# FR: whenever I would go



## sopera123

Hi,

I would like to know if there is a double use of conditional tense in English, does it have to be transferred into French when translating? Ex. Whenever I would go to the store, the same person would be there. Chaque fois que j'irais au magasin, la meme personne serait la'. 
I know that, gramatically, the first verb should be conjugated to the imperfect tense, same as in English, but is it possible to use the conditional this way?Thanks in advance.


----------



## BEEKEEPER

Chaque fois que j'allais dans ce magasin, cette personne s'y trouvait.

Oui dans ce contexte le conditionnel est impossible.


----------



## sopera123

ok, alors, c'est seulement en Anglais qu'on peut parler comme ca. Merci.


----------



## jann

> Ex. Whenever I would go to the store, the same person would be there.


This "would" is not the conditional in English.  It's true that the English conditional is formed using "would"... but confusingly, the word "would" can have other grammatical functions as well. 

In your sentence, "would" is a past tense (imperfect) conjugation of the auxiliary verb "will," used to indicated repeated or habitual past actions.  The other form we often use in such situations is "used to" ("whenever I used to go to the store..." etc.).   The French tense required to express such ideas is the _imparfait_.


----------



## akaAJ

In fact, the typical English construction would be "Whenever I went to that store, X would be there".


----------



## lrosa

ArrogantJew said:


> In fact, the typical English construction would be "Whenever I went to that store, X would be there".



But again in this sentence, _would_ is not used as conditional tense but as past habitual. In this case _would_ is not really interchangeable with _used to_, but it means more or less the same thing.


----------



## akaAJ

I'm not disputing Jann's analysis, which I found quite instructive.  What I said is that, at least in American English, the use of "would" is perfectly idiomatic to convey a certain atmosphere; "Whenever I went there, X would be there" to me suggests a somewhat different (but not much) response to the discovery than "Whenever I went there, X was there".  On the other hand (patching some of the text) " No matter when I arrived, Macavity was not there!"  None of the constructions above has, or is meant to have, a meaning of habitual "used to", but rather states an observation.


----------



## jann

ArrogantJew said:


> None of the constructions above has, or is meant to have, a meaning of habitual "used to", but rather states an observation.


And yet, such observation is not possible unless you have some experience in the matter, unless you have been there several times - in short, you evoke a repeated past action, though perhaps short of a true "habit."

I'm afraid my post #4 above might not have been very clear.  I did not mean to say that Sopera123's particular sentence described a "habit."  What I meant is that we can use would-imperfect to speak of two things in English - repeated past actions, and past habits - which may or may not be distinguishable without more context in any given case.  More importantly, the reason we must recognize would-imperfect (as distinguished from would-conditional) is that the _imparfait_ is very much necessary in the French translation of such sentences. 

Now as regards the original English sentence Sopera123 provided, it's true that we have a certain amount of flexibility in the way we tend to speak about the past in English.  Some tense pairs that are frequently used aloud may be less common in writing.  I suspect that whether or not there is any intended/perceived difference in meaning between the following sentences varies from place to place, between different speakers, and certainly between different eras.

Whenever I would go to the store, he would be there.
Whenever I went to the store, he would be there.
Whenever I would go to the store, he was there
Whenever I went to the store, he was there.

I have listed the sentences in order from least to most absolute, as they sound to my own American ear.  What I mean by "absolute" is that the last sentence admits no exception, in my mind: he was there literally _every single time _you went to the store.  The first sentence, on the other hand, feels like a generalization: it describes the pattern of his presence, but allows that perhaps there were rare occasions that you visited the store without seeing him.  

Regardless of any difference in nuance we might find between the different English versions, we're going to need the _imparfait_ in French.


----------



## akaAJ

Again, Jann, I agree wholly with the analysis, and with the absolute requirement for the imperfect in French.  And again. I suppose it's subjective, but "whenever I would go", while precise and exact, seems to me to date from an earlier era.

I would add a clumsier form to the top: (0)
I used to go that place, and he was always there. (A definitely habitual , B apparently absolute but standard hyperbole for usually---"You always take his side!")
(1) Just by the doubled resonance with a real conditional
(2)=(3)
(4)

However, isn't this a real double conditional:
I would go if I could.
 and how does it parse with
I will go if I can.


----------



## geostan

Whenever I would go to the store, he would be there. (clumsy)
Whenever I went to the store, he would be there.
Whenever I would go to the store, he was there 
Whenever I went to the store, he was there.

Aside from the first version, which I would never say, the third one is not much better. The use of _would_ marking a habitual action is not one I would use in a time clause. I'm sure there are many speakers who might say it, but I doubt that anyone who thinks about language would.


----------



## lrosa

jann said:


> Whenever I would go to the store, he was there



Would you ever say this?
However, I think the first version sounds fine.

Sorry ArrogantJew, I didn't mean to suggest that you were rejecting Jann's analysis. I was merely highlighting the fact that you were (consciously) using the past habitual version of _would_ for anyone who mightn't have been sure.


----------



## sopera123

Wow, this has been a very informative session, thank you all. I agree that the double use of 'would' in English sounds awkward but it is possible in colloquial speech which is why I wanted to know if it could be reproduced in French, but I guess English is a bit more flexible in it's speech. Thank you.


----------



## akaAJ

The irrepressible pedant speaks:  "it's" = it is.  "Its" = belonging to it; same construction as "his" and "hers", NOT "Jack's".


----------



## lrosa

I wonder if it's just me, but does this sentence not sound perfectly natural:


Whenever I'd go to the store, he'd be there and he'd have that cheeky smile on his face. "What are you doing here?" I'd say to him. But he'd never give me an answer.


----------



## akaAJ

Irosa:  your version corresponds to Jann's case one, and therefore satisfies the grammar.  It sounds natural on the tongue because "I'd" softens "I would", which, believe me, is very wooden.


----------



## lrosa

ArrogantJew said:


> It sounds natural on the tongue because "I'd" softens "I would", which, believe me, is very wooden.


 
Yes, I agree with this


----------

