# se faufiler



## semiller

I have looked at a translation for this word and it defines it in English as "to dodge in and out of" as in "La voiture bleu s'est faufilée entre les autres."  I have seen the verb used in other contexts as well.  Could someone provide a little more explanation of other possible meanings of the verb and possibly provide some other examples?  Merci bien!


----------



## Maldoror

Something like 'to worm/inch one's way through a crowd'. But dodge in and out seems correct as well.

exemples :
La salle était pleine de monde, j'ai tout de même réussi à me faufiler jusqu'au buffet.

Plusieurs de nos unités d'élite se sont faufilées entre les lignes ennemies afin de les prendre à revers.


----------



## Jean-Michel Carrère

se faufiler le long de quelque chose : edge past something	
se faufiler à travers la foule : inch one's way through the crowd / thread one's way through the crowd / wriggle through the crowd	
se faufiler entre les voitures : make one's way past the traffic


----------



## rayb

Maldoror said:
			
		

> Something like 'to worm/inch one's way through a crowd'. But dodge in and out seems correct as well.
> 
> exemples :
> La salle était pleine de monde, j'ai tout de même réussi à me faufiler jusqu'au buffet.
> 
> Plusieurs de nos unités d'élite se sont faufilées entre les lignes ennemies afin de les prendre à revers.


 
More exemples:

* "se faufiler dans le lit de quelq'un"
* "se faufiler dans les mailles du systhème"
* "les gouttes d'eau sont trop grosses pour se faufiler.."


----------



## Maldoror

Rayb your exemples are not bad, but not absolutely correct either. It would rather be:

* "se *glisser* dans le lit de quelq'un"
* "se faufiler *entre* les mailles du sys*t*ème"

it's a bit about splitting hairs, but that's why we are here for, aren't we ?


----------



## Jean-Michel Carrère

No, that is *what* we are here *for*, Maldoror !


----------



## semiller

Merci bien pour vos réponses!  Vous m'avez tous éclairci!


----------



## fetchezlavache

semiller said:
			
		

> Merci bien pour vos réponses!  Vous m'avez tous éclairci!



ah you're too cute, is your skin fairer now ?   

éclaircir = to make lighter of tone, less obscure.

éclairer = to enlighten.


----------



## Maldoror

Jean-Michel Carrère said:
			
		

> No, that is *what* we are here *for*, Maldoror !


exactly


----------



## rayb

Maldoror said:
			
		

> Rayb your exemples are not bad, but not absolutely correct either. It would rather be:
> 
> * "se *glisser* dans le lit de quelq'un"
> * "se faufiler *entre* les mailles du sys*t*ème"
> 
> it's a bit about splitting hairs, but that's why we are here for, aren't we ?


 
Maldoror, just take a llok to this URL:
http://www.google.cl/search?hl=es&q=%22se+faufiler+dans%22&btnG=B%C3%BAsqueda&meta=

You'll find thousands of quotes of: "se faufiler dans" .... le lit, les draps, les manches, les mailles, les tissus, les intertstices, les orifices. les trous, les taillis, les blancs de, les anfractuosités, les méandres, etc.

Maybe my examples are not that wrong either.


----------



## fetchezlavache

well google isn't the perfect source for correct language rayb, i'm sure you're aware of that... maldoror's corrections were proper and in order. imho of course.


----------



## Maldoror

rayb said:
			
		

> Maldoror, just take a llok to this URL:
> http://www.google.cl/search?hl=es&q=%22se+faufiler+dans%22&btnG=B%C3%BAsqueda&meta=
> 
> You'll find thousands of quotes of: "se faufiler dans" .... le lit, les draps, les manches, les mailles, les tissus, les intertstices, les orifices. les trous, les taillis, les blancs de, les anfractuosités, les méandres, etc.
> 
> Maybe my examples are not that wrong either.



Man, I'm a native French, I work with the written French on a daily basis; I'm sorry but I know my tongue. The exemples I corrected were almost correct but not absolutely.
I didn't pretend one can't say "se faufiler *dans" *but not "se faufiler *dans le lit*". It has something awkward, I'm really sorry, once again and I didn't intend to offend you, but things are what they are.

