# FR: Hedgehogs have spines that prick



## earthmerlin

Bonjour. I think I've got this right but would like confirmation, especially regarding the underlined words. Does, 'Hedgehogs have spines that prick' translate as, 'Les hérissons ont de piquants qui piquent'? Merci.


----------



## Merkurius

Bonjour. 
It is not right to use ''de'' there, because you don't have  quantity and it is not just a preposition. You would rather say 'Les  hérissons ont des piquants qui piquent' You have avoir + de + les =  avoir des. But it is correct to use 'qui' because it is the spines that  prick.
Hope it helps.


----------



## truffe2miel

You're right, except that spine translates as "épines" (which really are only hard and compact hairs, and no spines at all). 
So you'd say: "Les hérissons ont des épines qui piquent". 
In a more fluent Frenche, you'd just say "Les hérissons ont des épines piquantes". ("qui piquent" is simply replaced by an adjective).


----------



## jann

Merkurius said:


> You have avoir + de + les =  avoir des.


Des is definitely the article we need here, but the reason you have suggested is not quite right. 

It's true that the preposition _de_ combines with the definite article _les_ to give _des_... and when it does, it means "of/from the."  That's not what's going on here -- because there is no preposition _de_, and no idea about "of" or "from."  The base expression is simply _avoir X_ = "to have X," with no _de_.

So actually, this "des" is the indefinite plural article.  It's confusing, because it looks exactly like "de + les"... but it's a totally different word with a different meaning and different grammar.

Let's look at the singular version (which is not biologically accurate ). If hedgehogs had only one prickly spine, we would use the singular indefinite article in English and in French (a/an, un/une):  "Hedgehogs have *a* spine that pricks." = _Les hérissons ont *une* épine piquante. _

Then when we switch to plural, we don't need an article in English, because English has no indefinite plural article.  But French does, and you can't omit it.  The plural of _un/une_ is _des_: "Hedgehogs have *ø* spines that prick." = _Les hérissons ont *des* épines piquantes. _

No de + les at all here.


----------



## Merkurius

Bien sûr c'est comme ça! Je suis désolé.


----------



## TitTornade

Bonsoir,
Les roses ont des épines.
Les hérissons ont des piquants.


----------



## earthmerlin

TitTornade said:


> Bonsoir,
> Les roses ont des épines.
> Les hérissons ont des piquants.



Yes, thanks. 'Piquants' is the word used in the French children's book I have.


----------



## timboleicester

Pierre Déom auteur de La Hullotte dans son journal no.77 entièrement consacré à l'hérisson se sert du mot "épine" ainsi que "piquant" tout au long de l'article.


----------



## truffe2miel

Anybody who hears "les épines du hérisson" would understand what you mean. "Les piquants du hérisson" is more a childish way of describing these spines, so unusual among adults.


----------



## Fred_C

truffe2miel said:


> "Les piquants du hérisson" is more a childish way of describing these spines, so unusual among adults.



Je ne suis pas du tout d’accord. Je ne trouve rien d’enfantin à l’emploi du mot piquant. Le mot piquant est enfantin s’il sert à décrire des épines de rose, des échardes de bois ou des aiguilles de pin, mais pas s’il sert à décrire des piquants de hérisson. 
Le TLFI définit d’ailleurs ainsi le hérisson : «Petit animal au museau pointu, […] dont le dos est couvert de longs _*piquants*_ […]»


----------



## truffe2miel

C'est une notion relativement subjective, quoiqu'il en soit, puisqu'on peut dire les deux. Je n'ai jusqu'ici rencontré le terme "piquant" appliqué au hérisson que dans des chansons / livres pour enfants, d'où peut-être mon association trop hâtive avec le monde de l'enfance. 
Après une rapide recherche, un autre dictionnaire en ligne donne aussi " (zoologie) mammifère insectivore couvert de piquants pouvant se rouler en boule en cas de danger". 

Je me suis donc trompée, il n'y a pas de sous-entendu enfantin dans ce terme. Avec mes excuses à l'auteur du post !


----------



## earthmerlin

truffe2miel said:


> Anybody who hears "les épines du hérisson" would understand what you mean. "Les piquants du hérisson" is more a childish way of describing these spines, so unusual among adults.



I did not doubt the others' posts regarding 'épines'. I'm glad to know the subtleties of these 2 words & now it makes sense why 'piquants' is used in the book I have--it's for children!


----------



## Maître Capello

truffe2miel said:


> Anybody who hears "les épines du hérisson" would understand what you mean. "Les piquants du hérisson" is more a childish way of describing these spines, so unusual among adults.


 Like Fred_C, I strongly disagree with you. _P__iquants_ is definitely the general word used to describe hedgehog spines.

_Les hérissons ont des piquants qui piquent._

That being said, note  that, actually, those are “quills” or _poils_ in French. See also this thread on the Français Seulement forum.

_Les hérissons ont des poils qui piquent._


----------



## truffe2miel

Maître Capello said:


> Like Fred_C, I strongly disagree with you. _P__iquants_ is definitely the general word used to describe hedgehog spines.
> 
> _Les hérissons ont des piquants qui piquent._


Yes, this is what Fred_C explained in one of the latest posts, citing a dictionary as proof - so I already had to correct my opinion  Though it still has this feel of a children story to me, I'm now aware that it is only a subjective feeling, nothing I could declare rationally. 



Maître Capello said:


> That being said, note  that, actually, those are “quills” or _poils_ in French. See also this thread on the Français Seulement forum.
> 
> _Les hérissons ont des poils qui piquent._


Indeed, and I pointed it out too - at least one thing I did understand right


----------



## timboleicester

Isn't that funny? Porcupines and hedgehogs form their "sharp needle things" in the same way but we don't say quills for the latter but we do for the former.


----------

