# FR: on parlera de société de droit japonais



## dummy0304

I recently found that the article "une" is omitted in some French expressions. 

E.g., selon le pays où se trouve le siège social, on parlera de société de droit japonais, de société de droit allemand, etc. 

I wonder why it's "de société" rather than "d'une société" ou "de sociétés". Thanks in advance!


----------



## BAlfson

The problem you have is in the grouping you see.  The term is not _société_, but _société de droit japonais_ = Japanese Corporation; _on parlera de ça_.

Does that make more sense?

Cheers - Bob


----------



## dummy0304

Thanks for offering to explain, I am still confused here. I understand the French sentence. The problem it seems to me is, in English, one always say "talk about a Japanese company" rather than "talk about Japanese company."


----------



## jamsmasher

I am confused as to why there is no article required in front of "société" here. I think this is dummy0304's issue, too.


----------



## BAlfson

This isn't a discussion about *a* company, _*une* société_. In English, we speak of Japanese corporations. _En français, on parlera de société de droit japonais._

Is that better?

Cheers - Bob


----------



## dummy0304

I checked my text book, there is such an explanation, 

<on ne met pas d'article après certains verbes ou locutions verbales qui se construisent avec la préposition de: parler de politique, avoir besoin d'argent, manquer de pain...>

Donc, on mi ni "un", ni "la" dans le cas de "parler de société." J'espère que ça vous aide.


----------



## jann

Hi Dummy0304, 

I don't know that I can give you a good explanation here, because this sentence is some what unique.  But maybe I can mention a few things that will help.

First, the examples you mention from your grammar book are "missing" the article for a totally different reason.  They are structurally different from the sentence you've given in post #1, and you can't really explain the sentence from post #1 using the citation from your grammar book.  The grammar book examples can be explained by the fact that the preposition "de" (which is part of verbal expressions like _avoir besoin de, manquer de, parler de_) combines with the partitive article (_du, de la, de l', des_) to give us "de" back again.  I wrote an explanation of this topic here in your thread from a couple of weeks ago.

But your new example sentence, with _parler de société de droit japonais_, cannot be explained like that... because it's not a combination of _[parler de] + [de la société de droit japonais]_.

The only way I can think to explain the absence of the article here is by telling you that there are implied quotation marks. 

_--> Selon...., on parlera de _«_ X _» _ou de _«_ Y _»_.  _

The words _X_ and _Y_ are special terms that are being established/defined for future use.  The quotations marks could actually be included in the text, instead of just being implied: _...on parlera de «  société de droit japonais », de «__ société de droit allemand », etc._ 

Translating _société de droit japonais _as "Japanese corporation" is a bit of a simplification.  It's not that the corporation is Japanese. It's that the corporation was created and registered in accordance to Japanese law, and must comply with Japanese regulations (regardless of who owns it and where it does business).  This thread discusses the meaning and translation a bit.  I am not fluent in the legal language of business, but I think it would be more accurate to translate the sentence with something like the following.  As you can see, we can omit the article in English as well:Depending on the country where the corporate heaquarters are located, we'll use the term "company organized/incorporated under Japanese law"...​Finally, I would just note that the following two versions of the French sentence would be equally correct, and would have essentially the same meaning as the original:


 _Selon ..., on parlera *d'une* société de droit japonais, etc_. (using the indefinite article is fine) // ...we'll talk about "a company organized under Japanese law," etc.
 _Selon ..., on parlera *de* société*s* de droit japonais, etc._  (parler de + des sociétés = parler de sociétés) // ...we'll speak of "companies organized under Japanese law," etc.


----------



## BAlfson

> Finally, I would just note that the following two versions of the French sentence would be equally correct, and would have essentially the same meaning as the original:
> 
> _Selon ..., on parlera *d'une* société de droit japonais, etc_. (using the indefinite article is fine) // ...we'll talk about "a company organized under Japanese law," etc.
> _Selon ..., on parlera *de* société*s* de droit japonais, etc._ (parler de + des sociétés = parler de sociétés) // ...we'll speak of "companies organized under Japanese law," etc.




