# FR: passé composé / imparfait



## ChezLesEtoiles

No matter what I do, I always forget when to use the imparfait instead of passé composé… I know the rules (interrupting action, habitual action etc.) but I can never remember them when I'm speaking or writing… Does anyone have any good ways to remember these quickly, or do I just have to practice a lot? Thanks!

*Moderator note:* Multiple threads have been merged to create this one. This thread is, however, closed because it is too generic. If you have a specific phrase you want to discuss, please open a new thread if that phrase has not been discussed yet. See also this page about the general use of those two tenses. If you are interested in the usage difference between the _passé composé_ and the _passé simple_, see this thread.


----------



## Lucas

Well... _parfaire_ means « to finish », so that _imparfait_ can mean « unfinished ». You may try to always use _imparfait_ when the situation you're talking about is unprecise or interrupted. But I don't guarantee that shall always work...

Ex. :
« Où étais-tu auparavant ? (_unprecise_)
- Je vivais à Lyon. »
_OR_
- J'ai vécu à Lyon de 1998 à 2002. » (_precise and finished_)

Ex. :
« Qu'as-tu fait hier ? (_precise and past_)
- J'ai fait mes devoirs. » (hier _implied_)
OR
- Je faisais mes devoirs lorsque tu m'as téléphoné. » (_unfinished action_)


----------



## Elisabeth

Which would you say in French?
la loi était promulguée le 3 janvier 2005 et les premiers résultats étaient presque aussitôt remarqués

or

la loi a été promulguée le 3 janvier 2005 et les premiers résultats ont été presque aussitôt remarqués

Thanks


----------



## francois

The second one is correct.


----------



## timpeac

"était" is used for a state "a été" for an action. It's a bit difficult for English speakers to tell the difference sometimes, because we can use "was" for both.

A clear example is using "open" (adjective) and "opened" (past participle) -

"The window was open" - "la fenêtre était ouverte" (state)
"The window was opened" - "la fenêtre a été ouverte". (action)

(I'm not saying that's the best way to express this in French, just using it as a clear example of the difference).

HTH


----------



## Elisabeth

So using your guidelines, if I wanted to say
The solution was the new law, which was already in the planning stages and which was implemented in 2004.
Would this be right?
La solution *était *la nouvelle loi, qui *était* déjà à l'état d'ébauche et qui *a été *mise en application en 2004. 
Thank you


----------



## Agnès E.

Bravo Elisabeth !


----------



## sailingbikeruk

Can anyone help me with past tenses in french.

Is there a general rule that will give me guidance as to when to use the composite past tense or the imperfect past tense.

Am I correct in the following assumptions

J'ai donné = I have given
Je donnais = I gave

j'ai eu = I have had
j'avais = I had

j'etais allé = I have been
j'allais = I went

Perhaps if anyone knows of a previous discussion on this issue they could post a link to it.

Many Thanks

Ian

PS I realise that this is not on topic  [...]


----------



## marget

J'ai donné = I gave, I have given, I did give
je donnais = I gave, I was giving, I used to give, I would give (habitually)

J'ai eu, I have had (more or less), I had...
J'avais = I had, I used to have

j'étais allé = I had gone
j'allais = I used to go, I was going, I went (when we mean "used to go or would go"  habitually)

Passé composé/Imparfait is much more complicated than the simple translations I have provided


----------



## sailingbikeruk

OK I guessed it was more complicated than simple direct translation, but I haven't managed to find any real explanation anywhere.

would it be reasonably safe when relating things that happened or things that you did in the recent past you would use passe compose 

Things like:

I visited the eiffel tower = j'ai visité la tour eiffel
I gave you the wrong number = j'ai donné le mauvais nombre
I went to Marseille = j'ai allé a Marseille


----------



## marget

Yes, but one must say:"je suis allé à Marseille. "Je *t*'ai donné le mauvais numéro".  For recent past actions, the passé composé is esentially correct.


----------



## Gil

Past discussion FR: imparfait / passé simple


----------



## CARNESECCHI

hello,
Imparfait is for passed actions, lasting a while or repeated several times:
"En été, je chantais tous les jours" repeated action
"je l'ai écouté, pendant qu'il chantait" long action, still on when the other took place
Hope it helps!


----------



## marget

I would also refer to "pendant qu'il chantait", as an "ongoing" action in the past.


----------



## keoma

Quelle est la  difference l'imparfait et le passe compose? Quand vous utilisez l'imparfait et le passe?

Vous pouvez expliquer et donner un example pour la difference en usage?

Merci d'avance.


----------



## carolineR

Question très compliquée
to make it short:
passé composé is the oral equivalent of the passé simple ; they are both used for actions which were short and punctual e.g.
Français écrit :“ce matin-là, Thomas se leva tôt, s'habilla, et descendit acheter son croissant à la boulangerie. Il le mangea à toute vitesse. (passé simple)
Français oral : “Ce matin, je me suis levé(e), je me suis habillé(e) et je suis descendu(e)acheter mon croissant à la boulangerie. Je l'ai mangé à toute vitesse. (passé composé) : note that the auxiliary can be être or avoir, which complicates things further.
The imparfait is used both orally and when you write when you are describing a situation : e.g; : “il pleuvait ce matin-là”
or a habit : “Lorsque j'étais jeune, je jouais au tennis.”
Hope it helps


----------



## keoma

We had a quiz about imparfait et le passe. 

"J'ai eu un accident" .it translates to "I had an accident."

what about "J'avais un accident." This is wrong but I just want to know what it translates to.

Also,
"J'ai ete a l'hopital"  means
"J'etais a l'hopital"   means

Sorry about the accents, I'm using notepad. 
Merci.


----------



## carolineR

"J'avais un accident." would be "I used to have an accident"
"J'ai ete a l'hopital" means I've been there
"J'etais a l'hopital" means I was there


----------



## justcurious

Yes, it's a very difficult question. I am a native French speaker and I felt the need to check the differences between passé-composé, imparfait and passé simple myself ! 

french.about.com/library/weekly/aa060799.htm

I hope I won't be kicked out for that but it's such a worthwhile and complex question that I can't stand by and do nothing


----------



## captain_rusty

I agree with carolineR - the _passé composé_ is for *actions* in the past "I did something" (and as she says, more for oral or informal French - you'd use the _passé simple_ in a more literary context) and the _imparfait_ for *situations*, where in English you'd often use the past continuous "I was doing something".


