# Why French has no progressive be + gerund form



## Beachxhair

The other Romance languages developed a progressive aspect, _to be + present participle/gerund_, whereas French didn't. I know it has the imperfect tense, as do the other Romance languages, but whereas Spanish has the periphrastic forms _estuve hablando con mis amigos/estaba hablando con mis amigos _as well as _hablaba con mis amigos_, French only has the imperfect tense in the past. And of course, it has no present progressive. 

I've always wondered why French differs from the other Romance languages in this respect. What are the theories as to why it has no progressive _be + gerund _form?

Thank you


----------



## fdb

We do say: je suis en train de parler, not with gerund, but with the infinitive.


----------



## Beachxhair

fdb said:


> We do say: je suis en train de parler, not with gerund, but with the infinitive.


  Thanks for replying. 'Etre en train de' is a periphrastic expression though. I'm asking why French doesn't have the 'be + gerund' progressive aspect, as in English 'I am speaking', Spanish, 'estoy hablando' etc.


----------



## CapnPrep

Beachxhair said:


> 'Etre en train de' is a periphrastic expression though. I'm asking why French doesn't have the 'be + gerund' progressive aspect, as in English 'I am speaking', Spanish, 'estoy hablando' etc.


All of those are periphrastic expressions of aspect.

You can find examples of _estre_ + pres. part. in Old and Middle French, and even today in regional speech. One consideration is that French does not have two different _be_ verbs like Spanish, so it's not always clear if this structure is meant to be a verbal periphrasis, or an adjectival construction. And there have been various alternatives for expressing progressive aspect (_être à_/_après  _+ inf., _aller_ + participle, etc.) before the eventual triumph of _être en train de_.

You might be interested in reading this Master's thesis by Johanna Toivanen:
Les périphrases verbales progressives en français et en espagnol. Etre  en train de + infinitif / Estar + gérondif. Aller + participe présent /  Ir, andar, venir + gérondif.


----------



## berndf

Beachxhair said:


> Thanks for replying. 'Etre en train de' is a periphrastic expression though. I'm asking why French doesn't have the 'be + gerund' progressive aspect, as in English 'I am speaking', Spanish, 'estoy hablando' etc.


Two small observations:
- In most Romance verbs it is with verbs derived from _stare_. Except maybe in Spanish, this is closer to _to stay_ (which is also derived from stare) than to _to be_.
- In English, the continuous form uses to present participle, not the gerund.


----------



## hadronic

Moreover, French "être en train de " is never mandatory, whereas the present continuous is in English. "Je fume" means both "I smoke (I'm a smoker)" and "I'm smoking (right now)".
How does Spanish behave in this respect ?


----------



## Hulalessar

hadronic said:


> Moreover, French "être en train de" is never mandatory, whereas the present continuous is in English.



Precisely. To characterise the use of "être en train de" as expressing the progressive aspect is rather like insisting that English has grammatical classifiers because you can say "a bunch of grapes".  "Être en train de" is no more than equivalent to "to be in the middle of". It may be useful to employ "être en train de" in an explanation of the continuous tense to French speakers learning English, but it would be going too far to suggest that every instance of the continuous tense can or should be translated into French using "être en train de".



hadronic said:


> How does Spanish behave in this respect ?



Roughly on a par with English. However, the non-continuous forms can usually be used without being "wrong". In standard Spanish, the continuous forms cannot be used (a) if the action is not in progress at the time of speaking (b) (generally) to describe what are states or conditions, rather than actions or (c) with_ estar_, _ir_ and _venir_.


----------



## CapnPrep

Hulalessar said:


> Precisely. To characterise the use of "être en train de" as expressing the progressive aspect is rather like insisting that English has grammatical classifiers because you can say "a bunch of grapes".  "Être en train de" is no more than equivalent to "to be in the middle of".


You wouldn't say _It's in the middle of raining_ or _I'm in the middle of arriving_, but _Il est en train de pleuvoir_ and _Je suis en train d'arriver_ are perfectly natural. I don't think it can be seriously disputed that _être en train de_ expresses progressive aspect. The difference with respect to English is not that the progressive is "never mandatory" in French, but that the simple present is also capable of expressing the progressive in French.

