# FR: She left without our seeing her



## marget

Bonjour,

Elle est partie sans que nous la voyions.
Elle est partie sans que nous l'ayons vue.  

Could both the present and past subjunctive be considered grammatically correct?

Merci d'avance


----------



## Maître Capello

Both are correct but they don't have the same meaning.

_ Elle est partie sans que nous la voyions. _→ We didn't see her leave.
_ Elle est partie sans que nous l'ayons vue._ → She left before we could have a chance to see her.


----------



## marget

Thank you, Maître Capello.  If one had to join these two sentences with sans que:  Elle est partie.  Nous ne l'avons pas vue., would both versions still be correct?


----------



## Maître Capello

marget said:


> Thank you, Maître Capello.  If one had to join these two sentences with sans que:  Elle est partie.  Nous ne l'avons pas vue., would both versions still be correct?


Well… I think the latter would be the correct one because the original sentence is using the passé composé (_avons vue_) and so should the joined sentence → _ Elle est partie sans que nous l'ayons vue._


----------



## timpeac

Hi. M. Capello - I don't understand why Marget's context seems to make you prefer "ayons" when your first post seemed to suggest that "voyions" would be preferred. Using your "before we had the chance to" logic, wouldn't the "ayons" version relate to "elle est partie. Nous ne l'avions pas vue partir" ? Which simple two sentences should be replaced by the voyions form then?

I had thought that the present subjunctive was preferred in such cases, despite the apparent better tense agreement of using the perfect subjunctive (and so would have expected you to prefer the "voyions" form for marget two senteces in post 3). Thanks


----------



## Maître Capello

Sorry for the confusion. I had assumed it was a kind of grammar exercise… In that case it seems more logical to me to use the _ayons_ version, but I can't say the other one is wrong—It all depends on what you want to say…



timpeac said:


> Which simple two sentences should be replaced by the voyions form then?


The two separate sentences that would replace the _voyions_ form would be: _Elle est partie. Nous ne l'avons pas vue partir._


----------



## marget

It is indeed a grammar exercise, conceived by a native speaker.  If I understand his way of thinking, (I believe I do), he expects only  "Elle est partie sans que nous la voyions" since both both situations occurred in the same time frame.  However, I did ask another native speaker who allowed for both.  In addition, I recently received an answer from a different  native speaker who used "sans que nous l'ayons vue" without hesitation.  I must reiterate that the original context was - Join the following sentences "Elle est partie. Nous ne l'avons pas vue. " Use "sans".  I must admit that the original sentence did not provide sans que, just sans, so that the person completing the exercise would be obliged to use sans que, not simply sans.

I do appreciate all the help and all the comments.


----------



## timpeac

Marget - this very question has vexed me often. And consequently I've asked it of many native speakers. I've never found a good logical answer to it*, but what I've come away with is the impression that the present subjunctive is preferred (despite the apparent appropriateness of the perfect which my non-native pedant spirit would prefer). These comments are just based on conversations I've had - it's clear that you have the same questions on this issue as me.

* edit before even sending - sorry I don't mean it's not logical, just that I've not found an ipso facto grammatically derived reason for it. As far as I've ever found the English clause in the past which would need the subjunctive in French is translated by the present subjunctive in French.


----------



## Asr

Hello,



Maître Capello said:


> Both are correct but they don't have the same meaning.
> 
> _Elle est partie sans que nous *la* voyions. _→ We didn't see her leave.
> _Elle est partie sans que nous l'ayons vue._ → She left before we could have a chance to see her.


 
Wouldn't it be _le_, instead of _la_ in that case?


----------



## Maître Capello

Asr said:


> Wouldn't it be _le_, instead of _la_ in that case?



No, it is _la_ because we're talking about a woman (_she/her_), not a man…


----------



## Asr

Thanks a lot Maitre Capello!

_Elle est partie sans que nous la voyions. _→ We didn't see her leave

Hmm, I had thought "_her leave_" would be replaced with _le_ here. Don't know how to put that grammatically, verbs/sub-pharses are replaced with le?


----------



## marget

We're trying to say that it was the person we didn't see, not the leaving.


----------



## Asr

Yes, I see that Marget. I was just trying to understand what Maitre Capello said in his first post here.


----------



## Tim~!

> Hmm, I had thought "_her leave_" would be replaced with _le_ here.



"her leave" isn't "possessive adjective + noun"; it's "feminine object pronoun + verb that the object was performing".

If it were a man the sentence would be "... him leave" and you wouldn't have gotten confused.  It's just that the feminine equivalent of "him/his" is "her/her" and that might lend to confusion.

You're after "I saw her [when she was leaving]": you need to use _la_.


----------



## Fred_C

Tim~! said:


> "her leave" isn't "possessive adjective + noun"; it's "feminine object pronoun + verb that the object was performing".
> 
> If it were a man the sentence would be "... him leave" and you wouldn't have gotten confused.  It's just that the feminine equivalent of "him/his" is "her/her" and that might lend to confusion.
> 
> You're after "I saw her [when she was leaving]": you need to use _la_.



Hi,
Your explanation is perfectly correct for the English language, but in French, the pronoun "le" can actually replace the whole proposition "her leave". (Actually it replaces the clause "Qu'elle était partie".
So the sentence "Elle est partie sans que nous _le _voyions" is indeed perfectly correct.


----------



## Tim~!

Yep, I agree Fred.  I was trying to justify Capello's use of _la _because Asr said they couldn't see what he was doing, but it was wrong to lead Asr into thinking that _la_ was the only choice.

We can actually do the same thing in English too.  It's perfectly natural to say "She left without us seeing it", although it's not as common as the other forms, I would suggest.


----------



## timpeac

The "la" form is the only correct choice as a translation of the English sentence in the title. As Tim says the "le" form means "without our seeing it".


----------



## Fred_C

Tim~! said:


> We can actually do the same thing in English too. It's perfectly natural to say "She left without us seeing it",


 

 Thank you for this piece of information.


----------



## Asr

I finally get it. Thanks a million for the clarification Tim!  And a big thank you to Marget, Fred & Timpeac too!


----------



## geostan

I would say:_ Elle est partie sans que nous la voyions._ To me, the adverb clause merely states that at the moment of her leaving, we were not aware of it. The form with ...ayons vue... seems complicated and unnecessary. 

Cheers!


----------



## Rory Melough

Tim~! said:


> Yep, I agree Fred. I was trying to justify Capello's use of _la _because Asr said they couldn't see what he was doing, but it was wrong to lead Asr into thinking that _la_ was the only choice.
> 
> We can actually do the same thing in English too. It's perfectly natural to say "She left without us seeing it", although it's not as common as the other forms, I would suggest.


 
I'm not sure about this - it doesn't sound quite right to me. 

I would say, "she left without us seeing her do so"


----------