----------



## claraet

l'imparfait exprime très souvent une habitude dans le passé : nous allions en weekend à la mer quand j'étais enfant .


----------



## walby

Usually when we use the "passe compose", we are more or less referring to an explicit or implicit conextion of the situation with the moment of speaking. But by using the imparfait, the result of the action or situation at the moment of speaking is not important.
e.g. "J'ai été à l'hopital..." .. c'est pourquoi je vais mieux car j'ai reçu un traitement."
"J'étais à l'hopital..." ... les docteurs étaient sympas. Here the describe the situation as separated from the moment of relating.
Hope this may help!!


----------



## gnat

the passé composé is nearly always equivalent to the english simple past [i ate] and also the present perfect [i have eaten]

the imparfait is equivalent to the english past continous [i was eating]

while narrating a story, all the phrases relating to the environment, to the surroundings [it was raining, the stars were shinning etc ] are in imparfait.
when you talk about a past habit [eg i used to drink milk when i was small, in other words, an action that continues over a period of time] imparfait is used. 
passé composé is used for all actions of a short duration eg [ i was eating when the phone rang]  

however in the case of être, personally, i find that I was is translated in the imparfait most of the time.
hope it helps
gnat


----------



## stefuncm5

1- PASSE SIMPLE : J'eus un accident.
Translation : I had an accident.

Passe simple is used to convey a short-lengthed event (in the past).

2- IMPARFAIT : J'avais un accident.
Translation : I was having an accident/ I used to have an accident.

Imparfait is used to convey an action of indefinite length or repeated action. In this example, the use of the imparfait makes no since, because you cannot be having an accident for an accident happens "quickly", and an accident is unlikely an habitude.

3- PASSE COMPOSE : J'ai eu un accident.
Translation : I had an accident/ I have had an accident.

Passe compose is like present perfect, in that it is used when conveying sth that happened at a specific point of time. In spoken french or generally it translates the English Simple Past (Preterit).

I hope that helps.


----------



## Macymoo

Hi all

I have been studying french for 6 years and I still don't understand when I am supposed to use the imparfait or the passe compose.
In our school we never really got taught about the imparfait tense and all our learning was on the passe compose...However I have noticed that people seem to use the imparfait more frequently.....

what is the difference between these two sentences I haven't got a european keyboard so if someone wants to put in the accents etc that would much appreciated!)
Elle a ferme la porte quand elle a remarque qu'il neigeait
elle fermait la porte quand elle a remarque qu'il neigeait

(also why do people use the imparfait when talking about naming a child)?

Thanks-you so much for your help I just can't seem to work these tenses out


----------



## Clayra

Hi!
Well, the imparfait is used to describe something, a place, for example: "Il faisaid froid dehors, il y avait de la neige partout, et les gens marchaient lentement pour ne pas glisser." You also use the imparfait to describe something which is usual, for example: "Tous les lundi, j'allais chez mon cousins, et on regardait chaque fois le même film." The passé- composé is more used in speaking language, it's more oral, and it is used for: 
- An accomplished punctual event: Elle est morte.
- a repetition: Elle est allée 5 fois au cinéma.
- A succession of actions: Elle s'est réveillée puis s'est levée et s'est habillée.


Hope I helped you...


----------



## Tradman

In the first sentence, "Elle a fermé la porte quand elle a remarqué qu'il neigeait" the emphasis is on the action that she took when she noticed that it was snowing, i.e. she closed the door (completed action) in order to keep the snow/cold out or the heat in.
In the second sentence, the emphasis is on "what she was doing at the time" when she noticed that it was snowing. "Elle fermait..." indicates an ongoing action in the past that had not been completed when she noticed that it was snowing.
Try this link for further clarification. http://french.about.com/library/weekly/aa060799.htm


----------



## Marga H

For me (learning both English and French as foreign languages) imparfait is close to past continuous tense.


----------



## Tradman

Further to my previous answer, I would add that, if you are still studying French, ask your teacher/lecturer for help. In my experience teachers usually have a resource bank of useful grammar/tense notes and worksheets.


----------



## pieanne

Marga H said:


> For me (learning both English and French as foreign languages) imparfait is close to past continuous tense.


 
You're quite right, the "imparfait" mostly corresponds to the PCT. Exept for the verbs that cant be conjugated in the continuous form.

"Elle a refermé sa porte quand elle a remarqué qu'il neigeait" would mean "she closed her door when she noticed it was snowing"

"Elle refermait sa porte quand elle a vu qu'il neigait" > she was closing her door when she noticed it was snowing"

"En fermant sa porte, elle a vu qu'il neigeait" > As she was closing her door, she saw it was snowing


----------



## Macymoo

I am studying alone now  I haven't been to school/ college for a while (I'm 28) although I'm thinking of enrolling in a local college again.
Also, what tense would they called their baby john be in? and why/

Thanks for all your help


----------



## Aramis

Dear Macymoo,

You use the imperfect when something was happening at the time something else happened.

So your two sentences could be intepreted as follows:

_* Elle a fermé la porte quand elle a remarqué qu'il neigeait*_ 

Your person looked out and noticed that it was (already) snowing - so she closed the door.  

The _noticing_ is a* single *action, so is the _closing_ of the door. The _snowing_ is something that was *continuous* - happening all the while the other things were going on

_* elle fermait la porte quand elle a remarque qu'il neigeait

*_She was in the middle of closing the door when she noticed it was (already) snowing

The door _closing _is a *continuous *action during which she _noticed  _[*single* action] the_ snowing, _which again is *continuous*To give a silly example and illustrate the point further

_* elle fermait la porte quand il a neigé

*_I.e it only snowed whilst she was closing the door - sudden dump whoosh!
[Either that or she took a hell of a long time to close the door!]
In this case the door _closing _is *continuous *the _snowing _is single *action

In French there  is the construction "être en train de faire..."
*One test you can apply is to see if the verb can be replaced by the above + the infinitive.

In your first example you could replace *"qu'il neigeait"*  by "*qu'il était en train de neiger" * *but you could not replace either of the other two verbs - they would no longer make sense.

Hope that helps. If you are still confused I'll try some more examples. (perhaps through the email system)

By the way there is a little bit of software you can get for free from *http://www.lexicool.com/ *
that puts a little flag icon on your desktop or tool bar (available in several languages) and it produces a list of the accents that floats on your screen and you then drag and drop them in place.

