# FR: beaucoup de/des



## PPP

Hello, I have a point of confusion with "beaucoup de":
I'm not sure when to keep the de and when to combine it with the article, for example:

beaucoup du temps / beaucoup de temps?
beaucoup du travail / beaucoup de travail?

Thank you!

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


----------



## carolineR

beaucoup de temps 
beaucoup de travail 

YEP beaucoup de neige/ beaucoup de choses/ beaucoup de gens
or beaucoup *d'*amis
or beaucoup on its own
Je l'aime beaucoup
Tu as déjà vu des pingoins ? - oui, j'en ai vu beaucoup


----------



## DearPrudence

Normalement, comme "*peu*", "*beaucoup*" toujours avec "*de*" :
*"Je n'ai pas beaucoup de temps"*
"*Beaucoup de Français sont mécontents"*
*"Many French are discontented".*

Mais: *"Beaucoup des Français interrogés ont dit être mécontents"*
*Many of the French questioned said they were not happy."*
*= beaucoup de + les Français interrogés => beaucoup des Français*

Hope it helps.

ps: sorry for those examples badly translated.


----------



## geostan

beaucoup de temps: mcuh time, a lot of time
beaucoup du temps: much of the time, a lot of the time

beaucoup de travail: much work
beaucoup du travail: much of the work.


----------



## cheshire

> (1) Le père mange beaucoup de légumes verts.


 
In Sentence (1) "vegetables" are indefinite. We know it from "de."
Then how should we say when we want to say "*the* vegetables"? "*des* légumes verts"?


----------



## DearPrudence

Hi
I don't quite understand your problem here 

As I see it & as explained I would say:
*I eat a lot of vegetables
Je mange beaucoup de légumes*

But anyway can you really say in English
*I eat a lot of the vegetables ??!! *

I don't quite follow you here, what do you mean exactly?


----------



## Thomas1

DearPrudence said:


> [...]But anyway can you really say in English
> *I eat a lot of the vegetables ??!! *
> 
> I don't quite follow you here, what do you mean exactly?


I think yes, at least technically.  If you mean some specific vegetables not vegatables in general.
E.g.:
_I eat a lot of the vegatables grown by my father in our garden._

Tom


----------



## DearPrudence

I agree ... but you had to add a clause  Without it, it's not very natural ...


----------



## Thomas1

I see your point. What if form the context it would be clear what vegetables are being referred to?


Tom


----------



## DearPrudence

I see your point too. But does such a thing really happen in real life when real people talk ? As such, if you hear "beaucoup des", the first thing you think is "wow, that's wrong!" But if after there is a relative clause, you can think "Ah OK". But if not, it just sounds wrong.

*Papa a mangé beaucoup des légumes que maman avait préparés (avec amour ). 

*"the" in English shows that you've already talked about them in a way.
So if such, such a thing might happen:
*"Maman avait préparé de délicieux légumes & papa en a mangé beaucoup".

*Or another example:*
"Beaucoup des enfants non scolarisés dont j'ai parlé pendant 4 heures ont des problèmes bla bla bla". 
*In such cases, you won't say:*
"Beacoup des enfants ont des problèmes ..."  *even if you've been talking about them for 4 hours. 
You would rather say:*
"Beaucoup de ces enfants ont des problèmes ..."
*
I mean, in real speech, there is almost always a way not to say "beaucoup des légumes full stop", as in English I guess ...


----------



## Thomas1

I've always thought I'm _for real_.

I realize that such examples aren't likely in an everyday conversation (hence, I wrote _technically_ in one of my previous posts). I also realize that at a first glance they seem to be _lapsus linguae_, but if one delves into nuances...

On the other hand, the context is everything and in some ones hardly anyone would ever noticed any oddity. Which is not to say that the frequency of constructions of this _ilk_ is high, they are, I think, rather particularities if compared to the mainstream.

It's also worth noting that distirbution of certain constructions in languages can also be different--even though the constructions may have direct (or more or less direct) couterparts their distribution in a language may highly differ. For instance:
"beaucoup des gens (qui...)" may be less acceptable in French than "a lot of the people (who...)" in English in spite of their being sound in each language from a grammatical standpoint.


Tom

PS: your example with kids is incorrect (also) for another reason.


----------



## timpeac

Thomas1 said:


> "beaucoup des gens (qui...)" may be less acceptable in French than "a lot of the people (who...)" in English in spite of their being sound in each language from a grammatical standpoint.


