# EN: historical/literary/narrative present - présent historique/de narration



## domanlai

*Moderator note:* The beginning of this thread was split from another thread. Multiple other threads were then merged with it. This thread is about the historical present _*in* English_ and about how to translate the French historical present _*into* English_. If you're wondering how to use the historical present in French, please see FR: présent historique/de narration - historical/literary present.



			
				domanlai said:
			
		

> - autre chose : j'ai remarqué que des textes de ce type en français mélangeaient allègrement le présent et le passé simple : ce n'est pas choquant. J'ai trouvé des textes en anglais qui sont rédigés au présent dans le cadre d'une narration de faits anciens. Mais ...est-il concevable de mélanger les deux temps dans le même texte en anglais ?





			
				martini99 said:
			
		

> Oui, je crois qu'on peut utiliser les deux temps en anglais mais j'aurai besoin de voir le contexte et les phrases spécifiques.  If you post some of your ideas on the forum I would happily take a look and tell you whether it is possible in those specific instances.





			
				Kelly B said:
			
		

> Justement, il en faudrait des examples. En générale il me semble que l'on emploie le present historique bien moins souvent en anglais qu'en français.



Eh bien en fait, je n'ai pas vraiment d'exemples sous la main car je n'ai encore rien rédigé. Disons que ma question est plutôt d'ordre général. J'avais aussi le sentiment que l'anglais 'aime' moins le présent historique que le français mais j'ai cherché sur internet et constaté que ça existe sur des sites anglophones (pas français  ).
En fait ce que je voudrais savoir c'est ce qui est mieux pour un lecteur anglophone :
- à votre avis est-il nettement conseillé de plutôt choisir des temps appropriés au passé
- ou bien est-il envisageable de mettre du présent avec des retours au prétérite dans le cas de phrases comportant des dates. Est-ce acceptable ou pas du tout ? si oui, est-ce un style différent et comment est-ce ressenti par un anglophone ?

Histoire de commencer à rédiger directement dans la bonne version et de ne pas faire un style français en anglais


----------



## Aupick

Personellement je vous recommande de rédiger votre texte au passé. Le présent historique ne sonne pas très naturel en anglais, à mon avis, et le lecteur s'en lasse vite. Il est possible de l'utiliser dans un roman, mais même là je pourrais m'en passer. Dans un texte où il s'agit du passé, je préfère retrouver les temps du passé. (Et n'utilisez surtout pas le futur, comme les historiens ont tendance à faire en français !)


----------



## french4beth

Aupick, je suis complètement d'accord avec toi!


----------



## TiTia_43

I have a French text on Margaret Tatcher and I should translate it into English. It's done but I have a question about the tense I have to use.

My text starts like this:

_Dans le courant des années trente, un épicier du Lincolnshire se signale par ses sermons éngergiques à l'église le dimanche. A ses deux filles, l'autodidacte prédicateur inculque le goût de l'effort, l'esprit d'initiative etc ..._

The text is written using present tense but actions take place in the past.
Should I use preterite or Present for my traduction ??

Thanks for your help.


----------



## BONJOURMONAMOUR

It's better to use the present tense for narrative work as it's brings the story alive.

_During the 30's, a Lincolnshire Grocer distiguished by his energetic Sunday sermons at the local church, instills in his two daughters the idea of making an effort to succeed, the spirit of initiative...this self-taught preacher etc, etc_

_Dans le courant des années trente, un épicier du Lincolnshire se signale par ses sermons éngergiques à l'église le dimanche. A ses deux filles, l'autodidacte prédicateur inculque le goût de l'effort, l'esprit d'initiative etc ..._


----------



## Angle O'Phial

Interesting question. Ineed the historical present is much much less comon in English than in French. It works fine in English for a short text like this. As *BONJOURMONAMOUR* says, it can help bring it alive. However, if this is part of a longer text, say more than a paragraph, I'd use the past tense as the historical present quickly becomes tiresome to read. 

I think I'd also avoid the historical present if the text doesn't bring you up to the real present. That is, I think you have to say

During the 30s, XXX instills in his two daughters ... Today, one of those daughters is the most famous ...

With Thatcher, I suspect that you won't be able to do that.


----------



## BONJOURMONAMOUR

Maybe you could use the present tense in the 1st introductory paragraph to set the scene and then launch into the past tense the the subsequent paras?


