# FR: He would/used to smoke a packet a day



## Thomas1

_He used to smoke a packet a day._
_He would smoke a packet a day._
Is there anything other than _imparfait_ that I could use to translate the sentences above please?


Tom


----------



## sebowski

il fumerait un paquet par jour

in that case it's not imparfait but conditionnel...
like : "if he could, he would smoke one packet a day !!!"


----------



## Thomas1

sebowski said:


> il fumerait un paquet par jour
> 
> in that case it's not imparfait but conditionnel...
> like : "if he could, he would smoke one packet a day !!!"


Sorry, but it's not conditional in English, it's simply another use of _would_ which implies a past habit, routine, etc. In other words, _would_ means _used to_ in my example. 
So, can the French conditional imply the same (I've never come across it, but who knows )?

Tom


----------



## DearPrudence

If both are in the past, I would say that in French we don't have anything more than _l'imparfait_:
*"Il fumait un paquet par jour"*

I don't know if "Il avait pour habitude de fumer un paquet par jour" would be right or not for "he used to ..."
I think "he would ..." would need more context ...


----------



## polaire

Thomas1 said:


> Sorry, but it's not conditional in English, it's simply another use of _would_ which implies a past habit, routine, etc. In other words, _would_ means _used to_ in my example.
> * So, can the French conditional imply the same* (I've never come it across, but who knows )?
> 
> Tom



I don't think so, but wait for the others.  It still employs l'imparfait, but I wonder if you could say:

Normalement, il fumait ...

That might stress the habitual nature, if you have any interest in doing that.


----------



## juliobenjimino

there are several ways of expressing a former habitual habit in english, one of which is by using 'would', as you say.

eg when he was at university, he would smoke a packet a day

(this confuses english-learners), however in french and other latinate languages, there is only the imperfect.

Which makes things easier for french learners


----------



## Argyll

Thomas1 said:


> _He used to smoke a packet a day._
> _He would smoke a packet a day._
> Is there anything other than _imparfait_ that I could use to translate the sentences above please?
> 
> 
> Tom


Hi Tom,

You are right that it is _imparfait_. Nothing in the verb form in French accounts for the difference English makes between 'would' (emphasis : often) and 'used to' (emphasis : formerly) to express a regular action in the past.


----------



## xtrasystole

sebowski said:


> il fumerait un paquet par jour
> in that case it's not imparfait but conditionnel...


Umm... I don't think so, dear sebowski. 
Both sentences are in the *frequentative form*, which translates in the imperfect tense. It indicates repeated action in the past. 
He would smoke a packet a day = _'Il *fumait* un paquet par jour'_. 
    He used to smoke a packet a day = _'Il *fumait* un paquet par jour'_ (I would say that "used to" sounds like a more systematic repetition). 

Another example: 'He would often come and see me' = _'Il *venait* souvent me voir'_. 

Kind regards


----------



## Nicomon

Hi Tom,

There was a previous post about the use of would in a past sentence. 

Other than adding words like _habitude_... I don't see how you could make a clear difference in French between  "smoked"  and "used to/would smoke".


----------



## xtrasystole

Just to extend the discussion a bit, it seems to me that the form _'used to'_ points to a more systematic repetition than the form _'would'_. 

Am I right? 

If so, the sentence _'He used to smoke a packet a day'_ would seem more appropriate to its own meaning than _'He would smoke a packet a day'. 

_What do you think native English-speakers?


----------



## xtrasystole

Nicomon said:


> There was a previous post about the use of would in a past sentence.


Thanks for the link, Nicomon!


----------



## juliobenjimino

I'm not sure, but 'would' seems slightly more well-spoken or literary than 'used to'... if I was talking to a member of the aristocracy or something, my subconscious would automatically supply the word 'would' rather than 'used to'....

eg And of course, your grace, at that time he would smoke a packet a day! Imagine!

got a bit carried away with my role-playing there, but you know what i mean


----------



## john_riemann_soong

Old English must have had lost a tense for this somewhere along the way, since "use" is of obvious Romance origin. Is this sense like the Greek aorist, perhaps? 

"Used to" is a periphrastic construction for a tense that basically no longer exists, just like that English lost a true future tense (at the stage of P-Gmc) a long time ago. A general tense like the imparfait would actually be the norm -- English is the exception.  

"Would", as I recall, is the past subjunctive of future "will" (hence making it the conditional), just like the French conditional is basically like a subjunctive version of the future (aimerait => aimer ait).  It's also the general past indicative of "will", so it can indicate past habitual action. 

The government in 2000 said, "we will help to finance X". In reported speech, this becomes "they said they would help to finance X." If one talks about present habit, one can say, "every morning, he'll go pick up the paper then drink coffee". In the past, this present habit becomes, "every morning, he would pick up the paper then drink coffee".


----------



## Rpkx

Si l'on veut insister, on peut aussi écrire :
"D'habitude, il fumait un paquet par jour"
"Il fumait couramment un paquet par jour"

Salut,


----------



## wildan1

john_riemann_soong said:


> "Used to" is a periphrastic construction for a tense that basically no longer exists, just like that English lost a true future tense (at the stage of P-Gmc) a long time ago. A general tense like the imparfait would actually be the norm -- English is the exception.
> 
> "Would", as I recall, is the past subjunctive of future "will" (hence making it the conditional), just like the French conditional is basically like a subjunctive version of the future (aimerait => aimer ait). It's also the general past indicative of "will", so it can indicate past habitual action.


 
This is a historical linguist's explanation, which doesn't really help one know how to use the modern language. 

Here 's what the British Council says about this dichotomy. Sometimes the usage makes no difference; sometimes it does...

