# FR: past perfect and object agreement



## hamer1970

I'm trying to refresh my memory on the passé composé in particular with gender / number agreement of the participle with the direct or indirect object. 

What I remember is that in the passé composé using avoir, the participle has to agree with the direct object pronoun that precedes the auxiliary verb, for example:

J'ai vu les filles = Je les ai vues. 

I seem to remember that the participle does not have to agree with the indirect object pronoun, for example:

J'ai vendu le stylo à la fille = Je le lui ai vendu.

Would this be correct?

J'ai vendu la carte au mec = Je la lui ai vendue? 

Merci d'avance... I know it's not the most original question but I did search first!


----------



## Canard

Looks fine to me!

Another wrinkle in this agreement issue is that you must also form agreement in a relative clause to reflect the gender of the noun it describes. "Ce ne sont pas les filles que j'ai *vues* hier."


----------



## hamer1970

Great, thanks for the quick reply.
I forgot about the relative clause and agreement. 

So I had it right when I reached back in my memory and found that you don't have to have agreement with an indirect object pronoun?


----------



## Canard

Indeed. "Nous nous sommes *parlé*", "Je leur ai *dit*..."...


----------



## hamer1970

Thanks.
Can you think of any examples of using the passé composé with a reflexive pronoun w/ être of course AND a direct object pronoun?? What kind of agreement would that take with the participle?


----------



## Canard

When it's a reflexive verb, the past participle agrees with the direct object. Compare:

Elle s'est *coupée au doigt*. (coupée -> se (elle)
Elle s'est *coupé* *le doigt*. (coupé -> le doigt) [this is the preferred form by far]

I don't think you'd ever say "Elle se l'est coupé", but even in that hypothetical vacuum of grammar, it would still go to "le" for the agreement. I can mine through my big grammar book for more squishy details if you'd like.

Hope that helps!


----------



## hamer1970

OK, I knew there was some kind of exception with the reflexive and passé composé. I'd completely forgotten about that example you gave of Elle s'est coupé le doigt. 

You may mine if you like, but that really helps clarify and refresh my memory on the passé composé. Hope to return the favor some day!


----------



## Suehil

The exception is if a verb is conjugated with 'être' (as all reflexive verbs are) - then the participle agrees with the *subject*, not the object.


----------



## hamer1970

I'm confused... even in the case of "Elle s'est coupé le doigt"?


----------



## Suehil

Sorry to take so long, I went and checked with my French teacher.  Yes, 'Elle s'est coupée le doigt'


----------



## Monsieur Hoole

No, there is no agreement in this case.  

Elle s'est coupée   (==> direct object preceding verb, so agreement)

Elle s'est coupé le doigt (==> direct object after verb, so no agreement)

M.H.


----------



## Suehil

Sorry, Monsieur Hoole, the direct object rule does not apply when the verb is conjugated with 'être'.  The agreement is with the subject.  At least, that is what my French teacher told me this afternoon.


----------



## marget

Monsieur Hoole said:


> No, there is no agreement in this case.
> 
> Elle s'est coupée (==> direct object preceding verb, so agreement)
> 
> Elle s'est coupé le doigt (==> direct object after verb, so no agreement)
> 
> M.H.


 

If I were to say "elle s'est coupé les cheveux" and if I wanted to replace "les cheveux", it would be "elle se les est coupés, right?  I believe it's grammatically correct, but does it sound awkward?


----------



## zaby

marget said:


> If I were to say "elle s'est coupé les cheveux" and if I wanted to replace "les cheveux", it would be "elle se les est coupés, right? I believe it's grammatically correct, but does it sound awkward?


 
It is correct and it sounds fine


----------



## jann

> Sorry, Monsieur Hoole, the direct object rule does not apply when the verb is conjugated with 'être'. The agreement is with the subject. At least, that is what my French teacher told me this afternoon.


Maybe you want to give your French teacher a 2nd chance at this?  I too am quite sure she is mistaken.  Perhaps she would revise her position. 

For me it is absolutely 
_elle s'est coup*ée*_ 
_elle s'est coup*é* le doigt

__elle s'est coup*é* les cheveux_ 
_elle se les est coup*és*._


----------



## zaby

Suehil said:


> Sorry, Monsieur Hoole, the direct object rule does not apply when the verb is conjugated with 'être'. The agreement is with the subject. At least, that is what my French teacher told me this afternoon.


 
Well I disagree with your French teacher... 

There are good web sites about this rule, for instance 
http://www.synapse-fr.com/manuels/PP_PRONO.htm
http://www.ccdmd.qc.ca/fr/dyn/fichiers/03AccPPpron.pdf?sect=Rubrique

A quiz here :
http://www.csmm.qc.ca/sitsat/francais/accordpppronominaux.htm


----------



## marget

zaby said:


> It is correct and it sounds fine


 

Merci, beaucoup !  I've read a lot about the rules for the agreement of past participle and here's the way I view it: There are just two rules:

1) The past participle of intransitive verbs conjugated with être agrees with the subject of the clause.

