# Ne pouvait-il rien pour elle ?



## ienne

Hello, 
 In the context of a father finding out he has a daughter after her stepfather's death: 
Qu'etait devenue cette enfant, son enfant? *Ne pouvait-il rien pour elle? * Il s'informa.
thank you


----------



## Moune

Hello,
could he do something for her ? 
--> could he help her ?
bye


----------



## valy822

Est-ce que le verb _faire_ est sous-entendu ici?
Ne pouvait-il rien faire pour elle?


----------



## ienne

thanks moune


----------



## ienne

no, valy 
there is no verb _faire_ in the sentence
but the sentence conveys the meaning of it as moune translated just now
thank you too


----------



## valy822

ienne said:


> no, valy
> there is no verb _faire_ in the sentence
> but the sentence conveys the meaning of it as moune translated just now
> thank you too


 
I know that there's no _faire_ in the sentence..I can read it myself! 
Since I read Moune's translation (could he do something for her) I assumed that the verb _faire_ was implied in the question.


----------



## ienne

yes Valy yes yes it was 
it just so happens Im better at English than at French ..


----------



## broglet

"Wasn't he able to do anything for her"  or, more fluently, "Couldn't he have done anything for her"


----------



## Nicomon

broglet said:


> "Wasn't he able to do anything for her" or, more fluently, "Couldn't he have done anything for her"


 
the second choice in French would be : N'aurait-il rien pu faire pour elle?

I would translate the original as « couldn't he *do* anything for her? »


----------



## valy822

Don't worry ienne..it's ok..we are all here to learn!


----------



## broglet

Nicomon said:


> the second choice in French would be : N'aurait-il rien pu faire pour elle?
> 
> I would translate the original as « couldn't he *do* anything for her?   »


Quite right, Nico. The first of my suggestions (the one you ticked) may be grammatically correct, but it is rather awkward. I wonder if "couldn't he do something for her?" or "might he be able to do something for her?" or "could he do something for her?" (as Moune suggested) might fit the context better even though they might not be grammatically equivalent


----------



## Nicomon

broglet said:


> Quite right, Nico. The first of my suggestions (the one you ticked) may be grammatically correct, but it is rather awkward. I wonder if "couldn't he do something for her?" or "might he be able to do something for her?" or "could he do something for her?" (as Moune suggested) might fit the context better even though they might not be grammatically equivalent


 
"Might he be able" sounds even more awkward to my French Quebecer ears than "wasn't he able".  
I'd say that the closest to the original is "couldn't he do anything for her."
Moune's suggestion translates to French as « _pouvait-il faire quelque chose pour elle »_ (but you knew that). 

I believe the negative and rien are important. Otherwise, I'd lose both (on the assumption that 2 negatives make a positive) and go with Moune's "Could he do something for her." 
Then again, it's not my decision to make.


----------



## broglet

I'm beginning to think that even closer to the original, bith grammatically and in meaning, would be "Could he do nothing for her?" 

(There is only one negative here: ne ... rien (ie nothing) and these two words do not make a positive. Edith Piaf regretted nothing, not something


----------



## Nicomon

broglet said:


> I'm beginning to think that even closer to the original, bith grammatically and in meaning, would be "Could he do nothing for her?"
> 
> (There is only one negative here: ne ... rien (ie nothing) and these two words do not make a positive. Edith Piaf regretted nothing, not something


 
I saw _rien_ as the second negative (_ne_, of course being the first). As opposed to _(ne) pouvait-il faire quelque chose_. But I second the motion. "could he do nothing for her?" seems OK to me.  Although more colloquial sounding.


----------



## konungursvia

valy822 said:


> Est-ce que le verb _faire_ est sous-entendu ici?
> Ne pouvait-il rien faire pour elle?


 In this sense, pouvoir implies and englobes faire, so faire is not required.


----------



## broglet

Nicomon said:


> I saw _rien_ as the second negative (_ne_, of course being the first). As opposed to _(ne) pouvait-il faire quelque chose_. But I second the motion. "could he do nothing for her?" seems OK to me.  Although more colloquial sounding.


Americans think that two positives make a negative!!


----------



## Nicomon

broglet said:


> Americans think that two positives make a negative!!


 
I'm sure you've heard this one 


> English is flexible, and evolving. A linguistics professor lectured: “Two negatives in the Russian language still make a negative (made more emphatic), while two negatives in English actually make a positive. However in no language do two positives make a negative.” To which a skeptical student replied, “Yeah, right!”


 
I have a feeling that you've had fun at that game.  For a litteral translation, your sentence #13 really should have been _*Couldn't he* (ne pouvait-il) *do nothing* (rien faire)_ 

I'm Canadian and positive, so on second thoughts... I probably would have translated exactly as Moune did. *Back to square # 2.*


----------



## mnewcomb71

Could he not have done anything for her?

A little formal, but it seems to be a more formal sentence.


----------



## Nicomon

mnewcomb71 said:


> Could he not have done anything for her?
> 
> A little formal, but it seems to be a more formal sentence.


 
Again (see posts #8 & 9), though more formally said, this in French would be « _N'aurait-il rien pu faire pour elle?_ /_N'aurait-il pu faire quoi que ce soit pour elle ? _» 

For the sentence to be in the same verbal tense as original French, you would say. "Could he not *do* anything for her?" 
which if you turn it positive becomes  "Could he do something for her? " 

First option closer to the original, but second one more well... positive. 

I'm officially off this thread.


----------



## broglet

Nicomon said:


> For a litteral literal translation, your sentence #13 really should have been _*Couldn't he* (ne pouvait-il) *do nothing* (rien faire)_


yeah, yeah! surely "couldn't he do *nothing*?" would be "ne pouvait-il *ne* rien faire?"


----------

