# FR: vérifiez que l'appareil et le cordon d'alimentation sont en bon état



## lilish

hello everyone,

I came across this sentence in a manual:
Avant toute utilisation, vérifiez que l'appareil et le cordon d'alimentation sont en bon état.
Now my question :this sentence is not "conjonctif," is it because of the word "vérifiez" which gives it a sort of sence of certainty?

cheers!


----------



## lilish

Yes ,I do wonder why the verb is"sont"


----------



## pieanne

I wonder if it's not because it was directly translated from "make sure that ...*are*..."?


----------



## floise

Lilish,

I did a google search with 'Vérifiez que' and found that the verb in the subordinate clause is almost always in the indicative mood, not the subjunctive. 

 *Vérifiez que* l’écumoire ou le retour d’eau est en bon état.
*Vérifiez que* l'action de l'eau peut atteindre le 
*Vérifiez que* toutes les lumières fonctionnent et qu’il n’y a pas de toiles

*vérifiez que* le champs Adresse e-mail contienne bien (_here the subjuctive is used_)

*vérifiez que* l’on vous a accordé le rabais promotionnel

It seems that this construction requires the indicative.

floise


----------



## floise

pieanne,

Would you normally tend to use the subjunctive or the indicative?

floise


----------



## pieanne

Hard to say...
I have the feeling the subjunctive is correct, but everyday language has become sloppy and we hear the indicative too. Moreover I'm influenced by the English too...


----------



## floise

Thanks, pieanne,

Lilish, 

You could post your question on the grammar forum. 

floise


----------



## lilish

hello floise,

that was a great search You really made easy for me!


 I don't think It's up to me to pick between the indiatif ou conjcnctif


----------



## vanagreg

Here "vérifiez" is not in "indicative" mode, but imperative. The mode to give orders, advice, requests, etc.

"Sont" refers to appareil" and "cordon", hence plural.


----------



## ascoltate

pieanne said:


> Moreover I'm influenced by the English too...



A frequent cop-out. English has a subjunctive too... although I wouldn't use it with "check/verify"... I think it's just that this verb doesn't really take the subjunctive.

But note (at least for American English):
Il faut que chaque employé _soit_ au bureau à 8 h.
It is necessary that each employ _be_ at the office at 8:00.

(subjunctive in both languages in a similar instance...)


----------



## pieanne

I think the indicative here could be justified by the fact that "vérifiez" means "regardez si"


----------



## pieanne

ascoltate said:


> A frequent cop-out. English has a subjunctive too... although I wouldn't use it with "check/verify"... I think it's just that this verb doesn't really take the subjunctive.
> 
> But note (at least for American English):
> Il faut que chaque employé _soit_ au bureau à 8 h.
> It is necessary that each employ _be_ at the office at 8:00.
> 
> (subjunctive in both languages in a similar instance...)


I didn't say there is no subjunctive in English! I was talking about this specific instance: "Check/make sure ... are"


----------



## floise

vanagreg said:


> Here "vérifiez" is not in "indicative" mode, but imperative. The mode to give orders, advice, requests, etc.
> 
> "Sont" refers to appareil" and "cordon", hence plural.



Hi vanagreg,

I was referring to the verb in the subordinate clause (sont). It is in the indicative, not the subjunctive, and the main question of the thread concerns why this verb (sont) is not in the subjunctive.

floise


----------



## ascoltate

pieanne said:


> I didn't say there is no subjunctive in English! I was talking about this specific instance: "Check/make sure ... are"



Yes, I think your second explanation makes more sense though. I mean, it would be a rather interesting coincidence for both English and French to avoid the subjunctive in this context, but I think there may be something about the semantics that makes it so.


----------



## jusap

pieanne said:


> I think the indicative here could be justified by the fact that "vérifiez" means "regardez si"



I've been looking in vain for a rule declaring one could use the indicative with "vérifiez que", or one expressly requiring the use of the subjunctive. Pieanne's suggestion makes a lot of gut sense to me!


----------



## vanagreg

floise said:


> Hi vanagreg,
> 
> I was referring to the verb in the subordinate clause (sont). It is in the indicative, not the subjunctive, and the main question of the thread concerns why this verb (sont) is not in the subjunctive.
> 
> floise


 
The subjunctive mode in French is used to talk about obligations, possibility, doubt.

Here "vérifier que" means "make sure that", so it is especially not suggesting possibility.