Might be, I suppose, but isn't as far as I know - why do you say that? "Beaucoup des gens" _as long as it's followed by a clause_ is very common, just as in English (and equally it is wrong to miss out the clause in English and say something like "many of the people like cake").

I think that DP's point was that it risks sounding wrong - but equally that is the case in English. For example, even in the example above if someone had just said "No one in Scotland likes chocolate", it would be grammatically fine to reply "but many of the people like cake" (eg "the people who live in Scotland" being understood). In isolation - and perhaps in the mouth of a foreign-speaker, against whom natives of all languages are ready to hear errors - "many of the people like cake" sounds strange.

PS: What is the other reason the example is wrong? Je donne ma langue au chat.


----------



## Thomas1

timpeac said:


> Might be, I suppose, but isn't as far as I know - why do you say that? "Beaucoup des gens" _as long as it's followed by a clause_ is very common, just as in English (and equally it is wrong to miss out the clause in English and say something like "many of the people like cake").


I knew I risked giving this as an example (this is actually the reason why I used _may_).
I couldn't be bothered to look for some examples that would trully illustrate what I was aiming at, and took the ones I found in this thread. It was an example of my point though without actual representation, sorry if that confused anyone.
On the other hand, why do you find sentenes like "many of the people like cake" wrong?



> I think that DP's point was that it risks sounding wrong - but equally that is the case in English. For example, even in the example above if someone had just said "No one in Scotland likes chocolate", it would be grammatically fine to reply "but many of the people like cake" (eg "the people who live in Scotland" being understood). In isolation - and perhaps in the mouth of a foreign-speaker, against whom natives of all languages are ready to hear errors - "many of the people like cake" sounds strange.


Is there something that contradicts this? I realize this, I tried to point out that in certain cases constructions of this type would probably pass without anyone's noting them. Would the example you gave stirike you as unusual if you heard it form a native speaker.
It also seems to me that the natves' acceptance of, say, peculiar constructions employed by natives is much higher than if the same constructions are used by a foreginer who uses the language in question (and it's not their mother tongue) even though both used them correctly.

I hope I've got you right, please point it out if I haven't. 

PS: I know I am being nitpicky... there's a typo in bea*u*coup.


----------



## ewanog

Bonjour tout le monde,

I was always taught that one never ever ever uses 'des' after 'beaucoup', but I was reading a post (http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=459593) in which it was said that there are some cases when one can say 'beaucoup des'...

can anyone provide some examples?


----------



## Mme Machin

I think you could say, "Beaucoup des personnes qui fréquentent ce forum sont à l'université."  Meaning "a lot of the people who . . ." as opposed to "a lot of people" in general.  Ai-je raison, les francophones natifs?  (Can I say "francophones natifs" as opposed to a francophone who can only speak the language as a result of studying it?)


----------



## geostan

beaucoup de criminels:many criminals
beaucoup des criminels: many of the criminals

Cheers!


----------



## Avignonais

M.H. and geostan,
I have a question. I read the thread [...] and appreciated the logic that the specificity of an additional clause necessitates "many of the" in English and "beaucoup des" in French. However, my question is: since when did French follow the rules in English. By its own logic, French is more of a stickler for rules and, for this reason, I am not sure why it would be wrong to say:
Beaucoup de gens dont j'ai longuement parlé sont ici?
Why would French in trying to be like English subvert its own rule and force us to say:
Beaucoup des gens dont j'ai longuement parlé sont ici?

OK, the simpler version of the question is: Is it wrong to say "beaucoup de gens dont j'ai parlé sont ici"?


----------



## Maître Capello

Avignonais said:


> OK, the simpler version of the question is: Is it wrong to say "beaucoup de gens dont j'ai parlé sont ici"?


No, it's not wrong but it doesn't convey the exact same nuance as the sentence with _des_.

_Beaucoup *de* gens dont j'ai parlé sont ici. = Many people I talked about are here.
_(You stress that *many* people you talked about are here.)

_Beaucoup *des* gens dont j'ai parlé sont ici. = Many *of the* people I talked about are here._
(You stress that you've talked about that *specific group* of people.)


----------



## geostan

Avignonais said:


> However, my question is: since when did French follow the rules in English. By its own logic, French is more of a stickler for rules and, for this reason, I am not sure why it would be wrong to say:
> Beaucoup de gens dont j'ai longuement parlé sont ici?
> Why would French in trying to be like English subvert its own rule and force us to say:
> Beaucoup des gens dont j'ai longuement parlé sont ici?



