# FR: acheter des roses / de belles roses - article indéfini ou partitif ?



## Thomas Tompion

pheelineerie said:


> J'ai acheté *des* roses.
> J'ai acheté *de jolies* roses.





Rallino said:


> 1. La vente *de* vieux objets
> 2. La vente *des* vieux objets
> 3. La vente *d'*objets vieux





Franz1 said:


> Ces trois phrases ne concernent pas le problème "de / des + adjectif + substantif" discuté plus haut


No indeed.  We were talking about the partitive article.

*Moderator note:* This new discussion has been split from the thread FR: de/des + adjectif + nom au pluriel.


----------



## Maître Capello

It isn't a *partitive article*. It is an *indefinite article*.


----------



## Nicomon

@ Thomas Tompion :  I think you're the one who introduced the partitive article at some point.  But  in examples like :
_J'ai acheté des roses / J'ai acheté de belles roses_ where _ des _becomes_ de  _if the plural noun is preceded by an adjective_, _the article is indefinite, not partitive.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Have you tried looking in Grevisse?  Maybe he's out of date now.


----------



## Nicomon

I suggest you look again in your own _Le bon usage / _Grevisse. 
As I only have a very old version from 1969 and not an online one, I'm quoting the BDL : Des devant un adjectif antéposé.





> Lorsqu’il se trouve devant un nom précédé d’un adjectif,* l’article indéfini pluriel des *est généralement réduit à _de_ (ou _d’_). C’est du moins l’usage à l’écrit et en langue parlée soignée.


  And this from this page : 





> l y a *des* pommes aujourd'hui : *article indéfini.*
> L'article partitif exprime une quantité qui ne se compte pas : du vin, du mérite, du bonheur, du beurre.
> 
> *L'article partitif "des" ne concerne que des mots toujours au pluriel : je prends des vacances.*
> Un partitif ne peut être utilisé avec _pomme_ qu'en référence à la matière et donc toujours au singulier : _il y a de la pomme dans cette compote. _


  My example was with _roses. _


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Nicomon said:


> [...]
> As I only have a very old version from 1979 and not an  online one, I'm quoting the BDL : Des devant un adjectif antéposé.  And this from this page :   My example was with _roses. _


And the example with roses is not a parallel.  We wouldn't say *There is some rose in this ice-cream* but we could easily say *There is some apple in this ice-cream*

I'm traveling, so I don't have my books.  I had hoped that such an emphatic contradiction would be supported by something other than forums from provincial websites.  Don't you know that there are plenty of websites which take the opposite point of view? - eg: source


> *des devient de devant un adjectif*
> · Devant un adjectif épithète qui précède un nom, dans la langue soignée écrite ou parlée, l’article indéfini ou *partitif* _des_ est remplacé par _de_ :
> 
> Il a pris de belles photos.
> _langue soignée_
> Il a de jolis cheveux.
> _langue soignée_


I think the point is too interesting for us to try to settle it by bald statement without proper justification.  I will not make any suggestions about what works you should consult.  I've never found that a very productive way to proceed.


----------



## Maître Capello

> Devant un adjectif épithète qui précède un nom, dans la langue soignée écrite ou parlée, l’article indéfini ou *partitif* _des_ est remplacé par _de_


That statement is correct, but you seem to have misinterpreted it. It doesn't mean that _de_ is a partitive article. It just means that the indefinite or partitive article _des_ is replaced with the indefinite or partitive article _de_ when directly followed by an adjective.

_J'ai acheté *des* _[article indéfini]_ roses → J'ai acheté *de* _[article indéfini]_ belles roses
J'ai acheté *des* _[article partitif]_ épinards → J'ai acheté *de* _[article partitif]_ beaux épinards_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Many thanks, Maître.

You may have misinterpreted it too: join the club.

Here's someone (Chapsal) (source) saying that the *de* is neither an indefinite nor a partitive article, but *de* (the preposition) after *portion* or *partie* (understood).

