# FR: Sans eux, ce n'était pas possible - temps



## Question Kate

*"Sans eux, c'était pas possible" why imperfect?*

Hello,

I have heard this use of the imperfect several times (by native French speakers), and it surprises me because in English (and thus in French) I would use the conditional past: "It wouldn't have been possible without them." (Sans eux, ça n'aurait pas été possible.) For me there is a "sous-entendu": "If it hadn't been for them, it wouldn't have been possible." That is, we create a condition in the past. 

Is this an "incorrect" use of the imperfect or is there a logical grammatical reason why it's used here? Hmmm..."It wasn't possible without them" vs. "It wouldn't have been possible without them." I'm suddenly unsure what really makes them different other than an emphasis, but, as an English speaker, I have a marked preference for the second possibility.

Many thanks for any thoughts.


----------



## Maître Capello

The difference in French is exactly the same as in English:

It *was*n't possible without them = _Ça n'*a* pas *été* possible sans eux._ → It was not possible.
It *would*n't* have been* possible without them = _Ça n'*aurait* pas *été* possible sans eux._ → It was possible, but it wouldn't if they had not been there.


----------



## Question Kate

Thank you for responding!

I appreciate the response but you haven't responded to my question. The French speaker used the imperfect not the passé composé. I'm interested in that use. Moreover, I'm not entirely convinced by the difference you give. What function does the "sans eux" serve in the sentence you give in the passé composé? In the original, "sans eux" pointed to a necessary condition: their presence. 

Sorry, I still don't understand the use of the imperfect in the example I gave: "Sans eux, c'était pas possible."


----------



## Maître Capello

Oops, I seem to have missed the fact that your question was about the imparfait. Sorry about that! 

As a matter of fact, your question is a tough one because, *depending on the exact context*, the meaning of _Ça n'*était* pas possible sans eux / Sans eux, ce n'*était* pas possible_ can be the same as that of the phrase either in the passé composé or in the conditional!

Could you please describe the whole context? Thanks!


----------



## L'Inconnu

Question Kate said:


> _(1)''__Sans eux__, ça n'a pas été possible.''_
> (2)"Sans eux, c'était pas possible."
> (3)"Sans eux, ça n'aurait pas été possible."


Sorry, I still don't understand your question. Each of the three sentences above has a different meaning. As Maître Capello just pointed out the conditionnel passé (3) means that it really was possible to do it. More to the point, thanks to <eux>, whose presence had been necessary, the task was in fact done. If your question relates to the difference between the imperfect and the passé composé, the imparfait (2) corresponds to a _condition_ that existed in the past, not necessarily an _action_ that was taken, while the passé composé (1) implies that at least one attempt was made, an attempt which failed.


----------



## Question Kate

Wow, a lot of confusion got introduced into this thread pretty quickly. The quote you give above is never a quote that I posted. I don't know what happened.

My question is about the use of the imperfect in this sentence that I heard: "Sans eux, c'était pas possible." (which was the original heading for the post but which someone who is not me changed). The speaker is confirming the fact that certain people were necessary in accomplishing a project. The use of the imperfect throws me because in English I have a strong preference for the conditional past in this context. Since the imperfect seems wrong to me, I'm trying to understand why the French would prefer it in this instance. Is this an instance of colloquial French or does French grammar demand it? My question concerns simply the imperfect and the conditional past in this context.

Thanks for all the generous responses thus far!


----------



## L'Inconnu

Question Kate said:


> My question is about the use of the imperfect in this sentence that I heard: "Sans eux, c'était pas possible."
> The speaker is confirming the fact that certain people were necessary in accomplishing a project.



Was the task actually accomplished yes or no? 

If the answer to the question is <yes>, they did in fact do it, then I don't know why the French speaker used the imparfait. The imparfait would correspond to a case where they did NOT take any action. The conditionnel passé corresponds to case where they DID accomplish the task. If the answer to the question is <no>, then they can use either the imparfait or the passé composé.


----------



## Question Kate

Yes. The action is accomplished.

There is obviously the possibility that I misunderstood, but as I feel 99% sure that the speaker was confirming that he was able to accomplish his project because "eux" had helped him.

I'd like to hear from a native French speaker because this is a use of the imperfect that I have heard on more than one occasion, and it's one that I don't understand. 

Thanks for all your help!


----------



## Frenchrescue

Hello,

Just my ideas on this topic :
"Sans eux, ce n'était pas possible de le faire" : means in French that someone is 100% sure that, without "them", the "thing to do" was impossible to achieve (note : the person thinks that objectively the thing was impossible to achieve, not "would have been impossible" ; there's no uncertainty in the French meaning). I think this use of imperfect is called  a "general truth in the past", only in your case it's a truth for a personal absolute conviction.

Now, does this sentence confirm that he was able to accomplish his project because "eux" had helped him ? Very often, yes, but not always. That's why sometimes people ask for more information, like in this short example :
-"Pourquoi leur as tu demandé de venir ?" (why did you ask them to come ?)
-"Parce que sans eux, c'était pas possible" (because, without them, it was not possible to do it)
-"Bon, et alors, vous y êtes arrivés ou pas ?" (okay, but then, did you manage to do it or not ?)
...