If you want to googlize the debate let me use it too:
http://www.google.fr/search?q=%22se+faufiler+dans+le+lit&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:frfficial
(three hits... hum... hum)

BTW: google is everything but reliable when exactness is requiered. I know what I'm talking about, I work as a translator...

Regards amigo.


----------



## rayb

fetchezlavache said:
			
		

> well google isn't the perfect source for correct language rayb, i'm sure you're aware of that... maldoror's corrections were proper and in order. imho of course.


 
For "système", maldoror is certainly right.

For the other two corrections, IMHO, they are not entirely justified. Of course, I am aware that google may quote wordings not properly written, but I am also aware that google quotes texts that for some reason somebody posted them on the Net. In as much, the quotes I founded in my search show clearly that:

* "faufiler" doesn`t need to be substituted by "glisser" in "faufiler dans le lit de quelq'un". Effectively, both expressions are correct but with a different meaning: on one hand, "faufiler" is associated to a move like a serpent into someones bed and, on the other, "glisser" is associated to a sliding move into someones bed;

* "dans" doesn't need either to be substituted by "entre" in "faufiler dans les mailles....". Effectively, both expressions are correct but with a different meaning: on one hand, "dans" is associated to take an advantage of the complexities of a mesh, and, on the other, "entre" is associated to pass through the holes of a mesh.


----------



## fetchezlavache

on ne se faufile pas dans les mailles. si l'on veut se faufiler c'est obligatoirement entre les mailles, sinon on n'avance pas. il faut qu'il y ait un trou pour pouvoir passer non ? 

surtout que cette expression, elle est utilisée pour signifier 'to get away with, to be unpunished for something bad or illegal for instance' ... donc on est bien passé _entre _ les mailles du filet que la justice/police a tendu pour nous attraper.


----------



## rayb

Maldoror said:
			
		

> Man, I'm a native French, I work with the written French on a daily basis; I'm sorry but I know my tongue. The exemples I corrected were almost correct but not absolutely.


 
Man, I'm not a native French, You know, nobody is perfect. However, I work too with the written and oral French on a daily basis. I'm sorry, but I know something also about your tongue. The examples you corrected me weren't IMHO as incorrect as you state. They were only expressing something different than what you thought they meant.

QUOTE=Maldoror]
I didn't pretend one can't say "se faufiler *dans" *but not "se faufiler *dans le lit*". It has something awkward, I'm really sorry, once again and I didn't intend to offend you, but things are what they are.
 [/QUOTE]

You didn't pretend to express that one can't say "se faufiler *dans"*, but you corrected the two examples I gaved with "se faufiler *dans".*  You say that "se faufiler *dans le lit*" has something awkward. That's your take. However, when mosts pets go into someones bed, the movement they make is exactly "se faufiler *dans le lit*". For sure, you didn't offend me.

QUOTE=Maldoror] 
BTW: google is everything but reliable when exactness is requiered. I know what I'm talking about, I work as a translator...
 [/QUOTE]

google is absolutely reliable in quoting what someone has posted on the Net. I know what I'm talking about, even if I don't work as a translator...

Bien amicalement


----------



## Maldoror

J'en reste baba...

Un petit mot amical pour rayb : je dois te reconnaître une combativité et une pugnacité farouches ; je suis également fasciné que tu contestes sans sourciller, avec une certitude et un aplomb parfaitement tenus, deux natifs dont le véhicule de l'âme -pour reprendre cette belle expression de linguistique- est la langue française.

Attention toutefois de ne pas charger à bride rabattue les fameux moulins à vent que Cervantès eut le goût délicat de convoquer pour métaphoriser les certitudes erronées.

Respectueusement, Mal.


----------



## Maldoror

I'll stop to argue, because the whole story is getting ridiculous. Every one is entitled to his/her opinion ; the corrections I provide are only meant to help people who wish to be helped as regards linguistic issues, not to offend nor to despise anyone. And even less to start a feud upon nonense.

