# Nous n'eûmes point à inventer



## Randisi

What the devil tense is this? I can't find it anywhere in my reference works.

"Nous n'eûmes donc point, que je sache, à inventer la roue, puisque nous en portions, depuis toujours, beaucoup sous nous."

We thus did not, as far as I know, have to invent the wheel, since we have carried lots of them, from time immemorial, beneath us.


Is this even close to right?

Thanks for any help you can give!


----------



## mgarizona

Sure it's close. *eûmes* is passé simple, *portions* is imparfait. You'll probably want to 'tone up' the vocabulary. "lots of them"? I don't think that's quite the right note to strike in such a sentence.


----------



## Randisi

Thanks, mgAZ,

For some reason, while pouring over my verb conjugations, I just didn't see 'eûmes' under the passé simple for 'avoir,' and I know I looked. That was my first thought. The mind is a funny thing indeed.

The 'lots of' is definitely a little 'low brow' for this sentence, but as I was translating it off the cuff just now, 'we have carried many of them' didn't seem right either. I'll find some other way.

Thanks again!


----------



## mgarizona

Try just "we have carried many"

But you don't really need anybody's help with this.


----------



## Randisi

'…since we have carried many, from time immemorial, beneath us.'

Nice.

The idea here is that our ankles and the joints of the ball of our feet cause our feet to move in arcs, heel to toe. So we already have wheels installed in our very bodies!


----------



## mgarizona

very cool ... is this from the same madman? are you ever going to name names?


----------



## Randisi

You never asked: Variations sur le corps, par Michel Serres. He is a member of the Académie Française, a philosopher/scientist, and general madman. He is currently professor emeritus at Stanford.

By the way, doesn't the 'as far as I know' seem a little odd?


----------



## Jackal72

This sentence is the wierdest one I have come across so far..

Quite the peculiar one at that.


----------



## Randisi

That sentence is a mild one, believe me!

(gotta go now)


----------



## timpeac

It should be "we _had _carried them" since although this is the imperfect it is used with "depuis" so just as "nous en portons beaucoup depuis toujours" becomes "we have carried a lot of them since forever" "nous en portions beaucoup depuis toujours" becomes "we had carried...". Think of "j'habite ici depuis 3 ans" "I _have_ lived here for 3 years".


----------



## mgarizona

Randisi said:
			
		

> By the way, doesn't the 'as far as I know' seem a little odd?


 
It does. Falsely humble. Could it have a sense something like "I don't see any reason we should have ever invented the wheel blah blah" That's just off the top of my head.


----------



## Jackal72

j'habite ici depuis 3 ans" "I _have_ lived here for 3 years".
wow, I just realized you do need depuis in that sentence...
THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!! 
depuis = since
OWWW I'M SO CONFUSED WITH EVERYTHING NOW!...



Back on topic


I don't understand what the guy is talking about the wheel and how it connects us.


----------



## timpeac

The nuance of "avoir à" is not quite caught by "to have to" I think. I would suggest "we didn't have the wheel to invent" as opposed to "we didn't have to invent the wheel" (small point, I know).


----------



## timpeac

Jackal72 said:
			
		

> j'habite ici depuis 3 ans" "I _have_ lived here for 3 years".
> wow, I just realized you do need depuis in that sentence...
> THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!
> depuis = since
> OWWW I'M SO CONFUSED WITH EVERYTHING NOW!...
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic
> 
> 
> I don't understand what the guy is talking about the wheel and how it connects us.


It is on topic - it's discussing the sentence asked about! And the translation was wrong as it stood on that point. Depuis can equal since with reference to exact dates, but the point about the tenses is still the same -

J'habite ici depuis 1983 - I _have_ lived here since 1983.


----------



## Randisi

Thanks for the input, timpeac!


How about:

It was not necessary, to my knowledge, to invent the wheel, since we have carried many, from time immemorial, beneath us.

"We did not have the wheel to invent…" suggests the wheel wasn't around at the time to be invented - which wouldn't be at all surprising!

But, timpeac - point taken and appreciated about the change of tense 'depuis' produces - to write 'since we had carried many' distorts the authors meaning. It is quite clear from the passage (which of course you have not read) that we continue to have these wheels beneath us (they are, essentially, our ankles). 'Had' suggests that we have them no longer. Could the fact that 'depuis toujours' is set off from the main flow of the sentence change this rule?

Thanks again for the input!


----------



## timpeac

Hi Randisi -I don't agree about the "had" not working. Remember we are talking about past time.

We didn't have the wheel to invent, as far as I know, since we had always carried many of them beneath us.

It would be quite wrong, in my opinion, in English to follow the "did" tense with "have". The "had" makes no reference to now - it just tells us that before the action of the main clause (the "didn't") we had wheels.

Let's make the sentence simpler -

"I didn't have to buy him a birthday card since I had had one sitting in the drawer since forever"

You couldn't say 

"I didn't have to buy him a birthday card since I have had one sitting in the drawer since forever"

or, at least, if you do you are mixing your tenses.


----------



## Randisi

Okay, that makes sense. The birthday card example was very helpful. Thanks.

But 'we did not have the wheel the invent' strongly suggests possession (at least to my ears) and not tense, so I switched to the new form 'it was not necessary' to strengthen the necessity of 'avoir à.'

Thanks again,
Ciao


----------



## mgarizona

timpeac said:
			
		

> Let's make the sentence simpler -
> 
> "I didn't have to buy him a birthday card since I had had one sitting in the drawer since forever"
> 
> You couldn't say
> 
> "I didn't have to buy him a birthday card since I have had one sitting in the drawer since forever"
> 
> or, at least, if you do you are mixing your tenses.


