# FR: Past tense imperative



## Nunty

Hello everyone, happy Sunday!

While playing with the French Verb Conjugator the other day, I was very surprised to see a past tense imperative. I asked about it and Mike said that apparently it does exist, and people had asked for it to be included.

What on earth is a past tense imperative? How can I give a command in the past? 

Would some kind expert please explain all this to me and give examples so my feeble mind can grasp it? (And while you're at it, there is also a present tense first person plural imperative given. Huh?)

Thank you!


----------



## Lezert

*L'impératif passé* is used to indicate that what you want must be done in the future but before another action:

*     aie mangé *avant que j'arrive_( you must have eaten before I come back)_


----------



## Nunty

Lezert said:


> *L'impératif passé* is used to indicate that what you want must be done in the future but before another action:
> 
> *     aie mangé *avant que j'arrive_( you must have eaten before I come back)_



Thank you. I think I get it.


----------



## viera

"(And while you're at it, there is also a present tense first person plural imperative given. Huh?)"
The imperative is conjugated with 3 different persons: tu, nous, vous.

With the first person plural we can have:
Partons d'ici.
Aimons nous les uns les autres comme Dieu nous a aimés.


----------



## Le Bélier

Lezert said:


> *L'impératif passé* is used to indicate that what you want must be done in the future but before another action:
> 
> *     aie mangé *avant que j'arrive_( you must have eaten before I come back)_



Je comprends ça en théorie, mais est-ce que ça s'employe de nos jours?


----------



## Nunty

viera said:


> Partons d'ici.
> Aimons nous les uns les autres comme Dieu nous a aimés.


Well, of course. I'm slow, I guess; I never thought of that as an imperative. I see I need a good, thorough review of basic grammar! Thank you very much.


----------



## tamanoir

Oui mais sans que cela se voit:
Soyons prêts pour huit heures (impératif présent du verbe être)
Soyons partis avant 9 heures (impératif passé de partir)


----------



## Outsider

How would you use it in the 2nd. person?


----------



## JackD

Sois parti(e) avant 9 heures, sinon tu seras en retard
Soyez partis (es) ... sinon vous serez en retard.


----------



## Outsider

Merci bien.


----------



## Nunty

JackD said:


> Sois parti(e) avant 9 heures, sinon tu seras en retard
> Soyez partis (es) ... sinon vous serez en retard.


Oui, mais... on ne dit pas, "Pars avant 9 heures... partez avant 9 heures..."?
Quelle est la différence?


----------



## Smartypnts

viera said:


> "(And while you're at it, there is also a present tense first person plural imperative given. Huh?)"
> The imperative is conjugated with 3 different persons: tu, nous, vous.
> 
> With the first person plural we can have:
> Partons d'ici.
> Aimons nous les uns les autres comme Dieu nous a aimés.



Along these lines, can you explain this refrain from a song by Karpatt?

It goes: 

_Soulève ta jupe pour sauter la barrière
Soulève ta jupe ou passons par derrière
_

I had it in my head that it meant, "Lift up your skirt to jump over the barrier; Lift up your skirt or go around the back way.

If passons is the first-person plural (which I realize it is), wouldn't that translate as "Lift up your skirt or let's go around the back?"

Granted, neither makes too much sense (they're song lyrics, afterall), but I just assumed _passons_ in this case was some colloquialism.


----------



## Lezert

Smartypnts said:


> If passons is the first-person plural (which I realize it is), wouldn't that translate as "Lift up your skirt or let's go around the back?"


yes it is
 ( if you do'nt want to lift up your skirt, you cannot jump the barrier, so we'll have to go around ). I suppose that jumping the barrier is a "raccourci"


----------



## JackD

Nun-translator,

Partez à 9 heures: you're just asking. If they leave a bit later, it will not be that much of a problem. (sort of)

Soyez partis à 9 heures: it's an absolute necessity, or else they won't make it.
Anyway, that's what I told my young kids when I left home early in the morning


----------



## Lezert

Partez à 9h, soyez partis à 9h
The meaning is quite différent
Partez à 9h: you have to leave at 9 o'clock, not at 8:45
Soyez partis à 9h: at 9, you have to have left, what is important is that at 9, you are no more there. You can leave at 8 if you want


----------



## JackD

Lezert said:


> Partez à 9h, soyez partis à 9h
> The meaning is quite différent
> * Partez à 9h: you have to leave at 9 o'clock, not at 8:45*
> Soyez partis à 9h: at 9, you have to have left, what is important is that at 9, you are no more there. You can leave at 8 if you want



Pas totalement d'accord. J'envisage ceci:
partez à 9 heures (ce serait mieux si vous ne voulez pas arriver trop tard à destination)
soyez partis à 9 heures (sinon vous serez dans les embouteillages et vous arriverez la nuit).


