# FR: de/des + adjectif + nom au pluriel



## tobywashere

If adjectives come before the noun [excellent, bon etc.], do you use de [d'] or des?

*Moderator note:* Multiple threads merged to create this one. See also this thread discussing exceptions to the standard rule. If you are interested in the appropriate article before singular nouns, see FR: un/de/du + adjectif + nom au singulier.


----------



## sioban

d' / de
Il a eu d'excellentes notes.
Elle a fait de beaux enfants.
Il a de bonnes manières.


----------



## lilliputthegreat

Bon soir tout le monde;

J'ai cru que quand un nom est écrit dans la forme plurielle, il faut que l'article (de, la, le, etc...) corresponde en nature au nom.  
Par exemple: La phrase « _La petite fille » _devient « _Les petites filles_ » dans sa forme plurielle.  

Donc, pourquoi est-ce que les phrases suivantes (extrait d'une nouvelle) ne se conforment pas en plus?  _(L’article en question est en caractères gras)_

(1) Sinon, nous nous exposons à *de* graves désillusions.
(2) Nous avons pris *de* nouvelles dispositions […]. 

J’ai hâte de vous lire.


----------



## DearPrudence

Bonsoir

Ici, c'est un cas un peu particulier car il s'agit d'un *adjectif + nom*
Sans l'adjectif, on aurait eu :
(1) Sinon, nous nous exposons à *des* désillusions.
(2) Nous avons pris *des* dispositions […].

Mais avec l'article "les", cela ne change pas :
*Les* élèves arrivent
*Les* nouveaux élèves arrivent

*Des* élèves arrivent.
*De* nouveaux élèves arrivent.

Does it help?


----------



## pieanne

Julz said:
			
		

> J'ai acheté aussi de nouveaux vêtements (no "des" if there is a plural adjective )


But I don't see anything wrong with "de*s* nouveaux vêtements". I'm afraid that, to me at least, it even sounds better than "de ..."


----------



## pheelineerie

Directly quoted from the _Nouvelle Grammaire du Français_ de la Sorbonne:

Lorsque le nom pluriel est précédé d'un adjectif, _des_ est remplacé par _de_.

Comparez:

J'ai acheté *des* roses.
J'ai acheté *de jolies* roses.

Ce jeune pianiste a fait *des* progrès.
Ce jeune pianiste a fait *de grands* progrès.

Mais l'article est conservé lorsque le groupe adjectif + nom est considéré comme un nom composé.

Ex: des petits pois, des jeunes gens, des petites annonces, des grands magasins, des petites filles, des petites cuillères, des petits pains, des gros mots, etc.

Also, 
Résultats *1* - *10* sur un total d'environ *642* pour *"des nouveaux vêtements"*. 
Résultats *1* - *10* sur un total d'environ *67 600* pour *"de nouveaux vêtements"*. 

Still, I don't think it's that important when speaking. Lots of French speakers don't seem to bother with this rule!


----------



## pieanne

I don't contest that... But I still don't agree!

"Ils ont fait de grands progrès" sounds perfectly OK to my ears  , but "de jolies roses" doesn't.
I'd say "il n'y avait pas de jolies roses chez la fleuriste" = none
but "j'ai acheté des jolies roses" = some/a few...

Yet, I can't explain why...


----------



## Julz

Thank you pheelineerie for that clarification. Well I thought that strictly speaking it would be "de nouveaux vetements", but not really learning grammar in a technical sense, I was unsure. Furthermore, when speaking and always saying "des" anyway (I think for ease and flow of speech), it increases the confusion.
Thanks also for providing the results  It's hard to know the grammar rules strictly when you don't learn it as a foreign language 

Edit: In response to pieanne, I know where you are coming from. I guess it's just for ease of speech, or better flow?


----------



## DearPrudence

pheelineerie said:


> Directly quoted from the _Nouvelle Grammaire du Français_ de la Sorbonne:
> 
> Lorsque le nom pluriel est précédé d'un adjectif, _des_ est remplacé par _de_.


I entirely agree with pheelineerie. It's the way I've been taught and I had been a bit distressed to hear things like "des nouvelles industries". Fortunately I was really happy to see that it was not correct. I think it's just easier as there is a rule and no exception.



pheelineerie said:


> Still, I don't think it's that important when speaking. Lots of French speakers don't seem to bother with this rule!