2)  The past participle of verbs conjugated with avoir agrees with a preceding direct object noun or pronoun.  This same rule applies to pronominal verbs.  They are conjugated with être, but they follow the "avoir" rule of agreement.

Does anyone agree with me?


----------



## Canard

edit: Wow, people sure got on this fast! Oh well 

It is not "Elle s'est* coupée *le doigt" because "se" is no longer what's being cut, it's "le doigt". I can cite you several grammar books that will back me and Hoole up, including confirmation from several Alliance Française teachers in town who will say the same thing  The problem is they sound the same, so I wonder if there were a sound change, if that would make which one feels right/wrong more obvious?

From one of my books, Advanced French Grammar by L'Huillier (p 133-134):


> The past participle agrees with the *direct object* of the verb, but only if this direct object appears *before the verb* in the sentence.
> Ex: _Les *pêches* que j'ai achet*ées* n'étaient pas mûres.
> _The peaches I bought were not ripe.
> 
> '_Il ne *m*'a pas *vue*', a dit Catherine.
> _"He didn't see me," Catherine said.
> 
> _Quels *vins* avez-vous achet*és*?
> _Which wines did you buy?


What we can extrapolate from this (that "le doigt" is the direct object and, coming after, does not make "coupé" agree) is restated explicitly later (p 268):


> The past participle does not agree in the following cases:
> ...
> (ii) When the verb takes a direct object other than _se_
> Ex: _Elle *s'*est coupé_ *les cheveux*.
> _She cut her hair.
> (_se _is now the *indirect* object;
> think of: _Elle a coupé les cheveux à elle_)
> 
> _Elle *s'*est pincé_ *le doigt* dans la porte.
> _She slammed her finger in the door.


----------



## Suehil

My French teacher is going to get a flea in his ear next week!  
Thanks for teaching me better.


----------



## zaby

Yet some pronominal verbs are called "essentiellement pronominaux". It means they are not a reflexive form of a verb but they only exist in the pronominal form (or they don't have the same meaning in a non-pronominal form).
These verbs agree with the subject (we can admit that to Suehil's teacher )

ex: Elle s'est dépêchée de partir avant qu'il pleuve.


----------



## marget

zaby said:


> Yet some pronominal verbs are called "essentiellement pronominaux". It means they are not a reflexive form of a verb but they only exist in the pronominal form (or they don't have the same meaning in a non-pronominal form).
> These verbs agree with the subject (we can admit that to Suehil's teacher )
> 
> ex: Elle s'est dépéchée de partir avant qu'il pleuve.


 

Excellent point.  Yet I think I could still argue that in "se dépêcher", the pronoun is a direct object pronoun.  She "dispatched" whom?... herself! I'm not ready to give Suehill's teacher an apple!


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Canard said:


> "Nous nous sommes *parlé*",



Je suis un peu dans le brouillard vis-à-vis celui-ci.

Why is it not _Nous nous sommes parlé(e)s_?


----------



## geostan

As a former French teacher myself, I can say with confidence that Suehill's French teacher is definitely in error.

There are two types of agreement in French as far as past participles are concerned: an agreement with a PDO (preceding direct object) whenever one can be located. If you find one, no other rule needs to be used, whether the verb is pronominal or not.

Elle s'est coupée Elle s'est coupé le doigt.
Elle s'est coupée au doigt. 

With pronominal verbs, when the above does not apply, the agreement is usually with the subject. This applies to essentially and accidentally pronominal verbs.

Elle s'est évanouie. (agreement with the subject. This verb is essentially pronominal; i.e. it does not exist aside from its pronominal form, and the reflexive pronoun is not really analysable.)

Elle s'est aperçue de son erreur. (agreement with the subject. This verb is accidentally pronominal; i.e., while it exists in a non-pronominal form, it has a different meaning when used with a reflexive pronoun. Again the pronoun is not really analysable.)

There is only one recognized essentially pronominal verb that is analysable:
s'arroger. Since it does take a direct object, the agreement of the past participle depends on the position of said object.

Les droits qu'il s'est arrogés sont limités.

I hope this clears up the matter.

Cheers!

To answer the previous post, nous nous sommes parlé has no agreement because the pronoun is an INDIRECT object. On parle à quelqu'un.


----------



## hamer1970

EDIT

OK thanks for the clarification on that.

So would it be "Nous nous sommes parlé(e)s"?


----------



## geostan

No. It would be Nous nous sommes parlé.


----------



## hamer1970

Right--indirect object. 

Very helpful info--thanks again.


----------



## Canard

And just to make this even pricklier, if you're using a relative clause and the verb refers to a third party doing the action (i.e. it's the object of the second verb), there is no agreement. Some examples:

...les airs que j'ai *entendus* (airs is the object of "entendre")
...les airs que j'ai *entendu jouer* (airs is the object of "jouer", not "entendre")
...les musiciens que j'ai *entendus jouer* (musiciens is the object of "entendre")

...la robe que j'ai *fait nettoyer* (robe is the object of "nettoyer", not "faire")

There are more nuances to be thrown out there, if you're especially avid for grit! Bonne chance


----------



## hamer1970

I loves me some grit.
  good stuff!


----------

