# FR: was born - temps



## AnotherdayinCA

If I wanted to say "She was born in Indonesia and died in Paris" would I say "Elle est née en Indonésie et morte à Paris." or would I have to say "Elle était née en Indonésie  et elle est morte à Paris" because of that grammar rule where if one event occurs before the other you use plus-que-parfait for the first?  This question has been annoying me for months.

*Moderator note:* Multiple threads have been merged to create this one.


----------



## marget

The passé composé should be used in both instances. These actions are not related to each other. They are totally separate. I believe that you would have to use the plus-que-parfait to express an action that had to be totally completed in relation to the other before the second one could occur. I'll give you an example and I hope my grammar will be correct. "Il m'a invitée à dîner au restaurant, mais j'avais déjà mangé."


----------



## geostan

There's no reason to use the pluperfect tense for the first verb. Sometimes there is a need to use the pluperfect because the use of two verbs in the passé composé would imply a different sequence of events. There is no such difficulty here since one may not die before being born.

[…]


----------



## mermer1

What would be the proper way to say "He was born in...(year)"? Is it "il était né" or "il naissant"? It is discussing a historical person, if that makes a difference. Thanks!


----------



## ascoltate

"Il est né" is the correct translation, since the verb "naître" = "to be born" so you just need the passé composé...
If you are using the historical present (i.e., using the present tense to narrate a historical event, which is very common in French), then you'd say "Il naît"


----------



## geostan

mermer1 said:


> What would be the proper way to say "He was born in...(year)"? Is it "il était né" or "il naissant"? It is discussing a historical person, if that makes a difference. Thanks!



If it were in writing, one could say: _Il naquit en... _In every-day speech, you would say: _Il est né en...  _The verb _naître_ is conjugated with _être_, so "Il est né" is a past tense. No need to go further in the past.

Cheers!


----------



## coppergirl

Salut!

Ma soeur est en train de faire un arbre généalogique, et elle m'a demandé de l'aider à traduire une lettre.

Il me sembre que je doive utiliser le passé simple pour indiquer un mort dans une époque passée, mais je n'en suis pas certaine. 

Par exemple, dans la phrase "Joseph Smith naquît en 1905 et mourut en 2003", dois-je utiliser le passé simple?   Ou le passé composé?  

Que pensez-vous? 

(PS  Je serais très contente de voir toutes les corrections de mon français. )


----------



## melu85

The thing is to be consistent: either: naquît....mourut/ est né...est mort/
or ... vécut de 1905 à 2003/ a vécu de...à ...


----------



## coppergirl

So . . . it doesn't matter which I use in this case, since all the dates of births and deaths are historic in the letter, as long as I am consistent?

Did I understand that correctly?


----------



## melu85

I think so, but I don't know about the other verbs in the letter.


----------



## SophiePaquin

Bonjour,

Je ne me souviens plus quel temps du verbe il faut utiliser pour _naître_ ici:

Ce sont les jeunes qui _s’étaient nés_ (were born) avec l’Internet […]

Est-ce que c'est ça? (est-ce que j'ai utilisé le pqp?)

merci bien,

Sophie


----------



## itka

Je pense que le passé composé est le temps qu'il te faut, mais il est encore mieux de supprimer le verbe et de ne garder que le participe passé :

Ce sont des jeunes, *nés* avec Internet […]

Ces jeunes *sont nés* avec Internet....


----------



## A day in Eireann

Cela fait un peu cours avec le mot entre parenthèse à mettre au temps, mode, accord... voulu mais ceci mis à part, si on ne peut améliorer la phrase, alors " qui sont nés " car "s'étaient nés" non seulement n'est pas le bon temps mais avec la marque du verbe réflexif, on devrait en déduire que ces jeunes "had given birth to themselves".


----------



## sandman2

Est-ce que la phrase 'Doria a été née' est possible?  Ou est-ce qu'on dirait seulement 'Doria est née'?  Le premier me semble incorrecte, bien que je sache qu'on pourrait dire 'Doria a été amenée...', par exemple.

Merci!


----------



## jann

Your instincts are correct. 

_Doria a été amenée_ is past tense passive voice. It uses the passé composé of _être_ plus the past participle (which acts like an adjective) of the transitive verb _amener_.  It means "Doria was/got led..." in the sense "someone led Doria..."

We cannot form passive voice sentences for intransitive verbs.  _Naître _in French is intransitive.  It's confusing, because we translate it as "to be born" in English... and if you look at those three words, "to be born," you'll realize that English actually uses a passive voice construction! Unlike French, we don't have a single infinitive that means "to come into the world."   Instead, we use passive voice of the transitive verb "to bear [children]," and so the child who comes into the world "is born" [by his or her mother].

Doria was born = _Doria est née_ (passé composé).


----------



## Oddmania

Talking about this, I wonder if the English _She was born _can be translated as both_ Elle est née_ and _Elle était née_, according to the context. For instance, let's say you're writing a novel (in the past) and want to write _Alice était Lion _(signe astrologique)_, puisque elle *était née* en Août_.

Would you tend to keep _She was born_ or maybe write _She had been born_ ?


----------



## jann

Oddmania said:


> Would you tend to keep _She was born_ or maybe write _She had been born_ ?


We are often less strict about tense sequencing in English than you are in French.

There are certainly some situations where we need use the pluperfect to translate _elle était née_, but I think the preterit is also a natural choice in your particular example: "She was a Leo because she was born in August."  But we could use "had been born" there as well...


----------



## Oddmania

That's good to know, thank you


----------



## jann

Perhaps I should add that we are more careful about tense sequencing in proper written English than we are in speech.

"She was a Leo because she was born in August," would be perfectly natural out loud... but strictly speaking, "She was a Leo because she had been born in August" is more correct, and would doubtless be preferable in writing (e.g., in a novel).


----------



## geostan

Jann,

This is a case where I think I would use *she was born* in speech or in writing. Grammatically, you're right, but it sounds strange to me to say *she had been born* in that particular sentence.


----------



## timboleicester

*elle fut née*

I am translating some ancestry text and I wanted to put it into the "past historic"
Therefore can I use the above in place of "elle est née" which doesn't seem to be
in keeping with the other past historic tenses that I have used.

elle se maria etc.

Many thanks


----------



## Maître Capello

You shouldn't use the passé antérieur (_elle fut née_), which doesn't make sense here, but the passé simple (_elle naquit_).


----------



## Elagabalus

Nope you can't.

"Elle naquit" is the one.

Greetings from Marseilles.


----------



## timboleicester

Yes !!!   of course and I have in some other areas of the text

I think I have gone insane, it's rushing stuff.

Many Thanks


----------



## t k

Bonjour.
I translated 1 to 2, but 3 was the correct translation.
Is 2 wrong?  Why?
Merci.  --- tk

1. I was born in this country.
2. J'*étais* né […].
3. Je *suis *né […].


----------



## OLN

bear ne signifie pas naître ; voir born - English-French Dictionary WordReference.com
Question inverse : comment traduis-tu _Je suis né_ ?


----------



## Maître Capello

Le plus-que-parfait est ici clairement inapproprié car il supposerait que la personne était née là-bas à l'époque mais que ce ne serait plus le cas maintenant ! On emploie donc typiquement le passé composé : _je suis né_. On notera toutefois que le plus-que-parfait peut convenir dans certains contextes pour marquer une antériorité par rapport à un autre événement du passé.


----------