106. – Devant un substantif commun pris dans un sens déterminé on sous-entend souvent un des mots _portion, partie_ ; alors le substantif est dit employé dans un sens partitif, et, dans, ce cas, il est toujours précédé de _du, de l’, de la, des_, comme dans les exemples suivants :

_je mange du pain,_ c'est-à-dire, une portion du pain .
_ je bois de la bière_, c'est-à-dire, une portion de la bière .
etc.

109 - Il (le substantif employé dans un sens partitif) prend simplement _de_, quand il désigne un genre :

_je mange de beau pain._
_ je bois de bonne bière._
_donnez-moi d’excellents fruits._

Ici les substantifs _pains, bière, fruits_, désignent un genre, car il s’agit du pain, de la bière, des fruits considérés dans toute leur étendue, c'est-à-dire, de tout le pain, de toute la bière, de tous les fruits.
Ils sont employés partitivement, car ils sont compléments des mots _portion, partie_ sous-entendus : _je mange une portion de tout le beau pain ; je bois une partie de toute la bonne bière, _etc_._

Et comme ces substantifs _pains, bière, fruits_, sont précède d’un adjectif, l’usage veut que’ils rejette l’article, et prend simplement la préposition _de_.

I have taken away the parts which seemed of only marginal relevance.

It means that the partitive before the adjective is replaced by *de* (preposition).  I wonder if anyone will agree with that.

This link works for me.  I hope it works generally.

Of course all this raises the question why doesn't the partitive change to *de* generally if _portion_  or_ partie_ are understood?

_je mange du pain,_ c'est-à-dire, une portion du pain . pourquoi pas  _Je mange une portion de tout le pain, ie.  Je mange de pain. _?


----------



## Nicomon

Thank you, MC. 

I certainly hope that it isn't OQLF's  _Banque de dépannage linguistique_ that Thomas is calling "forum from a provincial website". 

The other site that I quoted, Études Littéraires, isn't Canadian.





> Littérature et langue française : fiches de méthode pour le lycée, sujets et corrigés du bac français, annales du bac et fiches de révision, forum littéraire.



*There is some apple in this ice-cream*  And that would be in French :  _Il y a de la pomme dans cette glace (crème glacée _in Quebec).


> Un partitif ne peut être utilisé avec _pomme_ qu'en référence à la matière et donc toujours au singulier : _il y a de la pomme dans cette compote._


Which is very different from _des pommes / de belles pommes = _indefinite article.  *Not *partitive article.

That link to a *.ca *website that TT mentioned works fine from my side: source
But I prefer the BDL, by far.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Thank you Nicomon.  I'm not taking sides; I'm only interested in finding out what you believe and why.

What do you think of Chapsal's argument?


----------



## Nicomon

I think that this is misleading.


> 109 - Il (le substantif employé dans un sens partitif) prend simplement _de_, quand il désigne un genre :
> 
> _je mange de beau pain.
> je bois de bonne bière.
> donnez-moi d’excellents fruits._


I would never say  _de beau pain / de bonne bière. _
I would say : _Je mange du bon pain / Je bois de la bonne bière._
I wonder how _du *beau* pain _looks and tastes. 

I maintain that in the sentence : _J'ai acheté de belles roses / de bonnes pommes._..  _ de_ doesn't have a partitive sense. 
It could be replaced by a quantity, as in :  _J'ai acheté 20 bonnes pommes / une douzaine de belles roses. _


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Maybe you wouldn't say these things, but the Louis Segond Bible translates Matthew 7 verse 17 as
_
Tout bon arbre porte de bons fruits, mais le mauvais arbre porte de mauvais fruits,_

so the suggestion that the form is wrong is clearly avoiding the issue.

How about Chapsal's argument?

Have you understood that he's saying that the *de* in *de bons fruits* is not an article at all, but a preposition?  Why send me off to posts which miss this point, without addressing it yourself?

Also the passage which you quote from your Canadian website says that the plural indefinite article, *des*, changes to *de* before the adjective.  And I understood you to be saying that this meant that the *de* was also an indefinite article.  But the Canadian website doesn't say what happens to the *des* when it is a partitive article; it writes as though *des* cannot be partitive, which was one reason for my distrusting it.