Now an interesting debate about the google thing, that everyone could benefit from: in French using the "most quoted" technique can lead to mistakes. Examples:
LooK at this sentence :"il n'y a pas d'hommes":
http://www.google.fr/search?client=...'y+a+pas+d'hommes&meta=&btnG=Recherche+Google
Googling, you get 4130 hits and thus could reckon it is the good spelling. But it's wrong.
This is the good spelling, even though you'll be given less hits via google:
"Il n'y a pas d'homme" (with ne + pas/plus : no "s"):
http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&c...q="il+n'y+a+pas+d'homme&btnG=Rechercher&meta=
only 708 hits despite it is the proper form.

an other one: "après que je sois" gets 5410 hits though false, because you never ever use the subjunctive after 'après'
http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&c..._s&q="après+que+je+sois&btnG=Rechercher&meta=
Look the proper form gets only 695 hits:
http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&c..._s&q="après+que+je+suis&btnG=Rechercher&meta=

etc
etc
etc

I'm outta this thread. Good night.


----------



## Auryn

rayb said:
			
		

> google is absolutely reliable in quoting what someone has posted on the Net.



That doesn't mean it's correct! Loads of French speakers use their language incorrectly!


----------



## timpeac

Maldoror said:
			
		

> I'll stop to argue, because the whole story is getting ridiculous. Every one is entitled to his/her opinion ; the corrections I provide are only meant to help people who wish to be helped as regards linguistic issues, not to offend nor to despise anyone. And even less to start a feud upon nonense.
> 
> Now an interesting debate about the google thing, that everyone could benefit from: in French using the "most quoted" technique can lead to mistakes. Examples:
> LooK at this sentence :"il n'y a pas d'hommes":
> http://www.google.fr/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Afr-FR%3Aofficial_s&hl=fr&q=%22il+n%27y+a+pas+d%27hommes&meta=&btnG=Recherche+Google
> Googling, you get 4130 hits and thus could reckon it is the good spelling. But it's wrong.
> This is the good spelling, even though you'll be given less hits via google:
> "Il n'y a pas d'homme" (with ne + pas/plus : no "s"):
> http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Afr-FR%3Aofficial_s&q=%22il+n%27y+a+pas+d%27homme&btnG=Rechercher&meta=
> only 708 hits despite it is the proper form.
> 
> an other one: "après que je sois" gets 5410 hits though false, because you never ever use the subjunctive after 'après'
> http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Afr-FR%3Aofficial_s&q=%22apr%C3%A8s+que+je+sois&btnG=Rechercher&meta=
> Look the proper form gets only 695 hits:
> http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Afr-FR%3Aofficial_s&q=%22apr%C3%A8s+que+je+suis&btnG=Rechercher&meta=
> 
> etc
> etc
> etc
> 
> I'm outta this thread. Good night.


 
What's wrong with "il n'y a pas d'hommes"? It seems fine to me. There are no men. "il n'y a pas d'homme" would mean something different - The answer perhaps to a child frightened of the darkness who says "il y a un homme dans l'armoire". I know of no rule that says you must follow "il n'y a pas" with a singular noun.

With the après plus subjunctive example, well this shows that you can't necessarily use google to tell you what l'académie française considers to be correct, but if the number of hits is large enough IMHO it is a fairly good indicator of what people actually do (which to my mind is more important). You say "you never follow après with the subj". What you mean is in your opinion you shouldn't (I don't mean to discuss whether indeed you should or should not I'm just saying). The fact you get this weight of hits clearly shows that you _can_ and indeed lots of people _do_.

The danger of relying on google results is that you do need a large number of hits to make any sort of assumptions, because the WWW is so large a lot of things, right and wrong, are said at some point.


----------



## Maldoror

In "il n'y a pas d'homme" NE PAS is a negation (zero), it's like if you'd say : there's NO man here. You can't expect a plural form when there's not even ONE of the objects mentioned.
It's a common mistake. But hell, it is not because the majority doesn't spell propely that it has to become the rule in force. In my job if I don't spell like the french grammar says I have to, I just lose my customers, and I can't reply : "look it's a mistake everyone makes so show leniency please".


