# FR: futur antérieur récapitulatif et de probabilité



## Icetrance

Hello,

I often see the futur antérieur used in situations that has nothing to with "probability"  or even "one future event completed before another."

Example 1: Vu son sourire brillant, il aura réussi son examen = Seeing his brilliant smile, he *must have/probably* passed his exam (futur antérieur de probabilité)

Example 2:  Il ira en France après qu'il aura visité L'Allemagne = He will to go France after *he will have visited *Germany (usage classique du futur antérieur)

However, sometimes I see it in situations where neither the above seem to apply, unless the classic case implies a "greater subjectivity."

Example:

Ça me prendra des années pour maîtriser cette langue.

Ça m'aura pris des années pour maîtriser cette langue. 


The latter sentence seems to imply more subjectivity and greater confidence that he or she will end up mastering the language than the former sentence.

I see the futur antérieur used a lot in French in situations like this.


----------



## Cyrrus

Icetrance said:


> Ça me prendra des années pour maîtriser cette langue.
> Ça m'aura pris des années pour maîtriser cette langue.
> The latter sentence seems to imply more subjectivity and greater confidence that he or she will end up mastering the language.


There's a confusion here.
In the latter, it's not "s/he _will_ end up" => "il/elle finira par...".
It's "il/elle a fini par..."
The action is completed : "it took me years but *now it's finished, *I'm mastering the language"


----------



## Icetrance

On peut l'employer si je racontais une histoire contenant un ou des evènements déjà résolus du point de vue du temps présent, mais revus comme inachevés du point de vue du temps passé. Et,ce,pour les projeter vers l'avenir comme achevés. 

Peut-être si je disais:

«Malgre le fait que je sois assez doué pour les langues étrangères, cela m'aura pris des années pour maîtriser la langue allemande. Aujourd'hui, enfin,  je le parle couramment.»

Est-ce cela irait dans ce petit contexte ci-dessus?


----------



## LV4-26

C'est parfait. Avec une toute petite réserve cependant : dans ce genre de phrase, le français préfère utiliser une construction avec _falloir_ plutôt qu'avec _prendre_ ===>
_...il m'aura fallu des années pour...etc.._


----------



## timpeac

"Cela m'aura fallu des années pour..." serait quoi en anglais - "it must have taken me years to..."?


----------



## Icetrance

timpeac said:


> "Il m'aura fallu des années pour..." serait quoi en anglais - "it must have taken me years to..."?



More Literally, "I will have needed years to master this language."

Or, as we say more naturally in English: "It will have taken me years to master the language."

It doesn't mean "must have taken..." (this is what the French calls "supposition")

That would be: Ça doit m'avoir pris des années...( I think)


----------



## LV4-26

timpeac said:


> "Cela Il m'aura fallu des années pour..." serait quoi en anglais - "it must have taken me years to..."?


I suspect you're inserting the "_must_" because of the "_falloir_". Mais c'est une erreur. 
En réalité, _falloir_ traduit seulement _take._

In order to clarify this, here are a few examples

It takes me 5 minutres to get there
Il me faut 5 minutes pour m'y rendre
(much more natural than "cela me prend 5 minutes...."

In those days, it would take him an hour to walk to school
A cette époque, il lui fallait une heure pour aller à l'école
(beaucoup plus français que  "cela lui prenait....")

But I'm afraid we're drifting away from the "futur antérieur revisité". 

Donc, revenons au sujet
A : Alors, est-ce que le mécanicien a réussi à réparer ta voiture ?
B : Oui, je n'en reviens pas. Dire que j'ai passé des années à me demander ce qu'elle avait ! Il *aura suffi *d'un tout petit réglage pour qu'elle fonctionne à nouveau parfaitement.
...it only took minor tweaking to make it work perfectly (literaly : _it will only have taken..._)


----------



## Icetrance

It's interesting how the French use the futur antérieur so much more than we do in English.

For example, I often see "Tu l'auras compris" in many contexts. In most cases, "il ne s'agit pas de son usage classique", but rather "le futur antérieur de probabilité"

Tu l'auras compris! Je ne suis pas un locuteur natif du français > You must have/probably realized (by now)! I'm not a native speaker of French.

Le futur antérieur peut donc présenter bien des difficultés pour les non-natifs du français.



LV4-26 said:


> A : Alors, est-ce que le mécanicien a réussi à réparer ta voiture ?
> B : Oui, je n'en reviens pas. Dire que j'ai passé des années à me demander ce qu'elle avait ! Il *aura suffi *d'un tout petit réglage pour qu'elle fonctionne à nouveau parfaitement.
> ...it only needed a little tweaking to make it work perfectly (literaly : it will only have needed)



A: So, the mechanic was able to fix your car?
B: Yes, I can't get over this. To think that I spent years wondering what was wrong with it when all it* needed *was a little tuning up to get it to run like perfect.