Bon courage

Aramis

*Chers amis francophones ne me critiquez pas trop sévèrement au question de style. C'est comme exemplaire tout simplement.


----------



## Aramis

Dear Macymoo,

In reply to your second question, which I didn't understand first time round something similar applies.

If at the time of registering the baby they gave it the name "Bartholemew" that is one action.

*"Ils ont nommé (appelé) le bébé B..."

One action

*If the loving parents then decided that B.. was too long a name to repeat and within closed doors gave it a pet name, say "Froglet", and used that during the unfortunate offspring's early childhood, then you would have....

*"Ils appelaient le* *bébé "Froglet"

This is because it was continuous/over a period of time.

*_As someone else said the Imperfect is sometimes also called the Past Continuous.

Aramis
_


----------



## geostan

Here is how I used to teach the differences between these two tenses to French Immersion students.

The imperfect is the present tense viewed from the past and the passé composé is the past tense viewed from the present.

"Je fais mes devoirs."
Il a dit qu'il fasait ses devoirs.

Où est Michel?  - Il est sorti.

Of course, if the differences could be this simple, there would be no problem. Unfortunately, one cannot rely on this distinction to help solve all the problems.

Another point of view is the fact that an imperfect cannot be used unless there is another verb in the past [at least implied]

Il faisait ses devoirs.  This is not a complete thought. One expects additional information, such as ...lorsque je suis entré dans la chambre.

Still, another way of looking at the imperfect is this:

When it is used, neither the beginning nor the end of the state or action is being considered, merely its existence at some moment in the past.

With the passé composé, on the other hand, one of three possibilities is being considered: the beginning, the end, or the totality.

I always liked to use this example to illustrate:

George VI a commencé à régner dès 1936.
Il a régné jusqu'en 1952.
Il a régné de 1936 à 1952.            

BUT: Il régnait en 1940.

Another example may illustrate the fact that the imperfect is used when not referring to the beginning or end.

Les agents ont cherché partout: ils regardaient sous le lit, ils fouillaient les placards, ils ouvraient tous les tiroirs. Here the imperfects behave almost like adjectives modifying a noun. They are elaborating on what the search involved.

You could not use the passé composé here, because the verbs would be indicating a sequence of actions, i.e. First the policemen searched everywhere, then they looked under the bed, etc. That would not make any sense, would it?

Another interesting point: Years ago, a university researcher made a comparison of the two French versions of the Reader's Digest in Canada and France. The same articles were compared in the two editions, and the researcher found that the imperfect was more frequent in France than in Canada.

There is a great deal more to be said about these two tenses, but these notions may give some idea of how they are used.


----------



## little_angel

Le passe compose indique:
- un evenement ponctuel realise dans le passe
- une action dont on connait les limites
L'imparfait:
- la situation a un moment du passe
- une habitude, un etat passes

HOPE THAT HELPS...


----------



## srkbabygurl

Can someone help me learn the difference between the passé composé and l'imparfait? like how and when you know to use it.


----------



## Iznogoud

The usage is the same as in English:

She cooked a cake --> Elle a cuisiné un gâteau.
She was cooking a cake --> Elle cuisinait un gâteau.

The "imparfait" is often used when you want to indicate that two actions are simultaneous: she was cooking a cake while watching TV --> elle cuisinait un gâteau en regardant la télé.


----------



## jann

What Iznogood has told you is correct.... but we English speakers often need a little more help than that, because we do have trouble remembering which past tense to use when we start out learning French!

*passé composé*
1.  things that started and ended in the past; 
_j'ai fait une maîtrise en histoire._ - I did a Masters degree in History.
2.  single punctual events, one-time actions, changes in state of mind
_elle a pleuré parce qu'elle a eu peur quand elle est tombée_ - She cried because she was/got scared when she fell. (ie. the fall scared her)
3.  past actions of definite and defined duration.
_elle a vécu 2 ans en Italie_ - She lived in Italy for 2 yrs.
4.  interrupting actions
_Elle faisait la vaiselle quand le téléphone a sonné_ - she was doing the dishes when the telephone rang.

*imparfait*
1.  continuing background action that got interrupted by something else
_Elle faisait la vaiselle quand le téléphone a sonné_ - she was doing the dishes when the telephone rang.
2. past descriptions, conditions, states of mind
_il faisait beau, il y avait du vent, etc_ - it was nice out, it was windy, etc
_mon ex adorait les fraises_ - my ex loved strawberries
_le chien voulait sortir_ - the dog wanted to go outside
_c'était une grande maison_ - it was a large house
_elle pleurait parce qu'elle avait peur de tomber_ - she was crying because she was scared of falling (scared she might fall).
3. repeated past actions, habitual actions, "we would do X", "we used to do Y"
_chaque été, on allait à la plage_ - every summer, we went (would go/used to go) to the beach.

these rules are usually listed in grammar books, broken down in more or less detail.  I may have lumped some cases together which are split apart in other lists, and perhaps I have forgotten a case or two.  You may wish to read a bit about the subject online - here's a place to start, for example.  hope that helps.


----------



## thei

What is the difference between passe compose and imparfait


----------



## Crescent

My teacher loves telling us this.  
The passe compose - the perfect tense in French, describes short complete actions which took place once. (or more than once, really - but what it wants to say is that - they didn't go on for a long period of time) 
e.g. I went to the cinema yestrday. (je suis allee au cinema hier). I ate a cake.. I watched TV. etc.
Where as the imperfect (l'imparfait) describes long, continious actions which took place over some period of time. The most translation equivalents in english are:e.g. I *was* do*ing*...(je faisais)  I was eating( je mangeais), I was sleeping(je dormais)... etc.


----------



## Smartypnts

My French teacher used to describe the English equivalent of the imparfait as "used to." While this isn't _exactly_ on the mark, it helps. And if you think of the  passé composé as an one-time event, the distinction become clearer. It's actually harder in a simple English sentence to distinguish between the two:

_He *went* there._ (e.g., to a school. Ambiguous, no? He used to go to that place, or he stopped there one time?)

But in French ...

_Il y *allait*. _<-- covers a span of time (he used to go there)

_Il y *est allé*._<-- denotes a specific instance of stopping there

The "used to" analogy doesn't quite apply in all instances, though...