 
It seems to me here the question becomes WHEN did you not have to buy him that birthday card. If it was today, I'd use the second sentence. If it was 10 years ago I'd use the first.

Maybe the difficulty is that we're trying to place the time of an action NOT taken? When didn't I write Hamlet? That's a tough one.

Forgive me if this shd be a new thread at this point.


----------



## timpeac

mgarizona said:
			
		

> It seems to me here the question becomes WHEN did you not have to buy him that birthday card. If it was today, I'd use the second sentence. If it was 10 years ago I'd use the first.
> 
> Maybe the difficulty is that we're trying to place the time of an action NOT taken? When didn't I write Hamlet? That's a tough one.
> 
> Forgive me if this shd be a new thread at this point.


I agree that in speech, and if it was this morning you might hear "have had" (which is why I added the "or if you do you are mixing your tenses bit"). But if you gave him the card in your drawer then it is no longer there so it makes no sense to say "I have had a card in my drawer" really since it is no longer there. At the end of the day, if the main clause is in the preterite (did) and the subordinate clause happens before it then you use the pluperfect (had had).

When the shopkeeper had given me the item I paid him for it.
I didn't thank him when he had finished telling me the story etc.

In such sentences you couldn't swap the "had" for "has" or "have".


----------



## mgarizona

Back to the topic at hand:

In keeping with Timpeac's nice nicety regarding 'avoir à' you might consider:

'The wheel was not [or never] ours to invent ...'


----------



## timpeac

Randisi said:
			
		

> Okay, that makes sense. The birthday card example was very helpful. Thanks.
> 
> But 'we did not have the wheel the invent' strongly suggests possession (at least to my ears) and not tense,


But that is my understanding of the nuance that "avoir à" gives rather than necessity like "devoir".

I've just checked my dictionary and it gives two examples -

j'ai à travailler - I've got some work to do.
il a un bouton à recoudre - he's got a button that needs sewing on.

You can see that neither translation was "he has to work" or "he has to sew a button on".


----------



## Randisi

However that may be, 'we did not have the wheel to invent' cannot work here. To my ears, it makes no sense whatsoever. The word order would always be 'we did not have to invent the wheel,' which does convey a sense of necessity, or lack of it as the case is here. My dictionnaire française: avoir à; 'indique une obligation.' My English dictionary: 'to be required, compelled or under obligation.' In speech, we would express this by pronouncing 'have' as 'haff.' You can indeed say 'he has to work,' pronounced 'he hass to work,' and not the weaker 'haz.' It gives the sense of necessity, compulsion or obligation: he is out of money, so he hass to work. I haff to sew this button on, because otherwise my collar pops open and reveals my hickey (a bruise left on the skin from erotic sucking, usually on the neck).

Maybe 'we did not have to invent the wheel' is sufficient.

Again, thanks for the help.


----------



## timpeac

Of course you must go with what you feel is best. The wording "we didn't have the wheel to invent" sounds fine to me, better in fact than "we didn't have to invent the wheel" since I would expect "we didn't have to reinvent the wheel", but if it doesn't to you you must of course chose what you feel to be best. You should bear in mind, though, that the French author chose the more unusual "avoir à" and by translating as if he had written the more usual "devoir" there is something missing. Of course, if you feel there is no phrase in English to express the difference in nuance then there is no choice.


----------



## Randisi

Most likely English cannot express this nuance without resorting to contortionist calisthenics, especially, since my dictionary suggests: 'to have to', or 'being under obligation to' as translations for 'avoir à.'

Would 'we were under no obligation to invent the wheel' be better?

Perhaps I don't quite yet understand the nuance you are suggesting.


----------



## Randisi

After a little off-board discussion with mgarizona, I think I finally understand your point. You want to emphasize possession or lack of it. MgAZ put it best 'the wheel was never ours to invent [in the first place], since we had carried many, from time immemorial, beneath us.'

I'll have to ponder this some more.


----------



## timpeac

Randisi said:
			
		

> Would 'we were under no obligation to invent the wheel' be better?
> 
> Perhaps I don't quite yet understand the nuance you are suggesting.


I think I am just trying to find something different from plain "have to" if possible, and I think I perceive a difference in nuance - but of course I am by no means a native speaker so since no one else is chiming in perhaps I am making too much of this. I've not seen it said before that "avoir à" is an exact equivalent of "devoir" in French either - perhaps a native speaker could confirm if there is any difference and if so how they perceive it.

I think, also, that I don't see a problem with "we didn't have the wheel to invent" either.


----------



## timpeac

Randisi said:
			
		

> After a little off-board discussion with mgarizona, I think I finally understand your point. You want to emphasize possession or lack of it. MgAZ put it best 'the wheel was never ours to invent [in the first place], since we had carried many, from time immemorial, beneath us.'
> 
> I'll have to ponder this some more.


Yes, I think that's right. I also don't see a problem with underlining that possession by moving the noun - saying, for example "you don't have the whole of mathematics to explain just this one problem boy!" instead of "you don't have to explain the whole of mathematics, just this one problem boy!" (which I view as analagous to the wording of the "have to invent the wheel" "have the wheel to invent").


----------



## Cath.S.

> depuis touj*ou*rs, beauc*ou*p s*ou*s n*ou*s


sounds really awful in a comical way. Does he do it on purpose?


----------



## Randisi

I guess we'll have to differ on that one. Although I now understand your point and would no longer term this construction as 'making no sense whatsoever,' to my ears, it still rings bizarrely. 

I very much appreciate your insistence and regret my obtuseness. It is a very nice nuance in every sense of 'nice.'

Thanks yet again.


----------