----------



## Nunty

Si j'ai bien copmris, _soyez partis_ est plus fort que _partez_. Est-ce moins poli?

Par exemple, je dirais aux hôtes de notre hospitalité : "Il serait mieux si vous partiez avant 9 heures si vous voulez y arriver à l'heure", aux supérieures de la Communauté : "Partez avant 9 heures pour y arriver à l'heure". "Soyez partis" - dirais-je le aux bénévoles? Je ne crois pas, puis-que on garde une relation de respect mutuel avec eux. 

Tout cela pour dire que "soyez partis" me donne le sens d'une relation d'inégalité. Est-ce que je me trompe?


----------



## carolineR

Nun-Translator said:


> Si j'ai bien copmris, _soyez partis_ est plus fort que _partez_. Est-ce moins poli?


 NON.


Nun-Translator said:


> Par exemple, je dirais aux hôtes de notre hospitalité : "Il vaudrait mieux que vous partiez /mieux vaudrait être parti  avant 9 heures si vous voulez y arriver à l'heure", aux supérieures de la Communauté : "Partez/ Soyez parties/ avant 9 heures si vous voulez y arriver à l'heure". "Soyez partis" - le dirais-je le aux bénévoles? Je ne crois pas, puis-que on garde une relation de respect mutuel avec eux.
> Tout cela pour dire que "soyez partis" me donne le sens d'une relation d'inégalité. Est-ce que je me trompe?


 OUI 
en fait,
soyez parti = (il faut que vous) soyez parti. Ceci n'a rien de mal élevé


----------



## Nunty

Merci, chère Caroline, pour les corrections sur tous les fronts !


----------



## Fred_C

Smartypnts said:


> If passons is the first-person plural (which I realize it is), wouldn't that translate as "Lift up your skirt or let's go around the back?"
> 
> Granted, neither makes too much sense (they're song lyrics, afterall), but I just assumed _passons_ in this case was some colloquialism.


 
Hi. You are right, passons translates as "let's go around...", since it is the imperative. It is not a colloquialism, it is perfectly correct, and very common.

here is a sentence that can explain the necessary difference between the past imperative and the present : "sois parti de la maison quand j'arriverai, car je ne veux pas t'y voir". If I say : "pars de la maison quand j'arriverai", I may see the person leaving, whereas in the first case, the person will have left, if he or she obeyed my command.


----------



## Nunty

Fred_C said:


> Here is a sentence that can explain the necessary difference between the past imperative and the present : "sois parti de la maison quand j'arriverai, car je ne veux pas t'y voir". If I say : "pars de la maison quand j'arriverai", I may see the person leaving, whereas in the first case, the person will have left, if he or she obeyed my command.



But if I say "Pars de la maison avant que j'y arrive"?
_Can_ I say that?


----------



## Fred_C

Yes you can ! But comparing "pars de la maison avant que j'arrive" and "pars de la maison quand j'arrive" will not be a good choice to explain the past imperative, will it ? 

I mean : You are cheating. I just changed the tense in the imperative. You are changing the conjunction that introduces the time subordinate clause.


----------



## Nunty

Well, yes; I _am_ cheating. That's because I don't understand the past imperative. 

I want to compare:
1. Pars de la maison avant que j'arrive.
2. Sois parti de la maison avant que j'arrive.

What is the difference?


----------



## Fred_C

I did not notice that there was no past imperative in English. 
You said you were even more fluent in English than in French, didn't you ?
I think the difference can be expressed in English by saying that there is exactly the same difference betwenn those two sentences as between these two English ones : 
"I want you to leave the house before I come" and : 
"I want you to have left the house when I come".

That is : not much, Indeed.


----------



## Nunty

Thank you, Fred. Yes, I am far and away more fluent in English than in French, but some days you wouldn't know it to hear me.

From what you say, I understand that sentence #2 is stronger than #1. 

In English that wouldn't be considered an imperative, as far as I know. The imperative would be "Leave the house before I come". The constructions in #1 and #2 are... something else, I think. I don't know what to call them.

Thank you for your patient help!


----------



## Ian Tenor

Bonjour -

Une nuance ...

_"Soyez partis à 9h"_ ...
_"Soyez partis avant 9h"_ ...

Tout cela, pour moi, ça va.

