# FR: I have been at school



## tortue_magique

I have been at school and it's very boring;

translation please!

merci beaucoup


----------



## fetchezlavache

je suis allé(e) à l'école (en classe) et je me suis beaucoup ennuyé(e)


----------



## zinc

tortue_magique said:
			
		

> I have been at school and it's very boring


 To me this seems like the present tense, not passé composé. "I have been at school" suggests I am still at school. So I would say something like "Je suis en classe et je m'ennuie."


----------



## timpeac

I don´t see why you think the use of the perfect tense in English should relate to the present tense in French - I think you could be mixing this up with "depuis" phrases "Je suis en classe depuis 3 heures" (et je le suis encore).

Here there is no time given, and so you would normally assume the action is over ((s)he is back home). If not, why would she not have said "I am in school..etc"?

Anyhow, I would question why we are using aller to translate "I have been" -

Why not "J´ai été en classe et je me suis beaucoup ennuyé(e)?"


----------



## OlivierG

The phrase "J'ai été en classe et je me suis beaucoup ennuyé" is not correct in French. The expression "j'ai été" instead of "je suis allé" is often used in colloquial conversation, but it's definitely a mistake.
You can use "j'ai été" for something that defines your state (j'ai été malade, j'ai été malin, j'ai été étonné, j'ai été le premier à faire ceci...) but not for a place where you have been to (j'ai été en Espagne, j'ai été à la boulangerie )

Thus, what wrote Fetchezlavache remains the best solution:
"Je suis allé(e) en classe et je me suis beaucoup ennuyé(e)".


----------



## timpeac

Hi OlivierG - I was aware that "j'ai été" was colloquial for "je suis allé" but the original phrase was "I have been" not "I have gone" or "I went". So why can´t you translate "I have been in class" by "j´ai été en classe" or is it just a gut-reaction type of thing? Thanks.

By the way, I often see you French speakers (as opposed to the Spanish speakers etc) talk of "mistakes" and "abusif". I think that it is something that must be quite engrained into the French-speaking psyche that there is a "right" and a "wrong" usage (thus your grammar books such as "le bon usage" I suppose). I agree that any terms like this should be avoided by those of us that are writing and taking exams - but personally I am very interested in hearing this type of usage.
You hear "j´ai été" all the time for "je suis allé" - this is not a mistake since those saying it are deliberately doing so. It would help people like me if you could advert that this is colloquial, maybe very so, but calling it a mistake is not helpful - it´s just that M Grevisse wouldn´t like it!!


----------



## zinc

timpeac said:
			
		

> I don´t see why you think the use of the perfect tense in English should relate to the present tense in French -


 Is "have been" the perfect tense in English?  Truly I am not sure. I thought it was "I was in school". Anyway, to answer your question, here are some examples: "I have been writing for three hours" and "I have been a father for five years" or "I have been employed for ten years" are all present tense statements. I would use the present tense to translate all of them in French. As for the second part of the sentence, "it's very boring", well, I did wag a lot of grammar classes when I was at school, but "it is" appears to be the present tense to me.


----------



## OlivierG

To timepeak:
I don't know what I can answer. Yes, "I have been" means litterally "J'ai été". But translation is not just a matter of words.
A mistake remains a mistake, it's not at all a gut reaction or something of this kind. In colloquial speech, some expressions are not proper French, even if said by French speakers, and I call them "mistakes". It's not because an error is frequently made that it becomes the "right" way of speaking.
Because, yes, there is a "right" and "wrong" usage. One is proper French, the other is not. It's as simple as that.
As I said, "j'ai été" is colloquial, often used, but it's "bad" French (and if you add "au coiffeur", it becomes worse). As many people on this forum are learning French, I think it was important to report it.

And, by the way, we, French haven't the exclusiveness of "bon usage":
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html


----------



## timpeac

zinc said:
			
		

> Is "have been" the perfect tense in English?  Truly I am not sure. I thought it was "I was in school". Anyway, to answer your question, here are some examples: "I have been writing for three hours" and "I have been a father for five years" or "I have been employed for ten years" are all present tense statements. I would use the present tense to translate all of them in French. As for the second part of the sentence, "it's very boring", well, I did wag a lot of grammar classes when I was at school, but "it is" appears to be the present tense to me.


 
Yes, "have been" is the perfect tense in English. "was" is preterite or imperfect.