----------



## Maître Capello

Thomas Tompion said:


> You may have misinterpreted it too: join the club.


No, I haven't. Regarding the other source you mentioned later, you quoted an old, 19th century grammar discussing an old-fashioned turn of phrase as suggested by Nico. But more importantly, that grammar is talking about a *partitive* usage (examples use words like _pain_ or _bière_, which are non-count nouns in those examples), which is not the case in, e.g., _acheter des roses / acheter de belles roses_. Regarding the part of speech of _de_, it was considered a preposition at that time, just like in the regular partitive article (_de la bière_). But that _de_ is no longer considered a true preposition nowadays.



Thomas Tompion said:


> Maybe you wouldn't say these things, but the Louis Segond Bible translates Matthew 7 verse 17 as
> _Tout bon arbre porte de bons fruits, mais le mauvais arbre porte de mauvais fruits,_


As to _fruits_, that word may be either a count noun or a non-count noun depending on context. In the LSG case, it is a count noun. The LSG phrase is therefore still fine today.


----------



## Nicomon

I should have added to "misleading" :   "or sounds very awkward to my ear".

_De beau pain  / de bonne bière_  are singular... and not something I would say.
I don't mind at all  :  _d'excellents fruits. _

Your example : _Tout bon arbre porte de bons fruits, mais le mauvais arbre porte de mauvais fruits _is perfectly fine and is the same structure as the _roses_ example.
Or (this is lame... just for the sake of example) :  _Tout bon conseiller donne de bons conseils, mais le mauvais conseiller donne de mauvais conseils.  _

I understood what Chapsal is saying  (as a francophone, I can read French) but I can't help it if *I* see _« de » _as the indefinite article « _des_ » (plural indefinite, not partitive) which is replaced by _de_ when directly followed by an adjective.

Edit :  I forgot to update the thread before posting.  I hadn't seen MC's last post.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Maître Capello said:


> Regarding the part of speech of _de_, it was considered a preposition at that time, just like in the regular partitive article (_de la bière_). But that _de_ is no longer considered a true preposition nowadays.


I can believe it, Maître.

But, without explanation, it reminds me of

“Oui; cela était autrefois ainsi; mais nous avons changé tout cela, et nous faisons maintenant la grammaire d'une méhode toute nouvelle.”


----------



## Maître Capello

Thomas Tompion said:


> But, without explanation…


Here is one: that _de_ does not play the syntactical role of a preposition but that of an article.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Nicomon said:


> I understood what Chapsal is saying (as a francophone, I can read French) but I can't help it if *I* see _« de » _as the indefinite article « _des_ » (plural indefinite, not partitive) which is replaced by _de_ when directly followed by an adjective.


I can read this, but I don't understand it.  Are you saying now that *des* cannot be partitive?

If it can be, what happens to it before an adjective preceding a noun?  Does it change its nature in some way?

I'm beginning to suspect that new grammarians have abolished the partitive.


----------



## Maître Capello

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm beginning to suspect that new grammarians have abolished the partitive.


 Definitely not! Modern grammars just say that the indefinite article _des_ becomes the indefinite article _de_ before an adjective. Likewise, the partitive article _des_ becomes the partitive article _de_ before an adjective.


----------



## Nicomon

Thomas Tompion said:


> I can read this, but I don't understand it.  Are you saying now that *des* cannot be partitive?
> If it can be, what happens to it before an adjective preceding a noun?  Does it change its nature in some way?


  No, I'm not saying that _*des* _cannot be partitive.

I even quoted  this before (but I don't have time to check if this is true or not) : 





> L'article partitif "des" ne concerne que des mots toujours au pluriel : _je prends des vacances._


 So with an adjective, we would say : _*de* belles/bonnes... vacances._

Sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm just having a hard time to see _ *des* _as partitive with a plural noun like _des fruits.  _It definitely isn't in the Bible phrase.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Maître Capello said:


> Here is one: that _de_ does not play the syntactical role of a preposition but that of an article.


