# FR: pronominal verb agreement - accord du participe passé des verbes pronominaux



## morgoth2604

Bonjour,

       Je suis très perdu. On m'a posè la question:

 Est-ce que la Mairie de Paris s'est opposée à la construction de la Pyrimade du Louvre?

Ma réponse: Non, elle ne s'y est pas opposé. 

Est-ce que ça devrait être opposé ou plutôt opposée?

*Moderator note: *multiple threads merged to create this one


----------



## jimreilly

opposée, just like in the question. The removal of Est-ce-que or the addition of  "y" don't affect the agreement with elle.

I guess someone French better arbitrate this--I thought only direct objects affected the past particple form, and this is a reflexive verb besides. But I could be wrong! I often am.....


----------



## Gil

A la forme pronominale, le participe passé du verbe opposer s'accorde toujours en genre et en nombre avec le sujet.  Ici:  elle  opposée


----------



## morgoth2604

ce qui me confond, c'est comment savoir si c'est reciproque, ou reflechi, et dans quel cas est-ce qu'on doit utiliser l'accord


----------



## Gil

Hope this helps


----------



## sensa

Hi, I am sorry to keep bringing up the pronominal verbs, but I do not understand when to agree in gender & number and when not to?

This is from about.com:

In compound tenses, all * pronominal verbs* are  être verbs, which means that they are conjugated with _être_ as the auxiliary verb,  and that the past participle must *agree* with the subject.* In this construction, the reflexive pronoun precedes _être_.
                Elle s'est couchée à minuit.         She went to bed at midnight.                   Ils se sont arrêtés à la banque.            They stopped at the bank.        *Except when the reflexive pronoun is theindirect object, as for the following verbs:
*s'acheter*       to buy (for) o.s.                 *se demander*       to wonder                 *se dire*       to say (to o.s. / e.o.)                 *se donner*       to give (to e.o.)                 *s'écrire*       to write (to e.o.) (etc...)


If you have a pronominal verb + an object that is _not preceded by a  preposition_, the reflexive pronoun is always the indirect object.
                Je me suis acheté une voiture.       I bought a car for myself.                 Elle s'est dit la vérité.       She told herself the truth.

           However, if you have a pronominal verb + preposition + object, the  	reflexive pronoun is the direct object.
                Elle s'est occupée du chien.       She took care of the dog.                 Ils se sont souvenus de la pièce.       They remembered the play.


Could someone please explain all of this to me? Especially this last part....how is the reflexive pronoun ("s") the direct object in "Elle s'est occupée du chien"?

Merci


----------



## jann

Hi sensa,

You copied out the explanation above from somewhere, and it sounds very clear to me.  It is certainly correct.  But then, I already understand this topic.  So could you help us a little more to figure out what it is that you don't understand?  Everything is right there in your post already.

In the end, what it boils down to is figuring out: (a) is there a direct object, and where is it? and (b) is there an indirect object, and where is it?  The reflexive pronoun has to be either the direct object or the indirect object (A strict grammarian will tell you that last sentence is not totally accurate in every case. However, if you think of the reflexive pronoun that way -- systematically categorizing it as either direct or indirect -- this approach, applied correctly, will ensure you make the correct agreement.)

So try this.  All I have done is re-write the exact rules listed above in step-by-step format.  Remember that the direct object receives the action of the verb.  

1. ignore the reflexive/pronominal and look for some alternate direct object (COD).  Remember that direct objects are not introduced by a preposition, but they may be introduced by the partitive.
....If you find a COD, and if it's after the past participle ->> no agreement
....If you find a COD, and if it's before the verb ->> agreement with this alternate COD 
....If you don't find a COD, go to step 2

2.  keep ignoring the reflexive/pronominal, and now look for an alternate indirect object (COI).  Remember that it will be introduced by a preposition (à, avec, de, etc)
....If there is an alternate COI, then the reflexive is the direct object ->> agreement with the subject (which is represented by the reflexive)
....If there is no alternate COI, go to step 3

3.  Now you have to think about the reflexive/pronominal.  Think about what the verb means, and ask yourself, "Is the person doing it himself, or is he doing it to/for himself?"
....if the person is doing it himself, then the reflexive is the COD (or at least you can think of it that way) ->> agreement with the subject
....if the person is doing it to/for himself, then the reflexive is the COI ->> no agreement


Let's consider your examples.

_                 Je me suis acheté une voiture.
_Step 1.  Look for an alternate COD.  What got bought?  The car.  The car received the action of buying.  It is the COD.  Where is the COD?  After the verb. ->> no agreement  Stop there.

