# FR: Another three years passed before it was ready



## iaatf

Un autre trois ans OR années se sont passés (passées)....
I am leaning towards années but I'm not sure. 
Thanks.


----------



## Frenchie Fred

I would not say "un autre" because of the singular form when you need a plural for three.
"Trois autres années se sont passées" or "passèrent" depending on your context and tenses needed.


----------



## LNSEVI

ou encore 3 ans se sont passés


----------



## Mikebo

Could you give a complete sentence (or 2), and possibly a description of the text (subject, origin etc) to give us some context?


----------



## iaatf

Another three years passed before the opera was ready for it's first performance.
In addition to the questions of what word to use for "another" and "years", I'm not sure if "passer" should or should not be reflexive?
Thanks.


----------



## LNSEVI

3 années de plus se sont écoulées avant que l'Opéra soit pret pour sa premiere représentation.


----------



## Frenchie Fred

I confirm what I was saying before then:

Trois autres années passèrent avant que l'opéra ne soit prêt pour sa première représentation.

Would everyone agree?


----------



## Frenchie Fred

LNSEVI said:


> 3 années de plus se sont écoulées avant que l'Opéra soit pret pour sa premiere représentation.



It look like we replied simultaneously , how about the "avant que l'opéra NE soit..." wouldn't it be more formal?


----------



## doinel

Variante:
Ce n'est que trois ans plus tard que  l'opéra fut prêt pour sa première représentation.


----------



## LNSEVI

yes, sorry. 
also, check  Opéra or opéra. I'm in favor of O.


----------



## Frenchie Fred

LNSEVI said:


> yes, sorry.
> also, check  Opéra or opéra. I'm in favor of O.




Yes, I agree if it is the building, but if it is a piece of music I'd keep the minuscule.
Opéra de Paris but opéra de Wagner...

I could be wrong though.


----------



## iaatf

Now I'm totally confused. 
Why the subjunctive? There is a change of subject but there is no expression of doubt or subjectivity. 
Why the "NE"? What does this mean?
Is "3 années de plus" mean 3 more years? If so, I think I'll go with that.
I am referring to the Opera Garnier. So everytime I say "the opera..." it should be "l'Opéra"?
Thanks again.


----------



## LNSEVI

3 années de plus means 3 more years.
I am so not able to tell you why it's grammatically correct but the NE is needed if you use avant que. 
Sorry for the lack of explanation. It's just that it sounds better to a native ears.


----------



## Frenchie Fred

iaatf said:


> Now I'm totally confused.
> Why the subjunctive? There is a change of subject but there is no expression of doubt or subjectivity.
> Why the "NE"? What does this mean?
> Is "3 années de plus" mean 3 more years? If so, I think I'll go with that.
> I am referring to the Opera Garnier. So everytime I say "the opera..." it should be "l'Opéra"?
> Thanks again.




The subjonctif is necessary with "avant que" 
"avant qu'il NE fut prêt" : I would not really be able to explain why, it is just more formal.
And I think yes, Opéra Garnier needs a majuscule... although here I'd like someone else's opinion...

It does all depend on the level of language you decide and need to use.


----------



## rocket queen

If you refer directly to a specific famous opera, you will say *Opéra *(Opéra Garnier), but if it's just a plain opera, you can just write *opéra*.


----------



## iaatf

Ahhh... I turned a few pages in my chapter on the subjunctive and now I see about the avant que. Oh, how I hate the subjunctive! I better check the rest of my paper. I think I used a bien que somewhere in there. Thanks so much!


----------



## doinel

Il y a des façons de se libérer du subjonctif en français.
N'hésite pas à poser d'autres questions.


----------



## Maître Capello

LNSEVI said:


> I am so not able to tell you why it's grammatically correct but the NE is needed if you use avant que.
> Sorry for the lack of explanation. It's just that it sounds better to a native ears.





Frenchie Fred said:


> "avant qu'il NE fut prêt" : I would not really be able to explain why, it is just more formal.


No, that _ne_ is the so-called expletive _ne_ and is definitely not mandatory. However I agree that most natives would use it, especially in a formal setting…

Anyway, back to the original question, I must say I much prefer doinel's suggestion:


> Ce n'est que trois ans plus tard que  l'opéra fut prêt pour sa première représentation.


----------



## iaatf

I am saying that it took a very long time to build the opera, as in, yet another three years passed....  "Ce n'est que trois ans plus tard" makes it sound like it wasn't that long a period of time. Thanks.


----------



## doinel

Il a fallu trois ans de plus pour que l'opéra soit prêt pour sa première représentation?
Cela ne fait pas une énorme différence. Mais on doit  ici utiliser le subjonctif.
Merci Maître Capello!


----------



## Maître Capello

iaatf said:


> I am saying that it took a very long time to build the opera, as in, yet another three years passed....  "Ce n'est que trois ans plus tard" makes it sound like it wasn't that long a period of time. Thanks.


No, on the contrary, using _ce n'est que_, you're saying it *did* take a long time! (It means it didn't happen before 3 years.)


----------



## iaatf

I'm now leaninig toward using Doinel's variation, however, in his variation (using ce n'est que...), he has taken out the "avant que" and replaced it with "que". In that case, I don't understand why the subjunctive is still used. Thanks.


----------



## Maître Capello

iaatf said:


> In that case, I don't understand why the subjunctive is still used. Thanks.


But it is the *indicative* mood that is used in that sentence…

Maybe you got confused because Frenchie Fred's sentence was incorrect and should have read _avant qu'il ne fût/soit prêt_.

Don't mix up the subjonctif imparfait (_fût_) with the passé simple (_fut_)!


----------



## iaatf

Thanks for clearing that up. Yes, I mistook "fut" for "fût". We haven't learned the passé simple tense. So let me get this straight - If I use the "ce n'est que" version, I should drop the "avant que" and just use "que", correct? Thanks again.


----------



## Maître Capello

In short, either of the following sentences are fine:

_Ce n'est que trois ans plus tard que  l'Opéra fut prêt pour sa première représentation._

_Trois années de plus s'écoulèrent avant que l'Opéra ne soit prêt pour sa première représentation._

_Trois années de plus furent nécessaires pour que l'Opéra soit prêt pour sa première représentation._


----------

