# FR: Ne tirez la poignée qu'en cas de danger



## nium

J'ai vu la signalisation du metro (en mémoire): "Ne tirer le poignée qu'en cas de danger".

Pourquoi est-ce qu'il y a un écart entre la verbe (tirer) et 'que'? Les adjectifs de negation suivent toujours la verbe, n'est-ce pas?

Je ne comprends pas les construction négatives très bien...

Merci beaucoup!


----------



## linguist786

If it came _after _"tirer" then that would mean "Pull only the _handle_ in case of danger" (as opposed to pulling anything else)

The position of "que" determines the meaning of the sentence, so it's important to get it right. "Ne + que" doesn't necessarily have to surround the verb.


----------



## timpeac

nium said:
			
		

> Les adjectifs de negation suivent toujours la verbe, n'est-ce pas?


 
Non, pas toujours. le "que" va précéder le nom dont on veut souligner le charactère unique. "Personne" est comme ça aussi - "je n'ai parlé à personne". "Nulle part" aussi "je ne suis allé nulle part" pas "je ne suis nulle part allé".


----------



## nium

Thank you.

Let's assume the signwriter wanted to say "Pull the handle _only _in case of danger" (as compared to using it at other times).

How would you say that?

And what would "Ne que tirer le poignée en cas de danger" mean?

Thanks again

Nium


----------



## timpeac

nium said:
			
		

> Let's assume the signwriter wanted to say "Pull the handle _only _in case of danger" (as compared to using it at other times).
> 
> How would you say that?


That's what your original sentence does mean. I think linguist meant "before" not "after".



			
				nium said:
			
		

> And what would "Ne que tirer le poignée en cas de danger" mean?


Only pull the handle in case of danger - eg "don't spray paint the handle in case of danger" or "don't take a polaroid of the handle in case of danger" just pull it! 

Note that English is not so strict in its position of "only". If someone says "only pull the handle in case of danger" they _probably_ mean "pull the handle only in case of danger".


----------



## geve

nium said:
			
		

> Let's assume the signwriter wanted to say "Pull the handle _only _in case of danger" (as compared to using it at other times).
> 
> How would you say that?


That would be the translation of your first sentence: "Ne tirer la poignée qu'en cas de danger". You could also say "Tirer la poignée uniquement en cas de danger"


			
				nium said:
			
		

> And what would "Ne que tirer le poignée en cas de danger" mean?


This sentence is not correct.

Edit: Tim, les grands esprits se rencontrent... presque


----------



## timpeac

Oops, oh yes - it should be "ne faites que tirer..." - do we rencontre now?


----------



## geve

Yes, we do!
Actually, the "que" in this sentence could apply to "tirer" (ie. only pull the handle as you said), or to the whole sentence "tirer la poignée" (ie. this is the only thing you should do) - as in this context:

_"En cas de danger, ne vous mettez pas à paniquer, ne criez pas, ne tapez pas sur votre voisin, évitez de vous évanouir, ne tentez pas d'ouvrir la porte, ne piétinez pas les petits enfants, ne chantez pas la Marseillaise pour vous détendre, ne fumez pas, ne sortez pas votre flasque de survie. Ne faites que tirer la poignée."_

Mais bon, les instructions sont rarement aussi détaillées, dans le métro.


----------



## timpeac

Haha, so the question imposes itself - how do you say in French "only _pull_ the handle" eg "don't do anything with the handle other than _pull_ it" with no ambiguity? Or perhaps the clue is in the English - you would need a great long sentence like that?


----------



## geve

_Ne faites que tirer la poignée_. I think you would have to live with the doubt that it could mean either one or the other.
Is there a (shorter) way to express the difference between "don't do anything with the handle other than pull it" and "don't do anything else than pulling the handle", in English?

(But honestly, I doubt that the RATP has ever considered that someone would want to sniff the handle, or beat it, or paint it pink. I know, they really should consider every possibility!)


----------



## timpeac

Same as English then. "Only pull the handle in case of danger" strictly means "don't sniff the handle in case of danger etc" but colloquially it also means "pull the handle only in case of danger".


----------



## ed800uk

Hi, does this make sense?

La poignée ne doit qu'être tirée.


----------



## vince

the handle must only be pulled, I think


----------



## geve

ed800uk said:
			
		

> Hi, does this make sense?
> 
> La poignée ne doit qu'être tirée.


I can't make up my mind whether this is correct, or if it should be "La poignée ne doit être que tirée"... But in any case, yes it would mean "the handle must only be pulled" as vince said.


----------



## ed800uk

Ma première pensée était que cette construction élimine l'ambiguité identifiée ci-dessus.

Mais ce n'est pas le cas.

En cas de danger, la poignée ne doit être que tirée.

Il me semble que l'on peut faire beaucoup d'autres actions, hors de danger !

;-)

Ed


----------

