# FR: Je le lui comprends [sic]



## Merciful Love

What is the best way to translate the phrase, "Je le lui comprends"?  Should I say "I understand him/her", or "I understand it (i.e. something) about him /her?  

I'm trying to translate a text which speaks of the double object, so it would be nice (make more sense) if I could actually translate both objects.  Please help if you can!  Thanks.


----------



## CarlosRapido

_"Je le lui comprends"_ makes no sense to my francophone ears; _'lui'_ seems out of place.  Could we please have a wider context ?


----------



## brieuxp

As a French, I would say the original sentence is incorrect.
I understand him. => Je le comprends.
I understand it. => Je comprends (i.e. something).


----------



## atcheque

Bonjour Merciful Love et bienvenue sur les forums 

Can you please give us more context? What _le_ and _lui_ refer to?

Regards,
atcheque, modérateur


----------



## OLN

> I'm trying to translate a text which speaks of the double object, so it would be nice (make more sense) if I could actually translate both objects.


No all verbs have two types of objects, direct (*le*) and indirect (*lui*). 

_Comprendre_ doesn't, so your sentence is wrong.


----------



## CarlosRapido

Please give us the whole line where you encoutered this.  OLN is right it doesn't work as is.  You may say _Je le comprend_ > I understand it - Je lui fais comprendre > I make him understand, but not with both objects, although it is possible with other verbs eg; Je le lui donne > I give it to him. _Je le lui fais comprendre _is also possible, but then it's the_ faire_ verb that is in play here.


----------



## Merciful Love

I found it as an example given in a very old French text.  There isn't really any context, unfortunately, because it was simply given as an example of the use of a double object.  Other examples given include "je le lui fais", and "je le lui creuse".  Can I translate these as, "I do it for him", and "I dig it for him"?  I don't know why the verb "comprendre" is included with these transitive verbs, unless it used to be used in a transitive sense, which is why I thought maybe it could mean, "I understand it about him"?


----------



## Lucky19

Comprendre peut également signifier incorporer ou inclure dans quelque chose.

Ex : _Le petit déjeuner est compris dans le prix de la chambre._

Mais comprendre quelque chose à quelqu'un....? 

Je le lui comprends ? Je le lui facture ? Je le lui ajoute ?


----------



## OLN

_

Je le comprends_,  _Je le lui fais comprendre _and_ comprendre quelque chose à quelque chose_ would be correct, but not _Je lui _or_ Je leur comprends_.


> I found it as an example given in a very old French text. There isn't really any context, unfortunately, because it was simply given as an example of the use of a double object.


I'm surprised anyone would use _comprendre_ to illustrate the use of direct and indirect objects and their pronouns.
How old is your very old text and does the author explain what type of indirect object they mean (i.e. which preposition they use)?


> I don't know why the verb "comprendre" is included with these  transitive verbs, unless it used to be used in a transitive sense


 Comprendreis transitive.


----------



## jann

Merciful Love said:


> I'm trying to translate a text which speaks of the double object, so it would be nice (make more sense) if I could actually translate both objects.


I understand where you're coming from, but that many not be realistic.  The idea conveyed in the example sentence -- whatever it may be, and I realize this is still a sticking point -- may not be one that we express with double object pronouns in English.  

As indicated by the general puzzlement of native French-speakers in this thread, the usage examples in your "very old" text (date? title?) may be archaic regionalisms or something similarly obscure... but odd-looking doubling of personal pronouns does also exist in idiomatic modern usage.   I suspect the section in your old text may be related.  We have a few threads on the topic.  You'll notice from those discussions that the feeling of the _datif d'intérêt_ is frequently conveyed  in English translation by word choice or by an idiomatic expression rather than by the simple addition of a double object pronoun.


----------



## Nicomon

Hello,

I tried googling (with the quotation marks) *"je le lui comprends" + "je le lui creuse" + "je le lui fais" *namely the additional examples that MercifulLove gave in post #7, and it lead me to this title : *Principes de la langue des sauvages appelés Sauteux (G.A. Bellecourt)

*Given this *previous thread* with a sentence comparing « sauvage » and « latin », I'm pretty sure this is the "Old text" at play here.

