# Common Usage Problems for Native Speakers



## auriferous

As I pursue French and make at least some efforts to get grammar and usage more or less right, I have wondered what kinds of common errors native French speakers tend to make either in written French or in conversation, if any. In English, for example, who/whom is always a problem (with most of the errors coming from the overuse of whom because I guess it seems to sound more correct, even though it's often wrong. Subject-verb agreement is sometimes a problem too, and of course no one at least here in the US can seem to get lie/lay right especially in speech. Just wondering if French has some of these same sorts of persistent trouble spots for native speakers. Thanks.


----------



## superromu

il y a = y a 
il n'y a pas = y a pas 
in conversation, the "ne" is often removed "je sais pas pourquoi ?" 

there are many mistakes we made when we speak or write, 
it depends on people, some are not friends with grammar so they made a lot of mistake in french writting and speaking


----------



## E-J

I have noticed that in their written correspondence, some French speakers tend to put infinitives in place of past participles, no doubt because of their similar sound, for example: "je suis aller ..."

One intriguing thing I've noted is that, while it's very common in British English for people to confuse the verbs _itch _and _scratch_, the French do it too with _gratter/démanger_, but the other way around  In BE you might hear someone say: "Stop itching it! It'll get worse" when in fact, they mean '_scratching_'. In France, I've heard friends say "Ça me gratte" when they should say "Ça me _démange_".


----------



## Kelly B

I often see homonyms confused: ses/ces/c'est seems the most common.


----------



## LV4-26

After E-J's post, I can't resist. Here's an excerpt from Jules Romains' famous play, _Knock ou le Triomphe de la médecine_
(a man is describing some disease symptoms to a doctor)
_- Ça me gratouille....ou plutôt, ça me chatouille
- Attention, ne confondons pas, ça vous gratouille ou ça vous chatouille ?
- Ça me gratouille.....mais...ça me chatouille ben un peu aussi.

_(NB : there's absolutely no perceptible difference between both phrases)_


gratter _is both passive and active. It means both itching and scratching
Hence,_ je me gratte _and _ça me gratte.
_(_ça me gratte_ seems to be a familiar extension of the original sense. So it isn't correct but so widespread that it's become correct)


----------



## LV4-26

auriferous said:
			
		

> I have wondered what kinds of common errors native French speakers tend to make either in written French or in conversation, if any. .


Here we go again with my favorite "cheval de bataille".
-_ Ma femme s'est faite voler son sac_
(where it should be "_s'est fait voler")

_a phenomenon of overcorrection like the use of "whom".

EDIT : I've heard the above many times in the lines of TV films. So the question is : is the correct version gradually becoming the incorrect one ?(after all, it's all my fault : I shouldn't watch TV )


----------



## charlie2

E-J said:
			
		

> I have noticed that in their written correspondence, some French speakers tend to put infinitives in place of past participles, no doubt because of their similar sound, for example: "je suis aller ..."


 
I have seen that too and I even pointed that out and asked... 
Now reading your post, I realize ...


----------



## Welshie

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Here we go again with my favorite "cheval de bataille".
> -_ Ma femme s'est faite voler son sac_
> (where it should be "_s'est fait voler")
> 
> _a phenomenon of overcorrection like the use of "whom".
> 
> EDIT : I've heard the above many times in the lines of TV films. So the question is : is the correct version gradually becoming the incorrect one ?(after all, it's all my fault : I shouldn't watch TV )



Excuse a humble foreigner...why is it wrong?

I'm reading it to mean: My wife had her bag stolen...


----------



## Mycall

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Here we go again with my favorite "cheval de bataille".
> -_ Ma femme s'est faite voler son sac_
> (where it should be "_s'est fait voler")_
> 
> a phenomenon of overcorrection like the use of "whom".
> 
> EDIT : I've heard the above many times in the lines of TV films. So the question is : is the correct version gradually becoming the incorrect one ?(after all, it's all my fault : I shouldn't watch TV )


 
The reverse is also quite frequent: "La chose que j'ai fait"

  other  common mistakes include shifts in meaning:

  Ex: "un magasin bien achalandé" means "a shop with lots of customers" and is often used to désignate "a shop with a great variety of goods".

Not really a mistake but I find the exaggerated use of 'trop' rather irritating these days 

   "Ouais! Trop cool ton nouveau pull! c'est trop mignon! j'suis trop content! C'est trop top! C'est trop de la balle!" 