Agreed once more.
I guess "des jolies roses" is becoming very common but is not grammatically correct for the moment though it's commonly used.
I must say that since I've read the rule once again I feel better using "de", knowing that I'm right.
Here it what I also found in my Bescherelle.
At least it's easier for foreigners and natives as well as ears have nothing to do here ...


----------



## francais_espanol

Bonjour

« il existe déjà des expériences probantes où des appuis à des institutions démunies ont donné _*de* bons résultats ...»_

OU

« il existe déjà des expériences probantes où des appuis à des institutions démunies ont donné_ *des* bons résultats_ ... »

_de bons_ résultats ou _des bons_ résultats?

Je vous remercie beaucoup de m'éclairer.


----------



## Daklok

Hi,
Both can be said, but _de _is more correct in that case (I still can't find a rule for it  though -_-).


----------



## french4beth

Found this on french.about.com:


> 4. When the plural indefinite or partitive article is used with an adjective that precedes a noun, _des_ changes to _de_.
> 
> J'ai des amis. - J'ai de jeunes amis.
> 
> J'ai mangé des tomates. - J'ai mangé de bonnes tomates.


----------



## born in newyork

*La vie ne va pas sans de grands oublis. 		*

A quote from Balzac (La Cousine Bette). 

My question to the French speakers is:

1) why isn't it "des" grands oublis?

2) could we say the same thing without "de"? that is: "La vie ne vas pas sans grands oublis."


----------



## Pikrass

2) _"La vie ne va pas sans grands oublis."_ is possible.  But personally I prefer _"La vie ne va pas sans de grands oublis"._

For the first question... I don't know why...


----------



## DearPrudence

For "de" instead of "des", quite simple:
when there is an adjective before the noun, "des" becomes "de":

*"des élèves sont arrivés"
 "des nouveaux élèves" *is not correct*
-> "de nouveaux élèves"* 

But
*"des chiens"
"des chiens noirs"
"de petits chiens (noirs)"  *


----------



## AllyApple

I'm confused by a phrase I've read - it says 'tu as toujours de beaux yeux'.  Why is it 'de' and not 'des' with the eyes being plural?


----------



## mnewcomb71

"Des" becomes "de" when the adjective precedes its antecedent.


----------



## DearPrudence

When a plural noun is qualified & preceded by an adjective, then "des" => "de" basically:
*"Tu as des yeux immenses"
"Tu as des** de beaux yeux"*


----------



## pouet

You can say both. "de" or "des" are grammatically correct in this case.
In general,  you can use "de" when it's plural if the adjective is before the name, like 
"on mange de bons fruits en été", or "il a de grandes oreilles", 
but not in any case, I believe there is no grammar rule about it...
best


----------



## Maître Capello

By the way please note that “Voici de*s* belles roses” is correct as well, although not as formal as “Voici de belles roses”.


----------



## tilt

I'd never say _Voici de*s* belles roses_, it sounds very odd to me, and not only in formal language.


----------



## Maître Capello

It is indeed correct. Here is what _Le Bon Usage_ says:





> *Au pluriel,* _des_ est remplacé par _de_ (_de bons fruits_) ordinairement dans la langue écrite et aussi dans la langue parlée de type soigné. Mais _des_ (qui n'est pas récent : cf. Hist.) prévaut dans la langue parlée et se répand dans la langue écrite.


----------



## itka

Anyway, if you say :
_"J'ai acheté des belles roses"_
it would still be perceived as a mistake.
Or course, you'll be understood but you'd be looking like a person who doesn't know the right grammar...


----------



## Maître Capello

Let me disagree with you… It is indeed less elegant than _de belles roses_ but not a mistake nor perceived as such – at least in Eastern France and Switzerland.

Moreover _des belles roses_ seems more natural in:
_Une belle rose, c'est bien ; des belles roses, c'est mieux !_
(when you want to stress that you have *several* roses rather than *beautiful* ones…)


----------



## moiVendremoi

Je passe beaucoup d'heures avec mes études pour obtenir des bons points.

I used "des" in the sentence to describe what i got ("bon points" or "good grades"). is there a rule which obtenir is followed by? perhaps it is like beaucoup where it is only followed by "DE" and nothing else?


