# FR: I doubt he would have become



## SquashGod

Je veux dire "I doubt that he would have become the same hero that he is without the burden of his ugliness" en Francais mais je ne sais pas exactement comment. Je me trouve déchiré entre:
"Je doute qu’il serait devenu le même héros qu'il est sans le fardeau de son laideur." (utilisant le futur antérieur)
et
"Je doute qu’il fût devenu le même héros qu'il est sans le fardeau de son laideur." (utilisant le plus-que-parfait subjonctif).
Merci d'avance.


----------



## enJoanet

SquashGod said:


> Je veux dire "I doubt that he would have become the same hero that he is without the burden of his ugliness" en Francais mais je ne sais pas exactement comment. Je me trouve déchiré entre:
> "Je doute qu’il serait devenu le même héros qu'il est sans le fardeau de son  sa laideur." (utilisant le futur antérieur)
> et
> "Je doute qu’il fût devenu le même héros qu'il est sans le fardeau de son  sa laideur." (utilisant le plus-que-parfait subjonctif).
> Merci d'avance.


 
Bonsoir!
A mon sens, la première tentative, celle dans laquelle tu utilises le futur, est fausse. La seconde, elle, est juste. Cependant, l'imparfait du subjonctif n'est guère utilisé de nos jours! Et il faut être "socialement autorisé" pour l'employer  (de même, en anglais, on entend pas tous les jours "I should like", etc.)
Je dirais plutôt: _Je doute qu'il ait pu devenir le héro qu'il est aujourd'hui sans le fardeau que représente sa laideur"._
j'espère que ça t'aidera un peu!


----------



## Jerome RANDOU

The sentence suits me fine. 

"Je doute qu'il fût devenu le même héros qu'il est sans le fardeau de sa laideur."


----------



## Maître Capello

Utilise plutôt simplement le subjonctif passé, soit :

_Je doute qu'il soit devenu le héros qu'il est sans le fardeau de sa laideur._


----------



## SquashGod

Merci a tous.
Le context est un essai de coursework où on gange beaucoup en utilisant des phrases/constructions prétentieux même si c'est un peux vieux... donc je crois que j'irai avec plus-que-parfait subjonctif.

Ah ok thanks. It that simply because the pluperfect subjunctive is a rather antiquated form or not as correct on a gramatical level? The reason for asking this is because although i might sound rather pretentious using it... it is in a coursework essay where stuff like that will gain me a lot of marks, albeit at the risk of making me sound pretentious...


----------



## roymail

_qu'il fût_ d_evenu_ est vieux et littéraire.
_serait devenu_ est un conditionnel passé, pas un futur antérieur : correct, plus hypothétique
_soit devenu : simple et correct_


----------



## Maître Capello

SquashGod said:


> It that simply because the pluperfect subjunctive is a rather antiquated form or not as correct on a gramatical level?


In this case, it'd be incorrect to use the pluperfect subjunctive because there is a strong link to the present (_le héros qu'il *est*_). Therefore you have to use the past subjunctive which is equivalent to the passé composé (for the indicative mood), i.e., the present perfect in English…

However you could have used it if saying:

_Je doute qu'il *fût devenu* le héros qu'il *était* sans le fardeau de sa laideur._


----------



## Leatchoum

Sounds very posh 

Agree with Maître Capello


----------



## geostan

Maître Capello said:


> Utilise plutôt simplement le subjonctif passé, soit :
> 
> _Je doute qu'il soit devenu le héros qu'il est sans le fardeau de sa laideur._



I think this is a case, where the conditional overrides the subjunctive. For me:

Je doute qu'il soit devenu... means _I doubt that he became/has become. _I don't think it can be the equivalent of the conditional. So, I would say:

Je doute qu'il serait devenu...


----------



## roymail

It's not an equivalent, it's something else, but it's correct


----------



## trench feature

roymail said:


> It's not an equivalent, it's something else, but it's correct


 

Do you agree that the conditional can be used after the verb douter?


----------



## Maître Capello

trench feature said:


> Do you agree that the conditional can be used after the verb douter?


It _can_, but some linguists regard it as poor language. Anyway I wouldn't say it be incorrect…


----------



## trench feature

Maître Capello said:


> It _can_, but some linguists regard it as poor language. Anyway I wouldn't say it be incorrect…


 
Thanks for your response. Would this be the case in general? Can the conditional be used in many such contexts where the subjunctive would normally be expected/required and be considered poor language but not incorrect?


----------



## Maître Capello

trench feature said:


> Thanks for your response. Would this be the case in general? Can the conditional be used in many such contexts where the subjunctive would normally be expected/required and be considered poor language but not incorrect?


Well, no. Usually you *cannot* use the conditional instead of the subjunctive. There are however cases like the present example where it is possible but not recommended.


----------



## trench feature

Maître Capello said:


> Well, no. Usually you *cannot* use the conditional instead of the subjunctive. There are however cases like the present example where it is possible but not recommended.


 
Thanks again.  I was hoping you would say that.


----------



## geostan

In dealing with a conditional idea, whether or not a verb takes the subjunctive, the conditional usually takes precedence. This is especially true when dealing with a conditional sentence, even an implied one. There are many examples on the web.

When one says:

I doubt that he would have stayed...

there is an implied "if" clause.

Using the original example, one could have:

I doubt that he would have become... if he had known...

I cannot believe that the past subjunctive would be used rather than the past conditional.

Other examples I found:

Je doute qu'il soit payé avec des clopinettes, et si c'etait le cas je doute qu'il serait resté..

Et si quelqu'un le pensait vraiment ici, je doute qu'il serait possible de le convaincre du contraire par le raisonnement

To me these sentences are perfectly normal and reasonable.

What thinkest thou?


----------



## Maître Capello

geostan said:


> What thinkest thou?


Methinks thou art right…  (← hopefully this is correct… )

Anyway, I was speaking in general terms and not specifically for _douter que_… But I definitely agree that the conditional would be more prevalent nowadays  to translate your examples:

I doubt that he would have stayed
_Je doute qu'il fût resté_ (literary)
_Je doute qu'il serait resté_ (common)

I doubt that he would have become... if he had known...
_Je doute qu'il fût devenu… s'il avait/eût su… _(literary)
_ Je doute qu'il serait devenu… s'il avait su… _(common)

_ Et si quelqu'un le pensait vraiment ici, je doute qu'il serait*/soit* possible de le convaincre du contraire par le raisonnement.
_


----------



## SquashGod

Maître Capello said:


> Methinks thou art right…  (← hopefully this is correct… )


 
Its perfect (albeit rather antiquated of course ^^) but because of that i would personally use 'correct' rather than 'right', the latter or which sounds less formal/more modern.

Back on topic though...
Thank you everyone for your help. I understand that it is a 'grey area' and there may be no real 'correct' awnser but you've definately made it as clear as possible because before i really had no idea.
Merci à tous.


----------

