# FR: De quoi / Que + inversion complexe



## Pure_Yvesil

De quoi traite ce film ?
Que créa Pierre ?

I've been reading through a grammar manual that stated that the complex inversion is possible in this case. However, it seems to me, that this is hardly used in these two cases ?

De quoi ce film traite-t-il ?
Que Pierre créa-t-il ?

Basically those two sentences are grammatically correct...but there seems to be a snag somewhere, can someone help me find it?


----------



## Seeda

Yes, it's correct but very formal as well. You're much more likely to hear _De quoi est-ce que ce film traite ?_ or (the most common) _Ce film traite (parle) de quoi ?_


----------



## Pure_Yvesil

Thanks you Seeda,

So *both *the "normal" inversion and "complex" inversion in this case are to be considered "formal" ?


----------



## Seeda

Yes, just having the subject and the verb switched makes it sound quite formal.


----------



## geostan

Pure_Yvesil said:


> De quoi traite ce film ?
> Que créa Pierre ?
> 
> I've been reading through a grammar manual that stated that the complex inversion is possible in this case. However, it seems to me, that this is hardly used in these two cases ?
> 
> De quoi ce film traite-t-il ?
> Que Pierre créa-t-il ?
> 
> Basically those two sentences are grammatically correct...but there seems to be a snag somewhere, can someone help me find it?



The first of these questions is correct. The second, even though correctly formed, is never used.


----------



## Seeda

What do you mean, geostan, by 'never'? In literature and written texts, it's still very common - it's just disappeared from oral speech mainly.

Written French and spoken French are _very _different things.


----------



## geostan

I realize that the word *never* should *never *be used in talking about grammar, but my understanding is that *Que + complex inversion* was last used in the 19th century. It surprises me that "*Que Pierre crea-t-il?*" is still being used.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

I disagree basically with any such statement as "normal /complex inversion has disappeared from everyday speech".
You may say you don't use it, or you don't hear it, but others do, and you can't hear (or notice) everything.
Have you never _heard_ "comment allez-vous ?"

At this precise moment I'm listening to the radio, and some debater is asking "en quoi le mariage gay est-il une menace pour la société ?".
Not "en quoi est-ce que...".


----------



## CapnPrep

geostan said:


> my understanding is that *Que + complex inversion* was last used in the 19th century.


For complex inversion after interrogative _que_, see the grammar excerpts in this post of mine in another thread. Here are the examples cited by Grevisse, with dates:

Que tout cela serait-il devenu si mon absence se fût prolongée ? (J.-J. Ampère, 19th c.)
Que Pellerin devrait-il dire à Ermance ? (La Varende, 1957)
Que cela change-t-il ?  (Vialar, 1957)
Que M. Pierre Sabbagh pourrait-il demander de mieux ? (Le Cyclope [= M.   Chapelan], 1969.)
Que cela cache-t-il ?  (M. Droit, 1978)
Que Freud ici nous a-t-il apporté ? (J.   Lacan, 1958)


----------



## Seeda

JeanDeSponde said:


> I disagree basically with any such statement as "normal /complex inversion has disappeared from everyday speech".
> You may say you don't use it, or you don't hear it, but others do, and you can't hear (or notice) everything.
> Have you never _heard_ "comment allez-vous ?"
> 
> At this precise moment I'm listening to the radio, and some debater is asking "en quoi le mariage gay est-il une menace pour la société ?".
> Not "en quoi est-ce que...".



_Comment allez-vous_ is taught to foreigners as a standard translation to 'How are you?' but, in fact, it's only common in the upper class, which is but a small part of the population. If I came up to my boss and said _Comment allez-vous ?_ she would probably think I'm being overly polite.

Also, a radio talk show is not everyday conversation.


----------



## JeanDeSponde

Seeda said:


> _Comment allez-vous_ is [...] only common in the upper class, which is but a small part of the population. .


"Upper class" — culturally, socially...? posh...?


Seeda said:


> Also, a radio talk show is not everyday conversation.


Then say that it's not common in _your_ everyday conversation. The debater was no _Académicien_, just a plain guy, uttering a reasonable number of grammar errors besides...
Once again, I'm not saying it's _very_ common: I'm just saying that is is far from having disappeared.
There is not _one_ spoken French, as there is not _one_ written French.


----------



## geostan

JeanDeSponde said:


> I disagree basically with any such statement as "normal /complex inversion has disappeared from everyday speech".
> You may say you don't use it, or you don't hear it, but others do, and you can't hear (or notice) everything.
> Have you never _heard_ "comment allez-vous ?"
> 
> At this precise moment I'm listening to the radio, and some debater is asking "en quoi le mariage gay est-il une menace pour la société ?".
> Not "en quoi est-ce que...".



My comments were directed specifcally  towards the interrogative *que + complex inversion*, not other interrogatives, such as *en quoi, comment*, etc. I note that CapnPrep has found examples of the very structure I was commenting on. All I can say is that I am surprised. Decades ago, when I was a budding French teacher, I used this structure at a teacher's college, and was told to avoid it as it was rare at best and might as well be considered incorrect.

Having further reflected on this, I can see some possibilities with que + complex inversion. For example, a unique noun subject might use it:
Que Dieu créa-t-Il en sept jours?   But in ordinary situations where simple inversion is possible, it seems pedantic to resort to the complex form.

e.g. Que Jean a-t-il dit quand tu as mentionné cette possibilité?   One could more simply say: Qu'a dit Jean quand...


----------



## JeanDeSponde

_Que Pierre créa-t-il ?_ is not used, AFAIK.
The examples given by CapnPrep are interesting because these are cases where I would naturally  "complexify" the questions, e.g. _qu'est-ce que Freud nous a apporté ?_, though (as I said before) I tend naturally not to do it with "normal" questions.
(Except maybe for _Que cela change-t-il ?_, which is what I would naturally have said.)
Though I would probably not "see" those "_que_ + C.I." in a book (I mean, not mark them as erroneous or _recherchés_).


----------



## geostan

See my correction in post #7. In addition, I've added some thoughts in post #12.


----------