----------



## La_Saboteuse

What's the best way to translate the _présent du narration_ into English? Say, for instance, a character is being introduced: "C'est un homme d'environ trente ans, qui aime lire..." This present-tense can continue for the duration of a sequence. It seems to be a very common fixture in French but I'm not sure what the best way to render it into English is. It creates a very important tone, and yet it just seems grammatically strange in English to use the present tense—the only time you see the present tense in English like that is when someone is telling a story, never in written narration.

So should this particularly French use of the present tense be turned into past tense when translating into English? This is a problem that has bothered me for a while.


----------



## Lotache

Hi!
It's "Présent DE narration" 
Et je pense que oui, il faut parfois le traduire au prétérit. Cependant, pour les textes plus contemporains, le présent peut-être conservé.
Le livres écrits au présent existent aussi en anglais mais sont plus rares qu'en français je pense.


----------



## Oddmania

I find the passage you quoted rather strange, as it's not really common to read such descriptions in Present tense in a novel written with a Past tense. We'd rather use a Past tense.

*Ex. :* _Le lendemain, Robert est allé faire ses courses et a rencontré la jeune femme qui vivait près de chez lui. C'était une femme d'environ trente ans, qui aimait lire etc... _

It's not common to see passages with the _Present tense_ in novels. We often use it in History, on the other hand.

*Ex. :*_ En 1991, l'URSS est démantelée et les pays d'Europe de l'Est accèdent enfin à l'indépendance._ 

Using a _Past tense_ in this context would actually sounds strange. You feel like... _So what ?_ You could use a Past tense if you want to say that this event generated other events so that's why blahblahblah. 

_L'URSS a été démantelée en 1991, c'est pourquoi elle n'apparait plus sur la carte du monde aujourd'hui_ (or whatever...)


----------



## Lotache

On trouve de temps en temps le présent de narration dans le littérature contemporaine Oddmania (et aussi les livres pour enfants )


----------



## Keith Bradford

My advice to French writers is always to use the past tense in English for past actions, the present for present actions. For instance, in the Thatcher extract above, I don't see any good alternative to:

_During the 30's, a Lincolnshire Grocer, distinguished by his energetic Sunday sermons at the local church, instilled in his two daughters the idea of ..._


There are two exceptions to this rule is in spoken English.
Anecdotes are sometimes told in the present tense. E.g:_ "Did I tell you what happened to me yesterday? I'm walking along the High street when this car goes by, and..." _
Historic narrative on (say) a film can be in the present. _"It is seven in the morning on Sunday 18 June 1815, and Napoleon's army is preparing for battle near the village of Waterloo.."_
But this is spoken English; don't write it.  And even here, the past would be equally good: "_I was walking along the High street when this car went by, and..." _


----------



## gannon23

Hello,

I'm translating an eye-witness account of an earthquake from French into English however I am not sure what tense to translate into. It is the present tense in french, but it doesn't make sense to put it in the present in English:

_"Il y *a* une prise de conscience sur le moment quand on *voit* que cela monte en intensité, on se dit _"_Qu'est-ce qui se passe ? Il y *a* quelque chose d'important qui *est* en train de se passer, espérons que tout va aller bien quand même."_

My go in English:

There *was *a realization at the moment when one *felt* something increase in intensity. We asked our selves "what's going on?!" Something incredible *was* going on, hoping that all would eventually turn out ok."

I know that the actualy translation isn't very accurate, but could someone help me with the tenses.

Thanks, any help very much appreciated.


----------



## Keith Bradford

You have it right.  Generally in English we put a text like that into the past historic, whatever the French said.

Past events can be related in the present tense in English, but usually only if conversational, such as anecdotes and jokes: "_This penguin goes into a bar, and says to the barman..._"


----------



## flyingcabbage

Hi everyone!

I have a question about translation and, as it's to do with tenses I thought it fit better under grammar.
 When translating a historical text that uses the present tense from French to English, should I keep the present tense or put it into the past? French uses the present tense in a historical context a lot but English doesn't do it quite so much... I'll give an example. The text below is clearly set in the past, but French uses the present. When translating, do you keep the present (even though it sounds a little odd in English) or transpose it to the preterite & pluperfect?