Jann, I hate to disagree with you,...

_"on parlera de société de droit japonais"  is completely differet from "on parlera de sociétée*s* de droit japonais"._

_Cheers - Bob _


----------



## dummy0304

Jann, I am so happy to hear from you. I agree with your translation on the term, but I don't quite agree with your explain of "parler de,"  if I understand you correctly, you mean the article "une" is dropped because "société de droit japonais " is a propre noun (i.e., nouns representing unique entities), which is not true here as one can also say, 

on parle de politique.
parle de chose et d'autre
on parle de nouvelle

I would also like to call your attention to other cases in which the article un/une is omitted, e.g..,

alerter le sécour en cas de crise
voyager par bateau
souffrir de dépression/grippe...

Your explanation doesn't justify the expressions hereinabove very well, it seems to me. I expect to hear further from you.


----------



## Maître Capello

BAlfson said:


> Jann, I hate to disagree with you,...
> _"on parlera de société de droit japonais"  is completely differet from "on parlera de sociétée*s* de droit japonais"._


Well, no, the meaning is actually quite the same… The choice between the singular and the plural is really a matter of personal taste/style.


dummy0304 said:


> if I understand you correctly, you mean the article "une" is dropped because "société de droit japonais " is a propre noun (i.e., nouns representing unique entities), which is not true here as one can also say,
> on parle de politique, parle de chose et d'autre, on parle de nouvelle
> 
> I would also like to call your attention to other cases in which the article un/une is omitted, e.g..,
> alerter le sécour en cas de crise, voyager par bateau, souffrir de dépression/grippe...


I'm afraid you've mixed up different things…

_Société de droit japonais_ is not considered as a proper name but as a definition. In the original example, _société de droit japonais_ and _société de droit allemand_ are like dictionary entries. They are the way such companies are referred to. As a matter of fact, _parler de X_ has two distinct meanings: 1º to talk about X; 2º to be referred to as X. Here the only possible meaning is #2 given the context. It is similar to _on dit «société de droit japonais»_. It is therefore quite different from _parler de politique / de choses et d'autres_, etc., where meaning #1 is intended.


----------



## BAlfson

> BAlfson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jann, I hate to disagree with you,...
> _"on parlera de société de droit japonais" is completely differet from "on parlera de sociétée*s* de droit japonais"._
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, the meaning is actually quite the same… The choice between the singular and the plural is really a matter of personal taste/style.
Click to expand...

As you explained at the end of your post, _« société de droit japonais »_ is a term unto itself.  _« Société*s* de droit japonais » _would be a collection of such.  In the original post, the context dictates the former, don't you think?

Cheers - Bob


----------



## Maître Capello

No. You could use the plural to refer to companie*s* in general as in: _Such companies are referred to as "companies incorporated under Japanese law."_ As a matter of fact, the singular or the plural may be preferred depending on the exact context, which is indeed missing.


----------



## BAlfson

Of course, but, in the context of the first post in this thread, the second formulation could not be used because the focus is on each company.  Anyway, we can agree to disagree.

Cheers - Bob


----------



## Maître Capello

I'm sorry Bob, but in the sample sentence, it is *definitely* possible to use the plural. Maybe you should start trusting a native…


----------



## dummy0304

Yes, I think one can use either singular or plural form. But my original question exists. Who can tell me in which cases, should "un/une"  be dropped?


----------



## Maître Capello

In the sample sentence, you can either drop it or keep it. However, we can't make a list of similar expressions where the article can be omitted. That would be out of the scope of this forum.

Maître Capello,
as member and moderator


----------



## dummy0304

I don't think it's possible to make an exhaustive list of this. Just wonder if anyone knows about the rule about the omission of partial articles in French...


----------



## BAlfson

> le pays ... le siège social ... de société ... de société


le pays ... le siège social ... de société*s* ... de société*s* ?

I agree that an equivalent sentence can be constructed with the plural and that using the plural in the original sentence would be understood. Again, we can agree to disagree.

Thanks for your efforts as a moderator here - this is a great place!

Cheers - Bob


----------

