# FR: they are pointing their guns at each other



## cabaigne_29

I would like to say: 'They are pointing their guns at each other.'
The context is as in two people are pointing their guns at each other as though about to shoot.
Is it enough to make 'pointer' reflexive to be able to say each other, or should I add on some other form of grammar?

My attempt so far is "Ils se pointent les armes"

Thanks in advance


----------



## franc 91

ils se visent mutuellement?


----------



## cabaigne_29

That sounds a lot better 
Just one last question, do I not need to mentions 'les armes', then?


----------



## franc 91

avec leurs armes


----------



## cabaigne_29

Thank you  Very much appreciated


----------



## Clotaire

"Viser avec son arme" ne s'emploie pas tellement...
Je dirais soit
"Il pointent leurs armes l'un sur l'autre"
soit
"Ils se visent l'un l'autre."

Mais "viser" ne contient pas d'idée de menace. On vise soit pour s'amuser, soit pour s'entraîner, soit pour tirer, mais le but n'est pas de menacer.


----------



## franc 91

mais si, ça se dit - viser quelqu'un avec son arme - peut-être vous le trouvez moins menaçant, mais si on me visait avec une arme, je ne serais pas très rassuré


----------



## French Retard

Hello,
You could also say:
"Ils se tiennent en joue"

It means that they point the guns at each other ready to shoot. But it may be a little bit old-fashioned.


----------



## cabaigne_29

Hey thanks for all the suggestions 

Can anybody explain the usage of 'l'un l'autre' or 'l'un sur l'autre' for future reference and application?

Thanks again


----------



## franc 91

(at) each other


----------



## cabaigne_29

Ah I see  Can that not be remedied by making the verb reflexive?


----------



## franc 91

se refers to themselves respectively, not to the other person


----------



## cabaigne_29

Thank you  That's much clearer


----------



## Francobritannocolombien

franc 91 said:


> se refers to themselves respectively, not to the other person



Not necessarily. The so-called  "reflexive" form could very often be called the "mutual" form. If you say "Ces deux-là, ils _se _détestent!", chances are you mean that they hate each other, not that they have very low self-esteem.
"French Retard" (!!!) suggested "ils se tiennent en joue" and I think it is the best translation. If you feel that the "reflexive" pronoun is too ambiguous in this case, you can specify "ils se tiennent _mutuellement _en joue."


----------



## Maître Capello

I fully agree with FrBrCo: the _se_ of pronominal verbs can be either reflexive or reciprocal. (In the examples suggested above by Clotaire and French Retard, the _se _is reciprocal.)

_Ils se visent. _(reciprocal ↔ each other)
_Ils se tiennent en joue. _(reciprocal ↔ each other)

Anyway, note that using both the reciprocal pronoun and_ l'un l'autre_ (or similar) is possible, but it is redundant…

_Ils se visent l'un l'autre._
_Ils se tiennent en joue l'un l'autre. _


----------



## cabaigne_29

Maître Capello said:


> I fully agree with FrBrCo: the _se_ of pronominal verbs can be either reflexive or reciprocal. (In the examples suggested above by Clotaire and French Retard, the _se _is reciprocal.)
> 
> _Ils se visent. _(reciprocal ↔ each other)
> _Ils se tiennent en joue. _(reciprocal ↔ each other)
> 
> Anyway, note that using both the reciprocal pronoun and_ l'un l'autre_ (or similar) is possible, but it is redundant…
> 
> _Ils se visent l'un l'autre._
> _Ils se tiennent en joue l'un l'autre. _


 
Thank you for explaining the 'se' part - very useful for me, indeed 
Could you just tell me what you mean by 'redundant'? 
Thanks for all your help


----------



## Maître Capello

cabaigne_29 said:


> Could you just tell me what you mean by 'redundant'?


It is a superfluous repetition as both the pronoun _se_ and _l'un l'autre_ convey the same idea of reciprocity…


----------



## cabaigne_29

Thanks very much


----------