_                 Elle s'est occupée du chien
_Step 1.  Look for an alternate COD.  What did she "take care"?  Nothing.  You don't "take care something," you take care of something."  It's not _s'occuper qqch_ but rather _s'occuper de qqch_.  The presence of the preposition "de" rules out the possibility of "qqch" being a direct object.  There is no COD.  Go to step 2.
Step 2.  Look for an alternate COI.  What did she take care of?  She took care of the dog.  The dog is introduced by the preposition "of" in English, and _de_ in French.  It is the COI.  This means that the reflexive is the direct object ->> agreement with the subject.  Stop there.

_Ils se sont arrêtés à la banque
_Step 1.  Look for an alternate COD.  What got stopped?  No. There's no alternate COD here.  Go to step 2.
Step 2.  Look for alternate COI.  Did they "stop to/with/for" something?  No.  There's no alternate COI here either.  Go to step 3.
Step 3.  Think about the reflexive.  Did they stop "themselves" at the bank?  Or did they stop "to themselves" at the bank?  Obviously, they stopped themselves.  Actually, they are the ones who got stopped!  The reflexive is the COD ->> agreement with the subject

_Ils se sont écrit._
Step 1.  Look for an alternate COD.  What did they write?  Well, letters, probably, or maybe emails, but it's not listed in the sentence!  So there's no alternate COD.  Go to step 2.
Step 2.  Look for an alternate COI.  What did they write to?  No third party is listed (they didn't write to their senator, for example!).  No alternate COI.  Go to step 3.
Step 3.  Think about the reflexive.  Did they write "each other" or did they write "to each other"?  Obviously, they wrote to each other.  The reflexive is the COI ->> no agreement


----------



## SophiePaquin

Bonjour,

Quand les verbes reciproques sont conjugués au passé composé est-ce que le participe passé s'accorde?

E.g. Elles se sont bien communiquées OU communiqué?

Ainsi, y a-t-il une différence entre les verbes pronominaux et reciproques?

Merci!

Sophie


----------



## jann

Hello Sophie,

Yes, there is a difference between a "pronominal" verb and a "reciprocal" verb.... but the difficulty is that these words are used differently by different people, which makes it confusing.

Let's start with "reciprocal" verbs, where you are doing something _to/with each other_.  The reflexive pronoun represents "each other."  If it acts as a direct object then you must make the past participle agree.  If it acts as an indirect object, then you will not have agreement.

Example 1: _voir quelqu'un  --> Jeanne a vu Marie._
Jeanne saw Marie.  Marie is the direct object.  Now if they see each other, then each girl is the direct object of what the other person sees.  You could say _Jeanne a vu Marie et Marie a vu Jeanne... _but a much more natural way to say that is "They saw each other."  The way we do this is by adding the reflexive pronoun _se_, to represent the direct object "each other."  Since this pronoun is a direct object that precedes the verb, you must have agreement in the passé composé:  _Elles se sont vu*es *(l'une et l'autre).

_Example 2: _écrire à quelqu'un --> Jeanne a écrit à Marie._
Jeanne wrote to Marie.  Marie is the indirect object (the direct object isn't mentioned, but it would be the thing that got written, ie. the letter).  Now if they write to each other, then each girl is the indirect object for the other girl's writing.  Again, the way we express "They wrote to each other" is with a reflexive pronoun, but this time that pronoun meaning "to each other" represents an indirect object.  It precedes the verb, and you're still going to conjugate with être, but because the pronoun represents an indirect object, there is no agreement:  _Elles se sont écrit (l'une à l'autre)._ 

Now let's talk about pronominal verbs.  Some verbs are "exclusively" or "essentially" pronominal.  In other words, they don't mean anything if you omit the reflexive pronoun.  The vast majority of these verbs cannot accept an external direct object and for this vast majority, their past participles will agree.   Here are some exclusively pronominal verbs, and here is an article about their past participles.

Other verbs are not exclusively pronominal.  These verbs are sometimes called "occasionally pronominal."  For example: _laver_.  If you wash yourself, it's pronominal: _tu te laves, tu te laves les mains_.  But if you wash something else, it's not pronominal: _tu laves une fourchette.  _When you use these verbs in the past tense, you have to ask yourself if there is an explicit direct object somewhere in the sentence.  If there is one, you will not have agreement with the reflexive pronoun.  Then you have to ask yourself where that direct object is... because if it is in front of the verb, you will have agreement with this specific direct object.  The thing that gets washed is the direct object...