----------



## jann

It has nothing to do with _obtenir_ and everything to do with the adjective _bon_ that precedes _points_.

[…]


----------



## itka

Je passe beaucoup de temps à mes études/à étudier pour obtenir des bons points.

Mind ! Here, the words "bons points" is like "one word". It is not perceived as an adjective + noun... So we would say : *des* bons points.

... but are you really meaning "bon point"... or something else ?
This word is usually used to mean a piece of paper with a nice picture that the teacher gives to a good young pupil, at the elementary school...

I assume you mean "bonnes notes"... So, your sentence becomes :
_"Je passe beaucoup de temps à étudier pour obtenir *de* bonnes notes".
_
*de *: according to the rule jann gave you.


----------



## davideguada

Bonjour,

est-ce quelqu'un peut m'expliquer quand utiliser "_des_" et quand "_de+pluriel_"

par ex

_Assurez-vous qu'ils veuillent _apprendre et qu'ils aient le courage d'affronter *des/de* nouvelles situations

Merci


----------



## ancel

Je ne sais pas exactement mais instinctivement je mets De nouvelles situations, et non pas Des nouvelles. Peut-être à l'oreille, ça me semble plus évident.


----------



## VanOo

Hum...
Je pense que le problème vient en fait de 'nouveau'.

We cannot say:
'Découvrir de anciennes situations'.
But:
'Découvrir des anciennes situations'.

Anyway, you can use 'des'.

'De' is better but 'des nouvelles situations' is not wrong.

I hope I could help you.


----------



## jann

You might be interested in section A.5 of this article, « Du, De La, Des: Expressing Quantities in French »


----------



## Cracker Jack

de nouvelles situations
d'anciennes situations
d'autres situations

If the partitive particle de is followed by adjective, even if it is in plural form, it should always be de and not des.  However, if the adjective that follows starts with a vowel, the de should be contracted to d'.


----------



## duhme

_des_ becomes _de_ when the adjective precedes the noun.


*des *fleurs, mais *de* belles fleurs.


----------



## çamegonfle

> "des" becomes "de" when the adjective is before a plural noun:
> *"J'ai des vêtements"
> "J'ai de beaux vêtements"*


 
I think it is important to precise that "Tu as des beaux vêtements" is also possible: "Tu as de beaux vêtements", that's something that you nearly only write.


----------



## LandSurveyor

Salut tout le monde!

Je pense que la bonne construction est "passer *de* bonnes vacances", par exemple, après les vacances, je pourrais dire à un collègue, "j'espère que tu as passé *de* bonnes vacances".

Le truc est que je ne comprends pas pourquoi c'est "passer *de*" et pas "passer *des*" bonnes vacances.  Les vacances sont pluriels, n'est-ce pas? Est-ce qu'il y a quelqu'un qui peut éclairer ma laterne?

Merci d'avance!


----------



## DearPrudence

Hello

When a plural noun is preceded by an adjective, "des" becomes "de".
*"J'ai mangé des champignons (blancs)"
"J'ai mangé de gros champignons"*

Supposedly, in colloquial language, you can say "des", but that's not what my grammar says 

I hope it's clearer


----------



## mieumieu

Je veux juste clarifier, est-ce qu'on dit "il a des bonnes lignes" ou "il a de bonnes lignes". Mon camarade pense que quand il y a un adjectif if faut dire "de" et pas "des".


----------



## marget

Both are possible.  I think that purists prefer de bonnes lignes.


----------



## Punky Zoé

Not only the purists do , "des bonnes lignes" isn't totally incorrect but probably used in limited contexts. IMHO, I would rather say "de *belles *lignes", what are you talking about?


----------



## marget

I also say de belles lignes, but I think that based on the rule as described in grammar books these days, the usage is changing and that many people consider *des* (as well as de, of course) to be perfectly correct in front of plural adjectives that precede the noun. I probably misused the term "purists".


----------



## Tim~!

Je m'intéresse à des choses irregulières ou inattendues quand j'apprends de nouvelles langues.

Une de ces choses en le français est que le forme 'des' se transforme en 'de' lorsque l'on ajoute un adjectif devant le nom.  Par exemple, dans ma première phrase j'ai écrit "_de_ nouvelles langues."  Sans l'adjectif 'nouvelles' j'aurais mis "_des_ langues."