It is actually a grammar written in *1839,* at a time when people said « _sauvages_ » instead of « _amérindiens_ ». 

Je ne peux pas mettre le lien vers le livre en question, trouvé sur google.ca, mais on en parle sur *cette page* au sujet de l'auteur. 
On essaie donc ici de traduire vers l'anglais un exemple du dialecte des Sauteux,  traduit en français au 19e siècle. C'est pas évident! 

Je pense qu'aujourd'hui on pourrait dans cet ordre (pour l'emphase) : *Je le comprends, lui ...*_ mais elle, je ne la comprends pas.
_Sauf que je ne suis pas certaine que ce soit la même chose.


----------



## OLN

Tu m’épateras toujours.
C'est cela, la source de ton texte ? (George Antoine B*el*court)
"Je le lui comprends" est sans aucun doute du sauteux traduit mot à mot et on se demande comment on en est arrivé à analyser le verbe sauteux à double objet ignoble dans ce forum. On n'est pourtant pas le 1er avril ! 


> 146 PRINCIPES DE LA LANGUE SAUTEUSE.
> dire, ni nissitottawik ; *c'est de là qu'il se forme régulièrement, et que l'on dit*, ni nissitottawimân, *je le lid* (*lui *mal scanné) *comprends*.
> XII. Le verbe à double objet ignoble se forme de la 1ère, personne singulier ignoble indicatif dans les verbes en ô», en changeant n finale en wàrij V. g. nind ojittôn, d'où nind ojittowâu, je  le lui fais ; et de la même personne dans les verbes en àn^ en changeant n finale en moivàn^ V. g. ni wânikkâtSw, cPoà, ni wânikkâtâmowân, *je le lui creuse* ; ni nissitôttân, efoà, ni nissiiôt-  \Amoioàny *je le lui comprends*, S^c *(etc.)*. Il se conjugue comme ci-dessus.


C'est ici page 146, la dernière du livre.


----------



## jann

Nicomon said:


> It lead me to this title : *Principes de la langue des sauvages appelés Sauteux (G.A. Bellecourt)*
> It is actually a grammar written in *1839,* at a time when people said « _sauvages_ » instead of « _amérindiens_ ».


Good work!  I think this link to the book should work.

Since the French examples in question are all direct translations of examples given in the Ojibwe language, it's also possible that they were intended as litteral translations to show double-object structure in the Ojibwe language, and not as sentences where the double object structure would have meaning in and of itself in French.

This English-language analysis of Ojibwe verb structures seems to discuss the same grammatical feature of the language.  It's apparently an unusual one, which further suggests to me that French "translations" like _Je le lui comprends_ were in fact meant as transliterations (and that we should should understand _je le comprends_ as the normal French expression of the idea from the Ojibwe sentence that includes the double pronoun).

I'm going to move this thread to the French-English Grammar forum for the time being... but it occurs to me that if there were any Ojibwe speakers who happened to stumble across this thread, they could perhaps help us out, in which case the whole discussion can be moved to the Other Languages section to facilitate the citation, analysis, and English translation of the Ojibwe examples given in the 1839 French text.

Jann
(member and moderator)

EDIT: it looks like I cross posted with OLN!


----------



## Nicomon

@ OLN :  En fait, ma source est celle qui est sous ton lien « c'est ici » mais comme je l'ai trouvé sur Google livres Canada, je ne pensais pas qu'il se verrait de partout.  
Sinon, j'aurais mis le lien. 

Et sur la page que j'ai mise en lien au sujet de l'auteur il est écrit : *BELLECOURT (Bellecours, Belcourt).   
*J'ai bêtement recopié l'erreur, sans avoir remarqué l'épellation « officielle » du nom de ce prêtre missionnaire, dans l'intro.* *


----------