_Quand il *avait* faim, il *a mangé* le déjeuner._ <--- Being hungry covers an indistinct timeframe (l'imparfait). Solving the problem by eating lunch is a specific act (passé composé).

I hope this helps...


----------



## Smartypnts

A second thought occurs to me...

Think of these two sentences in English.

*When I was in the store, I bought a shirt.* vs. *I went to the store and I bought a shirt.*

In the first case, the timeframe is indistinct, but the act of buying the shirt is specific. (imparfait + passé composé); In the second, two specific acts took place -- going to the store and buying a shirt (passé composé + passé composé).


----------



## Crescent

Smartypnts' explanation is a lot more clearer and generally better than mine, I must admit!  Even I learned something from it! (and I'm supposed to know the 'L'imparfait' and the 'passe compose' inside out!!  ) 
Yes, my teacher also loves 'key words'! Like, for the perfect tense - when she asks us, we as a chorus reply - 'have, had' 
and for the imperfect ' was + -ing, used to'


----------



## garonia

I have a question regarding this old thread - what about when a certain time-frame is specified?  
I want to say: 
"Bacteria A" was regularly detected over a 4-year period, before being replaced by "Bacteria B"

Would it still be 
"Bacteria A" a été détectée régulièrement pendant 4 ans, avant d’être remplacée par « bacteria B »

OR 

"Bacteria A" était détectée régulièrement pendant 4 ans, avant d’être remplacée par « bacteria B »

I am a bit confused


----------



## breanainneire

Hi, I'm doing a french project and I was wondering about using the the phrase "was _____ed", like "was made" or "was build". I was always using "était fait" or "était construit" but then I was reading a french website that said "la capitale a été transférée à Moscou après la révolution russe de 1917", obviously meaning "the capital was transferred...". I often have to say "it was constructed in...". Should that be "il était construit" or "il a été construit"? I'm not really sure if that should be imparfait or passe compose.


----------



## RuK

il a été construit. The imperfect is habitual or continuous; Paris se trouvait au bord de la Seine. The passé composé is for actions that were sudden, or have been completed: l'immeuble a été construit.


----------



## Pink bubbles

It's important to understand the usage of imperfect versus the use of past tense in French. And I'll admit that it sometimes confuses me as well. Just to clarify...
Imparfait - used when/with 
a) *An ongoing action with no specified completion* 
b) *An ongoing action with no specified completion* 
c) *Description/background info; set the scene of how things were or what was happening when...* (to be + -ing usually indicates this) 
d) *General description of physical or mental state of being* 
e) *Expression of the time of day or age in the past* 

while passe compose is used with/when:
a) *One or more events or actions that began and ended in the past* 
b) *A single event* 
c) *...when something happened, interrupting the description/background.* 
d) *Change in physical or mental state at a precise moment or for an isolated cause* 

so...l'*imparfait* describes past situations, while le *passé composé* narrates specific events. In addition, l'imparfait can set the stage for an event expressed with the passé composé (see letter c on imparfait above...)

I hope this helps clarify its usage for you.
-Pink bubbles


----------



## Thomas1

I think passé composé is better here as imparfait implies a continuous action that would rather work as some kind of a background for other actions, e.g.:
Quand la capitale était transférée à Moscou il est sorti.

Technically you don't know if the capital was moved to Moscow or not. 

Thomas


----------



## Gez

An example :

"(1) Des problèmes survinrent lors de la troisième année des travaux. (2) Le palais était alors construit selon des plans (3) qui se révélèrent fautif. (4) Il dut être rasé et reconstruit. (5) Le château n'a finalement été achevé qu'après douze années de dur labeur."

1. Simple past, because the event happened and was over with then.
2. Imperfect, because it's in the past, but ongoing at the time of our story.
3. Simple past again, same reason as for 1.
4. Still more simple past. I could have used compound past instead.
5. Compound past, it's over. I could have continued using simple past, though.

Simple past and compound past are about equivalent, semantically. Simple past is more elegant and better for formal writing, compound past is more common and more appropriate for informal speech.


----------



## newfoundheart

i always confuse these two. 
is there a way of knowing when to use what?
my friend told me that you use imparfait when it's a feeling? or something?
i forget.


----------



## Wagonmaker

Imparfait --> a continued action in the past, or something that happened regularly.
Passé composé --> an finished action that happened one time and one time only, then was done forever.

ex. "Je mangeais mon dîner dans le cafetéria à chaque jour."
vs. "J'ai mangé mon dîner dans le cafetéria hier."

Hope that helps a bit!
Wagonmaker


----------



## Julz

No. Imparfait is used with different ideas:
- an action started in the past with no specified duration
(elle chantais hier- she was singing yesterday [don't know how long for])
- an action which happened in the past as another action started
(elle chantait quand je suis entré dans la salle- she was singing when I entered the room)
- weather in the past (the weather never uses completed actions)
(il faisait beau la semaine dernière- the weather was nice last week)
- some set expressions like 'il y avait' (there was)- there is no such thing as 'il y a eu'
- conditional clauses with 'si'
(si j'avais plein d'argent, je serais content- if i had lots of money, i would be happy)

I think that's all, but I don't know set grammar rules of anything in French, so I had to think about this one a lot


----------



## Le Bélier

In the most general terms, the _passé composé _is used to indicate that a past action that is completed.  The _imparfait _is used indicate an action that was continuous, started in the past and continues into the present.

I sang this morning.  (implication: I finished eating.)
_J'ai chanté ce matin._

I went to school to learn a trade.  (implication: I was going and continued going for several years.)
_Je frequentais l'école_ _pour apprendre un métier_.

I went to class today.  (implication: I finished going to today's classes.)
_Aujourd'hui j'ai assisté à une classe.

_The verb _être _seems to prefer the _imparfait_, and it seems that we see forms like _j'étais, tu étais, il/elle était _more often than their corresponding forms in the _passé composé_.  I think that might be connected to your thought about feelings/sentiments, which makes sense to me.  When you say in English _I was sad_, it's usually something that you feel for a continuous period of time. A native speaker can probably explain this better, but I find that in this case, _j'étais triste _sounds more natural than _j'ai été triste_.


----------



## Julz

Unless you say "j'ai été triste avant qu'elle soit revenue" or something like that. But even then that doesn't sound very right.


