# FR: a gift was placed / has been placed



## PerthInParis

Hi,

Below, I have translated the following sentence into the passive form:

A gift was placed under the christmas tree.
Un cadeau a été placé sous l'arbre de Noel.

But, how would I translate this sentence into French:
A gift *has been* placed under the christmas tree.

Merci !


----------



## Welshie

In exactly the same way. French does not maintain a distinction between the 2 English tenses:

I ate 
I have eaten

I sang
I have sung

etc.


----------



## Grop

Hi, I agree. In the case of has been placed, if you wanted to make it clear the gift hasn't been removed since it was placed, you would have to state it, or to use the present (my example dosn't use passive voice): _Un cadeau se trouve sous le sapin. A gift lies/stands/is under the chrismas tree._

Or you could hope the reader won't assume it has been removed.


----------



## PerthInParis

Thank you, Welshie and Grop! But, I must say that the lack of distinction makes reading French text difficult because I'm not sure of the emphasis/meaning of phrases constructed in this form. For example, saying:

"A bicycle was placed against the wall by a student" is different to saying:
"A bicycle has been placed against the wall by a student."

The first sentence is in the past, whereas the second sentence is in the present. In English, I think we call the first sentence Past Simple Passive and the second sentence Present Perfect Simple Passive. The first sentence suggests that the bike may, or may not, be still against the wall, whereas the second sentence says that the bike is still against the wall.

So, should the three verbs "a été placé" be read separately as "has been placed", or should they be read conjugated "was placed"? Or doesn't it make any difference how I read them?

Merci encore !


----------



## tilt

In fact, it's your translation of _was placed _which is wrong.

_A gift *has been *placed under the christmas tree = Un cadeau *a été* placé sous l'arbre de Noël
A gift *was *placed under the christmas tree = Un cadeau *avait été *placé sous l'arbre de Noël.
_


----------



## PerthInParis

tilt said:


> In fact, it's your translation of _was placed which _is wrong.
> 
> _A gift *has been *placed under the christmas tree = Un cadeau *a été* placé sous l'arbre de Noël
> A gift *was *placed under the christmas tree = Un cadeau *avait été *placé sous l'arbre de Noël.
> _



Thank you, Tilt, but now I'm really confused! I have the following example from my French grammar book:

La tour Eiffel a été construite à la fin du 19eme siècle.

Using your example above, I would translate that sentence to: The Eiffel Tower has been constructed at the end of the 20th Century. Is that correct?

Also, how would I say "A gift *had been* placed under the christmas tree?" I thought that's where I would use *avait été* (plus-que-parfait).

Merci en avance !


----------



## Grop

(I don't agree with Tilt - _avait été placé_ would probably be _had been placed_).

Both "A bicycle was placed against the wall" and "A bicycle has been placed against the wall" *could* be translated as "Une bicyclette a été placée contre le mur".

However in the second case you are losing information. "a été placée" doesn't tell us if the bicycle is still against the wall. I would translate "Une bicyclette a été placée contre le mur" as "A bicycle was placed against the wall", unless I knew the bicycle was still there.

Generally, you can't say that a specific English tense translates as a specific French tense. You have to learn which tenses to use depending on the situation.

(Note this is mainly a matter of simple past vs present perfect, the use of passive voice is irrelevant here).


----------



## tilt

PerthInParis said:


> Thank you, Tilt, but now I'm really confused! I have the following example from my French grammar book:
> 
> La tour Eiffel a été construite à la fin du 19eme siècle.
> 
> Using your example above, I would translate that sentence to: The Eiffel Tower has been constructed at the end of the 20th Century. Is that correct?
> 
> Also, how would I say "A gift *had been* placed under the christmas tree?" I thought that's where I would use *avait été* (plus-que-parfait).
> 
> Merci en avance !


Well, my translations are only based on the explanations you gave about the difference of meaning for both tenses.

You know, there's no simple equivalence between French and English tenses. _Simple past _sometimes translate in _passé composé_, sometimes in _imparfait_, for example. Choosing the right tense is always tricky for non native speakers. I've got the same problem in English.


----------



## PerthInParis

Thank you both, Grop and Tilt...I really appreciate your explanations and insight!