One facet of your question needs to be addressed. The fact that English and French agree on a usage does not mean that one is following the other's rules. Quite often grammatical logic dictates the same rule in many languages.

Concerning the nature of the definite article, I usually follow the notion that if the definite article is required (not merely optional) in the one language, it is usually required in the other. It does not always work, but it does more often than not. Certain idiomatic expressions by their nature escape this logic, e.g. I don't have a choice - Je n'ai pas le choix. (I might add here that the French version is more logical because a choice usually suggests one alternative vs another.)

Capello has shown that your example is a possible French sentence, but it is the same in English. The two langauges are on the same wave length.

Many people I talked about...
Many of the people I talked about (the more usual one, I might add).

Cheers!


----------



## starswept

Hello,

I know that after an expression of quantity such as 'beaucoup de', you never use 'des', even if the noun is plural. However, does this still apply when there are multiple nouns, such as in my sentence: 'La ville a beaucoup *de* jardins, *de* parcs, et *de* sentiers de découverte de la nature.' Do all the nouns keep 'de', or should the last two use 'des'?

Merci d'avance!


----------



## jann

You have things half right! 

_La ville a beaucoup *de* jardins, *de* parcs et *de* sentiers de découverte... 
_
It does not matter if the general thing you have a lot of is singular or plural, you use _de_... and if there are multiple nouns in a list, you still use _de_, repeating it in front of each of the nouns, just as you did. 


However, the statement that you will "never" use _des_ after an expression of quantity is not correct.  You must distinguish between definite and indefinite usage.

*Indefinite*: you won't use _des_ with an expression of quantity
Remember that the indefinite articles are _un, une_ and _des_:  _un jardin_ = a garden, _des jardins_ = gardens (in general).  The indefinite plural combines as _de + des = de, _so 

_beaucoup de + des jardins = beaucoup de jardins, _many gardens


*Definite*: you can use _des_ even with an expression of quantity
When you speak of specific gardens, instead of gardens in general, you will need a definite article ("the garden(s)" instead of "a garden" or "gardens").  The plural definite article _les_ combines as _de + les = des_, so

_beaucoup de + les jardins de Paris = beaucoup des jardins de Paris_, many of the gardens of Paris

Which gardens?  Specifically, the gardens of Paris. Obviously we expect this sentence to continue to tell us something about "many of the gardens of Paris"... that they are maintained by city funds, that they close at dusk, that they have playgrounds for children, etc.

Does that make sense?  


PS.  On dit "merci d'avance"


----------



## starswept

That makes perfect sense. Thank you very much for the explanation! I'll copy it down into my notes. For years, my French teachers have just taught 'never use des after an expression of quantity!' and then bombarded us with a list of expressions of quantity, so it's great to finally get an actual, logical explanation 

P.S. Oops - that's embarrassing. Thanks for letting me know!


----------



## Said212

Many times i face the same situation. I have two examples.

Hamlet est un conte avec beacoup _DE_ symbolisme or beacoup _DU _symbolisme. Is it really du or is using de without regards to the 'le' okay.

The same situation came up again with  "les rencontres _du_ petit prince or _de_ petit prince. 

I do not know when de is sufficient and when the du is used or de la.

Any clarification is greatly appreciated. Thank you.


----------



## Juan Jacob Vilalta

_Du_ symbolisme. No quantity. _Du _beurre.
Beaucoup _de _symbolisme. Quantity involved. 100 grammes _de _beurre.
Simple.

Other questions are other questions.


----------



## Tim~!

The structure is _beaucoup de_ to which is added _du symbolisme_.  There is lots of _some symbolism_, as the French see it.

I've never known it taught in schools, but there is a rule to apply here.

DE + DU/DE LA/DE L'/DES contracts straight to DE.

So, what happens here is we have _beaucoup de symbolisme_, where _de_ is the result of DE + DU collapsing.


----------



## pacadansc

> beaucoup _DE_ symbolisme


 
= much symbolism. 

Expressions of quantity is always expressed by _beaucoup de._
Obvious examples are: _beaucoup d'argent, beaucoup de livres_, etc.

Should you see _beaucoup du symbolisme, _the meaning would be different. 

Beaucoup _du_ symbolisme du poème ... 
Much _of the_ symbolisme of the poem ...

Ils ne parlent pas beaucoup _du_ passé.
They don't talk much _about the_ past.

Cela dépend beaucoup _du_ degré auquel ...
That depends a lot _on the_ degree to which ...