Thank you.  But what determines the sort of article?

Am I right in thinking that in _la_ _méthode toute nouvelle_ *des* cannot be partitive?

Look again at this post of yours:





Maître Capello said:


> That statement is correct, but you seem to have misinterpreted it. It doesn't mean that _de_ is a partitive article. It just means that the indefinite or partitive article _des_ is replaced with the indefinite or partitive article _de_ when directly followed by an adjective.


At the end I understood you to be saying that the partitive *des* is replaced with the partitive *de* and the indefinite* des* by the indefinite *de*.  But then you also say this:


Maître Capello said:


> In the remainder of this thread, the _de_ (as in _avoir de mauvaises notes_) isn't considered a preposition. By the way, it isn't a *partitive article* either. It is an *indefinite article*.


In the light of what you said earlier then, *I have some beautiful roses*, not all of them, but some of them - you seemed at one point to imply that countable things, like roses, couldn't have a plural partitive sense; I didn't agree with that - maybe I misunderstood you - anyway these partitive roses (only some of the roses in the garden) are beautiful and she has some - *Elle a des roses*.  Now if these roses are beautiful and you say *Elle a de belles roses*, surely this *de* (derived as it is from the partitive *des*) is, by your own earlier admission, partitive?



Nicomon said:


> Sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm just having a hard time to see it as partitive with a plural noun like _des fruits. _It definitely isn't in the Bible phrase.


No, I agree, but when *des* in *des fruits* is partitive, what about *de bons fruits* - isn't that *de* partitive too?

Or, to take your earlier example, *je prends de longues vacances.*


----------



## Nicomon

I'll leave a grammarian answer that last question.  I personally can't think of a partitive usage of _des fruits... _which doesn't mean that there isn't any.

I can only think of a partitive usage in the singular,  as in « _de la pomme »_ mentioned before.  Or _ de la poire / de l'orange / du pamplemousse. _

Isn't it the same in English?  To me partitive would be _some fruit  _not  _some fruit*s*. _


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Nicomon said:


> Isn't it the same in English? To me partitive would be _some fruit _not _some fruit*s*. _


In English we can say either *some fruit* or *some fruits*, either could be partitive.  They mean different things.
I'm not fussy about this.  When you said





Nicomon said:


> No, I'm not saying that _*des* _cannot be partitive.


Take any noun as an example and see what happens to the article when you put an adjective in front of it.


----------



## Nicomon

Thanks.  You're the Anglophone so I won't disagree. 

_J'ai mangé certains des (bons) fruits de ce jardin. _
I think (someone will correct if I'm wrong) that _des_ (_de les_) is partitive here  and I wouldn't replace it with _de  _if I added the adjective.  

But note that it is both preceded and succeeded by something.

_J'ai mangé de bons fruits =  _indefinite article


----------



## Maître Capello

Thomas Tompion said:


> Thank you. But what determines the sort of article?


The meaning of the sentence.



> Am I right in thinking that in _la_ _méthode toute nouvelle_ *des* cannot be partitive?


Right. In that sample phrase _des_ is necessarily the contraction of the preposition _de_ and the definite article _les_.



> In the light of what you said earlier then, *I have some beautiful roses*, not all of them, but some of them - you seemed at one point to imply that countable things, like roses, couldn't have a plural partitive sense


Indeed. The singular partitive sense of _rose_ is possible in some cases, but not the plural one.



> anyway these partitive roses (only some of the roses in the garden) are beautiful and she has some - *Elle a des roses*. Now if these roses are beautiful and you say *Elle a de belles roses*, surely this *de* (derived as it is from the partitive *des*) is, by your own earlier admission, partitive?


You are mistaken: neither _des_ nor _de_ are partitives in those two examples. The issue may be that we don't have the same definition of "partitive" or that it is different in French and English… Anyway, in French _des_ and _de_ are *not* partitive articles in _Elle a des roses / de belles roses_ – they are indefinite articles.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Nicomon said:


> I think (someone will correct if I'm wrong) that _des_ (_de les_) is partitive here and I wouldn't replace it with _de _if I added the adjective.


