# FR: un/de/du + adjectif + nom singulier



## tobywashere

If adjectives come before the noun [excellent, bon etc.], do you use de [d'] or du when the noun is singular?

*Moderator note:* Multiple threads have been merged to create this one. If you are interested in what article to use before plural nouns, see FR: de/des + adjectif + nom au pluriel.


----------



## marget

If the noun is singular, use the entire partitive article: *du bon pain*, for example


----------



## Joelline

In some circumstances, you would want to use the indefinite article (un, une):  Elle a fait de beaux enfants. >  >  Elle a fait un bel enfant.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

French grammars often suggest that the partative becomes de before adjectives which precede their noun, not just for plurals.

But il a de bon vin sounds strange to me: wouldn't people more naturally say il a du bon vin?

How about nous avons de bon papier? It again sounds strange to me.

The other case where the partative is reduced to de is after a negative.

Il n'a pas de vin not il n'a pas du vin

Nous n'avons pas de bon vin - de, not because of the adjective, but because of the negative.

What do you think?


----------



## tilt

Thomas Tompion said:


> French grammars often suggest that the partative becomes de before adjectives which precede their noun, not just for plurals.
> 
> But il a de bon vin sounds strange to me: wouldn't people more naturally say il a du bon vin?
> 
> How about nous avons de bon papier? It again sounds strange to me.


That's wrong. _De _replaces _des _only for plural.
Whit singular, you may use _de la_ or _du_, which is the contraction of _de le_:
_Il a du bon vin._
_Il a de bons vins_.
_Nous avons du bon papier.
Nous avons __de bons papiers.
_


> The other case where the partative is reduced to de is after a negative.
> 
> Il n'a pas de vin not il n'a pas du vin
> 
> Nous n'avons pas de bon vin - de, not because of the adjective, but because of the negative.
> 
> What do you think?


That's right.


----------



## geostan

There is a case where de replaces the full partitive, even with a singular: if the adjective begins a vowel, e.g.

d'excellent vin.


----------



## DearPrudence

Are you sure?  
*J'ai de l'excellent vin chez moi
J'ai d'excellents vins chez moi*


----------



## tilt

geostan said:


> There is a case where de replaces the full partitive, even with a singular: if the adjective begins a vowel, e.g., d'excellent vin.


That's true, but elision and partitive replacement before an adjective are two different things.
_De_ is elided even without an adjective preceding the noun, if the noun itself starts with a vowel: _Je n'ai pas de tante_ but _Je n'ai pas d'oncle_.



DearPrudence said:


> Are you sure?
> *J'ai de l'excellent vin chez moi
> J'ai d'excellents vins chez moi*


Yes DP, Geostan is right. One can say _une cave pleine d'excellent vin._


----------



## geostan

DearPrudence said:


> Are you sure?
> *J'ai de l'excellent vin chez moi
> J'ai d'excellents vins chez moi*



That's what I was taught. I must admit that your example makes me stop and think, but "de l'excellent vin" sounds odd to me. I think I would say "un excellent vin" to avoid the "de l'."

Another exception has occurred to me. If the phrase is further qualiified by an adverb, then "de" is obligatory whether the noun is singular or plural.

Il vient d'acheter de très bon pain chez le boulanger.



tilt said:


> Yes DP, Geostan is right. One can say _une cave pleine d'excellent vin._



However, in this case, the partitive article is omitted because of the preposition "de."

du bon vin
plein de

On ne peut pas dire: plein de du bon vin, alors on omet le partitif.


----------



## DearPrudence

geostan said:


> I think I would say "un excellent vin" to avoid the "de l'."


Vous préférez peut-être de l'eau, alors ?  

Strange. I don't know what you don't like about "de l'", it occurs quite a lot ...



geostan said:


> Another exception has occurred to me. If the phrase is further qualiified by an adverb, then "de" is obligatory whether the noun is singular or plural.
> 
> Il vient d'acheter de très bon pain chez le boulanger.


I'm afraid it should be "du" 
*du très bon pain
du super bon pain
du bon pain
de l'excellent pain*

Tricky indeed!


----------



## geostan

De l'eau is fine. There is no adjective in front of the noun.

As for the other part of my comment, if, in fact, the use of the full partitive is currently common in the cases I've indicated, then my French is a little behind the times for this construction.

Cheers!


----------



## tilt

geostan said:


> That's what I was taught. I must admit that your example makes me stop and think, but "de l'excellent vin" sounds odd to me. I think I would say "un excellent vin" to avoid the "de l'."


*Un excellent vin* refers to a single wine (_Un Château Laffitte 1987, _for example).
_*De l'excellent vin* _means excellent wine, whichever the number of wines, just like _d'excellent vin_.
_Nous avons bu de l'excellent vin_ doesn't say how many different wines we drunk.