A common mistake is made about the adjective "pécuniaire". A lot of people think it is the feminine form of "pécunier" which doesn't exist. So you can often hear them speak about their "ennuis pécuniers" ("money troubles")


----------



## LV4-26

Welshie said:
			
		

> Excuse a humble foreigner...why is it wrong?
> 
> I'm reading it to mean: My wife had her bag stolen...


You're reading it right.
Not easy for me to explain in English but I'll try.
Let's try a simpler example and omit the bag 
_Ma femme s'est fait(e) voler._
_faite _is the feminine form for _fait_.
It would be "_faite_" only if "_my wife_" was the object of "_faire_". While, actually, she's the object of "_voler_".

You do say
_Ma femme s'est faite toute seule _(she's a self-made woman)
but this is a completely different construction in which "faire" is the main verb and with a different meaning. In this case she's indeed the object (and the subject for that matter) of "faire".

I'm not sure it's clear....


----------



## Jean-Michel Carrère

Est-que vous palliez un manque ou est-ce que vous palliez *à* un manque ? ( pallier = compensate / offset / make up for the lack of sth )

Well, a large proportion of French people would give the wrong answer to the question above.


----------



## Starcreator

There are of course the French speakers who forget the subjunctive imperfect. Il fallait que l'on *fût* heureux. Etc.


----------



## Jad

Kelly B said:
			
		

> I often see homonyms confused: ses/ces/c'est seems the most common.


 
There's also *ta/t'as/t'a* (much like our *your/you're*)

I've seen a lot of *trés* and *çà*

I've also seen/heard things such as *des grandes voitures* instead of *de grandes voitures* but the person explained that it's quite common in spoken french and saying it properly is being _puriste_?


----------



## E-J

French and English (AE in particular) are both 'guilty' of sometimes inserting an extra _would _into sentences in the conditional. For example: "Tu m'aurais demandé, je t'aurais dit" has its counterpart in "If you would have asked me, I would have told you."

When I lived in France, I would copy my friends' way of speaking because I wanted my speech to come across as natural. So, among friends I'm afraid I used to make statements like the above fairly frequently, as well as things like "J'ai lu *sur *le journal que ..." (rather than _dans _le journal) because that's how everyone around me was speaking.


----------



## Auryn

E-J said:
			
		

> "Tu m'aurais demandé, je t'aurais dit"



Actually, this isn't so bad. The true monstrosity is "*Si* tu m'*aurais* demandé, je t'aurais dit"  (instead of "Si tu m'*avais* demandé...").


----------



## Welshie

Starcreator said:
			
		

> There are of course the French speakers who forget the subjunctive imperfect. Il fallait que l'on *fût* heureux. Etc.




I was taught at school that the subjunctive imperfect is no longer used in speech unless you're kinda...really at the top of society. Tell me I don't have to learn that hideous tense for normal speech! :|

LV4-26 thanks for the explanation. I think I understand now.

Let me try:

"La chose s'est faite sans aide"  - not sure if that makes sense as a sentence...but ignore that 

"La chose s'est fait detruire"

Right?


----------



## Agnès E.

No need to use the subjunctive imperfect, Welshie! I would suggest to learn it in order to be able to recognize it in French texts...  No-one uses it nowadays, unfortunately!  (I love provocation )

"La chose s'est fait detruire" : no, it should be _la chose s'est faite détruire_, as chose is the object of détruire. Nevertheless: la chose s'est fait détruire son moteur à xyrchronium expansé qu'elle a acheté 6 milliards de gloxors sur la planète LV4-26.


----------



## Welshie

Ahhhh je vois enfin. Parce que ce n'est pas, en fait, la chose qui s'est faite detruire, mais le moteur.

Merci beaucoup 

Je peux déjà reconnaitre le subjunctif imparfait, mais pour un moment j'ai pensé que j'allais à l'apprendre!


----------



## Benjy

one that i notice all the time:

si je pourrais etc.

whats funny is that i never used to make this mistake! but then i picked it up off the people i was staying with lol.


----------



## Starcreator

Agnès E. said:
			
		

> No need to use the subjunctive imperfect, Welshie! I would suggest to learn it in order to be able to recognize it in French texts...  No-one uses it nowadays, unfortunately!  (I love provocation )
> 
> "La chose s'est fait detruire" : no, it should be _la chose s'est faite détruire_, as chose is the object of détruire. Nevertheless: la chose s'est fait détruire son moteur à xyrchronium expansé qu'elle a acheté 6 milliards de gloxors sur la planète LV4-26.