And I would suggest that _être en train de_ is required in some contexts, for example with future reference, wih predicates for which the simple future typically implies accomplishment/completion. _Je serai en train d'apprendre le français_ is not equivalent to _J'apprendrai le français_.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> The difference with respect to English is not that the progressive is "never mandatory" in French, but that the simple present is also capable of expressing the progressive in French.


These are two sides of the same coin. If the progressive is grammaticalized, i.e. grammatically required for progressive meanings, the mere non-usage of the form has has an implication which it hasn't, if the progressive is not grammaticalized.


----------



## CapnPrep

I don't agree that "grammatical/grammaticalized" necessarily implies "required". One could argue that English _be _+ pres. part. is more grammaticalized than French _être en train de_ (because there are additional semantic restrictions on the English simple present), but both are grammaticalized expressions of the progressive. Similar remarks can be made for the German _am_/_beim_ + inf. and Dutch _aan het_ + inf. constructions. They are definitely grammaticalized, but they are not the only ways to express progressivity in those languages.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> I don't agree that "grammatical/grammaticalized" necessarily implies "required". One could argue that English _be _+ pres. part. is more grammaticalized than French _être en train de_ (because there are additional semantic restrictions on the English simple present), but both are grammaticalized expressions of the progressive. Similar remarks can be made for the German _am_/_beim_ + inf. and Dutch _aan het_ + inf. constructions. They are definitely grammaticalized, but they are not the only ways to express progressivity in those languages.


In English the expression of progressiveness _as such_ is grammaticalized in the sense that each verb form is assigned a progressiveness value whereas in German, Dutch and French there is no category of progressiveness in the system of verb forms but certain constructs can be used to _insert_ progressiveness_ where needed_.


----------



## Hulalessar

CapnPrep said:


> _Je serai en train d'apprendre le français_ is not equivalent to _J'apprendrai le français_.



But is that any different from saying that in English "I have a bunch of grapes" is not the same as "I have some grapes"? The latter can include the former, but you cannot say the former if what you have is some grapes which have been picked off their stalks.

It seems to me that the problem is that there tends to be confusion between on the one hand a language having a form called _x _and on the other the function that _x_ performs, which leads to a situation where if the function _x _can be expressed in another language you assume there has to be a form _x_ which expresses it. That in turn leads to the tricky question of whether a language can be said to have a function if there is no form to express it. No one would, I think, seriously argue that English has an "intensive" form of the verb, but that does not mean that intensiveness cannot be expressed in English; it is just not expressed by a grammatical form. There is no section on "intensive verbs" in any English grammar book, but you will find one in an Arabic grammar book (or to be strictly correct one on a form of the verb which expresses among other things intensiveness). No didactic French grammar book I have ever seen has a section on how to express progressiveness just as it has no section on how to express intensiveness.


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> In English the expression of progressiveness _as such_ is grammaticalized in the sense that each verb form is assigned a progressiveness value whereas in German, Dutch and French there is no category of progressiveness in the system of verb forms but certain constructs can be used to _insert_ progressiveness_ where needed_.


I think we all agree about the usage, but it's not true that English verb forms are assigned a progressiveness value. The simple present can express progressivity (_I'll cook dinner while you *play* on the computer_), and the _be_ + participle structure can express meanings other than the progressive (_As soon as I get home, I*'m killing* him_). All of these languages have grammaticalized constructions than can be used to explicitly insert progressivity where needed; they just have different rules about when this is needed (in English, very often but not always; in the other languages, relatively rarely but not never).


Hulalessar said:


> No didactic French grammar book I have ever seen has a section on how to express progressiveness just as it has no section on how to express intensiveness.


Any good French grammar book will discuss the usage of _être en train de_, along with other periphrastic constructions (_venir de_, _futur proche_, etc.). If you just mean that an English grammar book will emphasize that the _-ing_ form is obligatory in many cases, while a French grammar book will only say that _en train de_ can be used to explicitly express progressivity, we are obviously not in disagreement.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> I think we all agree about the usage, but it's not true that English verb forms are assigned a progressiveness value. The simple present can express progressivity (_I'll cook dinner while you *play* on the computer_), and the _be_ + participle structure can express meanings other than the progressive (_As soon as I get home, I*'m killing* him_). All of these languages have grammaticalized constructions than can be used to explicitly insert progressivity where needed; they just have different rules about when this is needed (in English, very often but not always; in the other languages, very rarely but not never).