Mais, est-ce que l'on peut dire - comme il m'arrive souvent de le faire, il me semble -

_"Soyez partis *pour *9h" _... dans le sens de pas plus tard que 9h, et est-ce correcte de le dire .. ???

Merci -

Ian


----------



## Agnès E.

Oui, Ian, on peut dire cela.


----------



## Ian Tenor

Fred_C said:


> I did not notice that there was no past imperative in English.
> 
> No ... ???
> 
> How about -
> 
> "*Be gone *by the time I get back!"
> ... or -​"Here's the job I want done. *Be finsihed *(with it) by three this afternoon"​*   *   *​
> In the north of England, we even have the *Contimuous-Imperative*, to coin a tense.
> 
> My mother, whenever I was late for school - which was every morning - used to say :
> 
> "Hurry up, and *be eating *your beakfast, while I get your bike out for you!" ...​Ian


----------



## Fred_C

Wow ! "Be gone" ! So in the end it *is* possible to conjugate an english verb using "be" instead of "have" before the past participle !


----------



## Ian Tenor

*Quote - Fred_C :: Wow ! "Be gone" ! So in the end it is possible to conjugate an english verb using "be" instead of "have" before the past participle ![/quote]

I guess so, Fred, though it is fair to say that the examples I have given, using the imperative "be" would, I suppose, often be preceded, according to circumstances, with "Please" , as in ...

"Please (be finished)" or ...
"Please (be gone)" ...​- or even with something along the lines of -

"I would like you to (be finished) ..." or -
"You should (be gone) ..."​which transform the Imperative into something else.

"Will you" might also be added after, as in -

"Be finished by 9 o'clock, will you" or ...
"Be gone by the time I get back, will you" ...​- which tend to lessen the blow and attenuate the slightly archaic feel of such phrases - "Begone, fell creature!" ...

Incidentally, I'm not sure what part of speech this would be, but how about -

"Have done with it/him (,will you)!"​- as an instruction to stop doing something or stop associating with someone.

*   *   *​ 
Quote - Fred_C :: ... it is possible to conjugate an english verb using "be" instead of "have" before the past participle ...

Yes, I think it still is just possible to get away with conjugating certain verbs with to be as well as with the usual to have. Certain of those conjugated in French with etre spring to mind. I suppose the whole thing comes from Latin usage ...

"Is he here yet? Yes, he is arrived"

"Is he still here? No, he is gone"​These forms are becoming, or have already become, like 
"He is departed this life", archaic, but can be useful, since they seem better to indicate the state of being present/absent than those forms conjugated with "to have", which indicate more the action of arrival/departure. (he has arrived/gone)

Does "être arrivé(e)/parti(e)"cover both concepts or has French lost out here ... ???

Best -

Ian
*


----------



## Fred_C

"être arrivé", and "être parti" do cover both concepts you mention. 
I always thought that "he is gone" was a spelling mistake of "he's gone", which is a contraction for "he has gone", just like "he's got" means "he has got", and not (at least I think) "he is got".


----------



## Ian Tenor

Thank you for that.

Yes, *it's *_does _stand for both *it is *and *it has*, as in -

it's wet today - it is
it's turned nasty, the weather - it has

... and this can be confusing on occasion.

However, he *is *come/gone is - or was - fine, and I shall post one or two references as I come across them.

Ian


----------



## Ian Tenor

Agnès E. said:


> Oui, Ian, on peut dire cela.


 
Merci, Agnès


----------



## john_riemann_soong

I think "past imperative" is a tad misleading. It sounds like an imperative *perfect* to me.  

e.g. English "be gone by twelve"

"to be gone" after all, when fully conjugated for say, myself, is "I am gone", which is still in the present, but in the perfect aspect. Or perhaps "I have gone", if you don't like the passive voice, although this can't be put into the active voice like French can. (French être for the p.c. seems to be a mixture of both active and passive though.) 

Although some places where I think the active voice would feature in English for this is:

"*Have* the entire thing (*be*) done by tomorrow evening".

Which actually there are almost two uses of the imperative here, something which is rather complex for me to analyse. Or perhaps the "be done"  is more of an English subjunctive use? One could easily omit the "be", although I think that is just more of anaphora, e.g. just like "we, (_who are_) the people, in order to create a more perfect union..."


----------



## DaiSmallcoal

"Leave by 9  o'clock "                 = request / recommendation 

"Be gone by 9 o'clock ( or else !)
= "be sure that you are gone by ...." = instruction / imperative 

Dai


----------



## john_riemann_soong

That does remind me, I mean, what about circumlocutions like "tu dois partir..."? Here I have replaced the imperative with "you should" ...


----------