As you both said, French and English tenses do not directly translate, which is why I seek clarification and explanations from contributors to this website ;-)


----------



## tilt

Grop said:


> (I don't agree with Tilt - _avait été placé_ would probably be _had been placed_).
> 
> Both "A bicycle was placed against the wall" and "A bicycle has been placed against the wall" *could* be translated as "Une bicyclette a été placée contre le mur".
> 
> However in the second case you are losing information. "a été placée" doesn't tell us if the bicycle is still against the wall. I would translate "Une bicyclette a été placée contre le mur" as "A bicycle was placed against the wall", unless I knew the bicycle was still there.


Pour moi, ni *a été*, ni *avait été *n'impliquent que la bicyclette soit encore contre le mur.
Mais comme c'est *avait été* qui me semble le suggérer le moins fortement, je l'ai rapproché de _*was*, _et *a été* de *has been.*

Quant à *had been*, je crois qu'aucun temps en français ne permet de le traduire simplement, sauf peut-être un temps surcomposé qui serait proprement abominable à la forme passive (_*a eu été*..._ ).


----------



## Petite-Belette

I think:

is placed = est placée
was placed = était placée (elle n'y est plus)
has been placed = a été placée (elle y est toujours)
had been placed = avait été placée


----------



## Grop

tilt said:


> _A gift *was *placed under the christmas tree = Un cadeau *avait été *placé sous l'arbre de Noël._



C'est spécifiquement avec cette traduction que je ne suis pas d'accord. Si on veut dire qu'une bicyclette a été posée contre un mur dans le passé (sans dire explicitement si elle s'y trouve encore), on utilise le passé composé, comme je viens de faire.

On pourrait utiliser le plus-que-parfait si l'action s'était déroulée avant une autre action passée : _Une bicyclette avait été posée contre le mur, mais quelqu'un l'a prise._

(Bien sûr cet exemple est peu naturel, on pourrait utiliser l'imparfait et la voix active).

Edit: Petite-Belette, tes propositions ne marchent pas très bien si tu les mets en contexte. Que penses-tu de _Une bicyclette était placée contre le mur par un étudiant _?

Edit: Bon, j'ai confondu la bicyclette avec le cadeau. Je *crois* que ça ne change rien.


----------



## Petite-Belette

Grop said:


> Edit: Petite-Belette, tes propositions ne marchent pas très bien si tu les mets en contexte. Que penses-tu de _Une bicyclette était placée contre le mur par un étudiant _?


 
Correct dans un récit, si l'étudiant était en train de la placée, non ?

Et sinon, "_Une bicyclette fut placée contre le mur par un étudiant"_


----------



## Grop

Tu as raison (on peut construire un contexte où l'imparfait se justifie), mais ta suggestion avec le passé simple montre bien qu'en fait, ça dépend. On ne peut donc pas dire que was placed = était placée. En tout cas, pas systématiquement.


----------



## lrosa

PerthInParis said:


> La tour Eiffel a été construite à la fin du 19eme siècle.
> 
> Using your example above, I would translate that sentence to: The Eiffel Tower has been constructed at the end of the 20th Century. Is that correct?



This literal translation into English is clearly wrong. Here it should translate as "The Eiffel Tower *was* constructed at the end of the 20th Century."

Both "A gift was placed" and "A gift has been placed" are both translated as "Un cadeau a été placé". This _is_ different from English, but really it is usually quite easy to tell which of the two English tenses ("was" or "has been") are implied, based on the context.

As for "*had been*", this does translate literally and successfully as "avait été", as in:

"A gift had been placed under the tree on Saturday. It was now Wednesday evening and it hadn't been opened."

"Un cadeau avait été placé sous l'arbre à samedi. Il était alors mercredi soir, et il n'avait pas été ouvert."


----------



## jann

PerthInParis said:


> Thank you, Welshie and Grop! But, I must say that the lack of distinction makes reading French text difficult because I'm not sure of the emphasis/meaning of phrases constructed in this form.





PerthInParis said:


> As you both said, French and English tenses do not directly translate, which is why I seek clarification and explanations from contributors to this website ;-)


Precisely.  Tenses don't correlate perfectly.  Indeed languages do not correlate perfectly.  The information that we choose to communicate, and that we are easily able to communicate, is not always the same.