> Another exception has occurred to me. If the phrase is further qualiified by an adverb, then "de" is obligatory whether the noun is singular or plural.
> 
> * Il vient d'acheter de très bon pain chez le boulanger.*


I'm sorry but it's wrong!
You may say _*Il vient d'acheter de très bons pains chez le boulanger* _or *Il vient d'acheter du très bon pain chez le boulanger*, but not what you suggested.


----------



## geostan

You should avoid the word "wrong" in a topic like this. You may say that it is not currently used, or that in your opinion, it is more usual to say..., etc. but I can defend the usage that I discuss on the forums. It may be dated, as I suggested earlier, but it is definitely not wrong.

Cheers!


----------



## tilt

geostan said:


> You should avoid the word "wrong" in a topic like this. You may say that it is not currently used, or that in your opinion, it is more usual to say..., etc. but I can defend the usage that I discuss on the forums. It may be dated, as I suggested earlier, but it is definitely not wrong.


Well, let's say I'm as sure it's wrong as you are when stating:





> If the phrase is further qualified by an adverb, then "de" is obligatory whether the noun is singular or plural.


----------



## geostan

Then what is wrong is the word "obligatory," not the construction.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Thomas Tompion said:


> French grammars often suggest that the partative becomes de before adjectives which precede their noun, not just for plurals.
> 
> But il a de bon vin sounds strange to me: wouldn't people more naturally say il a du bon vin?
> 
> How about nous avons de bon papier? It again sounds strange to me.





tilt said:


> That's wrong. _De _replaces _des _only for plural.
> Whit singular, you may use _de la_ or _du_, which is the contraction of _de le_:
> _Il a du bon vin._
> _Il a de bons vins_.
> _Nous avons du bon papier._
> _Nous avons __de bons papiers._
> That's right.


 
I'm always very careful to avoid using words like wrong to describe another person's stated view in a post, because it can seem illiberal, because it suggests that the other person hasn't really considered his view with care, or been to any trouble to find out if what he is saying is correct, and because it can, in my experience provoke antagonism. I prefer to hedge my bets with a lot of in my view's and I have always been led to understand's.

Now I find myself accused of being wrong, and wonder where my error lies.

French grammars often suggest that the partative becomes de before adjectives which precede their noun, not just for plurals seems the obvious candidate. But I didn't write those words lightly, and I am, however careless I may seem, meticulous about checking facts before putting forward a view which might be incorrect, and misleading, not to say wrong.

Rather than giving a list of authorities going back to the 17th century including Maupas and Vaugelas, I will cite Grévisse: _Le français correct (1973):_ De bon Tabac: Devant un groupe <adjectif + nom>, au lieu de _du_, _de la, de l’_, la langue écrite ou soignée emploie, pour marquer le sens partitif, le simple _de : _De bon tabac (Académie) – Ils burent de mauvais thé (E. Henriot).


I don't think my statement that French grammars make this suggestion can be considered wrong. I don't propose to take it back.


----------



## sensa

I have just finished reading about rules when to use indefinite articles:

En francais soutenu, l'article indefini se change en de (ou d') devant un nom precede d'un adjectif ou apres une negation absolue.

This means "un, une, des" change to "de" in 2 situations:
1) in a sentence where an adjective preceeds a noun 
2) in a negative sentence

is that correct?

Here are 2 examples my book gives me of both of these situations:

1) Voici de belles roses
2) Je n'ai pas de stylo

But, in this sentence (which is another example of a sentence where an adjective preceeds a noun) they use "un" when I would have put "de":

Il a une petite difficulte.

I guess in the description of when to use "de" instead of "un, une, des", they should have added that sentences with an adjective preceeding a noun must also be *plural*?


----------



## hikingnicoo

This means "un, une, des" change to "de" in 2 situations:
1) in a sentence where an adjective preceeds a noun 
Not exactly. That is true with a plural noun : "Ce sont de vraies histoires"
When an adjective follows a noun : ce sont des histoires vraies
singular : c'est une histoire vraie
2) in a negative sentence
Right


----------



## Maître Capello

sensa said:


> I guess in the description of when to use "de" instead of "un, une, des", they should have added that sentences with an adjective preceeding a noun must also be *plural*?


Your guess is correct


----------



## tilt

If you read this thread you'll discover (as I did!) that _de _should be used even if the noun is singular, in formal language!
I agree no one follows this rule nowadays, but it exists. Thus we should say _il a de petite difficulté._


----------



## Maître Capello

That's right but it is *very* literate – even old-fashioned or perceived as incorrect – and, as you said, nobody ever uses it nowadays – even novel writers. Therefore I guess we should not bother our English speaking friends with it…  Here is what _Le Bon Usage_ (Grevisse) says:





> *Au singulier,* _de_ se rencontre encore dans la langue écrite, mais _du, de la, de l'_ sont les tours vraiment normaux (_de bon vin_ est compris par l'usager ordinaire comme une erreur pour _de bons vins_).