In English, we naturally use the past tense here.

The French love this tense. In fact, "il aura suffi" would be most correct in French. I don't think any other tense would work as well in French in this sentence.

Merci pour tes lumières LV4-26.


----------



## LV4-26

Yes, I had never fully realized that before, but now that you're telling me...

_Deviner_ is also used in the same way...

_Comme le lecteur l'aura deviné, l'anglais n'est pas ma langue maternelle._

[…]


----------



## timpeac

LV4-26 said:


> I suspect you're inserting the "_must_" because of the "_falloir_". Mais c'est une erreur.
> En réalité, _falloir_ traduit seulement _take._


Hi, thanks for the clarifications but actually I wasn't inserting the must because of the falloir - I was referring to Icetrance's "Malgré le fait que je sois assez doué pour les langues étrangères, cela m'aura pris des années pour maîtriser la langue allemande. Aujourd'hui, enfin, je la parle couramment.", or your suggestion of the same sentence with "il m'aura fallu", and how best to translate that into English. "It will have" definitely doesn't work there, so the only other way that occurred to me to get the nuance was "must have taken me years...".

In a later post Icetrance also puts -


Icetrance said:


> Tu l'auras compris! Je ne suis pas un locuteur natif du français > You must have/probably realized (by now)! I'm not a native speaker of French.



thus also translating the future anterior by "must have" into English - I would also translate your "aura deviné" by "must have guessed" as well in that context (although here the future anterior would also be possible in English).

I don't see how these sentences differ from Icetrance's "il m'aura fallu des années pour maîtriser la langue allemande. Aujourd'hui, enfin, je la parle couramment" being translated as "it must have taken me years to master the German language. Now, at last, I speak it fluently." (or equally "it has probably taken me...").


----------



## LV4-26

Sorry, I seem to have misunderstood you.
I thought you were using the "deontic must", as in..
Il faut que je parte
I must (/have to)  leave.

But you were in fact using the "epistemic" one. (as in "she should be here by now; she must have missed the bus").

Still, I think further clarification is needed. The first points, I believe are already clear to you but I prefer to cover the whole issue so that all usages can be examined in parallel with each other.

1. Quand nous arriverons, il *aura fini* de déjeuner
2. Tu l'*auras compris*, le français n'est pas ma langue maternelle.
3. Il *aura suffi* d'un petit règlage pour que tout fonctionne à nouveau parfaitement
4. Il m'*aura fallu* des années pour maîtrise cette langue

#1 illustrates the "normal" use of the futur antérieur,  i.e. the one than can be translated to the equivalent English tense (he _will have_ finished his dinner).

#2, 3 and 4 illustrate "special" uses, but not all the same one.

#2 is different from #3 and #4.
Here, Icetrance and you are perfectly right in thinking there's some kind of probability is involved. Therefore a translation with (epistemic) _must_ is appropriate ===>
_You must have/probably realized (by now)! I'm not a native speaker of French.
_A very strong probablilty actually (maybe even stronger than can be expressed by _must_?). It's more like "I have no doubt you have realized..." or "As I'm sure you've realized, I'm not....."

#3 and 4 are alike, but different from #2.
This one is very difficult to explain but one thing I'm sure of, is that _must_ doesn't work. Introducing a doubt, however slight, would change the meaning intended.
You might think of this specific_ futur antérieur_ as anchoring the statement more firmly in the present i.e. from my current point of view, now that I can contemplate the past events, I can say that....
Something like that. Sorry, I'm unable to be more explicit.


----------



## LV4-26

Having thought the matter over, I come to doubt very much the _futur antérieur_ is what leads us to use _must_ in the translation.

Why? Because, if I shift to the _passé composé_, my translation remains the same

Tu l'as compris, le français n'est pas ma langue maternelle
As you must have realized, I'm not a native French speaker.
As I'm sure you've realized...
You've probably realized...
Of course, you've realized....

I see the use of the _futur antérieur_ more as a stylistic preference than anything else.

One question. Would you native English speakers say
_As you've realized, I'm not a French native speaker_
?

If yes, then both _tu l'as compris_ and t_u l'auras compris_ translate that, in my opinion. 
To be sure, I'll have to ask a question to French natives ==>
Are "_tu l'as compris_" and "_tu l'auras compris"_ (in our sentence) any different to you? Do you feel a nuance between them, apart from a stylistic one?


----------



## Maître Capello

LV4-26 said:


> To be sure, I'll have to ask a question to French natives ==>
> Are "_tu l'as compris_" and "_tu l'auras compris"_ (in our sentence) any different to you? Do you feel a nuance between them, apart from a stylistic one?



