# FR: L'année dernière, je travaillais avec mon père



## jacques songo'o

While looking at another site I came across this sentence L'année dernière, je travaillais avec mon père. This is translated as Last year,  I worked  with my father. If this the correct translation in English then surely the French should be in passé composé as the action has finished. J'ai travaillé  avec mon pére. Nothing follows this sentence so there is no question of  Je travaillais being used in a descriptive/scene setting sense(i.e  Je travaillais quand) and it certaintly doesn't seem to be used in a habitual action sense either. I'm very confused. Can anyone help?


----------



## itka

L'année dernière: _all the year long_, so_ I used to work with my father._ It's an habitual action---> imparfait.
As you noticed, there is no following there, so you could also translate :
_"L'année dernière, j'ai travaillé avec mon père" _but if that is the meaning you want to express, it would be better say : _"L'an dernier, j'ai travaillé avec mon père"---> _passé composé.

The word "année" emphasize the duration (all the year long), whereas "l'an" globalize the idea (the whole year).


----------



## jacques songo'o

Ah, now I understand it. Cheers Itka


----------



## Zsanna

Lucky you! I do not understand... 

What is "_all the year long_, so_ I used to work with my father" ?_

What does "all year long" (= an indication of length of time) have to do with "used to" (= an indication for a past habitual action that is not done any more)? 

Do you mean that the imparfait in French indicates that the action took place all year long? 
Am I wrong thinking than in English you could you the Past Continuous to indicate the same thing (or that this is how/ doing this sort of activity) you spent all year last year)? (_I was working with my father last year_.)


----------



## geostan

For me, _L'année dernière, je travaillais avec mon père._ is incomplete. This would be descriptive, not part of the sequence of events, assuming there is one. The next sentence might begin with something like: _Un jour, je suis arrivé..._

With the passé composé, the sentence is complete. We do not expect a further elaboration of what happened during that time. If anything, the next sentence might say what happened after.


----------



## itka

Zsanna, I'm sorry, my english is not good enough to use the right tense.  


> Do you mean that the imparfait in French indicates that the action took place all year long?


 Indeed, that's what I meant. It should have been : _I was working with my father last year_.

geostan, the sentence :_ "l'année dernière, je travaillais avec mon père"_ is as complete as _"L'année dernière, j'ai travaillé avec mon père"_ can be. 
It gives a piece of information on the person with whom I was working last year.

You could for instance come across with that kind of dialog :
"Are you working alone ?
- Yes I do but last year I was working with my father."
_"Est-ce que vous travaillez seul ?
- Oui, mais l'année dernière, je travaillais avec mon père"_
You're not expecting anything else further.


----------



## geostan

itka said:


> Zsanna, I'm sorry, my english is not good enough to use the right tense.
> Indeed, that's what I meant. It should have been : _I was working with my father last year_.
> 
> geostan, the sentence :_ "l'année dernière, je travaillais avec mon père"_ is as complete as _"L'année dernière, j'ai travaillé avec mon père"_ can be.
> It gives a piece of information on the person with whom I was working last year.
> 
> You could for instance come across with that kind of dialog :
> "Are you working alone ?
> - Yes I *am* but last year I was working with my father."
> _"Est-ce que vous travaillez seul ?
> - Oui, mais l'année dernière, je travaillais avec mon père"_
> You're not expecting anything else further.



This example is a special case. It compares what is true now with what was true last year.  But when dealing with a context that is entirely in the past, that use of the imperfect would not make sense. At least, that is how I see it.


----------



## itka

What do you call a "context entirely in the past"? That's exactly the same with the passé composé. In both cases I speak now and I tell something about the past.I can see no difference except that when you use the imparfait, you're speaking about a lasting action...

_L'année dernière, j'ai travaillé avec mon père._ = je l'ai fait, j'ai travaillé avec lui quelque temps, quelques jours, six mois,  .

_L'année dernière, je travaillais avec mon père._ = je travaillais tous les jours avec lui, j'avais l'habitude de le faire, je le faisais régulièrement...