----------



## Icetrance

Hello,

This is a topic that is often raised. Although there are cases when it is very clear which past tense must be used (imperfect or passé composé) in French, there are also cases in which it is not always black and white - even for French natives. In some situations, it comes down to how the speakers is viewing the past.

The passé composé does not always explicitly answer the question "What happened?", even though one can say it does so implicitly.

Here are a few situations which may help to explain the above statement. 

Il a fait chaud l'été dernier > context = stressing that last summer's hot weather is over (viewed in its entirety from beginning to end) 

Il faisait chaud l'été dernier  > context = making the point that it was hot last summer without focusing on its duration (just describing it was hot as summer was unfolding)

J'ai aimé mon professeur le semestre dernier > context = stressing that the last semester is over, and I liked my professor over this period of time.

J'aimais mon professeur le semestre dernier > context = describing that you liked your teacher last semester without focusing on the "beginning to end" of this liking for your professor. 

Ça a été une semaine agréable > context = stressing that this week is over with, and it was pleasant (no imperfect example here; you should know why by now)

Another example:

Il a y eu beaucoup de circulation la semaine dernière > context = stressing that that last week is over, and there was a lot of traffic then (block of time)

There are cases where it is very clear as to which past tense must be used ("I used to..." or "I was x-ing")

Not only does the passé composé indicate what happened, it also captures a chunk of time (from its beginning to its end), stressing that some action/state is now complete or over. This is not the case at all with imperfect, which completely ignores temporal duration.

I hope this brings clarity to those who have trouble differentiating between the passé composé and the imperfect. At times, I still have to think about what tense to use. LOL.


----------



## Icetrance

How does one explain the difference in meaning between these two sentences:

Il y a eu beaucoup de circulation la semaine dernière

Il y avait beaucoup de circulation la semaine dernière 
To me, the first sentence is stressing that last week's heavy traffic is over with.  That's the only way I can explain the difference. 

It's the same idea with the following sentences:

Il a fait chaud hier

Il faisait chaud hier
The passé composé stresses that something is completed or finished.


----------



## pozzo

My quick take on it is that passe compose usually emphasises the completion or commencement of an action as an event in time (or commencement and completion together as a single event), whereas the imparfait is usually used to set the context for such events.  To really understand it you just need to read lots of French sentences that use one or the other or both and eventually these explanations will make sense.


----------



## Icetrance

I read and speak French all the time, but occassionally I get confused with regards to the difference between passé composé and imperfect. There are times when French natives find this subject a little unclear, if I understand well.


----------



## pozzo

Good point.  There are many grammatical  constructions in English that I don't know from shinola despite being quite competent in using them.  I should have said to not just expose yourself to a lot of examples, but to also analyse as much as you can.  That's where all the excellent explanations above are important. For example, why in one case do you have imparfait while in the other case you have passe compose,  and meanwhile in English there's no way to differentiate.  I think the best way for me to do this sort of thing (as an adult) is to  be  fascinated by the grammar, despite how cumbersome it can be to  try to talk while sorting out grammatical details at the same time.  Then eventually it sorts itself out and you stop thinking about it so much.  Or at least I hope, LOL.


----------



## Icetrance

Thanks for your comment, Pozzo!

I am indeed referring to more abstract situations.  In 75-80% of cases, it's crystal clear to me. But, occassionally, I get stumped, leaving me unable to rationalize why one of these two tenses was preferred to the other.  

I get particularly annoyed when I received the explanation "That's the way it is" because I know better. LOL. I do understand that many French natives are unable to explain it, but they could at least just admit it (some do, by the way LOL).

I recently read an article written by a native French speaker. I challenged his use of the imperfect tense in one of his sentences on a different forum (not on this site).  Unfortunately,  I was told that  it was "recevable" and "acceptable" to use the imperfect in that sentence, but it wasn't "préférable". Go figure!  


And the confusion continues...


----------



## Akuriz

I still don't know the different between those French tenses. Can someone explain me what's the different and the examples ?


----------



## radagasty

The _imparfait_ is a simple tense, whereas the _passé composé_ is a compound tense. I suppose that is the most obvious difference. For example, for the verb _être_:

imparfait: _j'étais, tu étais, il était, nous étions, vous étiez, ils étaient_
passé composé: _ j'ai été, tu as été, il a été, nous avons été, vous avez été, ils ont été
_ 
To grossly oversimplify, the _passé composé_ is used for punctual events in the past, and the _imparfait_ for continuing actions or states. This is a big topic in French grammar, and no post can really do it justice, but it should be treated in every elementary grammar, that's a good place to start.


----------



## Agnès E.

Bonjour Akuriz,
Bienvenue sur le forum ! 

You might find our sticky interesting. It has a collection of threads about such general grammatical topics that can help you much. 

Bonne lecture !


----------



## Saklig

Hi

I'm having problems with deciding when to use passé compose ,and when to use imparfait. I know the rule, that you should use passé compose when it's expressions like tout à coup, soudain, une fois and un jour. The most troublesome thing for me is when it's "description of the scene or setting". I know from previous experiences that this is a knowdledgable forum, therefore can you please help me?

Many thanks.


----------



## rhiannonhelen

When describing a scene or a setting you use the imperfect.


----------



## Breogan

Maybe this could help you:

http://french.about.com/library/weekly/aa060799.htm


----------



## Outsider

When you're describing the setting or the circumstances of a scene, use the imperfect. When you're describing actions and events central to the scene, use the compound past. This is a simplification, but it will probably do for a start.


----------



## Areyou Crazy

Setting the scene is one way. I think you can also use it when talking about an action in progress at a particular time in the past. Also to link to actions in the past. This is another way of looking at 'setting the scene'.


----------



## jann

I am sorry, but we cannot teach you the entire lesson about _passé composé vs. imparfait_ in a single thread - the subject is just too large! 

Please read the link Breogen suggested above.  You'll find more French grammar pages listed in the  Langage / Language thread from our Resources subforum.  You may also wish to do a forum search, where you will turn up some helpful old threads on the topic.  For example, here is a list of threads containing the words _passé composé imparfait _in the title.

Then, feel free to come back and open a new thread for any specific questions you have. 

Thanks!
Jann
Moderator


----------



## Smartypnts

Well whatever the reason for the previous posts' deletions, the activity here drew me back to this thread at the precise moment that I have a question about the topic. Although I still stand by the above distinctions between the imparfait and the passé composé, I was thrown a curve today when my use was corrected. Perhaps Crescent or someone else can explain it to me.