When we choose a past tense in French, the thing we care about is whether or not the event was punctual (ie., choosing between _imparfait v. passé composé_).  Of course the punctuality of an event (by which I mean that it happened in an instant, or at that it began and ended at two clearly defined moments) is irrelevant in English... and this is why anglophone children learning French find  _imparfait v. passé composé_ challenging at first.  In English, what we care about instead is whether or not the event is in some way still relevant in the speaker's mind at the present moment.  If it is, we communicate this relevance by using the present perfect instead of the preterit.  Of course, the idea "present relevance" is irrelevant in French, because to use a past French tense at all, the event must be over and done with... and not surprisingly, francophones learning English often struggle with preterit v. present perfect at first.

Now as it happens, usage of the pluperfect seems to me nearly parallel in both languages.  It is a sort of all-purpose "past-in-the-past."  If you want to talk about something that is _farther in the past_ as compared some other past event, then you need the pluperfect.  And you don't have to worry about punctuality (in French) or about present relevance (in English)... which is doubtless what allows pluperfect usage to be quite comparable in both languages. 

Now back to your original sentence.  In a standard grammar exercise, you would translate both "A gift was placed.." and "A gift has been placed..." by _un cadeau a été placé... _because this would demonstrate that you understand the function of the passé composé, and the fact that it is the appropriate tense for a punctual past event like putting a gift under a tree.

But as you say, these two sentences have slightly different meanings in English.  What if you cared about those meanings, and wanted to convey one or the other of them in French?   First we must distinguish what, exactly, you care about.  Saying "a gift was placed..." could apply to last night, last year, or 100 years ago.  It is a past that has no relation to now.  But saying "a gift has been placed..." not only says that someone put the gift there, but also would imply that the gift is still there, visible under the tree.  

So if your focus is not on the action of putting the gift under the tree in the past, but rather on the fact that the gift is still there in the present, you can simply make a different comment in French.  You can say something like _Il y a un cadeau qui a été placé sous l'arbre_.  This would put the emphasis on the current presence of the gift, rather than on the past action of placing it under the tree.


----------



## Mauricet

A masterly and definitive lesson, that goes deep into the issue of translation. Thank you jann, and thanks to PerthInParis for the opportunity of this example.


----------



## mroth

Bravo Jann!


----------



## Fred_C

Grop said:


> Tu as raison (on peut construire un contexte où l'imparfait se justifie), mais ta suggestion avec le passé simple montre bien qu'en fait, ça dépend. On ne peut donc pas dire que was placed = était placée. En tout cas, pas systématiquement.


 
Bien sûr.
Le prétérit anglais (simple past tense) correspond au passé simple (ou composé) français, ainsi qu'à l'imparfait, suivant le contexte.
Le verbe être n'est pas une exception, (malgré une erreur fréquente chez les francophones qui consiste à toujours comprendre "was" comme "était" et jamais comme "fut" ou "a été", alors que c'est parfois possible).

Le present perfect correspond souvent à un passé composé en français, dont la particularité est de ne pas pouvoir être remplacé par un passé simple.

Ce que je dis c'est que
"A bike was placed" peut vouloir dire "un vélo a été placé", ou "un vélo était placé", suivant le contexte.
Si cette phrase fait partie d'une histoire écrite au passé, la forme "un vélo a été placé" pourra être remplacée par "un vélo fut placé".

La phrase "A bike has been placed" veut dire "un vélo a été placé", mais c'est une phrase qui ne peut pas faire partie d'une histoire écrite au passé, donc on ne peut pas la remplacer par "un vélo fut placé".

Edit :
Please note that with the context :
"In the past century, every year, a gift was placed under the christmas tree" definitely needs the imperfect in French.
("Un cadeau était placé".)


----------



## Mauricet

_Au siècle dernier, chaque année, un cadeau était placé sous l'arbre de Noël_ traduirait mieux _In the past century, every year, a gift *used to be* placed under the christmas tree_. La phrase _In the past century, every year, a gift was placed_ ... n'impose pas du tout l'imparfait. On peut très bien comprendre que chaque nuit de Noël du siècle dernier (sans exception), à minuit, un fantôme entra dans la grande salle et plaça un cadeau sous l'arbre ... 