 
No one uses it - psh - je suis sûr que vous et vos amis parlez toujours au passé simple et au subjonctif imparfait , n'est-ce pas?



> Tell me I don't have to learn that hideous tense for normal speech! :|


 
I'd recommend knowing how to recognize it in written work - which practically means learning it, but you don't have to use it.



			
				Welshie said:
			
		

> Je peux déjà reconnaitre le subjunctif imparfait, mais pour un moment j'ai pensé que j'allais à l'apprendre!


 
Avec le temps vous allez le connaître sans le savoir même, quand tu seras complètement bilingue (or at least, that's what actually bilingual people tell me  ).

Francophones: Is there any reason why the imparfait always follows "si"? When I first started learning French I thought it strange that the English "If I could" became "Si je pouvais".



> French and English (AE in particular) are both 'guilty' of sometimes inserting an extra _would _into sentences in the conditional. For example: "Tu m'aurais demandé, je t'aurais dit" has its counterpart in "If you would have asked me, I would have told you."


 
What's the alternative? If you would have asked me, I would tell you? You have to have both "would"s.

Star


----------



## Benjy

if you had asked me, i would have told you.


----------



## Starcreator

Benjy said:
			
		

> if you had asked me, i would have told you.


 
Ahh. Well that was head bangingly obvious  , but I'm still not certain that saying "If you would have asked me" would be grammatically incorrect - it doesn't sound that bad to my native ears.

Does anyone have a source saying that this, or its French equivalent, is grammatically incorrect?

Star


----------



## Benjy

Starcreator said:
			
		

> Ahh. Well that was head bangingly obvious  , but I'm still not certain that saying "If you would have asked me" would be grammatically incorrect - it doesn't sound that bad to my native ears.
> 
> Does anyone have a source saying that this, or its French equivalent, is grammatically incorrect?
> 
> Star



as for the english i couldn't tell you. to tell the truth i use double conditionals in english all the time and it sounds fine.

in french it is definitely wrong. having sold all my french grammars on ebay i cant cite you a good source  i am sure someone will find something for you though.


----------



## Starcreator

Thanks. What French grammar on ebay?

I think it's not bad in English, particularly.


----------



## E-J

Auryn said:
			
		

> Actually, this isn't so bad. The true monstrosity is "*Si* tu m'*aurais* demandé, je t'aurais dit"  (instead of "Si tu m'*avais* demandé...").


 
*Si tu m'aurais demandé, je t'aurais dit.*
*Tu m'aurais demandé, je t'aurais dit.*

Aren't these essentially the same, though? The second merely omits the 'Si'. To my mind, the use of 'aurais' instead of 'avais' in both of these is incorrect. Can other native speakers comment on this?


----------



## Agnès E.

Ah, E-J, I'm so *HAPPY *so teach you something in French! 

*Si tu m'aurais demandé, je t'aurais dit* => wrong. _Si_ needs to be followed by the _imparfait/plus que parfait_. The second verb is _conditionnel_, as the first condition is not certain (obviously ). Nevertheless, the whole sentence is just a supposition, depending on the _si _part => Si tu _m'avais demandé_, je _t'aurais dit_.

*Tu m'aurais demandé, je t'aurais dit* => right. As the whole sentence expresses a supposition based on the first condition, the conditionnel conjugation is required in absence of any specific preposition.


----------



## LV4-26

_Tu me l'aurais demandé, je te l'aurais dit.
_I don't exactly know whether this is correct or not. It's colloquial all right but it doesn't mean it is incorrect. I use this construction.
I agree with the others : what is undoubtedly incorrect is _"si tu m'aurais demandé...."
_


----------



## LV4-26

Agnès E. said:
			
		

> "La chose s'est fait detruire" : no, it should be _la chose s'est faite détruire_,


Welshie, to avoid any confusion, please note that (pour l'instant ) I definitely do not agree with Agnès on this point. What I've been saying from the start is that the correct wording is "s'est *fait* détruire" (without an "e"). 
As you very rightly said, Agnès, _"chose_ is the object of détruire",* not of* *faire.
*(in bold is_ my_ addition)I could eventually be proved wrong but I just wanted to insist that we have two opposite opinions here. Interesting...

