# FR: on va s'aimer



## ditnn

Hello everyone,

i have the following question concerning the phrase "on va s'aimer encore".


In this phrase, which of the following is true?


(i) "s'aimer" being a *pronominal verb in its infinitive root form, 

*or 

(ii) the pronoun "on" being one of the three pronouns ("on", "personne", "quiconque") to be able to make other related words in the sentence accord in number and in gender when what "on" is refering to is evidently a plural or a feminine noun (despite "on" being masculin),

(for example: aujourd'hui on est amis et demain rivaux,
mes filles, quiconque sera absente sera exclue),


thus forcing the "se" in "s'aimer" to be a third person *plural* direct object pronoun, as opposed to (i) where the "se" is considered as *"infinitive"* since it is understood as part of the pronominal verb "s'aimer" in its *infinitive root form*. 


Thank you in advance!


----------



## jann

There are two ways to interpret this sentence.

The first, and far more probable, is to understand _s'aimer_ as reciprocal.  _On_ thus stands in for the second person plural subject _nous_, which is a common replacement in informal speech.  The meaning is that "we're going to love each other."  Person A will love person B and vice versa: _Je vais t'aimer + Tu vas m'aimer _--> _Nous allons nous aimer_, or informally, _On va s'aimer_.  

The second, and far less probable, is to understand _s'aimer_ as reflexive.  _On_ must therefore be the third person singular impersonal subject, the idea being that one loves oneself.  In English, we often switch to first or second person to express such ideas, depending on who is speaking to whom, and in what context:  "we'll each love ourselves."

Either way, _s'_ is a direct object.


----------



## tomyfriend

Hi!

Very interesting question... Even a lot of Frenchmen wouldn't know the correct answer... (I'm not joking!)

First Rule: the verb that follows the previous verb (that means _two_ verbs) is always in its infinitive form!
Example: "Je _vais_ [first verb] *manger* [second verb], puis, j'_irai _[first verb] *dormir* [second verb]" (I'm going to eat, then, I'll go to sleep).

My opinion is not easy to understand:
Here, I would say, "on" expresses both _anyone_ and _two persons_! I know it looks or sounds funny or weird, but, that's it. Why?
- _Anyone_, because the context meant to tell us it may apply to everyone (in French : "Généralité");
- _Two persons_, because the context is a private one (the fact that the person is talking to an other one is highly probable).

The person before me is right about this : _On va s'aimer._ is a kind of casual form of the formal _Nous allons nous aimer._ And, _Nous_ is always plural (except in some contexts like the *very* formal one).

By the way, culturally speaking (it is my humble opinion!), saying _On va s'aimer_ is the way of showing a certain intimacy in the relationship, instead of _Nous allons nous aimer_ that may demonstrate a certain distance due to formal respect, formal protocol, and so on... Don't forget that it is only my humble opinion : the opposite is possible too.

I think at this step you know the answer...
See you later maybe.


----------



## Hurlevent

I would not say that* s'aimer* is a pronominal verb, as answered before, it's the transitive verb *aimer* used here in the reciprocal form. _S'ennuyer_, for ex., would be a pronominal verb, because it refers to the subject ("to get bored"). As for *on*, it can mean nearly anything (someone, some people, anybody, we, and even "you" in some colloquial expressions like "alors, on a fait son petit dodo ?"), but in this context it clearly means "we", or rather "we two" (nous deux). I wouldn't say that *s[e]* is plural here, because each one in the couple loves only each other, that is one person. It would be different if the sentence were about many people, everyone loving all the other members of the group (which is another possibility, but less probable).


----------



## ditnn

Thank you both jann and tomyfriend. because someone told me that the "s'aimer" in "on va s'aimer encore" is not a pronominal verb, thus making me very confused (i don't agree with him *yet*, but he said i am stubborn -- don't worry -- he doesn't read this forum  ). 

he said nous nous aimons --- when it means "we love each other" --- then it is not a pronominal verb,             
                                             but when it means "we both love ourselves" --- then it is a pronominal verb.

but i thought the reciprocal case and the reflexive case are both branches of pronominal (and he said not necessarily). 

(and so you see, i still don't agree with him *yet*) ...

