# FR: Si nous partions plus tard le vendredi, nous mettrions moins de temps



## Glat64

Bonsoir tout le monde, 

Dans la phrase suivant.... 

Si nous partions plus tard le vendredi, nous mettrions moins de temps.


Est-ce que '*had*' en anglais une bonne traduction pour *partions* et *mettrions* ? 

If we had left later on Friday, we would have had less time.


----------



## Gil

Suggestion:
If we left earlier on Fridays, we would save time


----------



## moustic

I agree with Gil (except for _earlier_ ... )


----------



## Santana2002

alternative suggestion: "_Had we left later on Friday, we would have saved time_."


----------



## jann

Santana2002 said:


> alternative suggestion: "_Had we left later on Friday, we would have saved time_."


I'm afraid that's not quite what the French sentence says. 

"Had we left earlier" or "if we had left earlier" would be a pluperfect:  _si nous étions partis plus tôt_.  The statement is then completed by a past conditional:  "...we would have saved time", _nous aurions mis moins de temps_.  Taken together, we have here a hypothesis about a counterfactual situation, one  that in reality did not come to pass: we left when we did on the Friday  in question, not earlier.... but if we had left earlier, we can guess how things might have turned out differently.

But the French sentence uses an imperfect, _si nous partions plus tôt_.  This expresses a conjecture about something that has not yet come to pass, or about a generic/repeated situation.  In English, we use a preterit or a past subjunctive:  "if we left earlier" or "If we were to leave earlier."  The statement is then completed by a present conditional: "...we would save time", _nous mettrions moins de temps._

A further note:  the original says _si nous partions plus tôt *le* vendredi.  _The definite article indicates not "on Friday" but "on Friday*s*," so we are talking about a repeated action here.

Gil's translation is the right one:  If we left [were to leave] earlier on Fridays, we would save time.

Glat64, all this leads me to ask:  which direction were you really trying to translate?  Did you find that French sentence somewhere and want to be sure you'd understood it properly?  Or did you have an English sentence you were trying to express correctly in French?


----------



## Santana2002

Thank you, Jann, for taking the time to compose that crystal clear explanation! (& sorry for confusing the issue with my incorrect interpretation)


----------



## Glat64

Thanks everyone. I found the phrase on an online test for the conditional and it was the use of mettre that really threw me. I have since found on the forum dictionary that "mettre du temps" translates as "take time" (I missed it first time round) and it makes more sense now. "If we left later on Fridays, we would take less time."   Must be to avoid the rush hour traffic !


----------



## H.M.V.

One last thing, I don't know if that's useful to you but I want to make sure everything has been said.
If you say "we would have had less time", you're saying in French "nous aurions moins de temps" or "nous perdrions du temps". Basically, by leaving later you are losing or wasting time.

Also, in your first message : "Dans la phrase suivant*e*...."
(if you just forgot to put it there, that will help others )


----------



## Oddmania

H.M.V. said:


> If you say "we would have had less time", you're saying in French "nous aurions moins de temps" or "nous perdrions du temps". Basically, by leaving later you are losing or wasting time.



Pas tout à fait!  _We would *have had* less time → Nous *aurions eu* moins de temps._

Je suis d'accord avec vous concernant le sens du verbe, néanmoins.


----------



## H.M.V.

Bonne précision en effet, petite confusion de temps.


----------



## Maître Capello

jann said:


> A further note:  the original says _si nous partions plus tôt *le* vendredi.  _The definite article indicates not "on Friday" but "on Friday*s*," so we are talking about a repeated action here.


I beg to disagree.  The definite article does not necessarily imply it is a repeated action. Besides, if it were one, the main verb would be in the imparfait, not the conditional.

_Si nous partions plus tard le vendredi, nous *mettrions* moins de temps._ =  If we left later on Friday, we would save time. (counterfactual condition, e.g., we will leave early on Friday)
_Si nous partions plus tard le vendredi, nous *mettions* moins de temps._ = If we left later on Friday*s*, we would save time. (habit)

By the way, the original sentence reads _plus tard_, not _ plus tôt_…


----------



## geostan

I don't see how the use of the definite article necessarily implies a repeated action in the past. You could have the same type of repetition as a conditional sentence expressing a generality. Further, I could see the use of *ce* rather than *le* to express a specific Friday. Like Jann, I would have interpreted it as a repetition.


----------



## Gil

moustic said:


> I agree with Gil (except for _earlier_ ... )


Merci.  Tu as raison.  C'est _later_ qu'il fallait écrire


----------



## Gil

Gil's translation is the right one:  If we left [were to leave said:
			
		

> earlier on Fridays, we would save time.


earlier should be replaced by later.  I still think the rest is O.K.  And  "le vendredi" with the article implies a repeated action.


----------



## Maître Capello

geostan said:


> I don't see how the use of the definite article necessarily implies a repeated action in the past.


 Erm… I just said the opposite: the use of the definite article does *not* necessarily imply a repeated action in the past.


> You could have the same type of repetition as a conditional sentence expressing a generality.


This is definitely possible in English, but not in French. In French, the conditional in the apodosis *excludes* the possibility of a repeated action in the past.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

> Si nous partions plus tard le vendredi, nous mettrions moins de temps.


This sentence means_ I suggest that, in the future, we leave later on Fridays, so that we would spend less time in the traffic and trips would be faster._


jann said:


> A further note:  the original says _si nous partions plus tôt *le* vendredi.  _The definite article indicates not "on Friday" but "on Friday*s*," so we are talking about a repeated action here.


I agree.


Maître Capello said:


> the use of the definite article does *not* necessarily imply a repeated action in the past.
> [...] In French, the conditional in the apodosis *excludes* the possibility of a repeated action in the past.


Not in the past in the original sentence: in the future!
Were it a "one-shot" _vendredi_, I would either drop the article (_plus tard vendredi_) or specify _which_ vendredi (_le vendredi 13 février_).
This is exactly as in _je pars à ma maison de campagne *le* vendredi, et j'en reviens *le *dimanche_. This is my habit.
It would need a heavy context to read it as a one-shot process; while _je pars à ma maison de campagne vendredi, et j'en reviens dimanche_ is clearly a one-shot plan for next W-E.


Maître Capello said:


> _Si nous partions plus tard le vendredi, nous *mettions* moins de temps._ = If we left later on Friday*s*, we would save time. (habit)


This is a completely different animal, where "si" means "when": all the action is situated in the past,and there is no conditional. 
Although here also the definite "le" implies repetition indeed...


----------



## Maître Capello

C'est une question de contexte :

_Nous partirons jeudi soir ou vendredi matin. Si nous partions plus tard le vendredi, nous mettrions moins de temps._

Ce n'est clairement pas une habitude…


----------



## JeanDeSponde

C'est ce que je disais avec mon "heavy context". Mais ici il s'agit d'une phrase isolée, tirée d'un test...


----------