Apart from the subtle notion of probability conveyed by the _futur antérieur_, I don't seen any real difference…


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

LV4-26 said:


> [...]Are "_tu l'as compris_" and "_tu l'auras compris"_ (in our sentence) any different to you? Do you feel a nuance between them, apart from a stylistic one?


I feel a slight difference between the two, the second meaning something along the lines: now that I've explained it to you... whereas the first states only you've already understood (even before I've explained it to you).
But maybe it's only me...?


----------



## Icetrance

[…]

Malgré le fait que je sois assez doué pour les langues étrangères, cela m'aura pris des années pour maîtriser la langue allemande. Aujourd'hui, enfin, je la parle couramment *>*  Although I was gifted for foreign languages, it (still) took me years to master the German language. Today, I speak it fluently.

I never said to translate this as "It will have taken me years...". (could do so, but it would sound awkward).

It does not mean "it must have taken me years to master..."  There's no assumption or guess here. I am sure that it took me years to master German. This is not a modal verb here.

Your translation of  "It must have taken me years to master German" would  something like "Cela doit m'avoir pris des années pour maîtriser la langue allemande" in French.

Finally, there is a difference between "l'usage classique du futur antérieur"  and the "futur antérieur de probabilité." There is a difference indeed between the two. In the example using "tu l'auras compris", I'm giving my opinion (modality), which is not the case in the examples where the future anterior used in a non-modal sense (the other examples such as "il m'aura fallu des années..."). 

Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_modality


I hope this helps.  It is confusing.


----------



## marget

LV4-26 said:


> Would you native English speakers say _As you've realized, I'm not a French native speaker_ ?


 I think I would  say "As you've realized"  or "As you've come to realize"... if I'm certain that the person has figured it out.  Otherwise, I'd express the notion of probability.


----------



## lapsangsouchong

I would definitely say 'As you *will have* realized...'--one of the rare cases, among these 'extended' meanings of the futur antérieur, where the tense in French is translated directly.


----------



## marget

I find your use of the future perfect interesting.  We just don't use it in American English, as far as I know.  Does "as you will have realized" express probability?  

If I'm not mistaken, I think I've seen on British TV shows that one says "that will be so-and-so" when a door bell rings and in AE, we would say "That's probably so-and-so".  It seems that you use the future to express probability, right?


----------



## lapsangsouchong

Right on both counts, though in the first case it's something that seems very probable whereas in the second it's only quite probable.

In the first case you might also say "As you have no doubt realized"--but I don't think you would say "As you have realized", because the words "no doubt" paradoxically leave the same little space for doubt that "As you will have realized" leaves.

We say "That'll be so-and-so..." when the door (or phone) rings if it's someone we're expecting, for whatever reason: Lucy usually gets home from school shortly after four, doorbell rings shortly after four, "That'll be Lucy" ; I have just pulled off a heist but the police saw my getaway car, I get to my safe house, there's a bang at the door, "That'll be the police", etc.

Some people also say "That'll be the phone" when the phone rings.  This is a vexing habit  which I think usually implies "Someone get the phone 'cause I can't be bothered getting up".

Cheers!


----------



## lapsangsouchong

Oh--of course, it would also be quite normal for us to say "That's probably so-and-so", as in "Dad said he'd be home at nine. [Sound of door opening.]  That's probably him now / That'll be him now."


----------



## marget

lapsangsouchong said:


> In the first case you might also say "As you have no doubt realized"--but I don't think you would say "As you have realized", because the words "no doubt" paradoxically leave the same little space for doubt that "As you will have realized" leaves.


 
We might even say "As I'm sure you've realized" or maybe "As you've realized by now" even if we're not certain.  I often hear "I'm sure you know... " when the person saying it wishes to leave room for doubt in a polite way.


----------



## Icetrance

I would never use the future perfect (future anterior) to express probability in English.

The *future anterieur de probabilité* can only refer to *past events*.

Tu l'as (déjà) remarqué, je ne suis pas de langue maternelle française *> *You've (already) noticed that French is not my native language/mother tongue.

Tu l'auras remarqué, je ne suis pas de langue maternelle française* >* You've probably/must have already noticed that French is not my mother tongue.

The second sentence contains a modal verb, as opposed to the first one.

The two are very different in meaning, even though it may not seem to be the case when you initially compare them.


Also, it is interesting to note how the _futur antérieur_ is translated into English in cases where no probability is being expressed (l'usage classique du futur antérieur). Sometimes, we can use the future perfect in English, but it can sound awkward in some cases.

Example:

S'il te frappe, tu l'auras cherché = If he hits you, you will have asked for it (literally) 

I wouldn't say it's wrong to translate it this way, but is that we would really say in everyday English? I think we would normally say "If you get hit by him, you've been asking for it."  The French sees it hypothetically from a futuristic point of view. If you do get hit at some point in the future, you will have asked for it. But, in English, we tend to see it hypothetically from a present tense point of view. In other words, if you get hit (even though future is clearly implied), it's because you've been asking for it. Neither the French nor the English is wrong as it's just a different way of considering the events temporally-speaking.