^_^

Hurlevent, this is interersting, so you also think that *s'aimer* is not a pronominal verb here (like what my friend said).

yes, lets keep it simple, i really wanted the sentence in question to mean "we, the two of us, are going to love each other again". it makes more sense to think that "se" is not plural, if you don't take "s'aimer" as pronominal. (but my friend said that "s'aimer" is not pronominal but "se" is plural) ...


----------



## Hurlevent

I would say one should distinguish between a _pronominal verb_ (essentially pronominal) and a _pronominal form_ (casually pronominal). "S'aimer" could be called a pronominal form. Anyway, that's what I learned, but perhaps not everybody would turn it this way.


----------



## ditnn

Hurlevent: thank you!  i agree with you that some verbs have the form of pronominal but they are not pronominal verbs. but what makes "s'aimer" not qualified to be a pronominal verb? what is it lacking? is it because of the verb "aimer"? are there any other verbs which are like this also?


----------



## Oddmania

Salut,

On m'a appris que tous les verbes précédés du pronom _se _sont pronominaux, mais que leurs sens sont différents.

_On s'aime_ (_*Je m'*aime + *tu t'*aimes_) : sens réfléchi (le sujet exerce une action sur lui-même).
_On s'aime_ (_*Je t'*aime + *tu m'*aimes_) : sens réciproque (chaque membre du sujet collectif exerce une action sur l'autre membre). 

D'autres sens existent, comme le sens passif (_Les fraises se vendent bien en été_ = elles sont beaucoup achetées), mais selon moi, le verbe reste pronominal.


----------



## ditnn

Merci beaucoup, Oddmania.


----------



## Hurlevent

I mean, if *s'aimer* was a pronominal verb, it would mean _to love oneself _(which also can happen, but it is normally not used this way). A verbe _essentiellement pronominal _is a verb that can only be used in a pronominal form, that's why we consider that _ennuyer_ (transitive) and _s'ennuyer_ (pronominal) are two different verbs (with more or less different meanings), but nearly no one would say that there exists a pronominal verb _s'aimer_.


----------



## Oddmania

Ça vaut ce que ça vaut, mais Larousse le considère bel et bien comme un verbe pronominal.



> *S'aimer
> → verbe pronominal (emploi réfléchi)
> → to like oneself*
> 
> *S'aimer
> → verbe pronominal (emploi réciproque)
> → to love each other*


----------



## Hurlevent

C'est ce que je craignais  A mon avis, il y a confusion entre forme pronominale et verbe pronominal. Mais je pense que les avis diffèrent d'une grammaire à l'autre. Est-ce que _se chatouiller_, par exemple, est considéré comme pronominal par Larousse ? Lui aussi peut être employé réflexivement ou réciproquement.

(Je me réponds à moi-même) : Bescherelle considère qu'il existe aimer (T) et s'aimer (P), mais que chatouiller est uniquement (T). Pourtant, je peux dire sans problème : nous nous sommes chatouillés avec entrain, et même : je me chatouille pour me faire rire...


----------



## Oddmania

En effet, le verbe_ se chatouiller_ ne semble répertorié nul part! C'est donc seulement une forme pronominale selon vous, et non un verbe pronominal ?


----------



## Hurlevent

Je pense que le classement d'un verbe se fait un peu en fonction du ressenti du grammairien, qui je le suppose considère que "s'aimer" est plus fréquemment attesté que "se chatouiller". Toutefois, cela me semble tout à fait subjectif comme critère, on aimerait, comme dittn, disposer de critères un peu plus objectifs...


----------



## ditnn

Thank you to Oddmania and Hurlevent! the replies are fantastic! i feel my head turning all morning but for good reason! 

i was asking this question originally because i have encountered some strange sentences:

Example (a)

Il a fait coïncider le temps *de vous parler

*
 (originally, i thought i should use "Il a fait coïncider le temps *de se parler*", with "se parler" being a pronominal verb, since the "de" provocates any verb afterwards to be at its infinitive form, so i was confused by the usage of "de vous parler")

Example (b)

je n'ai pas encore été capable de parler assez bien le français *pour nous parler *(again, i thought it should have been " ... *pour se parler*".