I wouldn't call it partitive, I fear.  I think it's prepositional - *de les* - of the.



Maître Capello said:


> [...] Anyway, in French _des_ and _de_ are *not* partitive articles in _Elle a des roses / de belles roses_ – they are indefinite articles.


I'm glad we've got to the bottom of our disagreement.

When a French person says *nous avions cueilli des épinards du jardin *is she suggesting that they've picked all the spinach in the garden?  I've always taken it to mean they'd just picked some of it.

And when they say *nous avions cueilli de beaux épinards du jardin*, is the *de* not partitive too?


----------



## Nicomon

Thomas Tompion said:


> I wouldn't call it partitive, I fear.  I think it's prepositional - *de les* - of the.


  You may be right.  To be honest, I don't know anymore.
If my example isn't right, then whoever wrote this that I copied from yet another forum isn't right either : 





> * PARTITIVE "DE" *
> certains [de les >] des chevaux
> "some of the horses"
> certains [de les >] des nouveaux chevaux
> "some of the new horses"


  Which to me is different from  : _ Les jouets de les enfants = Les jouets des enfants.  _That would be _"prepositional".
_
But I don't remember hearing _article prépositionnel_. If I dif at some point, I forgot about it.
To me French articles  are  _définis, indéfinis, contractés, _or_ partitifs.  _I assume that _contracté_ is what you call _prepositional._

So as far as I know _ *des* _is either_ contracté_, i.e. a contraction of _de + les, indéfini _ or _partitif_.





> *Comment ne pas confondre l'article indéfini des et l'article partitif des?*
> Mettez le nom déterminé au singulier. Si on peut remplacer _des_ par _un _ ou _une_, vous êtes face à un article indéfini.
> _Ex: J'ai entendu des voitures arriver /  J'ai entendu une voiture arriver._
> _des _ est remplacé par _une_, c'est donc un _article* indéfini*._
> _Ex: J'ai mangé des rillettes. / J'ai mangé une rillette._
> _des  _ne peut pas être remplacé par _une_, c'est donc un article *partitif**.*


 So, going back to our previous examples, replace _voitures_ with _roses_ (indéfini) and _rillettes_ with _épinards_  (partitive).
I think I'm done with this tread.  If this makes it even more confusing, I'm sorry. It wasn't the intention.


----------



## janpol

"une rillette" : on ne peut pas le dire car ce mot n'existe qu'au pluriel (dico Hachette 1991)


----------



## Maître Capello

Thomas Tompion said:


> When a French person says *nous avions cueilli des épinards du jardin *is she suggesting that they've picked all the spinach in the garden? I've always taken it to mean they'd just picked some of it.
> And when they say *nous avions cueilli de beaux épinards du jardin*, is the *de* not partitive too?


_Épinards_ – just like _rillettes_ as suggested by Janpol – is one of the rare examples of plural partitives. In other words, in _des épinards_ and _de beaux épinards_, both _des_ and _de_ are indeed partitive articles.



> *PARTITIVE "DE" *
> certains [de les >] des chevaux
> certains [de les >] des nouveaux chevaux


In these examples, _des_ is the contraction of the *preposition* _de_ with the definite article _les_. But in that context the preposition has a partitive meaning.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Maître Capello said:


> _Épinards_ – just like _rillettes_ as suggested by Janpol – is one of the rare examples of plural partitives. In other words, in _des épinards_ and _de beaux épinards_, both _des_ and _de_ are indeed partitive articles.


I'm pleased to hear this.

What roused my ire, back in the dark ages, other than the obvious things, was the blanket (as it seemed to me) dismissal of the possibility of the partitive *des* becoming *de *before an adjective preceding a noun.

Now I've heard that there are cases (as with spinach) where it can happen I've calmed down a little.

I'm not sure I'm jealous of the French having an Académie which can tell them that des epinards are partitive but des choux de Bruxelles are not.  It leaves me wondering about des panais rapés.