I think it is understood that in English the continuous form expresses something not usually connected with progressiveness, namely the distinction what you _currently_ do as distinct what you _habitually_ do. The precise meanings of grammatical labels are never the same from language to language, though in both German and French the progressive forms also express this. What I mean are things like this: If you say _he lies_ you accuse him of being an habitual liar merely by _not_ saying _he is lying_. In niether of the other mentioned languages does non-usage of a progressive form have such an implication.


----------



## CapnPrep

As I said, we are not in disagreement about these elementary facts about English vs. French usage. We have a superficial terminological disagreement, about what it means for the progressive to be grammaticalized, and possibly a deeper disagreement about whether the grammatical system of French (German, Dutch) contains the category of progressivity at all.


----------



## Hulalessar

CapnPrep said:


> ...and possibly a deeper disagreement about whether the grammatical system of French (German, Dutch) contains the category of progressivity at all.



I think it has to be a question of degree. <..>


----------



## Beachxhair

I know that 'Etre en train de' is a periphrastic expression, but it doesn't involve the gerund/present participle (which is the same morphological form, and only context determines which it is). In Spanish, the present participle directly follows 'estar', as a verbal form. My question was why this form doesn't exist in French.


----------



## berndf

Beachxhair said:


> I know that 'Etre en train de' is a periphrastic expression, but it doesn't involve the gerund/present participle (which is the same morphological form, and only context determines which it is). In Spanish, the present participle directly follows 'estar', as a verbal form. My question was why this form doesn't exist in French.


A valid question. But just that I can understand what you're aiming at, I'd like to ask a counter-question: _Why do you think it should?
_


----------



## Beachxhair

berndf said:


> A valid question. But just that I can understand what you're aiming at, I'd like to ask a counter-question: _Why do you think it should?
> _


I don't think that it 'should', I just wonder why it doesn't, because there must be some reason why such a form did not develop in French, when it did in other Romance languages (Spanish, Italian).


----------



## hadronic

I'm gonna ask another question : why did it develop in Spanish in the first place?


----------



## Beachxhair

hadronic said:


> I'm gonna ask another question : why did it develop in Spanish in the first place?


That's a good question. It also exists in Italian, and Portuguese I think. French is often the exception to the rule with the Romance languages, it seems.


----------



## Ёж!

Beachxhair said:


> I don't think that it 'should', I just wonder why it doesn't, because there must be some reason […]


Not necessarily.


----------



## Beachxhair

But surely, whatever factor(s)/phenomenon in the histories of Spanish and Italian lead to the development of a progressive tense (be + gerund construction), must have been either absent in the history of French, or the same factor(s) was/were present, but they didn't lead to the development of such a tense for whatever reason?


----------



## Ёж!

But how do we know there was a factor? It could be just casual. When a number of ways are possible, always  there are some who choose one way, and others who choose another.


----------



## Beachxhair

It could just be casual, yes, but even if it was, I'm curious as to how it came into being.


----------



## berndf

Beachxhair said:


> That's a good question. It also exists in Italian, and Portuguese I think. French is often the exception to the rule with the Romance languages, it seems.


Late Latin had various ways to express progressive aspect, one of them was stare+ablative gerundive.





Beachxhair said:


> I know that 'Etre en train de' is a  periphrastic expression, but it doesn't involve the gerund/present  participle (which is the same morphological form, and only context  determines which it is).


They are morphologically merged only in French and Spanish. In Italian they aren't and it is clearly a gerundive and not a present participle in Modern Italian_: sta parlando = he is talking_. In older Italian you also find _essere_+present participle, _è parlante = he is talking_ (if my Italian isn't failing me, _è parlante_ has a different meaning in modern use, namely _he is able to talk_), which is corresponds to the continuous form in English and also to a popular form found in Late Latin.


Beachxhair said:


> French is often the exception to the rule with the Romance languages, it seems.


The may be just small a sample. These forms (derived from _stare_+ablative gerundive) dominate in Spanish and Italian and some varieties of Portuguese but not in all Romance languages except French. E.g. you don't find it at all in Romanian. It would be interesting to know the situation in other Romance language, like e.g. Sardinian.
In Occitan there is _èsser+a+_infinitive: _es a parlar = he is talking_ (Source). This form also existed in older French (not "old French"; not that long ago).