----------



## geostan

tilt said:


> If you read this thread you'll discover (as I did!) that _de _should be used even if the noun is singular, in formal language!
> I agree noone follows this rule nowadays, but it exists. Thus we should say _il a de petite difficulté._



Mais la règle porte sur l'article partitif, pas l'article indéfini singulier. On ne pourrait jamais dire _Il a de petite difficulté_.

N'est-ce pas?


----------



## Maître Capello

Well it would be possible… But quoting myself:


Maître Capello said:


> It is *very* literate – even old-fashioned or perceived as incorrect – and nobody ever uses it nowadays –  even novel writers.


----------



## tilt

geostan said:


> Mais la règle porte sur l'article partitif, pas l'article indéfini singulier. On ne pourrait jamais dire _Il a de petite difficulté_.
> 
> N'est-ce pas?


Honnêtement, j'avoue m'être bien posé la question aussi, et je ne sais plus que penser.

Spontanément, je serais plutôt de ton avis.
Mais selon l'exemple de Grévisse dans le thread que j'ai cité, on peut dire _Ils burent de mauvais *thé*_ (singulier) aussi bien que _Ils burent de mauvais *thé*_*s* (pluriel).

En supprimant l'adjectif _mauvais _de ces phrase, on obtient :
_• Ils burent de mauvais thé_*s*_ -> Il burent *des *thés.
__• __Ils burent de mauvais thé ->__ Ils burent... *un *_ou_* du* thé _?
Personnellement j'opterais pour *un, *car j'y vois le singulier de _*des*. _Si c'est bien le cas, pourquoi la phrase _Il a *une *difficulté_ ne deviendrait-elle pas _Il a *de *petite difficulté_ ?

J'ai une grosse difficulté, pour le coup !


----------



## geostan

tilt said:


> Spontanément, je serais plutôt de ton avis. Mais selon l'exemple de Grévisse dans le thread que j'ai cité, on peut dire _Ils burent de mauvais *thé*_ (singulier) aussi bien que _Ils burent de mauvais *thé*_*s* (pluriel).



Mais ce n'est pas la même chose. _de mauvais th_é est partitif, _une petite difficulté_ est l'article indéfini singulier.

Cheers!


----------



## tilt

Si effectivement on a affaire à un partitif, ce que je veux bien admettre, alors contrairement à ce que j'ai supposé depuis le début, _Ils burent de mauvais thé _(article partitif) n'est pas le singulier de _Ils burent de mauvais thés _(article indéfini).

Ceci expliquerait la confusion qui est la mienne !
Et Hikingnicoo aurait finalement raison : devant un qualificatif du nom,_ de _remplace tout article partitif (singulier comme pluriel), mais l'article indéfini uniquement s'il est pluriel.

C'est ça ?


----------



## hikingnicoo

Il a de petite*s* difficulté*s

*"Ils burent de mauvais thés" which is quite different that "Ils burent du mauvais thé".
But "ils burent de mauvais thé" is incorrect.


----------



## tilt

hikingnicoo said:


> But "ils burent de mauvais thé" is incorrect.


No, it's not! 
It's old-fashioned, literary, very formal and almost noone would say it, but it's not.
See there  (same thread […], but directly to the related post this time).


----------



## geostan

tilt said:


> Si effectivement on a affaire à un partitif, ce que je veux bien admettre, alors contrairement à ce que j'ai supposé depuis le début, _Ils burent de mauvais thé _(article partitif) n'est pas le singulier de _Ils burent de mauvais thés _(article indéfini).
> 
> Ceci expliquerait la confusion qui est la mienne !
> Et Hikingnicoo aurait finalement raison : devant un qualificatif du nom,_ de _remplace tout article partitif (singulier comme pluriel), mais l'article indéfini uniquement s'il est pluriel.
> 
> C'est ça ?



C'est bien ça. J'ajouterais seulement que l'article partitif de par sa nature n'a pas de pluriel. _Des_ est le pluriel de _un/une_.

Et je suis d'accord avec vous que la forme _de bon vin_ n'est pas incorrect, seulement désuet. Pour certains, je suppose, c'est la même chose.

Cheers!


----------



## itka

geostan said:


> C'est bien ça. J'ajouterais seulement que l'article partitif de par sa nature n'a pas de pluriel. _Des_ est le pluriel de _un/une_.



