# FR: Il est certain que - "il" impersonnel



## Fredsie

Hello all. 

I find in a book I'm currently reading the phrase "Il est certain qu'il est un excellent administrateur ...", describing a person  previously introduced. On first reading, I was not sure whether the author was saying _she_ thought he was excellent, or _he_ thought he was.  Apart from context, is there any way of knowing which meaning is correct?  I thought perhaps that if the latter, the author might have said "Il est lui-même certain ...".

Thanks.


----------



## Outsider

Fredsie said:


> I find in a book I'm currently reading the phrase "Il est certain qu'il est un excellent administrateur ...", describing a person  previously introduced. On first reading, I was not sure whether the author was saying _she_ thought he was excellent, or _he_ thought he was.


_Il_ can mean "he" or "it", but it never means "she"...! 

It's impossible to tell whether _il_ means "he" or "it" in that sentence fragment without more context.


----------



## Fredsie

Outsider said:


> _Il_ can mean "he" or "it", but it never means "she"...!



No, it's the author who is female!   I was trying to decide between "He is certain he is an excellent administrator" and "It is certain he is an excellent administrator".

It just struck me that this very competent writer would not have created such an ambiguity carelessly.  The context in this case doesn't seem to help.


----------



## berndf

"Il est certain que..." most probably means "It is certain that..." in this context. "Il" can also be the formal subject and this is probably the case here. In my understanding it is unlikely that one would interpret "Il est certain que..." as referring a person's beliefs unless there is an explicit context suggesting this interpretation. If this person were female one would certainly use "elle".


----------



## bieting2005

I agree with Berndf. "Il est certain que..." is called a impersonal form, which is equivalent to "it is certain that...". So no wonder here a female writer uses "il" to refer to *the fact* that ''il est un excellent administrateur."

And if one wants to express "he is certain that ..." in French, he/she would say "il/elle est sûr/sûre que...", just as in English, "he or she is sure that..."


----------



## bieting2005

Just now I double-checked the dictionary. The French word "certain" is normally used to describe *something* "_trustworthy, definite" _but NOT used to express *someone* is_ "sure"._ Of course it can also mean "quelque" in French, or "a few, some" . That seems to be one of the differences between French and English.


----------



## Fredsie

A good point - that seems definitive in this case!

Thanks for all your very useful comments.

Fred


----------



## Fred_C

bieting2005 said:


> Just now I double-checked the dictionary. The French word "certain" is normally used to describe *something* "_trustworthy, definite" _but NOT used to express *someone* is_ "sure"._ Of course it can also mean "quelque" in French, or "a few, some" . That seems to be one of the differences between French and English.


 Hi,
I have a theory that proves exactly the contrary :
When translating into French "he/she is something", you must say "C'est" instead of "il/elle est" if the "something" is a nominal group : "C'est un excellent administrateur".
You must use "il est/elle est" if the "something" is an adjective (Il est content).

This rule should make the sentence "il est un excellent administrateur" impossible, except if it is a case of indirect speech : "Je suis un excellent administrateur, j'en suis certain"  -> "Il est certain qu'il est un excellent administrateur"


----------



## CapnPrep

Fred_C, I think "must" and "impossible" are too strong here. We talked about this rule recently in this thread: *Des pronoms qui me troublent...* And I have never heard anyone suggest that a context of "indirect speech" would make any difference (although it does indeed seem to); is this your own discovery?

If the two _il_s are referring to the same person, then one "should" probably say _Il est certain d'être un excellent adminstrateur_. The fact is that the sentence that Fredsie found is not written in the best way, and we cannot know for sure what the author had in mind.


----------



## Fred_C

Oui, je voulais faire l'avocat du diable...
Et je suis d'accord avec vous : Quoi qu'il en soit, cette phrase n'est pas très bien écrite.

En ce qui concerne le discours indirect, oui, c'est moi qui l'ai trouvé.
Mais c'est juste, je pense : 
Voyez : "Il dit : << Je suis un bon professeur>>" --> Il dit qu'il est un bon professeur". et non pas : "Il dit que c'est un bon professeur".


----------



## Fredsie

Just in case it adds clarity, here is the complete paragraph: 

Le maire est à bout de nerfs. Certes, son rôle n'est pas enviable.  Il est certain qu'il est un excellent administrateur, et que, s'il était du Parti, son inscription n'était que théorique et obligatoire. Docteur en philosophie et esthète, comme le prouve son bureau personnel à la mairie, le Dr Braun me semble très honnête homme, un peu plat, c'est le << style allemand >>, un peu pusillanime, certes, mais conscient de son devoir social, il se dépense sans compter pour sa ville   qu'il aime incontestablement.

(from _Notre Guerre - Souvenirs de Résistance_, Agnès Humbert)


----------



## Fredsie

Fred_C said:


> Voyez : "Il dit : << Je suis un bon professeur>>" --> Il dit qu'il est un bon professeur". et non pas : "Il dit que c'est un bon professeur".



This does seem to make sense.  Is it perhaps because the _c'est_ form implies an objective fact as far as the speaker is concerned, and so less appropriate for the person described to claim for himself? It would seem then that the adjectival (_il est_) form is less arrogant.


----------



## Midtiti

Fredsie said:


> Just in case it adds clarity, here is the complete paragraph:
> Il est certain *qu'*il est un excellent administrateur, *et que*, s'il était du Parti, son inscription n'était que théorique et obligatoire.
> (from _Notre Guerre - Souvenirs de Résistance_, Agnès Humbert)


 
With the end of the sentence, there is two cases : 
either _il_ is sure that _il est un excellent administrateur_ *and* that _son inscription n'était que théorique et obligatoire _
or _it_ is sure that...

It is impossible to chose, if we look at the sentence only on a grammatical way, because _certain _can be used as _sûr_ (Je suis sûr que = je suis certain que)
But if we think about the meaning, I think that the man is not the one sure that _son inscription n'était que théorique et obligatoire_, so it would be "it is sure that..."


----------



## Fredsie

A very good point - i can't imagine why I didn't think of that!

Thanks


----------