_Elle s'est lavé*e*._ (no explicit direct object.  What gets washed? She does, represented by _se_ --> agreement with the reflexive pronoun)
_Elle s'est lavé les mains._ (What gets washed?  les mains = direct object after the verb --> no agreement)
_Elle se les est lavé*es*._  (les = les mains = direct object before the verb --> agreement with "les mains")

Since "ocasionally" pronominal verbs and "reciprocal" verbs behave the same way when it comes to past participle agreement, they are sometimes all lumped together as "occasionally pronominal" verbs.  This article has a good explanation.

I hope it helps.


----------



## SophiePaquin

Wow, merci beaucoup Jann!
Donc, pour vérifier que je comprends, j'ai pensé à quelques exemples:

Ils se sont bien communiqué. (communiquer à qqn, donc, objet indirect)
Ils ne se sont pas rasés (pas d'objet indirect explicite)
Elles se sont téléphoné tous les jours (téléphoner à qqn, donc, objet indirect)
Les parents se sont disputé (objet indirect)

C'est juste?


----------



## jann

Almost.   I would say that you have understood the principle, but your problems are more related to specific verbs.


SophiePaquin said:


> Ils ne se sont pas rasés (pas d'objet indirect explicite)
> Elles se sont téléphoné tous les jours (téléphoner à qqn, donc, objet indirect)





> Ils se sont bien communiqué. (communiquer à qqn, donc, objet indirect)


Actually, I would say that the agreement is correct, but the sentence is wrong because it just isn't good French.   The problem is that you tried to write "they communicated well (with each other)" using the structure _communiquer à qqn_.  But this isn't a complete structure.  You need _communiquer *qqch *à qqn = _to communicate *something* to someone.
_Ils se sont communiqué leurs idées = _They made their ideas known to each other.


> Les parents se sont disputé (objet indirect)


If you mean to say "the parents argued/quarreled" the verb you need is _se disputer_ = to quarrel.  There is no explicit direct object and the _se_ does not represent an indirect object, so there should be agreement.
_Les enfants se sont disputé*s*._ = The children quarreled. 
_Les enfants se sont disupté*s* avec le voisin_ = The childrens quarreled with the neighbor.
_Les enfants se sont disputé un jouet_ = The children fought over a toy.  (un jouet = object direct explicite)

Does that make sense?


----------



## aliciatanxt

Hi Jann, it was very nice of you to write down precisely every step taken to find the COI and COD. I was at the same page at about.com, however, I still don't understand what does it mean to be "in agreement with subject/object" or "no agreement". What does it mean?


----------



## jann

Welcome, Aliciatanxt! 


aliciatanxt said:


> I was at the same page at about.com, however, I still don't understand what does it mean to be "in agreement with subject/object" or "no agreement". What does it mean?


I'm not sure where, exactly, you read the words "in agreement with subject/object" and "no agreement." I assume that this is the about.com page you were looking at, but I don't see those exact words on that page... nor do they figure in my own explanation above.

Even if I'm not totally sure I understand your question, maybe I can help a bit.

First, remember that in French, all nouns (and other nominal forms) have *gender* and *number*:  they are either masculine or feminine (gender), and they are either singular or plural (number).  

Second, remember that in French, a word that "goes with" a noun changes form/spelling so that it has the same number and gender as the noun it describes.  Examples of words that "go with" nouns are adjectives and determiners (_le, la, les, un, une, des_, etc.).  The "agreement" that we're talking about here refers to the way we change the spelling of these words to make them have the same number and gender as the nouns they describe.  Besides words like adjectives, there is another kind of word that might change form to "agree" in number and gender with a noun.  This kind of word is a past participle.  One of the places where you can find a past participle is in sentences that use the _passé composé_.  

The explanation I wrote above is about pronominal verbs conjugated in the _passé composé_ (or any other compound tense).  It is intended to help you determine the required agreement for the past participle in such sentences.  If there is "no agreement," this means that you do not need to change the spelling of the past participle to correspond with the number and gender of some noun somewhere in the sentence.  But if agreement is required, you will need to examine the number and gender of the noun (subject or object) that determines how the past participle must agree.  If that noun is masculine singular, the past participle will be left as-is.  But if that noun is feminine and/or plural, you will need to make the past participle "agree" by modifying its spelling, adding an -E, an -S, or an -ES on the end accordingly.  