In summary, there is a wide variety of forms to express the progressive in the history of Romance languages and some forms survived in some languages and others not. Here and here are two articles on the evolution of forms expressing the progressive aspect in Romance that relate to your question.


----------



## Hulalessar

Spanish also has an _-nte_ participle.

agua corriente = running water

agua corriendo = water running


----------



## berndf

Thank you. I wasn't sure, if it was still actively used. So, is it like in Italian that the original participle form is mainly used for lexicalized verbal adjectives while uses as a verb form are largely replaced by the gerund(ive)?


----------



## Hulalessar

berndf said:


> Thank you. I wasn't sure, if it was still actively used. So, is it like in Italian that the original participle form is mainly used for lexicalized verbal adjectives while uses as a verb form are largely replaced by the gerund(ive)?



Yes.


----------



## Beachxhair

berndf said:


> Late Latin had various ways to express progressive aspect, one of them was stare+ablative gerundive.They are morphologically merged only in French and Spanish. In Italian they aren't and it is clearly a gerundive and not a present participle in Modern Italian_: sta parlando = he is talking_. In older Italian you also find _essere_+present participle, _è parlante = he is talking_ (if my Italian isn't failing me, _è parlante_ has a different meaning in modern use, namely _he is able to talk_), which is corresponds to the continuous form in English and also to a popular form found in Late Latin.
> The may be just small a sample. These forms (derived from _stare_+ablative gerundive) dominate in Spanish and Italian and some varieties of Portuguese but not in all Romance languages except French. E.g. you don't find it at all in Romanian. It would be interesting to know the situation in other Romance language, like e.g. Sardinian.
> In Occitan there is _èsser+a+_infinitive: _es a parlar = he is talking_ (Source). This form also existed in older French (not "old French"; not that long ago).
> 
> In summary, there is a wide variety of forms to express the progressive in the history of Romance languages and some forms survived in some languages and others not. Here and here are two articles on the evolution of forms expressing the progressive aspect in Romance that relate to your question.


   Thank you!


----------



## Beachxhair

Hulalessar said:


> Spanish also has an _-nte_ participle.
> 
> agua corriente = running water
> 
> agua corriendo = water running


Isn't the -nte form a purely adjectival form in Modern Spanish?


----------



## berndf

Beachxhair said:


> Isn't the -nte form a purely adjectival form in Modern Spanish?


See #28 and #29. A participle is always an adjective (including nominalized and adverbialized adjectives). The difference is that in modern Italian, and as Hulalessar confirmed it's the same in Spanish, the use of the participle is confined to _lexicalized _verbal adjectives.


----------



## Beachxhair

According to the first article posted by berndf, the Old French progressive periphrases, morphologically identical to those in Italian and Ibero Romance, declined in usage and had virtually disappeared by the end of the 16th Century. Any ideas as to why they disappeared?


----------



## berndf

Could be because the verb _ester_ disappeared altogether, except in the special meaning it has in courts of law. But that's just a guess.


----------



## Beachxhair

berndf said:


> Could be because the verb _ester_ disappeared altogether, except in the special meaning it has in courts of law. But that's just a guess.


 Yes, possibly. I wonder whether there are any books/articles written on the subject?


----------



## berndf

Beachxhair said:


> Yes, possibly. I wonder whether there are any books/articles written on the subject?


What I could find I posted already.


----------



## Beachxhair

berndf said:


> What I could find I posted already.


  I found this:   http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zTa23cfRGzMC&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=why+French+progressive+periphrases+disappeared&source=bl&ots=ycMZN-4c3D&sig=usFBxzI84ShbAxnIBiYImTYSHB4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ig7fUY-IIPCM0wWPw4C4DQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=why%20French%20progressive%20periphrases%20disappeared&f=false


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf said:


> Could be because the verb _ester_ disappeared altogether, except in the special meaning it has in courts of law.


The periphrastic forms involve _estre_, not _ester_. _Ester_ has never been part of the auxiliary system and there is no reason for its disappearance to have any effect on the use of _estre_.


----------



## berndf

Thank you for the info.