----------



## geostan

itka said:


> What do you call a "context entirely in the past"? That's exactly the same with the passé composé. In both cases I speak now and I tell something about the past.I can see no difference except that when you use the imparfait, you're speaking about a lasting action...
> 
> _L'année dernière, j'ai travaillé avec mon père._ = je l'ai fait, j'ai travaillé avec lui quelque temps, quelques jours, six mois,  .
> 
> _L'année dernière, je travaillais avec mon père._ = je travaillais tous les jours avec lui, j'avais l'habitude de le faire, je le faisais régulièrement...



That's not my understanding. An action may have lasted one or two days and involve an impefect tense. Another action may have occurred over a period of fifty years and involve a passé composé. The difference is not in the duration, but in the way of viewing the action.

The imperfect selects a moment within the duration. When we use it, we are not interested in how long it lasted, but simply in a selected moment after it began and before it ended.

The imperfect in the above example answers a question such as:

_Que faisiez-vous l'anneée dernière, quand l'accident s'est produit?_ Without the added clause, the question makes no sense. But you could ask a similar question without the added clause, using a passé composé.

If the difference between the two tenses were as simple as you described, it would pose no difficulty to someone learning the language. We know that it is much more complicated than that.


----------



## Nicomon

geostan said:


> The imperfect in the above example answers a question such as:
> 
> _Que faisiez-vous l'année dernière, quand l'accident s'est produit?_


  I don't agree. I mean... I agree that the question doesn't make much sense without the added clause, but do not agree that the thread sentence answers it.  It can be said without anyone asking anything.   

It is the same pattern as :

_L'année dernière, Jean travaillais pour la société ABC _.  This means... he no longer works for ABC.  We don't know if he had a regular 5 day schedule, or if he only worked there part time. We don't know either how long he worked there for. But before January 1st 2008, _he was working/used to work _at ABC. You use the imperfect to express he's now working somewhere else or not working at all.  _Il travaillait... il ne travaille plus. _
_L'année dernière, je travaillais avec mon père_. They were working together, at the same place (e.g., the father has a business, and the son worked with him, or the same firm hired both the father and son) ... and then they went working their separate ways.  Hence the imperfect; they no longer work together. 

_L'an dernier, Jean a travaillé pour la société abc _ The sentence doesn't tell how long he worked there for - could be the whole year, a six month contract, just a few days for a vacation replacement... but we understand he wasn't working /didn't work there the year before. 

I hope I didn't make it even more confusing.   What I'm trying to say is that it is crystal clear to me that the thread sentence indeed *is* complete, as is.


----------



## geostan

Nicomon said:


> _L'année dernière, Jean travaillais pour la société ABC _.  This means... he no longer works for ABC.  We don't know if he had a regular 5 day schedule, or if he only worked there part time. We don't know either how long he worked there for. But before January 1st 2008, _he was working/used to work _at ABC. You use the imperfect to express he's now working somewhere else or not working at all.  _Il travaillait... il ne travaille plus. _
> _L'année dernière, je travaillais avec mon père_. They were working together, at the same place (e.g., the father has a business, and the son worked with him, or the same firm hired both the father and son) ... and then they went working their separate ways.  Hence the imperfect; they no longer work together.
> 
> _L'an dernier, Jean a travaillé pour la société abc _ The sentence doesn't tell how long he worked there for - could be the whole year, a six month contract, just a few days for a vacation replacement... but we understand he wasn't working /didn't work there the year before.
> 
> I hope I didn't make it even more confusing.   What I'm trying to say is that it is crystal clear to me that the thread sentence indeed *is* complete, as is.



You raise a couple of interesting points. In the first case, you say that *Jean no longer works for ABC*. Does that mean that this sentence could *NOT* be uttered if he still works for ABC? If this is true, then a new wrinkle has been added to this problem for me.

It implies that if he still works for ABC, and you wanted to refer to last year, you would have to use the passé composé. Is this so?