A paper I wrote included the following line:

«[Le livre est une mémoire par E.P.], un écrivain américain qui *habitait* à Paris entre les deux guerres mondiales.»

I've been told that this is absolutely incorrect and should use the passé composé:

«... un écrivain américain qui *a habité* à Paris entre les deux guerres mondiales.»

Is this only true (that the passé composé is required) because the period (between the wars) is specified? 

If I wanted to say: 

"When he was young and lived in Paris (between the wars), he wrote this book."

Wouldn't I use the imparfait/imparfait/passé compose:

«Quand il *était* jeune et *habitait* à Paris (entre les guerres), il *a écrit* ce livre.»

It's the same thing, as my original, isn't it? And if it is, would I write it using the passé composé for _all_ the verbs??

«Quand il *a été* jeune et *a habité* à Paris (entre les guerres), il *a écrit* ce livre.»

That last just looks SO wrong to me!  

 <-- moi


----------



## geostan

Smartypnts said:


> It's the same thing, as my original, isn't it? And if it is, would I write it using the passé composé for _all_ the verbs??
> 
> «Quand il *a été* jeune et *a habité* à Paris (entre les guerres), il *a écrit* ce livre.»



That's because the last one IS wrong. The simple action is "a écrit." The other verbs are circumstances, and as such are in the imperfect. As for your original sentences, either could be used according to the context. Without further details, it would be difficult to say which one is appropriate.


----------



## itka

Smartypnts said:


> «... un écrivain américain qui *a habité* à Paris entre les deux guerres mondiales.» *It's possible but never mandatory.*
> 
> Is this only true (that the passé composé is required) because the period (between the wars) is specified? *Not at all.
> *
> «Quand il *était* jeune et *habitait* (à) Paris (entre les deux guerres), il *a écrit* ce livre.» *Seems fine to me !*
> 
> «Quand il *a été* jeune et *a habité* à Paris (entre les guerres), il *a écrit* ce livre.» *It would be totally incorrect.*



A lot of threads discussed this question. I'm sure you can find there a lot of explanations...if you need them, but I don't think so !


----------



## Crescent

Hi again, Smartypnts! 
If you're ''  '', then I'm just '''' after reading your new post! 

Nevertheless, I will try and answer your questions, although I am only able to do this from a non native-speaker/student position, so if you find any obvious mistakes or contradictions in my explanations... Well...._tant pis_!

I believe you're right when you give your reason for it being the passé composé and not the imperfect in this sentence:''un écrivain américain qui *habitait* à Paris entre les deux guerres mondiales..'' It seems that the passé composé is used here because the period during which the even took place is a specific one, with a clear begining and an end.

However, I will honestly and volontarily admit that I would have never thought of using the passé composé here, and I would personally always have said ''qui habitait''..
I'm quite shocked to find out that this is apparently ''absolutely incorrect'' as your sources have informed you, and I would really like a confirmation or two of our dear francophonic foreros whose opinion I tend to trust more than those of strangers..

As for your second phrase, again, don't take my word for it (>.<) but to me it sounds absolutely perfect. That's exactly how I would have said it myself!:Quand il *était* jeune et *habitait* à Paris (entre les guerres), il *a écrit* ce livre.

But your last suggestion where you're replaced it all with the passé composé sounds...terribly odd.  Does anyone find that at all?

I'm afraid that's all I am able to offer! >.< =)


----------



## Poischich

geostan said:


> That's because the last one IS wrong. The simple action is "a écrit." The other verbs are circumstances, and as such are in the imperfect. As for your original sentences, either could be used according to the context. Without further details, it would be difficult to say which one is appropriate.


 
the way I see this is :
- "_un écrivain américain qui *habitait* à Paris entre les deux guerres mondiales_", I understand that he lived there all the time between the two wars
- "_un écrivain américain qui *a habité* à Paris entre les deux guerres mondiales_", I understand that he lived some time in Paris between the two wars, but I don't know for how long

depending on context, maybe the 1st sentence is wrong... but at least it is totally correct in french


----------



## Smartypnts

Thanks for the great responses and interesting (and needed) discussion!  

Crescent: My two sources were, first, an American friend who's fluent in French (elle habitait, ou _a habité_, à Paris) and the other is my French teacher _at l'Alliance Française_!

Geostan: For context, here is the entire paragraph. (It's my homework, a book review I wrote for my class at l'Alliance, and this is the first paragraph. I didn't include it before because I didn't want to muddy the grammar discussion.) The bracketed notes [in blue] are the professor's comments. (I wouldn't mind an opinion from you guys about ramasser vs. s'amasser, either!)

NOTE TO MODERATOR: This is my own writing -- used by my own permission and I think it's important to this grammar discussion, which I think many will find helpful. I hope you don't find reason to delete this post!



> _La Dernière Fois Que J'ai Vu Paris_ est une mémoire par Elliot Paul, un écrivain américain qui habitait [a habité] à Paris entre les deux guerres mondiales. Le livre, qui a été publié en 1942, est un récit des vies des habitants de la petite rue de la Huchette: le propriétaire de l'hôtel où l'auteur résidait [a residé] de 1923 jusqu'à la chute de Paris en 1940; la maîtresse du bordel et les prostituées qui travaillaient là-bas; les gens qui menaient les marchés du coin et l'homme qui vendait des marrons sur le quai avoisinant; des fonctionnaires et des employés des magasins; et autres. Pour tous ces voisins, la politique mondiale et les nuages noirs qui ramassaient [s'ammasaient] au-dessus de leurs têtes ne les intéressaient pas nécessairement, mais ils devenaient de plus en plus difficiles à éviter.



Poisich: Do you mean one would use habitait only if it was the _exact_ span of time from the end of WWI to the beginning of WWII? Depending on who's talking, the dates could vary wildly!

And what if he lived in two places?

Would *Il habitait à Paris entre les deux guerres.* change to *Il a habité à Paris et Marseille entre les deux guerres.*?? I think it is the _indefinite_ nature of the time span that _requires_ the imparfait, no?

Opinions?

I really appreciate this! This is one of the _most_ vexing grammar issues for the non-native French speaker!


