# FR: Si tu as appris le français, tu as pu parler hier



## pilar103

Bonjour,

I can't work out what this translates to in English. The construction is:
*
"Pour exprimer une hypothèse réalisée dans le passé :

Si + passé composé, passé composé
*
_Si tu as appris le français, tu as pu parler hier." =_ If you learned French, you could speak it yesterday ???

 It seems similar to the third conditional in English, but the third conditional is for past situations that didn't occur with present/past consequences ('If you had learned French, you would be able to speak it now" (present consequence) or "If you had learned French, you could have spoken it yesterday (past consequence).


----------



## Overjoyed

You are right, it seems similar to the third conditional but it is not. The examples you give would translate in "Si tu avais appris le français, tu serais capable de le parler maintenant" and "Si tu avais appris le français, tu aurais pu le parler hier".
I have no competence in English, but I would translate just like you do," though dropping the "it": "If you learned French, you could speak yesterday."


----------



## OLN

Bonjou_r _pilar103_._

Où as-tu lu cette phrase, et dans quel contexte ?

Je comprends à priori : si tu as effectivement appris le français, tu as dû être capable de parler (en français) hier.
If it's the case, you must have been able to...

Avec un véritable conditionnel :_ Si tu avais appris le français, tu *aurais pu* parler (en français)._


----------



## guillaumedemanzac

Is this from an Australian school grammar book??? !!!!

Si tu avais appris le français à l'école, tu aurais pu parler à cette belle jeune française!

If you *had *learnt French at school, you *could have* chatted up that gorgeous young French sheila!

PS in your example of "wrong tense sequence", I think the "parler" is used with a different meaning = "said something at a meeting". So the context is important. This guy *didn't *speak at the meeting yesterday because he *hadn't* learnt French at school.    (And someone (= boss, colleague) is criticizing him for not speaking at the meeting yesterday. And because he hadn't learnt French at school, he wasn't able to open his mouth to say something very important.)



Overjoyed said:


> You are right, it seems similar to the third conditional but it is not. The examples you give would translate in "Si tu avais appris le français, tu serais capable de le parler maintenant" and "Si tu avais appris le français, tu aurais pu le parler hier".
> I have no competence in English, but I would translate just like you do," though dropping the "it": "If you* learned *French, you could* speak* yesterday."



Sorry, as above!!!    Someone is telling this person that they missed a good opportunity to say something.

If you *had learnt* French at school, then you *could/should have spoken/said* *something (important)* yesterday (at the meeting).  

It's not clear from this short context if the guy being criticized should have or could have spoken (or said something "important") at the conference/meeting/event/school sports/international symposium yesterday.


----------



## Overjoyed

We miss any context, but I rather think that someone is telling this person that given the fact that he is supposed to have learnt French, he is equally expected to have been able to speak yesterday. Otherwise he/she would simply say:"Si tu avais appris le français, tu aurais pu parler hier".


----------



## pilar103

Merci pour vos réponses 

The example is from here: Structures avec 'SI'



> 3. Pour exprimer une hypothèse non réalisée dans le passé :
> *=> ayant des conséquences dans le présent :*
> 
> Si + plus-que-parfait , conditionnel présent [English: if + past perfect, would + infinitive]
> Si tu avais appris le français, tu saurais le parler aujourd’hui.
> 
> *=> Ayant eu des conséquences dans le passé :*
> 
> Si + plus-que-parfait , conditionnel passé [English: if + past perfect, modal + have + past participle]
> Si tu avais appris le français, tu aurais su le parler hier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Pour exprimer une hypothèse réalisée dans le passé :
> 
> Si + passé composé, passé composé
> Si tu as appris le français, tu as pu parler hier.



@Overjoyed  : "If you learned French, you could speak yesterday." -- grammatically, this doesn't quite work in English. It seems to have the same meaning as the third conditional with past consequences: If you had learned French, you could have spoken it yesterday.

@guillaumedemanzac If you *had learnt* French at school, then you *could/should have spoken/said* *something (important)* yesterday

This is also the third conditional in English (if + past perfect, modal + have + past participle)

So I'm still unclear how *Si + passé composé, passé composé *translates into English.


----------



## Overjoyed

... and in line with OLN


OLN said:


> Je comprends à priori : si tu as effectivement appris le français, tu as dû être capable de parler (en français) hier.
> If it's the case, you must have been able to...
> 
> Avec un véritable conditionnel :_ Si tu avais appris le français, tu *aurais pu* parler (en français)._


... I would risk : "If you did learn French, you must have been able to speak yesterday"


----------



## jekoh

Since [you say] you learned French...