PS _un paquet = packet_ (BE only) or _pack _(AE)


----------



## Thomas1

Nicomon, thank you for this interesting thread.



john_riemann_soong said:


> Old English must have had lost a tense for this somewhere along the way, since "use" is of obvious Romance origin. Is this sense like the Greek aorist, perhaps?
> 
> "Used to" is a periphrastic construction for a tense that basically no longer exists, just like that English lost a true future tense (at the stage of P-Gmc) a long time ago. A general tense like the imparfait would actually be the norm -- English is the exception.
> 
> "Would", as I recall, is the past subjunctive of future "will" (hence making it the conditional), just like the French conditional is basically like a subjunctive version of the future (aimerait => aimer ait). It's also the general past indicative of "will", so it can indicate past habitual action.
> 
> The government in 2000 said, "we will help to finance X". In reported speech, this becomes "they said they would help to finance X." If one talks about present habit, one can say, "every morning, he'll go pick up the paper then drink coffee". In the past, this present habit becomes, "every morning, he would pick up the paper then drink coffee".


Fascinating, thanks for this info, John.
I've been actually pondering on this recently and you've just spurred some questions in me.
Is usage of _will_ as a construction denoting habitual action so much widespread in modern English? I am also intrigued to know whether there is any discernable difference between:
_"every morning, he'll go to pick up the paper then drink coffee"_
and
_"every morning, he goes to pick up the paper then drink coffee"_?

Another question that occured to me, and I aksed about on the English Only forum, but didn't get satisfactory answers is;
Could _"every morning, he would have picked up the paper then drink coffee"_ preserve some remnants of similar implications as its "more up-to-date" counterparts you gave in your post?

Moreover, I think I see some inconsistency in expressing _modi operandi _since you use the present simple tense in English to denote routines in the present, though, past simple is not used so; well, it sometimes is, but the frequency of its usage as such is rather negligible in comparison to the present tense. Sometimes, past continuous is also employed for past habits--and implies, I think, more "casualness".


Tom


----------



## john_riemann_soong

wildan1 said:


> This is a historical linguist's explanation, which doesn't really help one know how to use the modern language.
> 
> Here 's what the British Council says about this dichotomy. Sometimes the usage makes no difference; sometimes it does...
> 
> PS _un paquet = packet_ (BE only) or _pack _(AE)




Well, I'm explaining mainly why "would" corresponds to two separate tenses, just like "could". "Could" can mean both "would be able to" and "was able to", because the conditional is often analysed as the past subjunctive of the future, resembling the past indicative. Since the conditional and future is only invoked with auxiliaries in English, this confusion doesn't happen often, but it does happen.


----------



## john_riemann_soong

Thomas1 said:


> Nicomon, thank you for this interesting thread.
> 
> Fascinating, thanks for this info, John.
> I've been actually pondering on this recently and you've just spurred some questions in me.
> Is usage of _will_ as a construction denoting habitual action so much widespread in modern English? I am also intrigued to know whether there is any discernable difference between:
> _"every morning, he'll go to pick up the paper then drink coffee"_
> and
> _"every morning, he goes to pick up the paper then drink coffee"_?



The first example is more restricted, and can only be used in certain contexts. One is more apt to use the second -- but there is a slight nuance on the first. 

"I want to organise a surprise party for Rachel on Tuesday, any ideas?"
"Well, every Tuesday afternoon after school she'll go to work for a few hours, but I have an idea ..." 

"Every time I tell him off, he'll go berserk on me ..."

The second using just the simple present is indeed more common. The first implies a certain attitude. But I think that is one of _will_'s original functions, evolving from desire to habitual to finally the future. 




> Another question that occured to me, and I aksed about on the English Only forum, but didn't get satisfactory answers is;
> Could _"every morning, he would have picked up the paper then drink coffee"_ preserve some remnants of similar implications as its "more up-to-date" counterparts you gave in your post?



"He would have picked up" primarily suggests the pluperfect subjunctive. It can work if it used in coordination with something that suggests the perfect. 

"Every morning, when I would already have read the paper, this man would try to peddle newspapers to me ..." 

But this use of "would have" (basically past habitual perfect) seems interchangeable with "had" -- "every morning he would try to sell me newspapers after I had already read the paper".


----------



## john_riemann_soong

Thomas1 said:


> Nicomon, thank you for this interesting thread.
> 
> Fascinating, thanks for this info, John.
> I've been actually pondering on this recently and you've just spurred some questions in me.
> Is usage of _will_ as a construction denoting habitual action so much widespread in modern English? I am also intrigued to know whether there is any discernable difference between:
> _"every morning, he'll go to pick up the paper then drink coffee"_
> and
> _"every morning, he goes to pick up the paper then drink coffee"_?



The first example is more restricted, and can only be used in certain contexts. One is more apt to use the second -- but there is a slight nuance on the first. 

"I want to organise a surprise party for Rachel on Tuesday, any ideas?"
"Well, every Tuesday afternoon after school she'll go to work for a few hours, but I have an idea ..." 

"Every time I tell him off, he'll go berserk on me ..."

The second using just the simple present is indeed more common. The first implies a certain attitude. But I think that is one of _will_'s original functions, evolving from desire to habitual to finally the future. 




> Another question that occured to me, and I aksed about on the English Only forum, but didn't get satisfactory answers is;
> Could _"every morning, he would have picked up the paper then drink coffee"_ preserve some remnants of similar implications as its "more up-to-date" counterparts you gave in your post?



"He would have picked up" primarily suggests the pluperfect subjunctive. It can work if it used in coordination with something that suggests the perfect. 

"Every morning, when I would already have read the paper, this man would try to peddle newspapers to me ..." 

But this use of "would have" (basically past habitual perfect) seems interchangeable with "had" -- "every morning he would try to sell me newspapers after I had already read the paper".


----------