Mais oui, le pluriel de l'article partitif existe bien. Seulement il est rare !
Il s'agit de prendre "une partie" de quelque chose de non-comptable, au pluriel. Il n'y a pas tellement d'exemples, mais ceux qu'on donne habituellement sont bien des partitifs : 
_il mange des épinards
il mange des rillettes
_
et bien sûr, à la forme négative, il devient *de* :
_il ne mange pas d'épinards
il ne mange pas de rillettes_


----------



## geostan

Me voilà corrigé! Mauger dit en effet qu'on peut avoir un partitif pluriel lorsque le nom en question n'a pas de singulier. Je n'y avais jamais pensé.  Ah! il y a tant de choses à apprendre!

Cheers!


----------



## tilt

Exactement. Pour un nom donné, l'article partitif est unique, soit singulier, soit pluriel.


----------



## 1amateurdechopin

Bonjour,

I was reading one of the threads and I came across this expression: "(Vous faites du) bon travail. Continuez comme ça !"  Shouldn't it be "Vous faites *de* bon travail"?? Merci d'avance!


----------



## çamegonfle

*faire de quelque chose (non comptable)*

"Vous faîtes de le bon travail"
le travail
"de le" = "du"
donc: *"Vous faîtes du bon travail."*

exemple féminin:
Vous faîtes de la soupe.
la soupe
"de la" = "de la" ;-)


----------



## SophiePaquin

Mais, il y a le régle qui nous dit que quand l'adjectif précède le nom c'est toujours 'de'

Par exemple:
Tu as de beaux vêtements.
Il a de longs cheveux.

Pourquoi cela n'applique pas ici?


----------



## 1amateurdechopin

Voilà.  C'était ma question!  Pourquoi est-ce qu'on ne dit pas "de bon travail"?


----------



## Punky Zoé

Bonjour

Il s'agit ici du partitif "du", travail étant un mot non comptable. Cela signifie : _de manière générale, vous travaillez bien"_.

S'il s'agissait d'un travail particulier on dirait : "_vous avez fait un bon travail"_


----------



## çamegonfle

*avoir de quelque chose (non comptable)*

Vous avez du parfum.
Vous avez du bon parfum.
le parfum

I think it's because it's plural. I guess the rule is: in plural, you can say both:
Tu as de les beaux vêtements.
le vêtement, les vêtements
de les = des
donc: Tu as des beaux vêtements. (formal + informal)
Tu as de beaux vêtements. (formal)

mais c'est toujours: Tu as des vêtements.


----------



## DearPrudence

Punky Zoé said:


> Il s'agit ici du partitif "du", travail étant un mot non comptable. Cela signifie : _de manière générale, vous travaillez bien"_.
> 
> S'il s'agissait d'un travail particulier on dirait : "_vous avez fait un bon travail"_


Just to say that I agree with Punky Zoe.
*Je veux de la grenadine / des frites / du chocolat* (some chocolate)
*"du" *est partitif

"des" becomes "de" when the adjective is before a plural noun:
*"J'ai des vêtements"
"J'ai de beaux vêtements"*



çamegonfle said:


> dans ce cas, le verbe c'est: *avoir de quelque chose*


To say that is the verb "avoir de quelque chose" is wrong I think.
avoir + object direct
*-> J'ai [un frère]*
*-> J'ai [du chocolat]*
That's the same verb, functioning the same way in both cases.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

This thread is very interesting on this point.  In particular it looks at the view that the partative becomes de before (adjective + noun) only in the plural, a view I've heard from more than one French speaker, but for which I can find no confirmation among authorities on grammar.


----------



## CapnPrep

In this thread, you already quoted Grevisse saying that the reduction to _de_ with singulars is formal ("_langue écrite ou soignée_"), and others confirmed that this is not what French speakers would normally say.

It is also quite clear in _Le bon usage _(§584 in the 14th edition) :


> _De_ (_d’_ devant voyelle) article indéfini ou partitif. a) Le nom est précédé d’une épithète. 2º Au singulier, _de_ se rencontre encore dans la langue écrite, mais _du, de la, de l’_ sont les tours vraiment normaux. R6: Nous avons constaté que _de bon vin _est compris par l’usager ordinaire comme une erreur pour _de bons vins_.


So, yes, you are 100% correct, but I would not recommend to anyone trying to communicate in spoken or written French today to use _de_ in the singular.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

That's interesting, CapnPrep. Thank you.

I wonder if the difference between singular and plural shift of the partative comes from the fact that you only use it in the singular for non-countable things - the singular of de bonnes cerises is une bonne cerise - and so not very often.

This maybe makes a usage recommended by people like Vaugelas sound very strange to modern French speakers.


----------



## roymail

It doesn't sound *so* strange ! Tu as de beaux vêtements (pronounced _d'beaux vêtements_) is sometimes heard. But, yes, it's essentially written french.

*Moderator note:* The discussion about whether or not _de_ is partitive in such examples has been moved here.


----------