Pour moi la mise au point de jann quelques posts plus haut répond complètement à la question et on pourrait s'en tenir là.


----------



## Fred_C

Oui, bien sûr. c'est la différence entre l'événement multiple et l'événement habituel.
Mais j'ai l'impression que vous dites cela juste pour me donner tort, ce que je trouve très sympathique.


----------



## lrosa

Mauricet said:


> _Au siècle dernier, chaque année, un cadeau était placé sous l'arbre de Noël_ traduirait mieux _In the past century, every year, a gift *used to be* placed under the christmas tree_. La phrase _In the past century, every year, a gift was placed_ ... n'impose pas du tout l'imparfait. On peut très bien comprendre que chaque nuit de Noël du siècle dernier (sans exception), à minuit, un fantôme entra dans la grande salle et plaça un cadeau sous l'arbre ...
> 
> Pour moi la mise au point de jann quelques posts plus haut répond complètement à la question et on pourrait s'en tenir là.



Je ne vois pas la différence entre "In the past century, every year, a gift was placed" et "In the past century, every year, a gift used to be placed"... 

En français écrit, est-ce que les deux phrases suivantes sont possibles:

"Au siècle dernier, chaque année, un cadeau était placé sous l'arbre de Noël"
"Au siècle dernier, chaque année, un cadeau fut placé sous l'arbre de Noël"

Si c'est bien le cas, y a-t-il une différence entre les deux? Merci d'avance!


----------



## Fred_C

lrosa said:


> Je ne vois pas la différence entre "In the past century, every year, a gift was placed" et "In the past century, every year, a gift used to be placed"...


 
Neither do I, although I am not an anglophone.
In my opinion, the reason why a francophone native would chose to say "Used to be placed" instead of just "was placed" is exactly the same reason why Jann wants to translate "A bike has been placed against the wall" with the sentence "Il y a un vélo qui a été placé..." instead of just "Un vélo a été placé" :
An anglophone may be perturbated by the fact that "A bike was placed" and "A bike has been placed" can be translated in the same way in French, and likewise, a francophone can be perturbated by the fact that "était placé" and "a été placé" can be translated in the same way in English. Therefore the Francophone chose to say "used to be placed", because this phrase can never be translated in French using a compound past tense. (Not that I know (He knows), that is...)



> En français écrit, est-ce que les deux phrases suivantes sont possibles:
> 
> "Au siècle dernier, chaque année, un cadeau était placé sous l'arbre de Noël"
> "Au siècle dernier, chaque année, un cadeau fut placé sous l'arbre de Noël"
> 
> Si c'est bien le cas, y a-t-il une différence entre les deux? Merci d'avance!


 
Yes there is, but the second is very unlikely.
As you probably know, imperfect is used to state habits in the past (among other uses), and the compound past tense is used to state individual events instead.
Those events do not need to be isolated. Any definite number of events needs a compound past tense also :
Example : "La semaine dernière, je suis allé au cinéma tous les jours", means you went to the cinema exactly seven times.
"Ne mets pas tes doigts dans ton nez, je te l'ai dit cent fois". (exactly 100 times).

On the other hand, the imperfect does not state any definite number of times, but general habits :
"Quand j'étais petit, je n'étais jamais malade" means you did not have the habit of being sick when you were a child. (You may have been sick once or twice, but not often).
On the other hand, the sentence "Quand j'étais petit, je n'ai jamais été malade", states a definite number of times. exactly zero times.

Therefore the sentence "Au siècle dernier, un cadeau a été placé chaque année.." is ok if you know for sure that a gift was placed under the tree exactly 100 times, once each year, and that no exception was made, which is very unlikely to happen.

It is much safer to just state a habit, using the imperfect.

I found Jann's explanation very good, too, and I just wanted to add an example where you can use an imperfect to translate "was placed".


----------



## lrosa

Fred, thank you so much for the clear, practical examples  I'm now confident of understanding


----------



## A-class-act

Mauricet said:


> _A
> __, every year, a gift *used to be* placed under the christmas tree_.
> chaque année un cadeau se *plaç*a sous ...???


----------

