# EN: un oeil furtif qui avait pu saisir



## Cleare

Hi,
I'm completely fogged by the phrase:

... j'en avais eu un aperçu en y jetant un oeil furtif *qui *avait pu saisir quelques mots sans en comprendre le sens exact.

My ideas:
1. ...by casting a furtive eye over and *it* could get some words without understanding...
 
2. by casting a furtive eye over it*, which* could get some words without understanding....
 
3. by casting a furtive eye over it *what* could get some words without understanding...
 
Thanks in advance!


----------



## Yoyobzh

Pour garder la subordonnée relative, j'écrirais:
2. by casting a furtive eye over it*, which* could get some words without understanding....
ou bien
2bis. by casting a furtive eye over it*, that *could get some words without understanding....


----------



## Cleare

Yoyobzh said:


> Pour garder la subordonnée relative, j'écrirais:
> 2. by casting a furtive eye over it*, which* could get some words without understanding....
> ou bien
> 2bis. by casting a furtive eye over it*, that *could get some words without understanding....


 

*bennozh Doue, Yoyobzh!*
*I think : 2!*
**


----------



## quinoa

To keep the relative as close to the noun as possible, it would be better to say "by casting over it a furtive eye which could get ... , and *which* better than *that*, because the discovery of the words comes after the casting of the eye, the discovery is not part of the casting.

Which leads to the main difference between the two relative pronouns, which and that.


----------



## Cleare

quinoa said:


> To keep the relative as close to the noun as possible, it would be better to say "by casting over it a furtive eye which could get ... , and *which* better than *that*, because the discovery of the words comes after the casting of the eye, the discovery is not part of the casting.
> 
> Which leads to the main difference between the two relative pronouns, which and that.


 
Yes, thank you, quinoa! "which" without a comma!


----------



## quinoa

Yes, without a comma...


----------



## radagasty

I agree that _which_ should be used, but with a comma, as this is an instance of a non-restrictive relative clause. It is also an improvement to bring the relative pronoun closer to its antecedent. Be that as it may, the translation seems to me, on the whole, unsatisfactory. Perhaps the following might better fit the bill:

... _by stealing a glance, apprehending a few words without understanding..._


----------



## quinoa

The use of the comma changes a little the meaning.

Without a comma, the noun the relative qualifies is the furtive eye.
If you use the comma, the relative refers to the casting of the eye.
In French you have "un oeil furtif qui ..." for the former,
and "en jetant un oeil furtif, ce qui ..."


----------



## radagasty

Whether the antecedent of _which _is the furtive eye or the casting thereof, a comma is required, since the relative clause is non-restrictive in both cases.


----------



## Cleare

radagasty said:


> Whether the antecedent of _which _is the furtive eye or the casting thereof, a comma is required, since the relative clause is non-restrictive in both cases.


 
Thank you, radagasty!
to tell the truth, I used to be taught to use a comma in the cases like that....


----------



## quinoa

Something has been worring me for some time about the non-restrictive relative. I'm not so sure it is non-restrictive. There is an opposition between the furtive eye who could or couldn't, isn't there?
In our case the relative plays the part of an adjective which defines "a furtive eye".

If you put a comma, isn't there a possible misunderstanding with "ce qui".(which= the fact that...)
Thank you in advance


----------



## radagasty

Well... it seems natural to me that there should only be one possible sort of 'furtive eye' in a given context. If it were possible to cast a furtive eye capable of apprehending the entire meaning, there would be no point in casting one that didn't. That's why I feel that the relative clause in this instance should be non-restrictive. However, I do accept that it is grammatically possible to have a restrictive clause here, and I would not, having given it more thought, consider it wrong.

In determining whether there should be a comma, though, the principal consideration is whether the relative clause is intended to be restrictive or non-restrictive. I do understand your concern about a possible misinterpretation, but even with a comma, I think the context makes clear the meaning of the sentence.

That said, I have to admit that I am not completely convinced by my argument above (perhaps about 90% so), so I am willing to entertain a rebuttal, if one is forthcoming.


----------



## Steven T

Cleare said:


> Hi,
> I'm completely fogged by the phrase:
> 
> ... j'en avais eu un aperçu en y jetant un oeil furtif *qui *avait pu saisir quelques mots sans en comprendre le sens exact.
> 
> My ideas:
> 1. ...by casting a furtive eye over and *it* could get some words without understanding...
> 
> 2. by casting a furtive eye over it*, which* could get some words without understanding....
> 
> 3. by casting a furtive eye over it *what* could get some words without understanding...
> 
> Thanks in advance!


 
I had a sense of it by a furtive glimpse whereby I had been able to catch a few words without comprehending the exact meaning. (very rough)


----------



## quinoa

Cleare said:


> Hi,
> I'm completely fogged by the phrase:
> 
> ... j'en avais eu un aperçu en y jetant un oeil furtif *qui *avait pu saisir quelques mots sans en comprendre le sens exact.
> 
> My ideas:
> 1. ...by casting a furtive eye over and *it* could get some words without understanding...
> 
> 2. by casting a furtive eye over it*, which* could get some words without understanding....
> 
> 3. by casting a furtive eye over it *what* could get some words without understanding...
> 
> Thanks in advance!


 

I've just realized I've let the last example pass.
But the one with _*what*_ seems impossible.


----------



## Cleare

Steven T said:


> I had a sense of it by a furtive glimpse whereby I had been able to catch a few words without comprehending the exact meaning. (very rough)


 

Thank you, Sreven, for your idea!
very helpful!!
I had a sense of it by a furtive glimpse catching a few words without comprehending their real meanings.


----------

