toucha* les deux pays._

_La guerre entre la France et l'Algérie* a plongé* le monde dans une noirceur qui a *touché* les deux pays._

Le passé simple repousse l'action dans le temps et permet de la considérer comme un processus entièrement terminé. Le passé composé, bien que très proche (puisqu'à l'oral, il est le seul employé) donne l'idée que ces actions ont encore un retentissement dans le présent (le passé composé a un auxiliaire au présent).

_Mais, à cause de la guerre, ce qui *devait* être une visite heureuse et chaleureuse *fut *plutôt un séjour angoissant et dangereux._


----------



## mtmjr

Alors, dans l'écriture, le passé composé est comme le "present perfect" en anglais et le passé simple est comme le "simple past" (...duh)?  Mais en parlant, on n'utilise que le passé composé?


----------



## Fred_C

mtmjr said:


> Alors, dans l'écriture, le passé composé est comme le "present perfect" en anglais et le passé simple est comme le "simple past" (...duh)? Mais en parlant, on n'utilise que le passé composé?


Bonjour.
Non. La différence entre le passé simple et le passé composé n'est pas ce que vous dites.
Il n'y a presque pas de différence entre le passé simple et le passé composé. Tous les deux peuvent être traduits par le "simple past" ou par le "present perfect", suivant les cas.

La seule différence qu'il y ait entre le passé simple et le passé composé est dans la narration :
Si vous écrivez un manuel d'Histoire de France (ou de n'importe quel pays !), vous pouvez indifférement utiliser le passé simple ou le passé composé. (Dans les cas où l'imparfait ne convient pas.)
Mais si vous écrivez une histoire inventée (un roman, une fiction), le passé composé ne convient pas, parce qu'on le réserve généralement pour des événements qui sont réellement arrivés.
Ce que je veux dire, c'est qu'il est tout à fait possible de mettre du passé composé dans un résumé de la deuxième guerre mondiale.
Mais ce serait vraiment bizarre dans un livre comme "le seigneur des anneaux" ou la légende du roi Arthur...


----------



## krneel__

Pour longtemps, je me demandais qu'est-ce qu'on fait pour répondre à le grandisse de, quoi, le passé composé. Comme le monde veut la vitesse en ménant les affaires, il faut que l'on utilise le passé simple et le reste pour être concis, n'est pas? Merci par avance.


----------



## Elme

Le passé simple te fais économiser un mot, certes, mais tu risques d'être plus difficile à comprendre.
Dans la conversation d'affaires et dans les lettres d'affaires, on se sert davantage du passé composé, qui est très courant, alors que le passé simple est un peu littéraire.


----------



## DOB_BY

When talking about a historical date, would you usually use the past historic in French?

For instance, I am doing a comprehension exercise describing attitudes to begging over the centuries and I am saying that in 1810, became a crime - so would I use devint? Or rather est devenu as normal?

Thank you for your help


----------



## cropje_jnr

Either tense would be correct, however my personal view is that it's a whole lot simpler to stick to the passé composé unless you're writing a fairly sophisticated written account of something.


----------



## Elme

bonjour,

J'écrirais "Le code de 1810 a institué le délit de mendicité.",
mais non "Le code de 1810 institua le délit de mendicité.",
parceque "institua" est assez laid et que le passé simple va mal avec le style technique de la phrase.

En revanche, avec un verbe facile comme "devenir", le passé simple est agréable. Je pourrais donc écrire
"En 1810 la mendicité devint un délit."
ou "La mendicité est devenue un délit en 1810."

Elme


----------



## helenezen

in everyday current French, you never use the passé simple orally. However it is frequently used in novels to tell a story.
hope it still helps


----------



## voltape

My mother tongue is Spanish and I learned French alone (from Books and from hearing Opera (Faust, Guillaume Tell, la Fille du Régiment, etc.).  So when I inscribed in the Alliance Française to study French I already had been reading novels for years - to my great surprise my teachers were more surprised than me!  I was using the passé simple all the time, as it was what I had learned by myself.  Teachers were amused at hearing me talking!  I was informed passé simple was defunct.  That was many years ago.  So far I cannot get used not to use the p.s.  Spanish keeps all tenses perfectly alive.  In Spanish, P.S. and passé composé have their precise meanings and are not interchangeable. I'd love to give examples but I fear to incur in the just wrath of the moderators!


----------



## Jimmy_Chappie

Hello everyone

Please could someone help me with the following conundrum:

I’m about to undertake some interpreting work from English into French for a tour guide in my home city.  Given the nature of these sorts of tours, I’m bound to have to talk about things like the history of interesting buildings or local people, and talk about when they were built or when they were born, for example.

With this in mind, would it be relevant to use the past historic in French in spoken language to say the following?

‘This house was built in 1830’
(‘Cette maison fut construite en 1830’)

‘The owner was born in 1795’
(‘Le propriétaire naquit en 1795’)

Or alternatively given that I’m talking about spoken language, is it more appropriate to use the passé composé in cases like these?

Eg ‘cette maison a été construite en 1830’, ‘le propriétaire est né en 1795’

I’m never sure to what extent it’s possible/relevant to use the past historic in spoken language to emphasise the historicity of an event.

Many thanks!


----------



## Lacuzon

Bonjour,

To me, a historic context is a case for which one can use the simple past in spoken language. As you say, it's a way to emphasise.


----------



## Jimmy_Chappie

Thank you. Would it also be possible to use the passé composé in this context as per my examples above?


----------



## Lacuzon

Yes, it would also be possible. As long as you don't use both, which would sound weird.


----------



## Jimmy_Chappie

Great, thank you for your help


----------



## Maître Capello

Jimmy_Chappie said:


> Or alternatively given that I’m talking about spoken language, is it more appropriate to use the passé composé in cases like these?


Definitely!


----------



## 2PieRad

Lacuzon said:


> As long as you don't use both, which would sound weird


So if I'm telling a colleague/friend/acquaintance about a recent trip, I shouldn't say "On est allé à Jérusalem et on a visité le lieu où Jésus Christ fut crucifié."
(...où Jésus a été crucifié.") 

Right?


----------



## Bezoard

Wrong! The first sentence is perfectly correct. I would say that it is quite frequent to mix "passé simple" et "passé composé" in a text for stylistic reasons, but in this case in particular, it is all the more true as the first two "passés composés" relate to "le temps du récit" and the third "passé simple" is historic.


----------



## 2PieRad

Neat. Good to know. ^


----------



## Maître Capello

Bezoard said:


> The first sentence is perfectly correct.


It is correct, but almost nobody uses the passé simple in speech nowadays. Using it often sounds odd, even pedantic! I would suggest non-natives never use the passé simple in speech. By the way, mixing the literary – or at least formal – passé simple with colloquial phrases using _on_ instead of _nous_ is really improper.

_*On* est allés à Jérusalem et *on* a visité le lieu où Jésus Christ *a été crucifié*._ (correct, standard, everyday French, common in speech)
_*Nous* sommes allés à Jérusalem et *nous* avons visité le lieu où Jésus Christ *fut crucifié*._ (formal French, virtually never used in speech)


----------



## 2PieRad

So, avoid it in speech altogether, unless one is purposely trying to raise eyebrows.


----------