Maître Capello said:


> _Épinards_ – just like _rillettes_ as suggested by Janpol – is one of the rare examples of plural partitives. In other words, in _des épinards_ and _de beaux épinards_, both _des_ and _de_ are indeed partitive articles.


We're back to the bald statement here again, without justification.

What about *donnez-moi de bons fruits de votre jardin*.  Is *des fruits* another rare example of a partitive *des*.  Without an explanation we are left to wonder.  Why is *give me some roses indefinite*, but *give me some fruits partitive?*


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I see that the 8th dictionary of the Académie has this entry:
*Dictionnaire de L'Académie française, 8th Edition (1932-5)*
 PARTITIF, IVE. (Page 2:299) PARTITIF, IVE. adj. T. de Grammaire. Qui désigne une partie d'un tout. _De est partitif dans les phrases : Vendez-moi de votre vin; manger de bonne viande._ 

_Article partitif,_ Article précédé de la préposition _de_ (du, de la, des) qui sert à exprimer un Tout dont on n'envisage qu'une partie. _Boire du vin, de la bière. Donnez-moi des fruits de votre jardin._

*Des fruits de votre jardin* is not so far from *Des roses*, which we've been ordered to believe cannot be partitive.

And with an adjective that would become *Donnez-moi de beaux fruits de votre jardin*.  There's no question of this asking for all the good fruit in the garden, just some of them.


----------



## Nicomon

janpol said:


> "une rillette" : on ne peut pas le dire car ce mot n'existe qu'au pluriel (dico Hachette 1991)


 janpol, je crois que tu as mal lu.

C'est bien ce qui est écrit dans la citation que j'ai mise (c'est moi qui colore en rouge) : 





> _Ex: J'ai mangé des rillettes. / J'ai mangé une rillette._
> *des ne peut pas être remplacé par une*, c'est donc un article *partitif.*


  C'est aussi pourquoi j'ai écrit  après la citation : So, going back to our previous examples, replace _voitures_ with _roses_ (indéfini) and *rillettes with épinards (partitive)*.
Mais bon, ce n'était peut-être pas limpide de clarté. 





Maître Capello said:


> _Épinards_ – just like _rillettes_ as suggested by Janpol – is one of the rare examples of plural partitives.


  As suggested by janpol... and Nico.  _Vacances_  (post 19) is another... I think.


> In these examples, _des_ is the contraction of the *preposition* _de_ with the definite article _les_. But in that context the preposition has a partitive meaning


  Thanks for this.   So this (preposition _de_ + definite article)  is what I call _article contracté_.
But I'm happy to see that I  wasn't completely wrong with my similar example : _J'ai mangé certains des fruits de ce jardin _(partitive meaning).

_Donnez-moi *de *beaux fruits de votre jardin = donnez-moi *quelques *beaux fruits de votre jardin.   _
Without the adjective, it would be :  _Donnez-moi des fruits = Give me (some) fruits.   _
You could say : _  Un fruit / cinq fruits... _
The article is _indefinite_, because we don't know exactly how many fruits_, _but _fruits_, just like _roses,_ are countable.

So Thomas, we clearly don't define  _partitive article_  the same way.

What in the world am I still doing on this thread after writing "I'll leave that to a grammarian" and "I think I'm done" ?


----------



## janpol

Nico, on ne peut pas remplacer "des rillettes" par "une rillette" car cela ne se dit pas, ce n'est jamais possible mais il se trouve que je préfère les fruits : j'ai mangé des fruits / j'ai mangé un fruit >>> article indéfini
J'ai juste voulu dire qu'on ne peut pas bâtir un raisonnement en prenant comme exemple "rillettes" au singulier. Pourquoi raisonner à partir d'un mot qui est un cas particulier quand il y a tant de mots qui fonctionnent normalement ? (entrées, brochettes, gâteaux, légumes, bonbon... ...)


----------



## Maître Capello

Thomas Tompion said:


> [The] dismissal of the possibility of the partitive *des* becoming *de *before an adjective preceding a noun.