In all your examples you have for an amount of time, and yes they are translated into French with the present. If you have no "for x amount of time" then if you use the perfect tense, then you use this in French too.

Yes, the second part of the sentence is in th present tense - but I think would have be clearer in the perfect tense too, but equally so in French, so I would agree you could translate this part as the present. The first half is definitely perfect though.



			
				OlivierG said:
			
		

> To timepeak:
> 
> Because, yes, there is a "right" and "wrong" usage. One is proper French, the other is not. It's as simple as that.


 
But according to who? That´s my point. Just because an old body such as l´académie française says something is "right" and "wrong" doesn´t really affect what people do or say. And languages do evolve over time, or you´d be speaking Latin, and I´d be speaking Germanic or something like that!!

I think my point is that you can have colloquial grammar in the same way you can have colloquial vocab, it does make it´s use a mistake. Je m´en fous might be much more colloquial than je m´en fiche or je m´en fais but you wouldn´t call them a mistake - just of varying degrees of colloquialism. I think it´s important to do the same with grammar, otherwise you don´t differentiate between "j´ai été en Espagne" which is colloquial and "je suis été en Espagne" which is a mistake!! As you say, however, it is important to highlight the level of colloquialism to non-natives.


----------



## timpeac

Although we´re getting a bit bogged down by whether we should describe colloquial grammar as a mistake or not, and specifically if replacing "je suis allé" by "j´ai été" is a mistake -
could someone explain this question please -

Why would you translate "I have been in class" (eg the perfect of to be) by "je suis allé en classe" (eg the perfect of aller to go) in this instance. This is really what I don´t get. You wouldn´t translate "I am in class" by "je vais en classe"!!


----------



## OlivierG

timpeac said:
			
		

> But according to who? That´s my point. Just because an old body such as l´académie française says something is "right" and "wrong" doesn´t really affect what people do or say. And languages do evolve over time, or you´d be speaking Latin, and I´d be speaking Germanic or something like that!!


According to me. I'm not a linguist, I just try to speak French as I have been told when I was young. When I said "des [z'] haricots", my parents and my teachers told me it was an "h aspiré", and that I must avoid the "liaison". In the same way, when I said "j'ai été au coiffeur", I was told to say "Je suis allé chez le coiffeur" instead. 


> I think my point is that you can have colloquial grammar in the same way you can have colloquial vocab, it does make it´s use a mistake. Je m´en fous might be much more colloquial than je m´en fiche or je m´en fais but you wouldn´t call them a mistake - just of varying degrees of colloquialism. I think it´s important to do the same with grammar, otherwise you don´t differentiate between "j´ai été en Espagne" which is colloquial and "je suis été en Espagne" which is a mistake!!


How many people have to say it this way for considering it no more as a mistake, but as "colloquial grammar"?
I often hear people misusing the tenses. For example, you could hear "Il faut que je suis là-bas à trois heures". Is it colloquial grammar, or a mistake?
And, as you remarked:
-  I wouldn't tell "je m'en fous" is a mistake, because "s'en foutre" has a meaning of its own in colloquial language. It's slang.
- I differentiate between  "j'ai été en Espagne" which is a mistake often used in colloquial speech, as I noticed, and "je suis été en Espagne", which is a mistake never used in colloquial speech. And between the two, "J'ai allé en Espagne", which is a mistake you could hear from time to time. 

But I don't want to upset you. Let's admit there is no "right" way to speak French, and as soon as an expression is used, it becomes as "good" French as any other one. 
So I'd say "J'ai été en Espagne" is right but colloquial, but if you tell "J'ai été au marchand de légumes pour acheter des [z']haricots" to your teacher, you might get some hits of ruler on your fingers.


----------



## timpeac

OlivierG said:
			
		

> But I don't want to upset you. Let's admit there is no "right" way to speak French, and as soon as an expression is used, it becomes as "good" French as any other one.
> So I'd say "J'ai été en Espagne" is right but colloquial, but if you tell "J'ai été au marchand de légumes pour acheter des [z']haricots" to your teacher, you might get some hits of ruler on your fingers.


 
LOL I´m not upset - I´m enjoying the healthy debate!!  I do completely understand your point of view. I think that whether we consider this sort of thing a mistake or not is always going to come down to personal opinion - there is no right or wrong answer.