----------



## Enquiring Mind

Hi pilar103, I think jekoh has correctly interpreted the sense of "if" here in the post above. _If this is a true conditional, I'm a Dutchman_. In other words, I find myself asking if this is a true conditional at all. I think the "if" here means "if it is true that". I can be a Dutchman without that sentence being a conditional, and in the same way the ability to have spoken at a meeting (even a French-speaking one) is not conditional on learning French.


----------



## sound shift

The present perfect would work for me in the first clause: "If you've learnt French, you should have been able to speak it/some yesterday."


----------



## guillaumedemanzac

Revenons à nos moutons.

Your first quote from a grammar book is not possible in English or French.

It should read either : If you* had learnt* French (at school), then you *would have been able to speak* (at the event/symposium/meeting etc.).   - this means that "you" *didn't speak* at the event etc. - and you should have spoken.

or : If you* learn*/*learnt* French at school, you *would/will be able to speak* (??? at international meetings in Paris) French.

or : If you learn/learnt French at school, you will/would be able to speak French to French people.   *!!!!!! (Brexit forbid!).*

*The first examples depend on : if the person is still at school or has just left or wasted his/her time at school years ago and didn't learn French when he/she had had the opportunity.*


----------



## jekoh

Guillaume, the meaning is: _Since you learned French, you were able to speak [French to French people] yesterday [at the meeting].
_


----------



## Overjoyed

"Si j'aurais su j'aurais pas venu..."


----------



## guillaumedemanzac

jekoh said:


> Guillaume, the meaning is: _Since you learned French, you were able to speak [French to French people] yesterday [at the meeting]._



Ok compris! So the *if* is wrong and it's not a conditional .

Parce que tu as appris le francais (à l'école), tu as pu parler aux gens (français) hier.
La raison pourquoi tu as pu parler avec ces gens hier, c'est parce que tu as appris le français (dans ta jeunesse).

I can't see an IF anywhere in that context. Sorry!  But the first two letters of since are "si".


----------



## Oddmania

@guillaumedemanzac Really? I would have thought "_if_" would be okay in English as well (see Sound Shift's post #10).

_If you _did _learn French _/_ If you _have _indeed learnt French, then surely you were able to speak it yesterday, weren't you?_


----------



## guillaumedemanzac

pilar103 said:


> *Si + passé composé, passé composé*
> _Si tu as appris le français, tu as pu parler hier." =_ If you learned French, you could speak it yesterday ???



The original quote is "If you have learnt French, you have been able to speak (it) *yesterday.*" ---

-- In both French and English, the concordance of the tenses does not work. It is not a conditional.
The actions took place yesterday. So the logical sequence is either "If you *had* learnt French, you *would have been* *able to speak* (to the French) yesterday." or "If you *have learnt* French, you *will be able to speak* to the French now/at the meeting today."


----------



## jekoh

The French sentence is perfectly fine.


----------



## Maître Capello

> Si tu as appris le français, tu as pu parler hier.


That French sentence is grammatically correct, but it sounds odd. Here are better examples:

_Si tu as appris le français, tu sais le parler_. = If you've learnt French, you are able to speak it.
_Si tu as appris le français, tu as compris ce qu'il a dit hier_. = If you've learnt French, you understood what he said yesterday.



jekoh said:


> Since [you say] you learned French...


 Non, il n'y a pas de causalité dans la phrase ; seulement une condition.


----------



## jekoh

Bien sûr qu'il y a un lien de causalité entre le fait d'avoir appris le français et la capacité à s'exprimer dans cette langue.


----------



## Maître Capello

Ne mélangeons pas tout…

_*if* you learned French_ = *si* tu as appris le français

_*since* you learned French_ = *puisque* tu as appris le français

La seconde phrase implique que la personne a bel et bien appris le français. Or la proposition conditionnelle de la phrase originale ne sous-entend rien de tel ; c'est une simple hypothèse. On ne sait pas si la personne a appris le français ou non.


----------



## jekoh

Ce n'est pas une « simple hypothèse », c'est une « hypothèse réalisée » (c'est le titre du paragraphe)...


----------



## Maître Capello

Je ne parle quant à moi que de la phrase elle-même. Le titre du paragraphe en question prête d'ailleurs inutilement à confusion. C'est typiquement le genre de site internet un peu brouillon et manquant de précisions qu'il convient de prendre avec quelques réserves…


----------



## jekoh

Quand on ne prend que la moitié de l'énoncé, forcément, on n'arrive pas au même résultat.

Ici, avec l'énoncé entier, le sens de « si » est bien celui de « puisque ».


----------