WOOF!  Ma leçon de linguistique est terminée pour aujourd'hui.


----------



## viera

LV4-26 said:


> .........
> 
> 1. Quand nous arriverons, il *aura fini* de déjeuner
> 2. Tu l'*auras compris*, le français n'est pas ma langue maternelle.
> 3. Il *aura suffi* d'un petit règlage pour que tout fonctionne à nouveau parfaitement
> 4. Il m'*aura fallu* des années pour maîtrise cette langue
> 
> #1 illustrates the "normal" use of the futur antérieur, i.e. the one than can be translated to the equivalent English tense (he _will have_ finished his dinner).
> 
> #2, 3 and 4 illustrate "special" uses, but not all the same one.
> 
> #2 is different from #3 and #4.
> Here, Icetrance and you are perfectly right in thinking there's some kind of probability is involved. Therefore a translation with (epistemic) _must_ is appropriate ===>
> _You must have/probably realized (by now)! I'm not a native speaker of French._
> A very strong probablilty actually (maybe even stronger than can be expressed by _must_?). It's more like "I have no doubt you have realized..." or "As I'm sure you've realized, I'm not....."
> 
> #3 and 4 are alike, but different from #2.
> This one is very difficult to explain but one thing I'm sure of, is that _must_ doesn't work. Introducing a doubt, however slight, would change the meaning intended.
> You might think of this specific_ futur antérieur_ as anchoring the statement more firmly in the present i.e. *from my current point of view, now that I can contemplate the past events, I can say that....*
> Something like that. Sorry, I'm unable to be more explicit.


I agree with your explanation for #2, about the _futur antérieur _being used to introdouce a strong probability. I find it similar to the use of the _conditionnel _for unproven statements or allegations which have a strong likelihood of truth. As in: Le chauffeur se serait endormi au volant.
Le meurtrier présumé l'aurait entraîné dans le bois.

What I find really exciting is your explanation for examples #3 and #4 which are definitely different from #1 and #2. It fits my understanding of the nuance introduced by the _futur antérieur _instead of using the _passé composé_. I could feel the difference in meaning without being able to quite put my finger on it or explain it. Bravo !


----------



## lapsangsouchong

I would never use the future perfect (future anterior) to express probability in English.
So it looks like this is a BE/AE difference.  In British English there are definitely cases where you would use the future perfect (f. a.) to express probability--as well as the plain future, as mentioned in the previous post ("That will be him phoning now").

It is used when expressing probability but not certainty.  Take the example that Feargal is on his way to my house by car and is delayed.  If he phones to tell me that he's late and explains why, I might say to my kids:

Feargal has been held up by the traffic near Birmingham

_Feargal a pris un retard à cause des embouteillages autour de Birmingham_​If he doesn't phone, however, I might guess that since he's on his way from Oxford to Liverpool and this means passing by Birmingham where the traffic is always heavy, I might explain that:He has probably been held up by the traffic near Birmingham
_
Il a vraisemblablement été mis en retard par les embouteillages autour de Birmingham
_
*or*, 

He will have been held up by the traffic near Birmingham

_Il a dû être _[*not* _Il aura été_] _mis en retard..._​"Must have been" would also work in the second case, where the likelihood being expressed is perhaps greater.  All of these are correct and common in British English, though I have a feeling that the future perfect is mostly used in speech.  

(Of course, in real speech there would be elision in all of these cases: "He's been", "He's probably been", "He'll have  / He'll've been".)

Apart from probability, the two characteristics of cases where the future perfect is used seem to be:

(i) an ongoing condition, as with the perfect.  Feargal _has been_ held up and is still on his way.  

(ii) a notional start-point for the action in the past--not just the action of this verb (to be held up) but of the wider set of actions it is a part of (Feargal drives to my house).

Another variation on the same example.  Feargal phones, and I pass on the information:

Feargal's going to be late.  He's stopped for a cup of tea on the way.​Feargal is late, doesn't phone, and I express the opinion:

It's a long drive, he has probably stopped for a cup of tea on the way

*or,

*he'll have stopped for a cup of tea on the way

*or,*

he must've stopped for a cup of tea on the way
​In any of these cases I might add the words "or something" at the end to express greater doubt.  And for all of them I think the simplest French translation would be _Il a dû s'arrêter pour prendre un thé._

How does all of that sound?  

Cheers!


----------



## Maître Capello

viera said:


> I agree with your explanation for #2, about the _futur antérieur _being used to introdouce a strong probability. I find it similar to the use of the _conditionnel _for unproven statements or allegations which have a strong likelihood of truth. As in: Le chauffeur se serait endormi au volant.
> Le meurtrier présumé l'aurait entraîné dans le bois.