My main point was that the *indefinite article* _des_ cannot become the *partitive article* _de_. It indeed becomes _de_, but it remains an *indefinite article*. On the other hand, the *partitive article* _des_ does indeed become the *partitive article* _de_ when followed by an adjective. In a nutshell, the change from _des_ to _de_ does not affect the part of speech of the article.



> What about *donnez-moi de bons fruits de votre jardin*. Is *des fruits* another rare example of a partitive *des*. Without an explanation we are left to wonder. Why is *give me some roses indefinite*, but *give me some fruits partitive?*


As suggested by Nico (je ne t'oublie pas cette fois ) and Janpol, you may say _*un* fruit_ or _*une* rose_ but you cannot say _un épinard_ (except when referring to the plant, which is a different meaning) or _une rillette_. The article _des_ in the plural _des fruits_ is therefore necessarily an indefinite article and not a partitive one. You seem to be confusing _partitif_ and _article partitif_, which are two different things. When a word has a partitive *meaning*, that word isn't necessarily a partitive *article*!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Maître Capello said:


> [...] You seem to be confusing _partitif_ and _article partitif_, which are two different things. When a word has a partitive *meaning*, that word isn't necessarily a partitive *article*!


As a teacher I always tried to find a formula which attributed the fault to myself.  It was a good practice.  It allows people to concentrate on the intellectual point without their getting the impression that you attribute a fault to them.

What I should have explained is that the Académie has altered its view.  I don't think, if you look at the latest from the Académie on this, that it continues to accept its previous example (8th Edition) - _Donnez-moi des fruits de votre jardin._

Here's what it says now:

En français, on utilise l’article partitif (_du, de la, des_) devant un nom désignant un tout qu’on ne peut dénombrer ou qu’on renonce à dénombrer, pour dire qu’on prélève une quantité indéterminée de ce tout : _manger du chocolat, de la tarte, des épinards. (Source)_

This clearly runs counter to the 8th Edition reading, and the standard view in the 19th Century (eg. Chapsal and many others) and agrees with what you've been saying.

So it really is a question of “Oui; cela était autrefois ainsi; mais nous avons changé tout cela, et nous faisons maintenant la grammaire d'une méhode toute nouvelle.”  The intellectual case remains, of course, and in my view, we do better to present the whole thing as a matter which has been decided by the Académie, despite the obvious intellectual case against, rather than making apparently_ ex cathedra_ pronouncements.  The Académie has decided that we should now call indefinite the article _des_, even when it has a partitive sense, before plural countable nouns.

The* des *in* Des livres*, although it doesn't refer to all the books, has now been termed, by the Académie, an indefinite article.

*Des*, when it is a partitive article (*des epinards*) and when it is an indefinite article (*des roses*) reduces often to* de* before an adjective, in formal French (*de belles roses*), though it often does not do so in informal and in much spoken French *(des belles roses)* and this *de* is either partitive or indefinite depending on the denomination *des *would have were there no adjective before the noun.


----------



## Nicomon

janpol said:


> [...] J'ai juste voulu dire qu'on ne peut pas bâtir un raisonnement en prenant comme exemple "rillettes" au singulier. Pourquoi raisonner à partir d'un mot qui est un cas particulier quand il y a tant de mots qui fonctionnent normalement ? (entrées, brochettes, gâteaux, légumes, bonbon... ...)


 Ben, parce que la question de l'exemple que je n'aurais peut-être pas dû citer  était :  





> *Comment ne pas confondre l'article indéfini des et l'article partitif des?*
> Mettez le nom déterminé au singulier. Si on peut remplacer _des_ par _un _ ou _une_, vous êtes face à un article indéfini.


  Si on ne peut pas remplacer « des » par « un »,  l'article est partitif.
Comme il n'y a pas des tas de mots dépourvus de singulier où *des *est partitif...  _rillettes_.

Pour illustrer le partitif _ils _auraient pu choisir _épinards, vacances, décombres_...  mais pas des noms dénombrables.


----------