Je voudrais en savoir plus.

Est-ce que ça fonctionne comme ça exclusivement si l'adjectif précède le nom, mais pas s'il le suit?

J'ai lu recemment dans "L'histoire de la langue française" de Mireille Huchon que l'Académie officialisa cette règle, mais l'auteur ne le mentionne que dans une phrase, sans en donner plus de renseignements.

Est-ce qu'il y a une histoire intéressante derrière ce changement (comme est le cas pour, par exemple, l'usage de l'article dans "l'on")?  Si oui, je voudrais en lire.

Merci


----------



## Moon Palace

Hello Tim, 

When you have an adjective which is in front of the noun, the indefinite article automatically becomes _de, _as shows the example found on this site: 



> J'ai des fleurs rouges / j'ai de jolies fleurs.


For more on these articles and their use, you can look here (see Section A5) 

Hope it helps.


----------



## CapnPrep

[...]



			
				Tim~! said:
			
		

> Est-ce qu'il y a une histoire intéressante derrière ce changement (comme est le cas pour, par exemple, l'usage de l'article dans "l'on")?


Sans doute, mais cela remonte à très loin et on manque de renseignements pour comprendre tous les aspects du développement de l'article partitif depuis l'ancien français. Grevisse (§584, a) fournit quelques éléments de réponse à ta question.


----------



## Tim~!

Thanks for the rapid response.

I understand _what _happens.  What interests me is _why_, whether there is a history behind it.

Is there any reason why "J'ai _des _fleurs" keeps its indefinite article when we postpone the adjective ("J'ai des fleurs rouges") but loses it once we decide to place an adjective in front ("J'ai _de_ jolies fleurs")?

I imagine that, for the Académie to authorise the change, there must be some logic or history behind it.

Or is it just one of those quirks that we have to learn, and which just happens "because"?

Thanks again 

[...]


----------



## Joelline

Tim,

I'm afraid that I can't give you a reason, but I can tell you that the "rule" has nothing to do with postponing adjectives.  The rule is that *des > de before a prenominal adjective:* 
J'ai _des _fleurs.
J'ai _des _fleurs rouges.
J'ai de jolies fleurs.
J'ai de jolies fleurs rouges.


----------



## Fred_C

Yes, but learners must perhaps know that this rule is just recommended, not really mandatory. (So they will not be puzzled when they see that sometimes, it is not applied)


----------



## Tim~!

Thank you.

I'll remember it as that then.  In the same way as "a preceding direct object requires an agreement on past participles", I'll add "_des_ changes to _de_ before a prenominal adjective" to my memory.

Thank you for articulating it for me, and also to those who took the time to respond and merge threads


----------



## mattdelm

Hi,

It is quite simple, some adjectives always come before nouns live bon, tres, grand (mostly the well used adjectives). But the other adjectives go after the noun (most of them).

Singuler:

un grand livre
un chat noir

Plural:

de bons resultats (plural adjective before noun)
des chats noirs (plural adjective after the noun)

I hope this makes Sense. For adjectives that are before the noun its always de. 

Mattdelm


----------



## Mikebo

Alors, je me trompe ou est-ce qu'il y a, en effet, une autre règle à prendre en compte?

A savoir, dans le cas où "de" s'utilise comme pure préposition, sans valeur partitive, n'est il pas vrai qu'on dit "des" et non pas "de"?

ex

Histoire et mécanisme des grands pouvoirs de l'état (titre d'un livre)
Union Chrétienne des Jeunes Gens du Sénégal


----------



## Fred_C

This is _*completely*_ different.
This "des" is the contraction of "de + les", the preposition followed by the_* definite*_ plural article.

We were talking about "des", the _*indefinite*_ plural article, with* no* preposition, that becomes "de" when an adjective follows.


----------



## thbruxelles

tobywashere said:


> If adjectives come before the noun [excellent, bon etc.], do you use de [d'] or des?


 
I am quite amazed that there are so many answers when we actually do not have any context or phrase. 
Depending on the situation we could have (for example)
des belles fleurs
de bien belles fleurs
les belles fleurs que l'on m'a offertes

The adjective comes before the noun though, right?