*** (as a side note) ***

For example (a), it is better to say 
"Il a fait coïncider le temps *pour que vous vous parliez*"

and similarly, for Example (b), " ... assez bien le français *pour que nous nous parlions*"

*** 


but you see this is where i come from for my question


----------



## Oddmania

Hi,

I don't understand what you mean by _faire coïncider le temps_, but let's use another main verb.

_*a.* Il a le temps* de vous parler.*
→ He has time to talk to you. _No pronominal verb here, only the verb _parler à quelqu'un_ with an indirect pronoun :_ vous parler._

_*b.* Il a le temps* de se parler.*_
_ → He has time to talk to himself_ (with the pronominal verb _se parler,_ sens réfléchi).

_*c.* Je ne parle pas assez bien français* pour nous parler* en français._
_ → _Impossible. Literally, _I don't speak French well enough to talk to us in French._ As _nous/us_ stands for _"you and me_", this would amount to saying you can neither talk to yourself, nor to someone else in French. Note that there's no pronominal verb involved in _pour nous parler_, only the verb_ parler à quelqu'un._

_*d. *Il s'est arrangé pour que *vous vous parliez.*_
_→ He fixed up a chat with the two of you (he had the two of you talk to each other)_.

Now, keep in mind that _que + subjunctive_ is usually used with the subjects of the main clause and the second clause are different, whereas the infinitive is used when the subject is the same all along.

For instance, we'd say :

_*e.* Nous ne parlons pas assez bien français *pour nous parler* en français _(the infinitive is used because the clauses _nous ne parlons pas_ and _pour nous parler _are about the same people : _nous_). 

Here, the verb is pronominal (unlike sentence *c.*) : it _is _the verb _se parler_, and the sentence means _We don't speak French well enough to talk to each other in French._ 

You couldn't use the verb _se parler_ in sentence *c.* because the subject was _Je _(it would've amounted to saying _I don't speak French well enough to talk to each other_. Nonsense). Thus, _Je ne parle pas assez....pour nous parler_ will be understood (by French speakers) as _I don't speak well enough.....to talk to us_, and it still doesn't make sense as the subject is _Je_!

Now, if there are two different subjects, we'll use the subjunctive :

*f.* _Je ne parle pas assez bien français *pour que nous nous parlions* _(two subjects : _je + nous_, hence the subjunctive). This is a correct sentence. _I don't speak French well enough for us to talk together _ (unlike _I don't speak French well enough to talk to each other_  which is what sentence* c.* meant).


----------



## ditnn

Merci, Oddmania, tu es très bon! 

my "faire coïncider le temps" was an attempt to mean something like your example *d*. 

Perhaps "coïncider" is not a good verb in this situation. 

your examples and explanations make a lot of sense to me. thank you so much! 

Thank you. On second thoughts, i discover that i still have some confusion. in Example *e,* "Nous ne parlons pas assez bien français *pour nous parler* en français", the verb is pronominal.

so did you mean "nous parler" together is pronominal ? if so, then even after the word "pour", we don't need to put everything back to root form (i.e. pour se parler) ?

And for *c*, i was wanting to say "*i* don't speak enough french so that *we *can talk to each other in french". Then how could one say it?


----------



## Oddmania

> so did you mean "nous parler" together is pronominal ? if so, then even  after the word "pour", we don't need to put everything back to root form  (i.e. pour se parler) ?



Right  The pronoun _se _must agree with the subject of the verb : 

_*Nous *ne parlons pas assez bien français pour *nous *parler en français.
*On *ne parle pas assez bien français pour *se *parler en français._

This is because you're using the infinitive (_pour nous *parler*, pour se *parler*_). Thus, this implies that the subject of the first verb _parler _and of the second verb _parler _is the same. Thus, the pronoun must match the subject (_Je, me / Nous, nous / On, se_ etc...)



> And for *c*, i was wanting to say "*i* don't speak enough french so that *we *can talk to each other in french". Then how could one say it?



This is sentence *f.*  As there are two subjects _(*I *don't... // *We *can...)_, the infinitive is impossible (for that matter, you said _so that we can talk_ in English, not _to talk_ or_ in order to talk_) and the subjunctive is required.

_Je ne parle pas assez bien français *pour que nous nous parlions *_(or, colloquially,_* pour qu'on se parle*_).


----------



## ditnn

Thank you Oddmania.  tu es bon! u are good!


----------