I don't know if I'm clear, but I hope it will help you

French rescue


----------



## L'Inconnu

Frenchrescue said:


> -"Pourquoi leur as tu demandé de venir?"
> -"Parce que sans eux, c'était pas possible"
> -"Bon, et alors, vous y êtes arrivés ou pas?"



If I understand you, the imparfait is potentially ambiguous. If I had answered the question with something like ''Parce que sans eux, on n'aurait pas pu.'' would you have understood that we DID accomplish the task, or would you still feel the need to clarify the situation? 

Now, suppose _you_ were asked the same question. If the person who asked already knows that the task has been completed, would you answer with the imparfait? And, if you used the imparfait would you use a negative or a positive construction? For example, ''Parce que on avait besoin d'eux''


----------



## Maître Capello

That was I was trying to say in my previous post: with the imparfait both meanings are possible depending on context. Hence the imparfait is indeed ambiguous.
_
Heureusement qu'ils étaient là ! Sans eux, ce n'*était* pas possible._ = Sans eux, ça n'*aurait* pas *été* possible.

_J'ai dû laisser tomber. Sans eux, ce n'*était* pas possible._ = Sans eux, ça ne *pouvait* pas *être* possible.


----------



## Frenchrescue

Hello,

"If I understand you, the imparfait is potentially  ambiguous" : I think we should focus both on the context (as said by  Maître Capello) and on the difference of "values" between the "modes"  (indicative or conditional) of the verb. 
Here, considering "sans eux, ce n'était pas possible" _alone_, imparfait of the _indicative_ mode means that the "action" is presented as real ; _it's a statement of a fact in the past_. We're not making supposition, we're not saying anything of a potential outcome. This may be only inferred _from the context_.  So if the context is ambiguous (no previous sentence to lead us in the  interpretation of the speaker's intention), we're "stuck" with what's  presented as a fact in the past.
If we use conditional ("sans eux, on  n'aurait pas pu"), we're inferring (like in English) that the condition  was fulfilled (because otherwise, it would be meaningless, just making  wild speculation in the past, ie why say that if it's got no connection  whatsoever about the action), so it gives indirectly an indication about  what really happened (condition fulfilled).

"Sans eux, ce  n'était pas possible de le faire" : Fact in the past. You need the  context to know more. (see Maitre Capello's excellent examples)
"Sans  eux, ce n'aurait pas été possible de le faire" :  Speculation about  what would have happened if they were not here... ; so generally meaning  that the condition was indeed fulfilled (they were actually here) -  gives direct information about what you think as a speculation _and_ inferred information about what really happened (means that with them being present, you could do it)

As for your question, [Now, suppose _you_ were asked the same question "Pourquoi leur as tu demandé de venir ?". If the person who  asked already knows that the task has been completed, would you answer  with the imparfait? And, if you used the imparfait would you use a  negative or a positive construction? For example, ''Parce que on avait  besoin d'eux'' 				]
"Why did you ask them to come ?"
- If I want to justify  myself "weakly", I answer with conditional, using what is my  "speculation" about the past like a soft argument : "Je leur ai demandé  de venir parce que sans eux, ce n'aurait pas été possible de le faire".  Thus the person I am speaking to knows my "speculative opinion", and is free to agree  or disagree with it. If the person wants to argue, she's arguing with an opinion.
- If I want to justify myself "strongly", I  answer with imperfect, using what is the "absolute truth in the past" as  a "closing" argument : "Je leur ai demandé de venir parce que sans eux,  ce n'était pas possible de le faire". There's no room (or much less  room) for discussion. If the person wants to argue, she's arguing with a fact.

French rescue


----------



## Question Kate

Thanks for this discussion. Glad to understand this use of the imperfect. My English may be faulty, but I find it near impossible to translate "Sans eux, ça ne *pouvait* pas *être* possible" by "It wasn't possible without them." That sounds too French. I don't know if English allows that construction; it's too ambiguous. Instead, here I want to say something like "We/I needed them to get it done" or "They were essential to the project." Interesting. Thanks again for the help!


----------



## L'Inconnu

Ok, to summarize what we've learned. 

Without any context, the conditionnel passé is more precise than the imparfait. Normally, the conditionnel passé tells us that an action was not completed, because a required condition had not been met. However, when used in a negative construction, the conditionnel passé tells us the opposite, that the required condition had indeed been met and that the action was in fact completed. The imparfait only describes a condition that existed in the past. It tells us nothing about the present. 

If, on the other hand, we already know from context that the action was completed, the conditionnel passé would _suggest_ that 'their' participation was necessary, the imparfait would _insistent_ that it was. Interestingly, this usage of the conditionnel passé is unlike the English usage of the past conditional. 

Normal: ''We couldn't have done it without them.''
Emphatic: ''It simply would not have been possible without them.''

Both the above sentences clarify that the action was completed, but the latter stresses the fact that 'their' assistance was necessary.


----------