"*D'abord employé par un coréligionnaire négociant en soieries, Auguste Blum (père de Léon) devient patron de l'entreprise, associé à deux autres employés, lorsque le propriétaire s'en retire. L'affaire prospérant, il rachète les parts de ses associés en 1868. En 1879, il constitue une société avec ses deux frères qui ont à leur tour quitté Alsace..."* etc.

_First employed by a multi-denominational silk trader, Auguste Blum (father of Leon) *[becomes/became]* the joint-manager (along with two others) when the owner* [retires/retired*]. With business prospering, he *[buys/bought]* out his two partners in 1868. In 1879, he *[forms/formed]* a society with his two brothers who *[have/had* in turn *left]* Alsace..._ etc.

I think the past sounds more idiomatic in English, but do you agree?

Thanks in advance for any help/suggestions. 


I'm not necessarily looking for anyone to proofread the above (unless there are glaring errors) I'm just asking about the tense


----------



## marget

The past tense sounds better to me.


----------



## lucas-sp

Hi there -

We use the historical present tense so rarely in English that I always think it best to change everything into the past. You can use the present every once in a while for added emphasis and intensity, but that's definitely the exception. ("Sean lived in the cabin in the woods where he had been born seventeen years earlier. In 1813, his life is forever changed when he discovers a platinum mine in his backyard. After finding sufficient financial backing, he constructed a full-scale mining operation.") We do this idiomatically too - switch from past tense to present tense at the climax of our oral narratives about past events ("So the policeman pulled me over. So there I am, and I roll down my window, and..."). But we don't stay with the present tense for long, and it gets really tiring to read. Stick to the past!


----------



## flyingcabbage

Thanks for the replies .

That's what I was thinking, if you stay in the present too long, it ends up sounding too much like a synopsis film or novel. (sort of like "It's about this girl and she goes here... and does this... and then finds out..."). In uni they tell us (in general) not to stray too far from the original text, which is why I asked, but it just doesn't read well in the present here.


----------



## chien

Hello, 

I would like to know about the use of tenses, when you tell a story / narration that takes place in the past. Can you transpose yourself into the moment of the story and use the progressive present ( like when you describe a mental image )or is it better to use the simple present? 
The text about which I’m asking this question belongs to a book where the author wrote his reflections.

For example in the following:

"20th september 2009, you're watching me from the corner of the eye, 
You are not moving, I'm holding your hand..."

Can you tell me what you think?


----------



## djweaverbeaver

Using the present (continuous) in this way makes it seem as if you want your interlocutor to actively imagine what you are describing to him or her as you give them a play-by-play account of what happened.  If it is in a book, it would mean that the writer is talking directly to the reader.  Otherwise, this wouldn't be very natural.


----------



## ditnn

I am doing a translation for a book written in French and the whole book is written "au présent".

when I translate the book into English, should I use the present tense (being very loyal to the "au présent" in the original French version), or can/should I use the past tense (including present perfect tense) in my translation?

this is the comment I received from the author of the French version: "j’ai écrit le livre au présent alors qu’il semble que l’usage en anglais  soit plus au passé…  Mais je ne suis pas assez connaissant pour juger."


Please let me know your opinions.

Thank you.


----------



## MimiBug

Bonjour,
Si l'auteur vous laisse le choix, peut-être est-il judicieux de traduire dans le mode avec lequel vous êtes le plus à l'aise. Dans le cas contraire votre traduction ne sera pas aussi agréable à lire.


----------



## OLN

Je ne pense pas que le choix du temps dépende de l'aise du traducteur. Il importe que le résultat final soit naturel. 
Ditnn, l'auteur a l'air de se fier à tes connaissances pour faire le bon choix. Qu'en penses-tu personnellement ?

Je suis toutefois curieuse : quel type de livre est entièrement conjugué au présent mais peut être traduit au "present perfect" ?
[….]


----------



## Keith Bradford

As it seems the author does not have a particular axe to grind about his use of the present, you're in the lucky position of being able to choose what English novelists do.  I've just looked at a dozen novels taken at random, from Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte to Dick Francis and Zadie Smith, and they're all written in the past historic.  One, written in the first person, uses an occasional perfect, and Jane Austen and Terry Pratchett both use the present when making statements of general truth.  "It is a truth universally acknowledged..."

But otherwise it's wall-to-wall past.