EDIT : voici déjà une page qui semble aller dans mon sens (elle concerne "laisser" mais indique le même usage pour "faire" comme s'il s'agissait d'une affaire entendue)
http://www.aidenet.com/scolaire/nouveau07.htm
Bien sûr, cela demande encore confirmation mais....

Une autre :
http://www.comlive.net/sujet-15939.html
(_elle s'est fait avoir _vs_ elle s'est faite avoir)
_Il se pourrait bien que j'aie raison, sur ce coup-là


----------



## Welshie

Starcreator, think of it using other sentences and "proper" English:

If I was going, I would help you
If I was eating, I would enjoy myself
If I was* able to help you (si je pouvais), I would

It's to do with the tenses you must use with the "if" phrases:

Present + Future:

If I go, I will help you
If I eat, I will enjoy myself
If I can help you, I will

Imperfect + Conditional:

(above)

Pluperfect + Conditional Perfect:

If I had gone, I would have helped you
If I had eaten, I would have enjoyed myself
If I had been able to help you, I would have

Saying "if I could help you, I would" isn't *technically* correct but everyone says it anyway.

Hope it helps 

EDIT: Damn I forgot to turn the page  Thanks for the link LV4-26.

*If I was able to help you...
If I were able to help you. The second one feels better, the only reason I can suggest for this is it's some remnant of the subjunctive in English? I don't know much about this except that someone told me there are a few phrases in English which hang on to the subjunctive that apparently we used to have in the old days. Eg: If I were you.... (should be - If I was you).


----------



## E-J

The bottom line is that "If you would have" and "Si tu aurais" are wrong. 

It's a general rule of the third conditional that _if_/_si_ are immediately followed by the _had_/_avais _forms, NOT by _would have_/_aurais_. 

Those forms can exist elsewhere, but not directly after _if_/_si_.

EDIT: I'm not suggesting they're not used in the incorrect way very, very often


----------



## LV4-26

It's just come to my mind that our "tu me l'aurais demandé" has some sort of equivalent in English in that both seem to use two conditionnal forms.
_Should I come to France, I would visit you.

_The common points are
- the use of the conditionnal (should)
- the omission of "if" (though it's more of a transformation than an omission strictly speaking - see "inversion" below)

However, there are differences
- the subject-verb inversion in English
- the respective registers : fairly formal in English, fairly colloquial in French.


----------



## E-J

Interesting! Thanks for that.

Your example sentence ("Should you come to France ...") seems to relate more to a hypothetical future, rather than a hypothetical past, more in keeping with the second conditional than with the third. Does the comparison become more accurate if we translate "Tu me l'aurais demandé ..." by "Had you asked me ..."? This sounds a little more formal in English than "If you had asked me ..." but it's perfectly good English.


----------



## LV4-26

Perhaps "_tu me l'aurais demandé"_, though not formal at all derives from a muuuuuch more formal construction which goes :
_ Me *l’eût-il* simplement demandé, *que *j’eusse accepté avec joie.
_(can't give a link to the source as it's a pornographic one. I'll just let you imagine what "he" could have asked her )

Which is much closer to the English construction we were mentionning (same inversion, same formal register). Note the "que" addition. First verb is in the "condionnel passé deuxième forme" (which spells like the subjunctive) and the second one in the "plus que parfait du subjonctif".

EDIT : After all, I'm not that far from the original topic : someone who still speaks like that has got a "usage problem"


----------



## Astartee

another mistake, commonly made by the French :

"après que" + subjonctif
when they should use indicatif.

(that's one _I_ most certainly make, when I'm not being _very_ careful)


----------



## E-J

Agnès E. said:
			
		

> *Tu m'aurais demandé, je t'aurais dit* => right. As the whole sentence expresses a supposition based on the first condition, the conditionnel conjugation is required in absence of any specific preposition.


 
I can't tell you how disapppointed I am to find that this is grammatically correct French!! All that time, I thought I was deliberately speaking incorrectly ... and it turns out I was speaking correctly by mistake!


----------



## LV4-26

E-J said:
			
		

> I can't tell you how disapppointed I am to find that this is grammatically correct French!! All that time, I thought I was deliberately speaking incorrectly ... and it turns out I was speaking correctly by mistake!


Correct as it may be, it's also very idiomatic...Hope this may be a solace


----------