I must say I disagree with your comment, viera. The _conditionnel_ used in French for allegations doesn't necessarily mean the probability is high. Even more so I'd say it is far from being certain. Hence the _futur antérieur_ conveys the idea of *high probability* whereas the _conditionnel_ conveys that of *mean probability*…


----------



## LV4-26

lapsangsouchong said:
			
		

> [...]He will have been held up by the traffic near Birmingham
> 
> Il a dû être [not Il aura été] mis en retard...[...]


No, no, the use of the _futur antérieur_ in French would be possible here
_Il aura été retardé par les embouteillages_
It does sound a bit sophisticated but is nevertheless idiomatic.


----------



## lapsangsouchong

So--to put my finger on a nuance here, the English "He'll have been held up by the traffic" is idiomatic and colloquial (and British); the French _Il aura été retardé par les embouteillages_ is also idiomatic, but _soutenu_ rather than informal.  Is that right?

Merci, Professeur !


----------



## mally pense

marget said:


> I find your use of the future perfect interesting. We just don't use it in American English, as far as I know. Does "as you will have realized" express probability?
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, I think I've seen on British TV shows that one says "that will be so-and-so" when a door bell rings and in AE, we would say "That's probably so-and-so". It seems that you use the future to express probability, right?


 
More precisely, it's a prediction. "There's someone at the door. I predict that it will be so-and-so". But the effect is one of expressing probability as you say.

Sorry for posting out of sequence _(the quoted post is from the bottom of Page 1)_, but I'm just trying to catch up on this thread, and I thought the fact that this is technically a prediction rather than a probability might be important, if only theoretically.


----------



## Montaigne

It seems to me that beyond a sheer grammatical standpoint "tu l'auras compris" conveys the idea of complicity on behalf of the locutor.
Then certainty, not probability, is expressed in a gentle, friendly way, implying confidence in the other person's shrewdness;
"Astute as you are, you will have realised that...".
This is why you can ( and you do) say " Tu l'auras déjà sûrement compris"
which does not sound hypothetical at all.
Nuance in style as well as in grammar!


----------



## lapsangsouchong

This is a nice observation, which also applies to the English example "As you will have realized, I am not a native speaker..."

Thanks!


----------



## Icetrance

Montaigne said:


> " Tu l'auras déjà sûrement compris"
> which does not sound hypothetical at all.
> Nuance in style as well as in grammar!


 
Oui, pas de nuance de probabilité ici. C'est juste un autre exemple de l'usage classique du futur antérieur. Cependant, si je dis «Tu as fini de lire mon autobiographie et, tu l'auras compris: Je ne suis pas un locuteur natif du français. 

Le futur antérieur de probabilité ne concerne que les evènements du passé. Ton exemple semble n'avoir rien à voir avec un evènement du passé, mais plutôt du futur.


----------



## Loob

I'm fascinated by the futur antérieur de bilan/rétrospection (see here), which I'd never heard of before this thread.

Is this more common in speech than in writing?

Loob


----------



## verbivore

timpeac said:


> "Cela m'aura fallu des années pour..." serait quoi en anglais - "it must have taken me years to..."?


 
Yes, I think it's a sense of probability and necessity combined:

It probably required/took me many years...

My understanding of _le futur antérieur de probabilité_ is that it functions on the level of the _passé composé _of _devoir_, but not quite as strong. With devoir the speaker is nearly certain (sense of must have), with the other it's a sense of very likely/probably.


----------



## Loob

My understanding - from this thread and from the link I quoted - is that this use of the futur antérieur has nothing to do with probability or "past in the future".

Rather, it has the sense of "now I come to assess it, I X.."

Can anyone give more information on this use, and, in particular, more examples?

Just to explain I'm thinking of examples 3 and 4 in LV4-26's excellent post.

Loob


----------



## Icetrance

Loob said:


> Just to explain I'm thinking of examples 3 and 4 in LV4-26's excellent post.


I am fascinated by it, too. However, you're talking about the futur antérieur de rétrospection/de bilan, which is very common in contemporary French. On the other hand, the futur antérieur de probabilité tends to more common with certain verbs such _comprendre, deviner _and_ remarquer_; but on the whole, it's not common common. Examples: Tu l'auras compris, remarqué, deviné (You must have understood, notice, guessed)

I'm rambling here. Let's get back to the topic at hand: futur antérieur de rétrospection/de bilan. This is when you're narrating a past event, describing what will have been the case by a certain point in the "faux futur"; in other words, it's not a really the future because the event has already happened, but in narrating a past story, it points things in the correct temporal perspective. You're seeing things as if they haven't happened yet because you're seeing things as if you're back in the past.

Examples:

_C'était un homme qui *n'aura jamais été puni *pour ses crimes.