----------



## velisarius

Hilary Mantel used a present tense narrative for _Wolf Hall_ and for its sequel. That annoyed many readers (not me).


----------



## WestFevalia

[…]
De tous les livres en anglais que j'ai lus, il n'y en a qu'un qui soit écrit au présent de narration ! Donc c'est correct mais (comme disait Lotache ci-dessus) sans doute beaucoup plus rare qu'en français.


----------



## In Absentia

This reminded me of this article written by Phillip Pullman, who is on the whole not in favour of present tense narration:


> But if every sound you emit is a scream, a scream has no expressive  value. What I dislike about the present-tense narrative is its limited  range of expressiveness


http://www.theguardian.com/global/2010/sep/18/philip-pullman-author-present-tense

I concur with his thoughts on the matter, rarely have I read a novel written in English in the present tense that hasn't seemed either amateurish or pretentious, but then when it's done well and for a reason it's a very impressive literary device.

Therefore, you'll have to ascertain whether it adds or detracts from the work. You should be able to tell whether it's a naff distraction or not.


----------



## cachana

Hi everyone,

I'd like to know if the narrator combines the present tense and the past tense in the story, is it a grammatical error in English? Do you have to always keep the same tense?

Thanks for your help.


----------



## Maître Capello

On n'utilise que rarement le présent de narration en anglais. Il est le plus souvent préférable d'utiliser le simple past.


----------



## Downbow

cachana, I find your question a bit on the vague side. Could you be more specific? I can imagine situations in which a mixture of present and past would be appropriate, although Maître Capello is right to say that the "historical present" is quite rare in English.


----------



## cachana

When the narrator starts telling his story, which happened in the past, using the past tense, and then continues to tell it using the present tense.


----------



## Downbow

Well, if it's fiction, changing from the past to the present could pass as a stylistic device intended to make the narration more vivid. Personally, I do not find it a very effective device, but it seems to be fairly common nowadays, and I don't think you could consider it a "grammatical error." (The Latin historians would switch from past to present in this way.)


----------



## cachana

Yes, it's fiction. Thank you!


----------



## etoile2009

Bonjour les jeunes et les moins jeunes, 

 Je fais une tentative de traduction de conte pour enfants, dans la version française le verbe est souvent au présent pour nous faire vivre les actions, quant a la langue anglaise pas toujours facile de garder le présent, j'aimerais avoir vos avis concernant ces deux extraits. 

Le petit nuage reste là, accroché aux branches du grenadier. Ravi, il veut se mêler aux jeux des enfants qui ne le remarquent pas. Il ne sait pas comment attirer leur attention

The little cloud stays there, hanging on the pomegranate tree braches. Delighted, he wants to join in children games who *didn't don’t *notice him. He *didn' t  doesn't* know how to attract their attention


----------



## Welsh_Sion

Cher(e) @etoile,

Where is the problem? You have* 'stays' *and* 'wants' *already in the Present Simple in the earlier part of your text. Why don't you continue in the same vein, although these are negative constructions:* 'don't'* and *'doesn't'.*

Maybe I'm missing something, but I feel it would also 'jar' to introduce the Past Simple here, having started in the Present Simple.

I can be corrected by those who have English as their native language.

De plus, Present Simple is often used in English narration:

The man* walks* to the door. He *stops*. He *knocks* on the door, then he *turns* the knob. The door* opens* and he *walks* into the house. He *walks* on and* sees* a room on his left. He *enters* the room and* sits* down in a big, old armchair. He* is *very tired. He* isn't *worried. He *doesn't* mind the bats flying around his head. Very soon, the man *falls* asleep and *starts* to snore.


----------



## olivier68

Personnellement, je conserverais le présent.


----------



## Maître Capello

J'éviterais pour ma part totalement le présent de narration en anglais. Il est beaucoup plus rare qu'en français, même si de nos jours on le trouve un peu plus souvent qu'autrefois.

Donc :  _The little cloud stay*ed* there… He want*ed*…_ etc.


----------



## jann

Maître Capello said:


> J'éviterais pour ma part totalement le présent de narration en anglais. Il est beaucoup plus rare qu'en français, même si de nos jours on le trouve un peu plus souvent qu'autrefois.


Agreed.  And I'd say the English narrative present is even rarer in children's stories than it might be in other contexts!


----------