----------



## Beachxhair

In this link I posted before, on page 119, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zTa23cfRGzMC&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=why+French+progressive+periphrases+disappeared&source=bl&ots=ycMZN-4c3D&sig=usFBxzI84ShbAxnIBiYImTYSHB4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ig7fUY-IIPCM0wWPw4C4DQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=why%20French%20progressive%20periphrases%20disappeared&f=false   It says that any distinction between the descendants of Latin stare and esse is blurred in French, and that "the result of this phenomena" is that the construction with 'Etre + present participle' is completely eliminated nowadays. How did the blurring between stare and esse lead to the disappearance of the progressive tense?


----------



## CapnPrep

Beachxhair said:


> How did the blurring between stare and esse lead to the disappearance of the progressive tense?


See my post #4 above. In a language with only one _be_ verb, the potentially ambiguous _be_ + pres. part. structure will tend to become specialized either as a verbal periphrasis (as in English) or as an adjectival structure (as in French). In Spanish and Italian the two functions of the participle can be maintained since they can be distinguished through the choice of _be_ verb (_estar/__stare _​for the progressive periphrasis, _ser_/_essere_​ for the adjectival construction).


----------



## Beachxhair

Thank you


----------



## Gavril

Beachxhair said:


> That's a good question. It also exists in Italian, and Portuguese I think. French is often the exception to the rule with the Romance languages, it seems.



I think there is some variability even within standard Spanish (perhaps also within standard Port./Italian) in regards to how common the "estar" + "-ndo" construction is. E.g., I seem to recall that Iberian Spanish speakers often use the simple verb form ("hablo") in preference to the periphrastic form ("estoy hablando").


----------



## Hulalessar

Gavril said:


> I think there is some variability even within standard Spanish (perhaps also within standard Port./Italian) in regards to how common the "estar" + "-ndo" construction is. E.g., I seem to recall that Iberian Spanish speakers often use the simple verb form ("hablo") in preference to the periphrastic form ("estoy hablando").



I think the position can be summed up by saying that in Spanish the use of the progressive approaches the optional rather than the compulsory. It tends to be used for emphasis. _What are you doing?_ could be _¿Qué haces?_ or _¿Qué estas haciendo?_ The latter suggests something like "_What *are* you doing? _If you meet someone in the street you are likely to say _¿Qué haces aquí? _where the question is a general enquiry. However, if you come across someone doing something and you do not know what it is they are doing, you are more likely to ask _¿Qué estas haciendo? _which implies_ "I can see you are doing something, what is it?_

Even if you do not use the progressive where you should not (see post 7) but otherwise use it where English requires it you are going to be overusing it.


----------



## Beachxhair

Gavril said:


> I think there is some variability even within standard Spanish (perhaps also within standard Port./Italian) in regards to how common the "estar" + "-ndo" construction is. E.g., I seem to recall that Iberian Spanish speakers often use the simple verb form ("hablo") in preference to the periphrastic form ("estoy hablando").


   I've heard that some Spanish speakers only use the progressive when the really want to stress that an event or action is "in progress" at one specific moment in time, as opposed to the obligatory nature of the English progressive aspect, even when an action is actually iterative and habitual. Whereas English speakers must say, if they are currently reading the book (on separate occasions, an iterative action) "I am reading a book...", in Spanish it's acceptable to say "leo" in this context.


----------



## aefrizzo

It depends also on the question, at least in Italian.
Q: Cosa fai? A:Leggo. (Now, tomorrow, on sunday, usually..)
Q: Cosa stai facendo? A:Sto leggendo. (Right now).


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

berndf said:


> See #28 and #29. A participle is always an adjective (including nominalized and adverbialized adjectives). The difference is that in modern Italian, and as Hulalessar confirmed it's the same in Spanish, the use of the participle is confined to _lexicalized _verbal adjectives.



That's not quite true. The present participle is lexicalised as verbal adjective only in Spanish.
In Italian, the present participle can be followed by direct objects, especially in relative clauses, which means it is not a verbal adjective. E. g. "L'uomo traversante la strada nel luogo sbagliato fu investito dall'automobile che stava passando". This use is quite rare, rather literary (or even bureaucratic) and may sound artificial, but it exists.