That said I am still confused as to why we are translating "I have been" by "je suis allé" in the first place. The English was never "I went to school". I was suggesting "j´ai été" as a translation for "I have been" not for "I have gone" - do you see what I mean? It was this that I was asking if it was gut reaction, not whether you should replace "je suis allé" by "j´ai été". I just can´t see how "j´ai été" can be incorrect translation for "i have been" here  x3!!


----------



## OlivierG

timpeac said:
			
		

> Although we're getting a bit bogged down by whether we should describe colloquial grammar as a mistake or not, and specifically if replacing "je suis allé" by "j'ai été" is a mistake -
> could someone explain this question please -
> 
> Why would you translate "I have been in class" (eg the perfect of to be) by "je suis allé en classe" (eg the perfect of aller to go) in this instance. This is really what I don't get. You wouldn't translate "I am in class" by "je vais en classe"!!


The misteries of French language... We'll wait for the advice of a linguist to explain why it is used that way.
What I can say is: "hier soir, je suis allé au cinema", it means you went to the theater, *and viewed a movie*, and not you spent your evening going to the theater then coming back home immediately.
You could also say "Je suis au cinéma" or "j'étais au cinema" too. But "avoir été" has its own meaning ("on ne peut pas être et avoir été") and I have been taught not to use it for a place. Maybe I'm wrong, so other opinions would be welcome.


----------



## Gil

timpeac said:
			
		

> As you say, however, it is important to highlight the level of colloquialism to non-natives.


and natives alike.  What, for me, is a real mistake, is mixing levels of language.  
Si je veux employer un style relevé et que je farcis mon texte d'expressions argotiques ou familières, je me ridiculise.
Par contre, si je tutoies quelqu'un, je m'autorise à employer le style familier et à dire "J'ai été..." ou lieu de "Je suis allé" et je suis en bonne compagnie (tiré du Trésor de la langue française):

d) [Aux temps passés, dans le style dir. et le lang. fam. être, suivi d'un compl. ou d'un adv. de lieu, s'emploie comme substitut de aller] Il a été trop loin; elle a été hier au bal; Pierre a été à la porte et l'a ouverte. J'avais été au temple avec ma mère; puis, à la sortie, je l'avais laissée (LACRETELLE, Silbermann, 1922, p. 32).  Le cirque...  Tiens!... tu fais bien de me le dire!... C'est justement là que j'allais te mener...  J'm'en doutais, et j'y ai été trois fois... (GYP, Souv. pte fille, 1928, p. 260) :

46. ... on a été manger quelque chose à la Reine des Rascasses, une maison très distinguée; après, on est retourné au Bar du Cygne et de la Galère, après... je ne me rappelle plus. On a été partout; au Pavé d'amour, bien sûr.
MILLE, Barnavaux, 1908, p. 55.
[Souvent sans expression du lieu, suivi d'un inf.] Le Cardinal. Prenez garde à Lorenzo, duc. Il a été demander ce soir à l'évêque de Marzi la permission d'avoir des chevaux de poste cette nuit (MUSSET, Lorenzaccio, 1834, IV, 10, p. 240). Autrefois je barbouillais du papier avec mes filles, Atala, Blanca, Cimodocée; chimères qui ont été chercher ailleurs la jeunesse (CHATEAUBR., Rancé, 1844, p. VIII). La nourrice. La nuit! C'était la nuit! Et tu veux me faire croire que tu as été te promener, menteuse! D'où viens-tu? (ANOUIL., Antig., 1946, p. 139). Cf. ex. 46.
[Avec en exprimant le lieu d'où l'on part] Emploi abs. Les groupes murmurèrent et s'en furent (ADAM, Enf. Aust., 1902, p. 159). Il courba le dos, et s'en fut (BERNANOS, Soleil Satan, 1926, p. 190).
Rem. Cf. en pron. II B 2 d, rem. sur s'en aller.


----------



## fetchezlavache

timpeac said:
			
		

> I just can´t see how "j´ai été" can be incorrect translation for "i have been" here  x3!!




i'm agreeing with olivier on almost all his posts, so i won't bore you with my opinion, which would mainly repeat his. the answer to the above question is : _j'ai été_ is wrong. it is a mistaken usage of french. millions of people use it, that doesn't prove that it is the way french should be spoken.