----------



## Mikebo

Fred_C said:


> This is _*completely*_ different.
> This "des" is the contraction of "de + les", the preposition followed by the_* definite*_ plural article.
> 
> We were talking about "des", the _*indefinite*_ plural article, with* no* preposition, that becomes "de" when an adjective follows.



The original question:


tobywashere said:


> If adjectives come before the noun [excellent, bon etc.], do you use de [d'] or des?



There is no mention of *definite* or *indefinite *(perhaps it was badly stated?)

It was the first reply that turned the conversation in that direction.

To answer the question fully, I felt it was necessary to make the distinction about de + les.


----------



## Tim~!

OK, a few days after (re-)starting this thread, I can answer my own question, thanks to this piece of academic research on the subject "Opposition Entre _De_ Et _Des _Devant Les Noms Précédés D'Epithète En Français."  (Thanks to itka for the link.)

I’ll summarise it here for others’ benefit, since it’s not the easiest thing to read as it’s written.



*From the paper*​
The researchers use 14,500 examples of the construction, taken from corpora dating from 1601 to 1986.

They confirm that both forms are used and suggest that it is linguistic "weight" which determines which of the two forms that people will choose.  "Weight" could be simplified as whether an adjective is heavy or light, lighter adjectives being associated with 'des'.

Going back to the introduction of the rule, they confirm that 'de' is used in 83.7% of the cases.  However, this frequency in the sixteenth century seems to have depended on the location of the writer, the sample showing a southern writer occasionally using 'des' (in 14% of cases) whilst a northern writer uses 'de' exclusively.

After the eighteenth century there is no longer any variation that can be attributed to location, usage being uniform in all areas of France.

The sample now concerns exclusively the later half of the twentieth century.  The researchers list four factors which determine which word one would choose. 

*First factor: The level of language to be used*
As we may suppose ourselves, usage of 'des' springs up more readily when the text in question is less official than, say, treaties and essays.  The peak is with online discussion forums like this one, where 'des' is used in around one third of instances.

In the more formal writing, 'de' is nearly always preferred. Where 'des' is used, the researchers note that it accompanies specific adjectives that one might call 'light'.  For example, they note that there are 617 uses of 'de' in academic texts against 30 of 'des'.  Of these 30, 23 occur when the adjective is _petit(e)s_.  _Petit_ is considered to be a 'light' adjective, and its presence caused the academic authors to deviate from their customary 'de' (used in 95% of cases) to 'des'.

Interestingly, there is one scenario in which 'des' greatly dominates.  It is used in about 85% of cases of _spoken_ French in the sample.

*Second factor: Liaison*
To get around contamination the researchers look only at samples which come from treaties.  

There were only 30 cases of 'des' being used and they noticed that 29 of them occurred where the noun concerned started with a consonant (the exception being _des grands z-auteurs_).  In other words, there was no liaison.  If words had a liaison, 'de' was always used, except in that one exception.

Their theory is that liaison causes the word to seem bigger, lengthier, 'heavier’.  As is usual with their findings, the lighter epithets take ‘des’ and the heavier ‘de’.  _Without_ liaison ‘de’ was used 86% of the time.  Words _with_ liaison (so heavier) saw ‘de’ used 92% of the time.

*Third factor: Accentuation*
Once an adjective is given more weight, uses of ‘des’ switch to ‘de’, in line with the central theory of this paper.

There are two ways of increasing the weight of an adjective.  One can either repeat it (“Je te fais de *gros gros* bisous”) or use a modifier (“Il a pris de *très* mauvaises habitudes”).

*Fourth factor: Grammatical gender*
The samples were tailored to correspond only to abstract nouns, in what the researchers called a bid to “éliminer autant que possible des facteurs sémantiques”.

Masculine adjectives can be shorter than their feminine equivalents.  In every sample that they looked at (newspapers, novels, magazines, online forums), masculine nouns stood a higher chance of being associated with ‘des’.  Of the sample 22% of masculine adjectives were preceded by ‘des’, compared to 8% of feminine forms.  Again, the procedure seems to be that we unknowingly opt for ‘des’ before lighter adjectives, and masculine adjectives are considered to be lighter than their feminine equivalents (since feminine forms often follow the formula “masculine adjective + some bit of information”). 