----------



## Gavril

Hulalessar said:


> I think the position can be summed up by saying that in Spanish the use of the progressive approaches the optional rather than the compulsory. It tends to be used for emphasis. _What are you doing?_ could be _¿Qué haces?_ or _¿Qué estas haciendo?_ The latter suggests something like "_What *are* you doing? _If you meet someone in the street you are likely to say _¿Qué haces aquí? _where the question is a general enquiry. However, if you come across someone doing something and you do not know what it is they are doing, you are more likely to ask _¿Qué estas haciendo? _which implies_ "I can see you are doing something, what is it?_
> 
> Even if you do not use the progressive where you should not (see post 7) but otherwise use it where English requires it you are going to be overusing it.



I think that this overuse is becoming more widespread in US Spanish, due to English influence. E.g., I knew a fluent Spanish speaker who was originally from Perú but had lived most of her life in the US, and who would sometimes say things like, "Cómo te ha estado yendo?"

I wonder if the -ndo forms are growing in popularity even in certain parts of Mexico, due to Mexico's proximity to the US (and the forms of Spanish spoken there)?


----------



## Beachxhair

CapnPrep said:


> See my post #4 above. In a language with only one _be_ verb, the potentially ambiguous _be_ + pres. part. structure will tend to become specialized either as a verbal periphrasis (as in English) or as an adjectival structure (as in French).


  In English, the present participle can be an adjectival structure, in cases such as _the dying flower, they are annoying, _just like the French _la fleur mourante _and _ils sont énervants_. English seems to have retained both the verbal and adjectival functions....Does anyone know why this might be?


----------



## Nino83

I partially agree with what CapnPre said in post #4 but I'd say that the  confusion between verbal periphrasis and adjectival construction can  arise because French didn't conserve a true *gerund* form. 
In Classical Latin the gerund was used for declining infinite mood (as it is today in English, so "făcĕre, făciendi, făciendo, ad făciendum, făciendo" was equal to "do,  of doing, at doing, for doing, with doing") and the progressive tense  was formed by sum + future participle (sum facturus = I'm going). 

During the passage from Classical Latin to Romance Languages this happened. 
In all Romance Languages the future participle disappeared. 
Italian,  Spanish and Portuguese retained the gerund ablative case (facendo,  haciendo, fazendo, with doing or by doing, mood complement) that has a  strong verbal function. The present participle mood lost his verbal  meaning and survived as lessicalized name (presidente, from presiedere)  or adjective (intrigante, from intrigare). 
So gerund was used for  replacing explicit subordinate clauses (conditional, causal, temporal,  modal subordinate clauses) and for progressive tense (stare/estar +  gerund). It has an exclusive verbal function. 
The present participle has an exclusive nominal and adjectival function. 

French  completely lost Latin gerund and mantained the only present participle  that was used as both verb and adjective. It is used, as in English, for  replacing subordinate clauses (all except modal clauses which need the  gerund "en + present participle") and for the former progressive form.  It is used as an adjective. 

"Je suis séduisant" can have these different meanings: "Sono seducente" (I'm seductive) and "sto seducendo" (I'm seducing). 

So the lack of a true gerund in French leads to this ambiguity. 

I think that the lack of progressive form in French is due to avoid this confusion. 
English needn't it because often the adjectives have a different form and this avoids the confusion.


----------



## CapnPrep

Beachxhair said:


> English seems to have retained both the verbal and adjectival functions....Does anyone know why this might be?


There is nothing to be explained here: it is the very nature of participles to have both verbal and adjectival functions. This can give rise to ambiguities that a language may try to eliminate by favoring one or the other function in certain contexts. In English, _be_ + present participle is primarily verbal, although it can be adjectival with some predicates. In French, _être_ + present participle is almost exclusively adjectival.


----------



## Nino83

Beachxhair said:


> In English, the present participle can be an adjectival structure, in cases such as _the dying flower, they are annoying, _just like the French _la fleur mourante _and _ils sont énervants_. English seems to have retained both the verbal and adjectival functions....Does anyone know why this might be?



When an adjective is placed after the verb (predicative adjective) there can be a lot of confusion. 

French didn't retain both verbal and adjectival functions because a lot of French (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese) nouns and adjectives derive from present participle form and they are very often identical to present participle. 

Président (president) and présidant (presiding over) are pronunced [prezid_ã_] (/ent/ and /ant/ are pronunced [_ã]). 
_
It's impossible to say if "Ils sont amants" [il sont am_ã_] means "they are (become) lovers" or "they are loving". 

In English the adjective "lover" and the present participle "loving" have different forms. 
Therefore present participle can retain his multiple functions without generating any ambiguity. 