La guerre nous faisant souffrir. On *n'en aura pas vu* la fin avant l'automne prochain_.

In both sentences, the speaker is situating himself in the past as he's telling the story. In the first sentence, it will have been the case the this man will never bee punished (he died before getting a trial, most likely). In the second sentence, the war caused a great suffering. It will not be until next autumn/fall until it comes to an end. Again, the speaker is looking at thing from past perspective, projecting these events into the future, which has not yet occurred in the course of the story. 

I hope this helps.


----------



## Loob

Many thanks, Icetrance: it does indeed help

I'm groping towards something that might have a similar flavour in English: perhaps _was/were to_?

_C'était un homme qui *n'aura jamais été puni *pour ses crimes_
_.... a man who was never to be punished..._

_La guerre nous faisait souffrir. On *n'en aura pas vu* la fin avant l'automne prochain_.
... _We were not to see its end until the following autumn._

Does that seem about right?

Loob

EDIT: On reflection, I see "was to" wouldn't work for your _"il *m'aura fallu* des années pour maîtriser la langue allemande. Aujourd'hui, enfin, je la parle couramment" _

or LV4-26's
_A : Alors, est-ce que le mécanicien a réussi à réparer ta voiture ?_
_B : Oui, je n'en reviens pas. Dire que j'ai passé des années à me demander ce qu'elle avait ! Il *aura suffi *d'un tout petit réglage pour qu'elle fonctionne à nouveau parfaitement._

Perhaps "as it turned out" + past tense/ "it turned out that" + past tense?


----------



## Icetrance

Loob said:


> _C'était un homme qui *n'aura jamais été puni *pour ses crimes_
> _.... a man who was never to be punished...or would never be punished..._
> 
> _La guerre nous faisait souffrir. On *n'en aura pas vu* la fin avant l'automne prochain_
> ... _We were not to see its end until the following autumn.or would never see its end until..._
> 
> EDIT: On reflection, I see "was to" wouldn't work for your _"il *m'aura fallu* des années pour maîtriser la langue allemande. Aujourd'hui, enfin, je la parle couramment"  _No, it wouldn't work here. Rather, _it took me years to..._
> 
> Perhaps "as it turned out" + past tense/ "it turned out that" + past tense? Sort of, but not really. LOL.  It means _"All that was needed was a little tuning-up.._.



In English, we would never use the future perfect tense here ( I think that's what it's called). 

It's simply a way of viewing a future event that has already come to pass in real life, but not yet in the story as it's being told.

If you still don't understand the bilan de retrospection, I'd be more than happy to discuss it further. Let me know.


----------



## Loob

I'm beginning to get some glimmerings, but I still don't understand it...

Loob


----------



## Icetrance

Don't give up. It's a little complicated, but you'll get there. I assure you.

Let's take LV4-26's example, for example.

_Dire que j'ai passé des années à me demander ce qu'elle avait ! Il *aura suffi *d'un tout petit réglage pour qu'elle fonctionne à nouveau parfaitement. 

To think that I spent years wondering what was wrong with it (the car). *All* *it will have needed *was a little tuning-up to get it up and running like perfect.
_
I translated it literally to help you better understand.

The person is telling the story as if he's back in the past when his car wasn't working. At that point, he didn't know that* all the car will have needed *was a little tuning-up (we'd say something like "all the car needed" in English). But, he didn't know that then.* It will have turn out* at some time in the future that the *car will have only needed *a little tuning-up. But, that "future event" has already been completed in relation to the present (real-life), but not from the perspective of the speaker who's telling the story as if he's back in the past.

In English, we could use the future perfect and be understood without any problems. It would just sound a little awkward and wouldn't be considered correct in contemporary English. There may have been a time period in English language history where the future perfect was used this way. I'm not all sure.

I sure hope this helps. 

Let me know.


----------



## Loob

Many thanks, Icetrance, for continuing to explain the futur antérieur de rétrospection/de bilan.

For the moment, I think I'm going to hang on to the hypothesis that the English equivalent is "it turned out" (or similar phrases) + past tense:

_Dire que j'ai passé des années à me demander ce qu'elle avait ! *Il aura suffi *d'un tout petit réglage pour qu'elle fonctionne à nouveau parfaitement. _
_To think that I spent years wondering what was wrong with it (the car). *It turned out that all it needed *was a little tuning-up....._

_il *m'aura fallu* des années pour maîtriser la langue allemande. _
_*In the event, it took me* years to master German._

But I'll keep my eyes and ears open

Again, many thanks

Loob


----------



## Maître Capello

Loob said:


> _Dire que j'ai passé des années à me demander ce qu'elle avait ! *Il aura suffi *d'un tout petit réglage pour qu'elle fonctionne à nouveau parfaitement. _
> _To think that I spent years wondering what was wrong with it (the car). *It turned out that all it needed *was a little tuning-up....._


In this context:

_Il aura suffi de… = Il a suffi de… _(with some feeling such as *disappointment*, *humor*…)

_Il a suffi de…__ = All that was needed was…
__Il aura suffi de…__ = (It's really stupid because) all that was needed was…_


----------



## Loob

Thank you Maître Capello.  I think that "it turned out that..."  has a similar air of disappointment, humour etc ("in the event" less so). 