While the rules of number and gender agreement may sometimes seem complicated, the concept of agreement is simple, and it is fundamental to French.  If you are not familiar with this concept, you should read about it in a French grammar book, or start here, and don't miss this article.


----------



## Trendywendy_41

Please help!

With "Ils se sont occupés" there is no direct object - what did they take care? Nothing. However, they are taking care of each other so the indirect object is the reflexive pronoun 'se'. However, it is also the direct object! So we need agreement.

Is that correct?


----------



## Peter951

For me, this should be translated as follows: "they have taken care of it" with the "it", in French, sous-entendu. "Je me suis occupé" = I have taken care of that issue...


----------



## Trendywendy_41

So how would you say "They took care of each other."?


----------



## CapnPrep

Peter951 said:


> For me, this should be translated as follows: "they have taken care of it" with the "it", in French, sous-entendu. "Je me suis occupé" = I have taken care of that issue...


_Ils se sont occupés _would mean "They occupied themselves / kept themselves busy". For "They have taken care of it", you need to express the "it": _Ils s'en sont occupés._


Trendywendy_41 said:


> So how would you say "They took care of each other."?


_Ils se sont occupés *l'un de l'autre* / *les uns des autres*._

A pronoun can only have one function, and in this case _se_ is only the direct object (so we need agreement). To express the indirect object with _s'occuper_, you have to either use a _de_-phrase or add the pronoun _en_.


----------



## Trendywendy_41

So if it were They (females) took care of each other (one another) it would be:
Elles se sont occupées l'un de l'autre / les uns des autres?


----------



## quinoa

l'une de l'autre (si elles sont deux), les unes des autres (si elles sont plusieurs)


----------



## vodoomoth

J'arrive très longtemps après la bataille, mais je réponds pour que ça serve à qui se pose la même question.

Pour savoir si un verbe pronominal français est réciproque ou réfléchi, un petit détour par l'anglais peut être utile si on parle l'anglais:
* réciproque si la traduction en anglais peut faire intervenir "one another" ou "each other" ;
* réfléchi si la traduction fait intervenir "-self" comme dans "himself", "myself", "themselves".

Si on ne parle pas l'anglais, il faut se demander si le sujet – celui qui fait l'action – et l'objet – celui qui subit l'action – du verbe sont identiques. Si oui, le verbe est réfléchi (j'utilise "se regarder dans un miroir" comme image mentale). Si non, le verbe est réciproque.

Par exemple: dans "Ils se sont affrontés sur le sujet des fermetures d'écoles.", il ne peut visiblement pas s'agir de personnes dont chacune affronte elle-même; chaque personne affronte l'autre, le verbe est donc réciproque. Mais, dans "Elle s'est habillée sans traîner.", le sujet "elle" habille "elle-même"; le verbe est donc réfléchi.

Sur le sujet de l'accord, il faut noter que la nature d'un verbe (réciproque ou réfléchi) est un peu orthogonale (c'est-à-dire sans rapport strict et direct) à l'accord. Il faut aussi noter qu'il existe, parmi les verbes pronominaux, des verbes dits "essentiellement pronominaux" (par exemple, s'enfuir, se suicider, etc.): il s'agit de verbes qui n'existent que sous forme pronominale.

Ce que j'ai fini par garder car j'avoue que c'est compliqué:

* verbe essentiellement pronominal: toujours accorder

* verbe réfléchi: toujours accorder

* verbe réciproque: accorder si le verbe non pronominal est soit sans objet, soit transitif direct avec le complément d'objet direct placé avant le verbe.
** ils se sont disputés. Accord car sans objet.
** elle se sont disputé une robe. Pas d'accord car COD placé après le verbe.
** ils se sont lavés avec une eau froide. Accord car ils ont lavé eux-mêmes; le COD est placé avant le verbe.
** ils se sont plu. Pas d'accord car la forme non pronominale est un verbe sans COD (on dit "plaire à", donc transitif indirect)

* verbe pronominal suivi d'un infinitif (comme dans "se voir remettre", "s'entendre chanter"): accorder si le sujet du verbe pronominal fait l'action du second verbe.
** elles se sont vu remettre un diplôme. Pas d'accord car "elles" voient mais "elles" ne remettent pas le diplôme.
** elles se sont entendues chanter à la radio. Accord car "elles" entendent et "elles" chantent.

* pour tous les autres cas, rechercher le complément d'objet direct et conjuguer comme avec "avoir".
** ils se sont lavé les mains. Pas d'accord car le COD est "les mains". Le verbe "se laver" est pronominal mais il n'est pas réciproque dans ce cas.


----------