----------



## rayb

fetchezlavache said:
			
		

> on ne se faufile pas dans les mailles. si l'on veut se faufiler c'est obligatoirement entre les mailles, sinon on n'avance pas. il faut qu'il y ait un trou pour pouvoir passer non ?
> 
> surtout que cette expression, elle est utilisée pour signifier 'to get away with, to be unpunished for something bad or illegal for instance' ... donc on est bien passé _entre _les mailles du filet que la justice/police a tendu pour nous attraper.


 
faufiler peut aussi signifier: reussir à se cacher dans les mailles d'un réseau complexe, sans qu'il soit forcement necessaire de passer à travers lui.On dit bien, par exemple: "le virus troyen se faufile dans les applications logées au disque dur", "ce phénomène se faufile dans les mailles des statistiques" et "les principes se faufilent dans le mailles d'un tissu complexe de significations"


----------



## timpeac

Maldoror said:
			
		

> In "il n'y a pas d'homme" NE PAS is a negation (zero), like : there's NO man here. You can't expect a plural form when there's not even ONE of the objects mentioned.
> It's a common mistake. But hell, it is not because the majority doesn't spell propely that it has to become the rule in force. In my job if I don't spell like the french grammar says I have to, I just lose my customers, and I can't reply : "look it's a mistake everyone makes so show leniency please".


 
No need to snap at me. We are all allowed to have different opinions.

I disagree that you can't have "il n'y a pas d'hommes". If someone claims that there are men you can claim that there are no men. I suppose if you want to be pedantic about it "il n'y a pas d'hommes" does not necessarily discount the possibility that there is one single man. It doesn't seem to be a fault of logic to me, and therefore is not a fault of usage. Where did you come across this rule?


----------



## Maldoror

timpeac said:
			
		

> Where did you come across this rule?


I studied french grammar.
Have a good night timepac.


----------



## timpeac

Maldoror said:
			
		

> I studied french grammar.
> Have a good night timepac.


 
Not very well, or with independent thought apparently. Good night.


----------



## Benjy

timpeac said:
			
		

> Not very well, or with independent thought apparently. Good night.



hrm.. i'm going to have to back moldoror on this one. when the thing isn't being counted in a negation its singular. 

out of the louis seconde edition of the bible "tu ne commettras point d'adultère"
"tu ne porteras point de faux temoignage contre ton prochain"
etc...

i quote the bible because its the only reputable french book that i have sous la main (and that i know well enough to quote from lol) :s


----------



## Auryn

timpeac said:
			
		

> I disagree that you can't have "il n'y a pas d'hommes". If someone claims that there are men you can claim that there are no men.



I think this is a situation where the French and English languages part company. I've discussed this rule many times with my students; they always insist that in a sentence like 'Je ne veux pas d'enfant', 'enfant' should be in the plural because an English speaker would say "I don't want any children".  Looks like the rule is different in English and in French, and we just have to live with it


----------



## timpeac

Benjy said:
			
		

> hrm.. i'm going to have to back moldoror on this one. when the thing isn't being counted in a negation its singular.
> 
> out of the louis seconde edition of the bible "tu ne commettras point d'adultère"
> "tu ne porteras point de faux temoignage contre ton prochain"
> etc...
> 
> i quote the bible because its the only reputable french book that i have sous la main :s


 
I'm not saying that you can't have a singular noun - very often you will - just that there is no ipso facto grammatical reason you shouldn't have a plural (if we compare with English you often have to, you can't say "there is no bear in Spain" just "there are no bears in Spain"). I know English is a different language, but it certainly shows there is no over-riding grammatical reason to prefer the singular.

If someone comes out with a grammatical rule I have never heard of, is not respected in other languages, is commonly ignored by the majority of the native population and which doesn't seem to break any sort of logic when I analyse it personally I don't think it's too much to ask for that person to justify why they are telling other people they are wrong.


----------



## timpeac

Auryn said:
			
		

> I think this is a situation where the French and English language part company. I've discussed this rule many times with my students; they always insist that in a sentence like 'Je ne veux pas d'enfant', 'enfant' should be in the plural because an English speaker would say "I don't want any children". Looks like the rule is different in English and in French, and we just have to live with it


 
But where do you get that rule from?