I'm beginning to get it now!

Loob


----------



## Montaigne

Is not the third one "il aurait suffi"?


----------



## Maître Capello

Well, no, because it did happen; it isn't just a supposition…


----------



## Icetrance

Loob said:


> _Dire que j'ai passé des années à me demander ce qu'elle avait ! *Il aura suffi *d'un tout petit réglage pour qu'elle fonctionne à nouveau parfaitement. _
> _To think that I spent years wondering what was wrong with it (the car). *It turned out that all it needed *was a little tuning-up....._


Well, you can say "it turned out that all that was needed."  I just marked it wrong in a previous post because I thought you thought that "il aura suffi de" just meant "it turned out that", which is does not. I mistook what you were saying. Sorry.

Another example, Loob:

_Mon bébé garçon pleurnichait sans cesse. Je ne savais pas ce qu'il avait. Mais, *il n'aura voulu que *maman le caresse. 

_Again, we're dealing with a situation where the speaker is unaware at a certain point in time in the past that what is expressed in the futur antérieur "will end up being the case" at some point in the future (now in the past). In this particular case, the mother didn't know while her baby boy was fussing around that all he wanted was for her to caress him. I'd say something like "all he ended up wanting was for his mom to caress him."
Literally, "he will have only wanted..." (but she doesn't know that when here baby was fussing around). So, she will end up finding that that all he will have wanted was for her to caress him.

I hope this helps.


----------



## itka

Icetrance, all that seems very complicate to me...

Your last example is not good french... 


> _Mon bébé garçon pleurnichait sans cesse. Je ne savais pas ce qu'il avait. Mais, *il n'aura voulu que *maman le caresse. _


I'd say :
_Mon bébé _garçon_ pleurnichait sans cesse. Je ne savais pas ce qu'il avait. Mais, _*il n'aura voulu que * *il ne voulait qu'une chose : que sa maman le caresse/ il ne voulait que des caresses de sa maman.
*Il n'y a pas besoin de futur antérieur ici.


----------



## Icetrance

itka said:


> Your last example is not good french...


 du très mauvais français, tu veux dire?

En fait, je voulais dire «Le bébé voulait tout simplement que sa mère le caresse». 

Pourquoi ne peut-on pas dire «"Le bébé n'aura voulu que des caresses de sa mère»? 

Comment expliquerais-tu donc l'usage du futur antérieur de bilan/retrospection? Je, comme toi, préférerais employer le temps imparfait  Mais, ici,  l'usage du futur antérier de bilan, à mon humble avis, ne serait pas tout à fait incorrect.


----------



## Loob

Further googling has made me wonder if the futur antérieur de rétrospection/de bilan is particularly frequent in certain linguistic contexts. This site, for example, suggests that it's common:

with certain verbs: _„il aura fallu x temps pour...”, „il aura suffi de... pour...”_
with summarising expressions: _„au total”, „au final”, „en définitive”_
with adversative phrases: _„en revanche”, „néanmoins”, „pourtant”_
with the adverbs _„jamais” and „rarement”_ when they appear at the beginning of a sentence.
There's also a hint that it's found particularly in the media (though previous examples in this thread indicate that it's also common in conversation).

Would francophones agree with the above?

Loob


----------



## Icetrance

Itka, je ne te suis pas sur ce point-là.  L'usage du futur antérieur change un peu le sens de la phrase. Ça rajoute un tout petit de subjectivité à la phrase. Pas sûr si cet usage du futur antérieur se rapporte plus à celui de bilan/retrospection, de probabilité, ou bien celui qui mélange les deux.

La phrase en question:

_Il n'aura voulu que des caresses de sa maman.

_Deux possibilités de traduction, àmha:

1)He probably only wanted his mother to caress him.

2)He only wanted his mother to caress him (la mère est déçue qu'elle a dû attendre si longtemps pour le savoir)

En tout cas, le futur antérieur de bilan/retrospection comme celui de probabilité demeure un sujet compliqué pour les non-natifs ainsi que les natifs.

Puis-je employer les termes "natifs/non-natifs" sans qu'on m'en reproche?


----------



## ocrampete16

C'est l'adresse de la résidence du Chef du Gouvernement en Grand Bretagne, une adresse que celle que l'on appelait la Dame de Fer aura occupée de 1979 à 1990.

This is my (fuzzy) understanding of this sentence:

That's the address (...) the Iron Lady lived at from 1979 to 1990.