In your second sentence, you state that the use of the passé composé implies that *he didn't work there the year before*. Would this mean that the use of the imperfect implies that he might have worked there the year before?

I'm always ready to adjust my thinking about these two tenses, but I confess that I'm in a bit of a quandary. I tend to use these tenses correctly, but perhaps not for the right reasons.


----------



## Nicomon

> [QUOTE =geostan;5944553] In the first case, you say that *Jean no longer works for ABC*. Does that mean that this sentence could *NOT* be uttered if he still works for ABC?


 Yes, that's what I'm saying... for this specific sentence. 


> It implies that if he still works for ABC, and you wanted to refer to last year, you would have to use the passé composé. Is this so?


 No. You can still use the imperfect, but then the sentence would be longer. Which is probably why you had the feeling that it was incomplete.  

Something like :  _L'accident est survenu le 15 avril 2007, alors qu'il travaillait chez ABC._  (April 15th was a work day at ABC, and he had a work accident).

This sentence is awkward, and it's not crystal clear that he still works there... but _passé composé _wouldn't work.  I'm afraid I'm at a complete loss to find a perfect example of "still at ABC but refering to last year".   But if you had a sentence in mind in English, I'm sure someone would come along with a better explanation. 



> In your second sentence, you state that the use of the passé composé implies that *he didn't work there the year before*. Would this mean that the use of the imperfect implies that he might have worked there the year before?


  In my understanding, yes.  _L'année dernière, il travaillait (encore) chez ABC.  Il y était depuis plus de 30 ans, et en cours d'année, il a quitté son emploi / a été remercié de ses services / est parti à la retraite. _


----------



## itka

I completely agree with you, Nico, except on one point : even if he still works for ABC, we  can perfectly say_ "L'année dernière, il travaillait chez ABC"._ 

It's clearer when adding more context :
_"L'année dernière, il travaillait (déjà) chez ABC"_ = he still works there.
_"L'année dernière, il travaillait (encore) chez ABC"_ = he no longer works there.

That's the same for the _passé composé_ :
_"Il a (déjà) travaillé chez ABC l'année dernière"_ = he perfectly can work again for ABC.
_"Il a travaillé (un temps) chez ABC l'année dernière"_ = he no longer works there.
The choice of imparfait or passé composé implies nothing for the present.


----------



## Nicomon

Thanks for the additional info, itka. Of course, you're right.  Je ne réfléchis pas bien après minuit. 

But I believe - I wrote "this specific sentence" - that in most contexts, unless the author specifies _déjà_, it would mean the person is no longer there.  

I personally would understand _encore_ with the imperfect, and _un temps _... but he could return at some point in time... with the compound past.


----------



## itka

Mais Nico,_ "encore"  "déjà" ou "un temps"_ ne sont là que pour montrer quels sens la phrase peut prendre... Je les ai mis entre parenthèses pour bien souligner qu'ils ne sont pas indispensables. 
Les deux phrases (à l'imparfait ou au passé composé) peuvent parfaitement se suffire à elles-mêmes et n'ont nul besoin d'un quelconque complément pour être correctes, c'est tout ce que je voulais dire.


----------



## Nicomon

itka said:


> Mais Nico,_ "encore"  "déjà" ou "un temps"_ ne sont là que pour montrer quels sens la phrase peut prendre... Je les ai mis entre parenthèses pour bien souligner qu'ils ne sont pas indispensables.
> Les deux phrases (à l'imparfait ou au passé composé) peuvent parfaitement se suffire à elles-mêmes et n'ont nul besoin d'un quelconque complément pour être correctes, c'est tout ce que je voulais dire.



Mais je ne l'ai pas nié non plus.  J'ai écrit ceci, au post # 10 :
_What I'm trying to say is that it is crystal clear to me that the thread sentence indeed *is *complete, as is._

Je disais simplement qu'à défaut de la précision, je - et cela n'engage que moi - comprendrais d'avantage l'un (encore/un temps = plus là) que l'autre (déjà et encore là).


----------