----------



## Benjy

out of a book somewhere, duh  if i had my grevisse i'd quote it to you but i don't. i can see what you are saying: usage defines the rules etc etc BUT in this case it is correct french to put the noun au singulier


----------



## rayb

Maldoror said:
			
		

> I'll stop to argue, because the whole story is getting ridiculous. Every one is entitled to his/her opinion ; the corrections I provide are only meant to help people who wish to be helped as regards linguistic issues, not to offend nor to despise anyone. And even less to start a feud upon nonense.
> 
> Now an interesting debate about the google thing, that everyone could benefit from: in French using the "most quoted" technique can lead to mistakes.


 
The usage of the "most quoted" technique is one of the worst employements you can make of Google or any other search machine. Effectively, as the search machines are able to found in a few seconds millions of quotes, vendors have created efficient tools to multiply the number of hits of their products and, as well, to get the the first places in ranked list of hits. Just try a search in Google of an hotel in a place you know quite well, you'll see that the "most quoted" and the "best ranked" hotels are not necessarily the best in quality.

However, this doesn't mean that all the information delivered by the search machines are not reliable. As I mentioned before, in this thread, we can be 100 % sure that if a page is quoted by a search machine certainly somebody for some reason posted it.


----------



## Auryn

timpeac said:
			
		

> But where do you get that rule from?



I learnt it at school.


----------



## timpeac

Benjy said:
			
		

> out of a book somewhere, duh  if i had my grevis i'd quote it to you but i don't. i can see what you are saying: usage defines the rules etc etc BUT in this case it is correct french to put the noun au singulier


 
It's Ok - to be honest with you since I've thought it through for myself and decided it is a useless rule and since the majority of usage seems to ignore it I will definitely treat this as one of the rules that has become obsolete, whether the esteemed M Grevisse likes it or not.


----------



## LV4-26

We should have a specific thread on this matter. I mean about usage defining rules and so on 
Honestly if the following sentences (which *are* widely used) were to be considered as correct and normal, it would be more than I can bear :
_Je ne suis pas prête d'y arriver (_instead of "près" (préposition))
_Je me suis faite voler _
You can hear that everywhere everyday including on radio and TV, so is it going to be regarded as correct ? If so, is it right ?

J'ai l'impression qu'on a tellement peur de passer à côté d'un accord, de nos jours, que l'on accorde même quand il ne faut pas, pire, que l'on accorde même les mots invariables. Valable pour le féminin (ici)
Apparemment valable aussi pour le pluriel (si Maldoror a raison)


----------



## Benjy

ok  i will copy your post into a new thread. no more posting about this off-topic topic in this thread. i will delete or move the posts. feel to post on the verb faufiler however


----------



## LV4-26

Thank you Benjy. But I'll contribute to this new thread only tomorrow or on Wednesday (going to bed  )

Jean-Michel


----------



## DDT

timpeac said:
			
		

> It's Ok - to be honest with you since I've thought it through for myself and decided it is a useless rule and since the majority of usage seems to ignore it I will definitely treat this as one of the rules that has become obsolete, whether the esteemed M Grevisse likes it or not.



I am currently living in Paris, I'm a foreigner but I feel home here. Yet I had to get accustomed to different written (but mostly unwritten) rules which makes the difference. As regards my native country, of course. I don't see how I could claim to change a *grammar* rule has become obsolete just because it doesn't fit in with my opinion...   

DDT


----------



## Curmud

I don't want to start a new argument, but I posed the question at our French Club meeting a week ago.

What does "faufiler" mean? Without using the reflexive, it means "to baste" as used in sewing.


----------



## FAC13

As a BE speaker I was puzzled by "to baste" - I thought we just said "to tack", but online dictionaries suggest baste is ok here too - have any other BE speakers got views on this?

Thanks for resurrecting the post - it made me nostalgic for the days when the mods just let off-topic bad-tempered arguments run and run and run ...


----------



## marcolo

Yes, "faufiler" can be used in a sewing context. The definition of TFLi is :

Coudre provisoirement à grands points (les parties d'un ouvrage) afin de (les) maintenir en place avant la couture définitive.

So, it is a step before "filer" step. You sew temporarily with large steps, so that after you can do the definitive sewing. "baste" seems to fit perfectly this definition.

I think that it comes from "faux-filer", when you bend this expression you obtain "faufiler".

Except this specific use, we use the word in the reflexive form "se faufiler", whose meaning is completely different.


----------