However, I don't get (...) why Futur antérieur is used at the end. Any help would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## Lacuzon

Bonjour et bienvenue,

Your understanding is correct. Futur antérieur may be used to make a summary, biographies.

Celle que stands for the one (the person)
A more literal translation could be ...an address at which the one/person who was called the Iron Lady used to live.

Clearer?


----------



## Maître Capello

The futur antérieur is often used in French to recap events. See Futur antérieur récapitulatif (forum français seulement).

See also Études littéraires:


> rétrospection / bilan (emploi très courant) : _Décidément, la seconde quinzaine d’avril *aura été* médiocre_.



and About.com:


> 3. In historical narratives, the events of a person's life can be described with the future perfect even though those events have long since passed. In English, these might be translated by a past tense or conditional:
> 
> _Napoléon aura pris une décision importante._
> Napoleon made / would make an important decision.
> 
> _George Sand aura écrit le roman _La Mare au Diable_ en quatre jours._
> George Sand wrote / would go on to write the novel _La Mare au Diable_ in four days.


----------



## defratchit

Here is my last question (I promise!) on the text I'm translating about Situationist philosopher Guy Debord. If this should go in the grammar section of the forum, I apologise. I didn't know where to post it as I felt it could fit into either topic - grammar or vocabulary.



> Une telle critique radicale d'une société, trop longtemps indéfinie, a pris les formes que l'on sait et principalement celle d'un livre, _La Société du spectacle_. Car c'est dans ce livre, inégalé, et à ce jour indépassé, que Guy Debord *aura su* faire bouger les principaux piliers qui soutiennent une société en proie à une dévastation sans précédent (une « planète malade »).



I have no idea why the author of this article has used the future perfect here and how I should translate it. So far, my rendering reads:



> Such a radical criticism of a society, undefined for so long, has taken shape in the way we know and, principally, as described in _The Society of Spectacle_. As it is in this book, unrivalled and, as yet, unsurpassed, that Debord *would have known how to* unsteady the main pillars which support a society beset by an unprecedented devastation (a "sick planet").



My version uses the conditional perfect in English as it's the closest I feel I can get... but I really don't know whether this is a stylistic alternative to 'aurait su', 'savait' or even 'sut' or whether I have completely missed the mark.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Hildy1

I don't know what that construction is called, but in translation, I would be tempted just to ignore the future part of it:
succeeded in, managed to, was able to


----------



## Oddmania

Hi,

See this thread  Basically, here_ Il aura su_ simply means _Il a su._ It's sort of emphatic, like _He *definitely *knew how to go about it._


----------



## Jaxfrxit

Bonjour à tous

Was using a French grammar app and came across something that said the future anterior can also be used for (apart from past of the future):

Supposition about an action in the past

Eg. Il sera certainement tombé = He'll probably have had an accident
Eg. Ou bien il aura peut-être eu une panne = Or perhaps he had a breakdown

There wasn't any other info so just to confirm, this would use the form future form of avoir/être + past participle?

E.g. Il échouera certainement l'examen (parce qu'il n'a étudie pas) = He will certainly fail the exam (because he didn't study).
E.g. Il aura échoué probablement l'examen = He will probably have failed the exam

Sorry if this has been answered before, couldn't find anything when I searched.

Merci en avance


----------



## Maître Capello

Jaxfrxit said:


> Supposition about an action in the past


In that case the English translation should be in the past, not in the future:

_Il *sera* certainement *tombé*_ = He probably *(has) had* an accident.
_Ou bien il *aura* peut-être *eu* une panne_ = Or perhaps he *(has) had* a breakdown.

_Il *échouera* certainement à l'examen_ = He *will* certainly *fail* the exam.
_Il *aura* probablement *échoué* à l'examen_ = He *will* probably *have failed* the exam. / He probably *(has) failed* the exam. (depending on context)


----------



## Jaxfrxit

One more question. Am I right to think that you cannot use the passé composé for supposition about an action in the past like the future anterior because the action has to have been something that certainly/definitely happened in the past?

_Il *aura* probablement *échoué* à l'examen = He *will* probably *have failed* the exam. / He probably *(has) failed* the exam. (depending on context)
Il *a* probablement *échoué* à l'examen = wrong???_


----------



## Maître Capello

No, you _can_ use the present as well for suppositions. The only difference is that in that case you have to include an adverb such as _probablement, certainement_, etc. to convey the nuance of probability.

_Il *aura* *échoué* à l'examen_. = He probably *(has) failed* the exam.
_Il *aura* probablement *échoué* à l'examen_. = He probably *(has) failed* the exam.
_Il *a* probablement *échoué* à l'examen_. = He probably *(has) failed* the exam.
_Il *a* *échoué* à l'examen_. = He *failed* the exam. (no doubt)


----------