*Tim’s overall summary*​So the “rule” (optional though it may be) has been in place for several centuries.  At higher levels of French ‘de’ dominates.  As the formality of the work decreases, the prevalence of ‘des’ increases.  Nonetheless ‘de’ is still the more regularly used form.  The only exception is in speech, in which case ‘des’ is used in about 85% of cases.  (In this respect ‘des’ seems to map the English ‘gonna’.)

Even at formal levels ‘des’ makes an appearance with certain adjectives, just because they are so light linguistically that it’s hard to curtail the instinct of doing applying 'des' to them.

Light adjectives which would normally be fronted with ‘des’ can become heavier in a number of ways. 

1) When there is liaison between the adjective and the noun that it describes, the adjective becomes something heavier, owing to the increase in length.  

2) When an adjective is doubled or modified by an adverb, its linguistic weight is increased and popular usage turns what may have been ‘des’ into ‘de’.  

3) Finally an adjective that we subconsciously treat as light in its masculine form and to which we accord ‘des’ may fall under the heavier category when we use it in its feminine form.  Samples show that it is nearly three times as common to apply ‘des’ to the masculine adjective as it is to the feminine.

Really fascinating stuff


----------



## CapnPrep

Thanks for the summary, Tim~!



Tim~! said:


> *Second factor: Liaison*
> To get around contamination the researchers look only at samples which come from treaties treatises/essays.


The effect that the authors observed is very minor, but still surprising. But a much more significant factor (which they did not study, because it doesn't support their weight hypothesis) is liaison/elision between _d(e)_/_des_ and the immediately following word. For example (with a quick Google search) :
_pour des innombrables_ N - 4 hits
_pour d'innombrables _N - somewhere between 746 and 19200 hits​


----------



## c1wang

"Cette rue a de beaux arbres."

ou

"Cette rue a des beaux arbres."

Laquelle est correcte ? Merci.


----------



## xtrasystole

Both are equally correct.


----------



## spirals

Je crois que c'est le première phrase parce qu'il y a un adjectif entre le "de" et le substantif.

EDIT: Trust the natives, that rule is obviously not completely true


----------



## thbruxelles

the first one sounds better, though you could hear both.


----------



## Wopsy

The usual rule for a learner is that if there's an adjective before a noun in the plural, you say *de*, otherwise *des

*E.g.: 'Elle a *des* fleurs dans son jardin', but 'Elle a *de* belles fleurs dans son jardin'. 

But obviously there are lots of nuances which mean that this won't always be the case. 
Still, it's a useful rule to know.


----------



## thbruxelles

Exactly. You say elle a de beaux cheveux, rather than elle a des beaux cheveux.
Again, you can hear both.


----------



## geostan

[…] Even some plural situations use the full partitive, e.g. _des bonnes réponses_.


----------



## LV4-26

[…]

Good point. I'd never realized that before, but it's true that both _de_ and _des_ are used here. I may even use _des_ myself regularly. Clearly, this one doesn't follow the general pattern. I guess the explanation lies in the fact that _bonnes réponses_ must be more or less considered a whole unit by the speaker, a single word.

However, learners should have it clear that this is an exception.


----------



## Keith Bradford

In practice, I notice well-educated people increasingly abandoning the rule that *des + adj = de*, in conversation at least.


----------



## coing

I'm grateful for the information, but I don't feel like there's a clear answer yet.  Using "des" instead of "de" is now prevalent in spoken language--except that it makes you sound "like a person who doesn't know the right grammar."  And it's spreading in written language--but if it makes you sound uneducated in spoken French, it surely looks worse on paper (although I've read it in respectable novels, like "L'élégance du hérisson").

Could other native French speakers give their opinions?  Do most people find this usage acceptable, or find that it makes you sound uneducated?  Let's also bear in mind that native speakers can get away with things that sound worse in the speech of non-native speakers.  Specifically, how much effort should I put into teaching my students the traditional rule of using "de" before the plural adjective preceding a noun?  And should I no longer deduct points when they use "des" instead of "de" in their writing?

I should also note that I have been corrected by a native French speaker for saying "des" instead of "de."  Granted it was 10 years ago, but has the language really changed so much since then that most native speakers find that saying "J'ai *des* belles fleurs," for example, _ne choque pas_?