_i use it myself_. in 'language parlé' i ask my daughter 't'as été à l'école à pieds ou en bus aujourd'hui ?'.. but here, on this forum, it's out of the question that i should use that expression in answering a question, particularly as i don't know the poster and the lever of french they required in their translation.

in other occurences, but seldom i confess, i use 'je suis allée'. for instance 't'es allée promener le chien' ? for some reason i can't say 't'as été promener le chien'.

complicated huh..

[…]


----------



## Cath.S.

> i'm agreeing with olivier on almost all his posts, so i won't bore you with my opinion


I agree with Timpeac on almost all his posts, so i won't etc. 
Mais j'ajouterai que ce sont les classes économiquement dominantes qui décident du "bon" usage de la langue, _and guess what_, c'est le leur!


----------



## Glat64

Wow, my head is spinning after that. Can anyone please give me a sentence/sentences where you can use.. J'ai été ?

J'ai été occupé par example ?

Merci


----------



## Viobi

Yes, or, if you want "avoir été+past participle, any passive voice in the _passé composé _will do:
*
J'ai été nommé directeur.
La banque a été dévalisée.
*

Or, even if some object obstinately on page 1:

*Ils s'en furent vers Paris.* (= Ils s'en allèrent...) literary, être replaces aller in the _passé simple _in the phrase "s'en aller".

*Elle était très mal ce matin, on a envoyé chercher le docteur.*(=elle allait très mal, s.A."se trouver mal", to faint)

*J'ai été à Rome.* Colloquial and correct, even though some cringe when they hear it. It exists so much in correct French that some grammarians and lexicographers even tried for centuries to draw a semantic line between the two, arguing that "Il est allé à Rome" refers only to the trip to Rome (as in "he went to Rome"), whereas "Il a été à Rome" means he's actually come back(as in "he's been to Rome"). Here's an excerpt from Littré:


> Être se dit pour aller, quand on est allé dans un  lieu et qu'on en est revenu ; ce qui fait voir qu'en ce sens être a  d'abord gardé sa signification naturelle ; il est allé à Rome exprime  simplement qu'il a fait le voyage de Rome, sans dire s'il est de  retour ; il a été à Rome exprime qu'il est revenu ; être pour aller ne  s'emploie qu'aux temps passés : je fus, j'ai été, j'aurai été, j'aurais  été, je fusse, ayant été. J'ai été premièrement tout contre l'arsenal au bout du faubourg St-Germain, du faubourg St-Germain au fond du Marais. [Molière, _L'amour médecin_]  C'est  abusivement qu'on emploie être pour aller en d'autres circonstances ;  cependant, dans l'usage vulgaire, on se sert souvent de je fus et j'ai  été au sens d'aller avec un infinitif suivant ; et on en trouve des  exemples dans d'excellents auteurs et dans de très anciens textes. Il fut recevoir le corps de son frère jusqu'à Pavie ; son frère n'avait été qu'une journée au-devant de lui. [D'ablancourt, _Tacite, 134_]



Grévisse adds:


> "_Avoir été _prédomine dans l'usage familier et _être allé _dans l'usage soigné."
> 
> "Ces emplois d'_être _pour _aller _remontent aux origines de la langue et même au latin"


More  here.

_Aller _and _être _are closely bound. There isn't one and only one way of saying things in any given language, not even in French. And I definitely stand on the rigid side of French usage...


Note: the spelling is "ex*e*mple", in French.


----------



## LemonBlue

I actually agree with the one poster who said the best translation uses the present tense: "Je suis à l'école et je m'ennuie." 

However, if you wanted to say that you went to school some day in the past and that you were bored to death that particular day, then "je suis allé à l'école et je me suis ennuyé" would work perfectly. Why? Well, in the statement of "I've been at school," there is a sense that you are still there even though you arrived at an earlier time. 

Just my two cents.

Edit: Actually, now that I've ruminated on it, what makes me think that my hypothesis is correct is the proposition of "at." If the sentence was "I've been to school" as opposed to "I've been at school", the sentence would be drastically different. The former suggests movement; the latter a condition of being. You cannot say "I'm to school." If the sentence in question were "I've been TO school, then using a past tense in French would be possible like "j'allais à l'école dans le temps."

Hrm... I'm actually confusing myself now, but I think I'm somewhere near the mark. I think more context could be helpful. The "and it's boring" also makes me think that the speaker is still at school.


----------