----------



## Poischich

with this context, I understand why your teacher said that "_habitait_" was wrong
you know the dates, it's precise so you should use the passé composé


----------



## Smartypnts

Aha! Thanks, Poischich. Between your explanation and going back to an earlier post by Lucas in this thread, I think I understand now:

While I was thinking of this past tense as _circumstance_ (requiring l'imparfait), the _definition of the timeframe_ changes the requirement to the passé composé. 

Yes? This discussion just helped end my confusion that extended way beyond this particular conjugation of _habiter_. I hope it helps others who venture here as much! Perhaps this will be the be-all and end-all of «_passé compose vs. imparfait_» discussions!


----------



## geostan

un écrivain qui habitait à Marseille entre les deux guerres*.  *I see this as meaning a writer who was living in Marseilles between the two wars (when something happened at some point during this time.) That is, it merely serves as background.

un écrivain qui a habité  à Marseille entre les deux guerres*. 
*
In this case, the living in Marseilles is merely one of the sequence of states or events that occurred one after the other.

Another thing to keep in mind is that your main verb is in the present tense. So you are looking back and can see the period of time during which the writer lived there. That is, it is much easier to have a global view of the time period.

In my younger days, I had trouble with this sentence:

It is someone I knew in college.  I was perplexed by the version given in the textbook: C'est quelqu'un que j'ai connu au collège. I thought it should have been in the imperfect. I finally realized the importance of the lead verb. And to have an imperfect, which would not be impossible, you would expect further details, such as:

C'est quelqu'un que je connaissais au collège qui m'a dit cela.

I suspect I'm confusing you even more, but there is my analysis, for what it's worth.

As to your other question: ramasser must have a direct object. One gathers up something. So, s'amasser would be the correct choice.

And still another point. the word mémoire is feminine only in the sense of the (faculty of) memory. In all other meanings, it is masculine.

Hardly the be-all and end-all of discussions (I know you were only joking!) There is a great expression for discussions like this one: une véritable bouteille à l'encre, which is the French equivalent for "a real can of worms."


----------



## Crescent

Smartypnts said:


> Perhaps this will be the be-all and end-all of «_passé compose vs. imparfait_» discussions!



Oh, no, I wouldn't hold my breath!  I'm certain that our curious foreros will still invent many more quieires about the oh-so-famous topic. 

As for your question, yes - I think you've got it spot on! As long as there is a clear indication of a time period in which the event takes place, it's *passé composé*. Otherwise... use *l'imparfait*..  I'm sure that the French will find it in them to forgive us if we dare to mix them up from time to time...


----------



## Poischich

Smartypnts said:


> Aha! Thanks, Poischich. Between your explanation and going back to an earlier post by Lucas in this thread, I think I understand now:
> 
> While I was thinking of this past tense as _circumstance_ (requiring l'imparfait), the _definition of the timeframe_ changes the requirement to the passé composé. Yes?
> 
> This discussion just helped end my confusion that extended way beyond this particular conjugation of _habiter_. I hope it helps others who venture here as much! Perhaps this will be the be-all and end-all of «_passé compose vs. imparfait_» discussions!


 
good for you! 
to answer your precedent post, you don't use "habitait" when you know the exact span of time, but for the exact opposite, when you don't know it at all! so by default, you use the imparfait and it means "_he mostly lived here_"

that's the same thing when you say "_il travaillait là pendant la guerre_" and "_il a travaillé là pendant la guerre_"
the first sentence means that you just know he worked here during the war, without further details, and so you suppose it was most of the time
the second sentence means you know he worked here at some point during the war
anyway that's the theory, without more context you can say both sentences and be understood by a French


----------



## Poischich

I'm not a native english, so maybe I don't see the subtilities in the english sentence
but in french
"_C'est quelqu'un que j'ai connu au collège._"
"_C'est quelqu'un que je connaissais au collège._"
have different meanings but are both correct in my opinion, and I'd had translated your english sentence with imparfait 

in the first case, you knew him in college and you still see him
in the second case, you knew him in college but you don't see him anymore


----------



## Smartypnts

I believe this is because _connaître_ is one of those words that is convenient to translate to English as "to know" but is subtlely different from its literal translation -- more like "to be acquainted with."

"_C'est quelqu'un que j'ai connu au collège._"   =  He's someone I met in college.  (I made his acquaintance at that time.)

"_C'est quelqu'un que je connaissais au collège._"  =  He's someone I knew in college.  (I was acquainted with him at that time.)

In these two cases, they're the classic definition of passé composé and imparfait:

A one-time past occurrence (passé composé)

A past circumstance that has finished (l'imparfait)


----------



## geostan

That works sometimes, but not always. _Me_t implies the beginning of a relationship, _knew_ is the state after the initial getting acquainted. The passé composé may translate both those ideas. Only context could differentiate them.


----------



## Smartypnts

Hmm. Nice test for all the rules we've discussed in this thread for choosing the passé composé or the imparfait!

One-time event (passé compose):

"C'est quelqu'un que j'ai connu [une fois] au collège."

Past event for which we know a defined time frame (passé composé):

"C'est quelqu'un que j'ai connu [pendant mes années] au collège." 

Past continuous event of undefined duration (imparfait):

"C'est quelqu'un que je connaissais [dans quelque temps] au collège."


_Mon Dieu! _I think it works! I agree that context matters, as it usually does (e.g., did that one-time meeting result in a long-term friendship or did they never see each other again?), but it's becoming clear that there are actually concrete reasons for the use of each tense! It's not the kind of random, idiosyncratic thing that an old French teacher of mine used to explain by shrugging and saying, _"Qui sait? C'est la charme de la langue française!"_)


----------



## Anne-I

Would one not say "Il a fait beau pendant toute la semaine", then?


----------



## daniev

Its better "Il faisait beau toute la semaine"


----------



## Julz

Theoretically, yes you could, but it would be just as weird as saying "the weather were nice this week".


----------



## roymail

Pardonnez-moi, mais "il a fait beau la semaine dernière" est parfaitement correct.
Mais on dira : "Il pleuvait quand je suis allé à Bruxelles", c'est-à-dire durant tout mon séjour. Ou "Il a plu quand je suis allé à Bruxelles" : il y a eu une averse.
De même, il est obligatoire de dire "il a neigé pendant trois semaines".
C'est compliqué. J'avoue que je ne peux pas vraiment expliquer la théorie..., mais c'est comme ça !


----------



## Julz

roymail said:


> est parfaitement correct.


