# FR: Je n'ai rien vu



## InV15iblefrog

Bonsoir
_Je n'ai rien vu.
I didn't see anything.
_But actually, _Je ne _shows a negative, and _rien _means _nothing_.
So literally, this would be _I didn't see nothing,_ which seems highly slang in English, and a double negative.

So, can someone explain to me how this is either 
1) not a double negative
2) an accepted French double negative
3) something else?

Merci beacoup, Many thanks
InV15iblefrog


----------



## Franco-filly

The best way I can  explain it is to read “ne” as an indication that a negative it to follow, but not to translate is as “not”


----------



## Lacuzon

Bonjour,

Ne + rien is a single negative, it is not a double negative. It works like ne + pas, rien replaces pas.

Clearer?


----------



## InV15iblefrog

Lacuzon, yes clearer. By imagining it as replacing pas, it makes it easier. However, to be picky, why doesn't ne + pas become a double negative? (I've done french for 5 years up to GCSE level, but the question only just occured, because of the introduction of negatives such as ne...jamais etc.) 
How can ne + anything remain a single negative? My question seems awkward because of the fact that informally the ne is often omitted (native French, i assume correctly, no?) and the ne itself can often be sufficient to present a negative. 
So both ne and pas can do the job alone. Then why together do they not cancel each other out? 
Thanks Lacuzon


----------



## SwissPete

_Ne pas, ne rien, ne plus, ne jamais_ and some more I can't think of right now are all single negatives.


----------



## InV15iblefrog

Thanks for your input, SwisspEte, but that actually _is _my question; why so? Why are they still single negatives despite them having '2' negatives?


----------



## lucas-sp

Historically, the "ne" was the only negative. "Personne" used to mean "a person/anybody." "Rien" (from the Latin "res") used to mean "a thing/anything." "Jamais" still means "ever." French speakers could drop the "pas" but not the "ne" in a "ne... pas" construction.

But then semantically the emphasis of the negation shifted away from the "ne" and towards all the things that used to be associated with it. So "rien" came to mean "nothing" and "personne" "nobody."

French speakers don't view these as "double negations" since the "ne" now only serves to introduce negations - it can't (well, it can, but rarely) negate sentences by itself. And, yes, French stacks negatives in really weird ways: "Personne n'a rien vu" doesn't mean "Nobody saw nothing = Everybody saw something" but instead "Nobody saw anything." This is because the negatives are fundamentally ambivalent in a fun, strange way. Basically in French, once you start negating you're building a single negative.

If you really want to make a double negative, you have to work pretty hard, and it sounds bad: "Je ne suggère absolument pas qu'on ne fasse pas ce projet."


----------



## InV15iblefrog

Wow, nice explanation, I like that. lucas-sp...you've answered my question. The reference to the latin res was especially useful, since I study Latin, and somehow, i understand it much more easily than French...but that's me digressing. And by showing the 'true' double negative, I can see why ne+pas etc are definitely *not* double negatives, haha! 

Brilliant answer, truly appreciate your response. 
Merci beaucoup lucas-sp.
InV15iblefrog


----------



## Lacuzon

Lucas-sp's explanation is perfect.

I would just add that, as said lucas-sp, ne is still enough to make a negation with some verbs in a formal way (savoir, pouvoir, croire, être, avoir, vouloir).

About double negation:

Je n'ai rien vu (single negative) = I didn't see anything. 
Je n'ai pas rien vu (double negative) = I didn't see nothing = I saw something.


----------



## InV15iblefrog

Thanks Lacuzon, I see what you mean. Thanks for you addition; the more I know, the better. Thanks. 
Here, in England, dare I say it, the 'uneducated' or with little respect for grammar often use double negatives intending to mean something that should be a single negative. 
i.e. it is (un)intentional slang. Is it the same in France? 
Also, je sais pas, is that correct usage informally, without the ne? (je ne sais pas -ne = je sais pas?)
Thanks Lacuzon


----------



## Lacuzon

If you refer to We don't need no education meaning We don't need any education, I see what you mean .

French people don't use a double negation to mean a single one, even when speaking slang.

Droping the ne in a negation, is not slang in French, it is just colloquial.


----------



## InV15iblefrog

Right, ok. That helps. Exactly what i was referring to, ye, and so i assume that keeping the ne is necessary/expected in formal/written French...


----------



## Lacuzon

You're absolutely right! It's necessary.


----------



## Maître Capello

See also the following threads:

FR: "ne" without "pas" - "ne" explétif et "ne" littéraire
FR: "pas" without "ne" - omitting "ne" in casual negation
FR: savoir, pouvoir, oser, cesser - "ne" without "pas" in negative
Etymology of the French negation - Etymology and History of Languages forum


----------



## Wordsmyth

The transition (effectively a reversal) of meaning that lucas explained so well doesn't generally pose problems once you get used to it — as long as you don't attempt to apply any logic to it!  

"*Rien*" has completely lost its original meaning, so is negative whether used with "ne" or without.

"*Jamais*", used with "ne" or without, usually means "never". However it can mean "ever" in certain expressions. French speakers distinguish instinctively from the context. But if you're in doubt, InV15iblefrog, just ask yourself which makes sense in the English equivalent:
- _"Je *n'*ai *jamais* vu ..."_ >>> _"I have *never* seen_ ..._" _— [no problem]
- _"J'ai *jamais* vu ..."_ [colloquial] >>> _"I have *never *seen_ ..._"_ — [_"I have *ever* seen ..."_ doesn't work]
- _"Tu bois du vin?"_ - _"*Jamais!*" >>> "Do you drink wine?" - "*Never!*" — _[_"Do you drink wine?" - "*Ever!*"_ doesn't work]

Whereas:
- _"La plus belle voiture que j'aie *jamais* vue"_ >>> _"The most beautiful car I have *ever* seen"_ — [_"The most beautiful car I have *never* seen" _doesn't work] 
- _"Si *jamais* tu le vois, dis-lui ..."_ >>> _"If you *ever* see him, tell him ..."_ — [_"If you *never *see him, tell him ..." _doesn't work]
- _"à *jamais*"_ >>> _"for *ever*"_ — [_"for *never*" _doesn't work]

However, there is one that could cause ambiguity:* Plus*.
- _"Je *n'*en ai *plus*"_ >>> _"I have *no more*"._
- _"J'en ai *plus*"_ >>> [colloquial] _"I have *no more*"_, OR [strictly 'correct'] _"I have *more*". _To get round the confusion, the normal practice is to pronounce the 's' of 'plus' when it means 'more', and to keep it silent when it means 'no more'. Again, don't look for logic; I guess at some point it was a random fix that caught on.

In conversations about such 'imprecisions' in French, my French friends usually qualify them as "le charme de la langue française".

Ws


----------