----------



## floise

vanagreg said:


> The subjunctive mode in French is used to talk about obligations, possibility, doubt.
> 
> Here "vérifier que" means "make sure that", so it is especially not suggesting possibility.



Vanagreg,

The subjunctive mood is also used after *orders*. Here, you could interpret 'verifiez que....' as an order, right?

This might be where the confusion comes in.

However, as pieanne said, 'verifiez que...' also means 'vérifiez si...', which means 'check to see if * some real state exists*', which would suggest that the indicative should be used.

floise


----------



## vanagreg

floise said:


> Vanagreg,
> 
> The subjunctive mood is also used after *orders*. Here, you could interpret 'verifiez que....' as an order, right?
> 
> This might be where the confusion comes in.
> 
> However, as pieanne said, 'verifiez que...' also means 'vérifiez si...', which means 'check to see if *some real state exists*', which would suggest that the indicative should be used.
> 
> floise


 
As I said earlier, here "vérifiez que" is not in subjunctive mode, but imperative.


----------



## floise

vanagreg said:


> As I said earlier, here "vérifiez que" is not in subjunctive mode, but imperative.



vanagreg,

I am aware of the fact that _vérifiez _is in the imperative. We are not discussing the verb 'vérifiez', but rather the mood of the verb that follows it in the subordinate clause (sont, in the example given by lilish).

floise


----------



## lilish

Hello there,

"Veuillez"
what form of conjugation does it have?


----------



## floise

lilish said:


> Hello there,
> 
> "Veuillez"
> what form of conjugation does it have?



Lilish,

It's the present imperative of 'vouloir'.

floise


----------



## Maître Capello

Don't mix up _*con*jonctif_ (_qui sert à lier deux [groupes de] mots_) with _*sub*jonctif_ (_mode verbal_)!

Anyway, both the indicative and subjunctive moods can be used after _vérifier_, although the subjunctive can be perceived as oldfashioned.


----------



## luckytoffee

Good afternoon!

This is a very interesting thread. I'd like to make my first post about it. 

I believe the choice between the indicative and the subjunctive depends upon the view of the expected condition of the piece of equipment and the cable taken by the manual.

If the author of the manual expects both to be in good condition, I think the indicative puts this across. If, however, the manual is, for example, taking the reader through a fault-finding process, and there is therefore a good chance that either the cable or the equipment or both will be found to be unserviceable, then the subjunctive would be better for alerting the reader to this likelihood.

Mon salut a tous!


----------



## floise

Hi luckytoffee and welcome to the forum!

What you said makes sense, as one of the reasons for using the subjunctive is when the speaker is showing uncertainty or doubt (expressed in the main clause). 

However, Maître Capello says that the subjunctive is old-fashioned, a non-scientific, very brief google search turns up more examples of the indicative being used than the subjunctive, and native-speaker posters, such as pieanne, have tended to use the indicative. 

I was of the same mind as you (thinking that the subjunctive would be called for here), but I, like you, am an anglophone. Sometimes there is no reasoning to be done; you just have to ask a native speaker!

floise


----------



## BigRedDog

lilish said:


> hello everyone,
> 
> I came across this sentence in a manual:
> Avant toute utilisation, vérifiez que l'appareil et le cordon d'alimentation sont en bon état.
> Now my question :this sentence is not &quot;conjonctif,&quot; is it because of the word &quot;vérifiez&quot; which gives it a sort of sence of certainty?
> 
> cheers!



 I think you can say both depending on what you want to convey exactly:    - Vérifier qu'il est en bon état  == Allez voir si l'état du cordon est satisfaisant  - Vérifier qu'il soit en bon état == Aller voir le cordon et si besoin, faites le nécessaire pour le remettre en état


----------



## geostan

I know nothing about the use of the subjunctive after vérifier. I have only used the indicative. With this verb, one expects the condition to exist and is merely checking.

If one wishes to actively see to it that the condition exists, one may use  _veiller à ce que_. This expression takes the subjunctive.

Cheers!


----------



## timboleicester

geostan said:


> I know nothing about the use of the subjunctive after vérifier. I have only used the indicative. With this verb, one expects the condition to exist and is merely checking.
> 
> If one wishes to actively see to it that the condition exists, one may use _veiller à ce que_. This expression takes the subjunctive.
> 
> Cheers!


 
I was thinking all the way down this thread that "vérifier" and "veiller" had been mixed up in some way.


----------