----------



## geostan

I think LV4-26 hit the nail on the head when she said: *the explanation lies in the fact that bonnes réponses must be more or less considered a whole unit by the speaker, a single word*. The more that the speaker views the combination adjective + noun as something frequently said, the more likely he is to use the full partitive. It also tends to be found when the adjectives involved are grand, petit, nouveau, vieux, bon, mauvais, and the like.


----------



## Chimel

coing said:


> Specifically, how much effort should I put into teaching my students the traditional rule of using "de" before the plural adjective preceding a noun?  And should I no longer deduct points when they use "des" instead of "de" in their writing?


I wouldn't put too much energy into it, at least if you teach French at a basic or even intermediate level. High level/university students, who are more interested in nuances and are able to make an appropriate use of them according to the language level or the context, might be taught what has been explained here, namely:
a) the classical rule
b) the exception ("lorsque le groupe adjectif + nom est considéré comme un nom composé" - as Geostan and LV4-26 explain) and
 c) the evolution in modern (spoken) French, where "des" tends to be more and more used, even besides b) - also because b) is somewhat subjective: when should you consider the noun and the adjective as a whole unit? It is clear for "jeunes gens", but the example above with "bonnes réponses" shows that it is sometimes a matter of interpretation.


----------



## lou1712

Evening all!

I have a dilemma, hoping someone can kindly advise. 
I am writing the phrase ''...avoir une chance de voir de/des nouveaux films passionnants.''

I know 'films' would take 'de' with the use of 'nouveaux' as a preceding adjective - but what are the rules with having 'passionnants' afterwards? Does it become 'des' because of this? Which rule would qualify?
So 'avoir une chance de voir *de* nouveaux films..'
but is it 'avoir une chance de voir *des* nouveaux films *passionnants'* . ....?

Merci d'avance!


----------



## CarlosRapido

Sans pouvoir expliquer clairement, je dis naturellement *de* dans les 2 cas.


----------



## janpol

Je pense que l'adjectif antéposé l'emporte sur l'adjectif post posé. Grevisse cite : "de jolies maisons blanches" (Vigny)

Je dirais : "avoir une chance de voir de nouveaux films passionnants"


----------



## Nicomon

J'ajoute mon vote à « de » dans les deux cas.  L'adjectif antéposé l'emporte.

Option possible (mais peut-être pas idéale) avec « des »  : « _des films à la fois nouveaux et passionnants _».


----------



## curon

This is a great thread and very useful. I was wondering why I could find examples of both
"J'ai eu *de *mauvaises notes"  
as well as 
"J'ai eu *des* mauvaises notes"

As a learner, If i stick to the standard rule of using de before and adjective followed by a noun, will I always be grammatically correct in this respect? Is it safer to stick with this rule as a learner, and accept that I might hear people using* des,* especially by young people and in informal situations?


----------



## Rallino

Is this rule affected at all when there is an _X of Ys_ construction?

1. La vente *de* vieux objets
2. La vente *des* vieux objets
3. La vente *d'*objets vieux


----------



## Franz1

"La vente de vieux objets" signifie la vente d'un nombre *indéfini* de vieux objets
"La vente des vieux objets" signifie la vente d'un nombre *défini* de vieux objets, la vente de *ces* objets
Le sens de "La vente d'objets vieux" est comme celui de la première phrase, mais met l'accent sur "vieux"

Ces trois phrases ne concernent pas le problème "de / des + adjectif + substantif" discuté plus haut


----------



## Maître Capello

Franz1 is right. Rallino's sample phrases are a different case as they include the *preposition* _de_. In the remainder of this thread, the _de_ (as in _avoir de mauvaises notes_) isn't considered a preposition. […] It is an *indefinite article*.

See also the many threads about _de_ vs. _des_.

*Moderator note:* The discussion about whether _de/des_ is an indefinite or partitive article has been moved to its own thread here.


----------



## Nicomon

Franz1 said:


> Ces trois phrases ne concernent pas le problème "de / des + adjectif + substantif" discuté plus haut


 Et pourtant... _de/des vieux objets_   c'est bien  _de/des + adjectif + substantif.   _C'est simplement qu'ici, _de/des_ n'est pas un article indéfini.

Mais il me semble qu'on peut faire les même nuances avec le verbe :
_J'ai vendu de vieux objets  
J'ai vendu des vieux objets   _(peut-être plus relâché)
_J'ai vendu des objets anciens
_
[…]


----------

