# FR: Oui, je le suis



## bcd85

I heard this used in something I was watching the other day.

Basically, someone says something like "Tu dois etre vraiment fatigué"

And he replies: "Oui, je le suis"

What does this mean, exactly?


----------



## chamyto

It's an affirmation that he/she is indeed tired.


----------



## Maître Capello

What may be confusing you is that no pronoun is used in English to refer to the adjective in the previous sentence but it is required in French.

_— Tu dois être fatigué.
— Oui, je le suis._ (= _Oui, je suis fatigué._)

"You must be tired."
"Yes I am."


----------



## bcd85

Oh my, how have I gone this far in French not to know something so useful?

I always wondered how people manage in French without a simple affirmative statement, such as "Yes, I am" or "Yes, I do".


----------



## bcd85

Now I have to ask another question.

If someone asks a question with a verb. Like "Est-ce que tu en parle?" or something like that, can you say something similar although it's a question with a verb instead of an adjective? The equivalent of "Yes I did" in English?


----------



## Beauceron-puppy

"Est-ce que tu en parleS"
Il faudra répondre "Oui, j'en parle"


----------



## jann

bcd85 said:


> Now I have to ask another question.
> 
> If someone asks a question with a verb. Like "Est-ce que tu en parle?" or something like that, can you say something similar although it's a question with a verb instead of an adjective? The equivalent of "Yes I did" in English?


Take a look at  FR: I did.


----------



## janpol

Dans un dialogue authentique, je pense qu'en général, on se contente de répondre "oui". Sans doute "Oui, j'en parle" est-il possible mais j'imagine assez mal que qq'un réponde "Oui, je le suis".


----------



## bcd85

Does the rule apply to the following sentence:



Comme tu es là et que ton frère ne *l*'est pas


What does the "le" mean in this sentence?


----------



## Maître Capello

The _le_ refers to _là_. 

_comme tu es *là* et que ton frère ne *l'*est pas = __comme tu es *là* et que ton frère n'est pas *là*_

since you are *here* and your brother is not [*here*]


----------



## bcd85

I just don't understand how a word like là without an indefinite article can be replaced by le. It almost seems easier to just repeat là again in the sentence.


----------



## Maître Capello

In French we usually try to avoid repeating the same word in a sentence. Note that you do that in English too since you omit the repetition entirely.


----------



## bcd85

So *le *can also replace adverbs and pronouns as well as nouns?


----------



## Maître Capello

It _is_ a pronoun in this case, so it cannot really replace one.  It can however definitely replace adverbs in some specific cases like in your example. It can even replace entire phrases.


----------



## bcd85

Oh my. I guess I just don't see it used very often.


----------



## jann

Maître Capello said:


> The _le_ refers to _là_.


 Refers to, yes... in an indirect sort of way.  I don't think "refers" is the verb I would have used.

In English, we generally avoid repeating the same subject complement twice.  The "subject complement" tells us something about the subject of the sentence, and it comes after the verb.  It's underlined in the sentences below. As you can see, various parts of speach are all possible.

You are here.  (adverb)
Are you ready?  (adjective)
She is not the boss. (noun)
etc.​ 
Rather than repeat ourselves, if we need to use that subject complement again, we just stop the sentence and let context evoke the previous idea:

You are here, but your brother isn't. here.
Are you ready?  Yes, I am. ready.
She is not the boss, but she'd like to be. the boss.​ 
French won't let us stop a sentence after the verb like that.  There has to be something to serve as the subject complement... so we use impersonal _le_.  It stands in for whatever idea we're not repeating.  

_Tu es là, mais ton frère n'est pas --> ne *l'*est pas.
Tu es prêt ?  Oui, je suis --> je *le* suis.
Elle n'est pas le patron, mais elle __veut être__ --> veut *l*'être._​ 
I like to think of it as indicating a characteristic (e.g., being ready) or a state of being (e.g., being in a certain place), because generally, that's the kind of idea expressed by the subject complement that we don't want to repeat.

Does this help, Bcd85?


----------



## radagasty

jann said:


> We use impersonal _le_.  It stands in for whatever idea we're not repeating.  _Elle n'est pas le patron, mais elle __veut être__ --> veut *l*'être._​



Is this an impersonal _le_ in the last example?
Would it not agree with _le patron_ in number and gender?


----------



## bcd85

jann said:


> I like to think of it as indicating a characteristic (e.g., being ready) or a state of being (e.g., being in a certain place), because generally, that's the kind of idea expressed by the subject complement that we don't want to repeat.
> 
> Does this help, Bcd85?



It does, but I read online the "neuter pronoun" is generally only used in writing. I would think this pronoun would be more useful for spoken French than written French.


----------



## janpol

> _comme tu es *là* et que ton frère ne *l'*est pas = comme tu es *là* et que ton frère n'est pas *là*
> since you are *here and your brother is not [here]*_



Je pense que dans une conversation authentique entre "natifs" on entend plutôt : _comme tu es *là* et que ton frère n'*y* est pas*. *(voire "Comme tu es là et pas ton frère !...)_


----------



## jann

radagasty said:


> Is this an impersonal _le_ in the last example?
> Would it not agree with _le patron_ in number and gender?


Yes, this _le_ is still impersonal and so no, it does not agree.  The addition of _vouloir_ as a sort of auxiliary does not change the nature of the complement of _être_.  _Elle l'est, elle le sera, elle veut l'être, elle devrait l'être, _etc.

(Though I should have perhaps written _elle n'est pas la patronne_ -- but we can always just use _le chef_ instead.  )



bcd85 said:


> It does, but I read online the "neuter pronoun" is  generally only used in writing. I would think this pronoun would be  more useful for spoken French than written French.


One can read all sorts of things online, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're reliable.  

 Using the impersonal _le_ in some situations is simply the easiest and most natural option.  In other situations, it may reflect a more careful turn of phrase (and thus be more likely to appear in writing than in speech).


----------



## janpol

> The addition of _vouloir as a sort of auxiliary does not change the nature of the complement of être._


"être" étant un verbe d'état, ne s'agit-il pas plutôt d'un attribut ?


----------



## jann

janpol said:


> "être" étant un verbe d'état, ne s'agit-il pas plutôt d'un attribut ?


_Attribut_ is a French term.  I wrote my explanation in English. 

subject complement
Apparently the term is a bit old-fashioned now, and specialists talk instead about properties that are predicated of the subject.  But getting caught up in such terminology is rather beside the point and is unlikely to help Bcd85 very much.


----------



## Maître Capello

janpol said:


> Je pense que dans une conversation authentique entre "natifs" on entend plutôt : _comme tu es *là* et que ton frère n'*y* est pas*. *(voire "Comme tu es là et pas ton frère !...)_


Je suis d'accord avec ta seconde suggestion, entre parenthèses, qui est de loin la tournure la plus fréquente, mais je ne dirais pas la première ; je préfère dire _ne *l'*est pas_, surtout si le locuteur et son interlocuteur sont au même endroit.



radagasty said:


> Is this an impersonal _le_ in the last example? Would it not agree with _le patron_ in number and gender?


It is still *neuter* (I don't really like "impersonal" in this case) and therefore remains in the singular masculine. This is easily seen if using a plural, e.g.:

_Elles ne sont pas les patronnes, mais elles veulent *l'*être._ (not: _elles veulent les être_ )


----------