----------



## earthmerlin

Hi there. I'm a beginner at French & I've been saying things like, "Je vois des oiseaux" & "Il y a beacoup des oiseaux" & it's just occurred to me to ask if I'm saying these correctly. Am I? Merci!


----------



## Nicomon

earthmerlin said:


> Hi there. I'm a beginner at French & I've been saying things like, "Je vois des oiseaux" & "Il y a bea*u*coup des oiseaux" & it's just occurred to me to ask if I'm saying these correctly. Am I? Merci!


 Hello earthmerlin,

The first one is right, however the second isn't. It should be « _Il y a beaucoup *d'*oiseaux_ ».

I'm afraid I'm not very good at explaining French grammar subtleties, but *this page* might help.


----------



## Wil_Estel

Hello earthmerlin

As Nicomon mentioned earlier, your second sentence should have been _« Il y a beaucoup d'oiseaux. »_

Just remember to always use « beaucoup de » or « beaucoup d'X » when the next word begins with a vowel. If you follow this rule, you're most likely to be correct.


----------



## jann

Wil_Estel said:


> Just remember to always use « beaucoup de » or « beaucoup d'X » when the next word begins with a vowel.


I'm afraid that's not quite accurate. 

It is absolutely possible to have _du/de la/de l'/des _or even _d'un(e) _after _beaucoup_.  It is true that you will very often need _de_, but you are by no means limited to _de_!  The base expression is _beaucoup de_ = "a lot of."  But then the preposition _de_/of on the end of this expression can combine with the definite (_le/la/les_), indefinite (_un/une_) or partitive article (_du/de la/des_).... so whether you keep the _de_ or change it to something else depends on what comes afterwards._de + le/la/l'/les_ = _du/de la/de l'/des _
_de + un/une = d'un/d'une 
__de + __du/de la/de l'/des__ = *de/d'*_​e.g., _Au zoo, j'ai vu beaucoup *de + des* oiseaux exotiques --> Au zoo, j'ai vu beaucoup *d'*oiseaux exotiques._ 
= I saw a lot of exotic birds at the zoo. 
In English, if there's one bird, we say "a bird," but if there are several we get to drop the article and just say "birds."   It doesn't work that way in French.  The plural of _un oiseau_ is _des oiseaux_: you have to include the article _des_.  Then this plural article _des_ combines with the preposition _de_ from _beaucoup de_ to give you _de_ back again.

e.g., _Au zoo, j'ai vu beaucoup *de + les* oiseaux que tu m'avais décrits. --> Au zoo, j'ai vu beaucoup *des *oiseaux exotiques que tu m'avais décrits._
= At the zoo, I saw a lot of the exotic birds that you had described to me.
Now we're talking about certain specific birds.  Which birds?  The birds that you had described to me.  We need the definite article "the" in English, and we need it in French too (_les_).  And then de definite plural _les_ combines with the preposition _de_ from _beaucoup de_ to give you _des_.

So why do so many students of French learn that they should automatically put _de _after _beaucoup_?  With an expression of quantity like _beaucoup de_, the thing we have a lot of is usually partitive or indefinite plural.  That means we very frequently have _beaucoup de + du/de la/des XXX --> beacoup de XXX_... so most of the time, we end up getting _de_ back again.  This is the origin of the inaccurate rule.  As you can see, it's not so much that the rule is "wrong" as that it is oversimplified.   You will often use _de_ after _beaucoup_, but by no means "always." 

You might find this threas helpful:
 FR: lots of influences


----------



## zakima

I am quite confused between de and des

I am trying to say after having sent many letters of motivation

Would it be best to say après avoir envoye beaucoup des lettres or beaucoup de lettres
Thankyou


----------



## Nino83

After adverbs of quantity the right choice is the preposition _de_. 

_après avoir envoyé beaucoup de lettres_


----------



## snarkhunter

Nino83 said:


> After adverbs of quantity the right choice is the preposition _de_.
> 
> _après avoir envoyé beaucoup de lettres_


... except if that be followed by a r_elative proposition!_

"Après avoir envoyé beaucoup des lettres _que j'ai écrites hier_."


----------



## Nino83

Ah, that's right snarkhunter. 
When one speaks about something specific, we have to use _du, de la, des_. 
Also before the preposition _de_, am I right? 

_après avoir envoyé beaucoup des lettres__ de François_ 

Salut


----------



## zakima

would beaucoup des lettres de motivation or beaucoup de lettres de motivation be correct?