Qui a dit le contraire?


roymail said:


> "il a fait beau la semaine dernière"


Je suis d'accord, mais cette phrase n'est pas pareil à celle dont Anne-I a demandé. Relisez-la.


----------



## roymail

Vous avez raison, mais "Il a fait beau pendant toute la semaine" est tout aussi correct.
Par contre, on dira "Il faisait beau quand je suis sorti".
L'action brève "je suis sorti" s'inscrit dans une situation plus longue "il faisait beau"


----------



## Julz

Oui la phrase est correcte, tout ce que je disais c'est que "il a fait beau" me sonne un peu drôle comme ça. Mais ça depend du contexte.


----------



## ToTaLLyCoNfUsEd753

Hello i am also confused about imparfait and passe compose still but my teacher has explained it to think of imparfait as a time line and the little one event that happened is the passe compose the time line mainly is all imparfait so far i think that has helped me with my french speaking and writing.


----------



## Smartypnts

ToTaLLyCoNfUsEd753 said:


> ...my teacher has explained it to think of imparfait as a time line and the little one event that happened is the passe compose the time line mainly is all imparfait so far i think that has helped me with my french speaking and writing.



That's a common way the two forms are taught, TotallyConfused, and a helpful introduction, but if you look back through this thread, you'll see that one of my old confusions was because I was also taught your way to differentiate the two forms.

As you'll see by the above discussion, the passé composé is also used when referring to _past actions that occurred during a specified duration of time_, and that isn't necessarily "one little event." The duration could be some past action that took place during a moment, an hour, a year, a century, etc.

*« Je n'ai compris pas bien la différence entre le passé compose et l'imparfait pendant toutes mes années à l'Alliance Française. »* (par exemple)


----------



## Smartypnts

Since someone has seen fit to resurrect this always-vexing subject, maybe one of our resident _grammariens français_ can answer this:

Yesterday I was trying to explain to a French speaker the inscription on a headstone in an American pet cemetery, and I was still unsure which past tense to use:

The headstone reads:

*PENNY. She never knew she was a rabbit.*

Is never (the duration of Penny's life) considered a duration that warrants the passé composé?

*Elle n'a jamais su qu'elle était un lapin.*

Or is Penny's lack of understanding considered a continual past action in which she no longer engages (because, of course, she's dead) and therefore requires the imparfait?

*Elle ne savait jamais qu'elle était un lapin.*


----------



## itka

Definitely :
*"Elle n'a jamais su qu'elle était un lapin".*


----------



## Tararam

Do native french sometimes confuse these two as well? 
I find the difference between Past Simple and Present Perfect in English easier than imparfait and p.comp...


----------



## Fred_C

Hi
I think the "time line" thing that is usually told to make understand the difference between imperfect and passé composé is quite confusing.
May I suggest a different paradigm?
My way of explaining the difference is :
If your past tense describes an event that occured a definite number of times, then you must use the "passé composé".
If your past tense describes an event during which other events occured a certain number of time, then you must use the imperfect.

Four examples :
Ne mets pas tes doigts dans ton nez, je te l'ai dit cent fois.
(Q : how many times ? A: 100)

Pendant toute sa vie, elle n'a jamais su qu'elle était un lapin.
Q : How many times did she know she was a rabbit?
A : Zero times : She never knew.

Je vivais à Marseille à l'époque.
Q : How many times did you live in Marseilles?
A : That is not my point. I was living in Marseilles by then, and many events occured to me a definite number of times during that period, I am going to tell you.

Entre 1980 et 1995, j'ai vécu à Marseille
Q : How many times did you live in Marseilles?
A : Good question. actually, I moved to Paris in 1987, and moved back to Marseilles in 1988, so that makes two times. (Other answers are possible)


----------



## Poischich

Tararam said:


> Do native french sometimes confuse these two as well?
> I find the difference between Past Simple and Present Perfect in English easier than imparfait and p.comp...


 
to my knowledge, that's not a common mistake among native french, because the meaning of the same sentence with either passé composé or imparfait is very different
(well, at least when you're used to it  )


----------



## BigCuzz

Julz said:


> - some set expressions like 'il y avait' (there was)- there is no such thing as 'il y a eu'



_Il y a eu_ does exist, at least in my dictionary ex : _Il y a eu un bruit._


----------



## Julz

You are right - I'm not sure I remember what I was thinking at the time of posting that, since it was so long ago (3.5 years). I'm pretty sure I've left off another half to the sentence or had something else in mind


----------



## pitseleh

Not to beat a dead horse, but this particular point is driving me crazy.



Le Bélier said:


> The _imparfait _is used indicate an action that...started in the past and continues into the present.



I have always harbored the complete assumption that it is the *passé composé* which fills this purpose.  

That is to say, an action that started in the past and continues into the present- which in English is the past perfect--
i.e. _I *have studied* French for seven years_

can be expressed in French using the passé composé--
i.e. _J'*ai étudié* le français depuis sept ans._

This totally contradicts what was said earlier in this thread.  Did I just make up this grammar rule in my head?  Please, please, somebody clear this up.


----------



## jann

> i.e. _I *have studied* French for seven years
> _can be expressed in French using the passé composé--
> i.e. _J'*ai étudié* le français depuis sept ans. _


 No, you must use the present tense there --> _J'étudie le français depuis 7 ans = _I have been studying French for 7 years.   Sentences with _depuis_ (or other expressions of time, such as _ça fait_ or _il y a_) are a totally different kettle of fish. They are best studied separately from the _passé composé vs. imparfait _question.  If you'd like to delve into that further, please take a look at existing threads on expressions of time, and pursue the matter there rather than in this thread. 

Jann
member and moderator


----------



## pitseleh

Thanks jann, though perhaps my bad examples led me to be misunderstood.  I'm not asking about the expressions of time.  I'm just trying to determine whether the passé composé can ever be used to express the equivalent of the English present perfect.  

I believe what Le Bélier stated (that an imparfait action started in the past and is still continuing in the present) is incorrect, and am looking for a "yes, that's incorrect" or a "nope, he's right."  

Could you clear this up for me?  I promise to not ask another question in this thread, ever again.


----------



## Maître Capello

Le Bélier's statement is incorrect: the imparfait doesn't describe an event that continues in the present.

(It may however describe a state that started in the past and is still true now, e.g., _À l'époque, j'étais déjà marié_.)


----------