In Italian and Spanish "sono amanti/son amantes" and "stanno amando/están amando" have a different ausiliar verb but also a different adjective (present participle)/gerund verb form. 

In fact i read that "être + present participle" was not the most common periphrasis in Old French.


----------



## berndf

Angelo di fuoco said:


> That's not quite true. The present participle is lexicalised as verbal adjective only in Spanish.
> In Italian, the present participle can be followed by direct objects, especially in relative clauses, which means it is not a verbal adjective. E. g. "L'uomo traversante la strada nel luogo sbagliato fu investito dall'automobile che stava passando". This use is quite rare, rather literary (or even bureaucratic) and may sound artificial, but it exists.


Very artificial and very bureaucratic. I dare say this has no practical relevance any more; you would say "traversando" and not "traversante" today.


----------



## CapnPrep

Nino83 said:


> It's impossible to say if "Ils sont amants" [il sont am_ã_] means "they are (become) lovers" or "they are loving".


 It cannot possibly mean "They are loving", either verbal or adjectival. _Amant_ is only a noun in (modern) French.


----------



## aefrizzo

Originally Posted by *Angelo di fuoco* 

 
 				That's not quite true. The present participle is lexicalised as verbal adjective only in Spanish.
In Italian, the present participle can be followed by direct objects,  especially in relative clauses, which means it is not a verbal  adjective. E. g. "L'uomo traversante la strada nel luogo sbagliato fu  investito dall'automobile che stava passando". This use is quite rare,  rather literary (or even bureaucratic) and may sound artificial, but it  exists.




berndf said:


> Very artificial and very bureaucratic. I dare say this has no practical relevance any more; you would say "traversando" and not "traversante" today.



Very bureaucratic, yes, but quite common in technical or professional reports:
"Il faretto illuminante l'atrio posteriore..."
"Il telo ricoprente la parete a destra...
"La normativa riguardante gli illeciti...".
And so on.


----------



## francisgranada

CapnPrep said:


> It cannot possibly mean "They are loving", either verbal or adjectival. _Amant_ is only a noun in (modern) French.


Perhaps, Nino wanted to write "aimant"...


----------



## Nino83

CapnPrep said:


> It cannot possibly mean "They are loving", either verbal or adjectival. _Amant_ is only a noun in (modern) French.





> Perhaps, Nino wanted to write "aimant"...



Oh, yes  
Bad example. 

How about this example? 

"Je suis séduisant". 

Sèduisant is both an adjective and the present participle of the verb séduire, isn't it? 

Another example: 

"Le phare est éblouissant" means both "il faro è abbagliante/el faro es deslumbrante" and "il faro sta abbagliando/el faro está deslumbrando". 

This example clarifies that it's not the difference between the verb ser/estar that tells us if there is a predicative adjective or a verb.  

"Eres seduciente" (siempre) --> adjectival function --> "You're seductive" (in general)
"Estás seduciente" (ahora) --> adjectival function --> "You're seductive" (right now)
"Estás seduciendo" --> verbal function --> "You're seducing" 

The difference between present participle and gerund tells us if there is an adjective or a verb (progressive aspect).


----------



## CapnPrep

Nino83 said:


> Sèduisant is both an adjective and the present participle of the verb séduire, isn't it?


Yes, but _Je suis séduisant_ only has an adjectival function. I.e., it corresponds to _Je suis capable de séduire, de nature à séduire_, not to _Je suis en train de séduire_. Sometimes the meaning of the adjective happens to be very close to the progressive (e.g. _Je suis mourant _= _Je suis en train de mourir_), but even then we can show that the participial construction is not a verbal periphrasis. For example, one can say _Je suis en train de mourir lentement d'ennui_ but it is really unnatural to say _*Je suis mourant __lentement __d'ennui_.


----------



## Nino83

I know that in modern French this verbal periphrasis doesn't exist but in the past it did. 

In my examples I'm saying what would happen if French had this verbal periphrasis nowdays.


----------



## CapnPrep

Nino83 said:


> In my examples I'm saying what would happen if in French there were this verbal periphrasis nowdays.


Then you really should have said that!


----------



## Nino83

Sorry, j'ai oublié de le faire  
I thought that phrases like these "French didn't retain both verbal and adjectival functions because..." were clear, but they weren't.


----------