----------



## snarkhunter

"beaucoup des lettres" implies something very specific, i.e. not _any_ letters, but some particular ones. And "beaucoup de lettres" means unspecified ones (though still many).


----------



## Nino83

_Beaucoup de lettres de motivation_. 
Partitive article _du, de la, des_ is utilized when the preposition _de_ means possession. 

_Beaucoup des lettres que j'ai écrites hier_ (specific letters, those letters) --> relative pronoun
_Beaucoup des lettres de François_ (specific letters, the letters of François) --> possessive preposition


----------



## janpol

Beaucoup du temps qui nous a été accordé pour parvenir à un consensus a été utilisé de façon stérile.


----------



## Nino83

I think that one needs to get the logic of the system to understand these differences. 
In English the plural _s_ is pronounced but in French it isn't so it's essential the plural indefinite article _des_ (with countable nouns). 
_I eat oranges/je mange des oranges_. 
When there is a quantifier, for example, _beaucoup_, it's obvious that _beaucoup_ means plural, so the plural indefinite article is not essential. 
_Beaucoup d'oranges_. 
The same when there is an attributive adjective before a plural noun. 
_Je mange de bonnes oranges_. In this case is the adjective (mandatory liaison) which tells us that the noun is plural (but until XVI century the final _s_ was always pronounced). 

So, with _beaucoup_, when the noun is indefinite, there's no need to put the plural indefinite article before the noun, but when the noun is definite, one has to put the definite article (de + le, la, les).


----------



## jann

Nino83 said:


> In English the plural _s_ is pronounced but in French it isn't so it's essential the plural indefinite article _des_ (with countable nouns). [...] When there is a quantifier, for example, _beaucoup_, it's obvious that _beaucoup_ means plural, so the plural indefinite article is not essential.


I'm sorry, but I think this explanation is misleading.

It's not true that the plural indefinite article is non-essential or omitted in French.  The plural indefinite is present in contracted form.  Just as _de + le = du_ for the m. sing. definite article, there is a contraction rule for the indefinite plural article:  *de + des = de*.

Now perhaps your thinking helps to explain why the contracted form _de_ looks exactly like the preposition _de _(I don't know enough about etymology and history of language to say, though we have a forum for that)... but I don't feel that it's accurate to say that the indefinite article has been omitted in _beaucoup de + plural noun. _



> The same when there is an attributive adjective before a plural noun.
> _Je mange de bonnes oranges_. In this case is the adjective (mandatory liaison) which tells us that the noun is plural (but until XVI century the final _s_ was always pronounced).


 No, I don't think so.  If this argument were true -- that the "s" of _des_ may be dropped because the phonetics of the liaison convey the plural meaning -- then how do you explain cases where the liaison is present even in the singular?  (_gros ennui, faux ami_, etc.)


----------



## Nino83

jann said:


> The plural indefinite is present in contracted form.  Just as _de + le = du_ for the m. sing. definite article, there is a contraction rule for the indefinite plural article:  *de + des = de*.
> 
> but I don't feel that it's accurate to say that the indefinite article has been omitted in _beaucoup de + plural noun. _



Ah, ok, I thought that _beaucoup de_ was formed by _beaucoup_ + the preposition _de_. 

So these rules have to be learnt simply by heart?


----------



## jann

Nino83 said:


> Ah, ok, I thought that _beaucoup de_ was formed by _beaucoup_ + the preposition _de_.


 You are correct: _beacoup de_ is in fact formed by the adverb _beacoup_ and the preposition _de_.  But the real question is what to do with this [_beaucoup de_] unit once you have put the two words together! 

And the answer is that you have to consider what come next:  {[_beacoup de_] *????*}.  Only after you know what ???? is can you determine the correct form of the entire {_beacoup_ structure}.



> So these rules have to be learnt simply by heart?


Yes, but surely you have already learned them!   The preposition _de_ (wherever it occurs) combines with definite, indefinite and partitive articles as follows:

definite: de + le, la, l', les --> du, de la, de l', des
indefinite: de + un, une, des --> d'un, d'une, de/d'
partitive: de + du, de la, de l', des--> de

Thus:
definite: _beaucoup *de + les* oranges_ = _beaucoup *des* oranges _(lots/many of + the oranges = many of the oranges)
indefinite or partitive: _beacoup *de + des* oranges = beaucoup *d'*oranges_ (lots of + oranges = lots of oranges)

Does that help?


----------



## Nino83

jann said:


> Does that help?



Oui, tout est clair!  
Merci beaucoup (sans _de_)


----------

