# FR: laver / se laver - meaning of reflexive



## Atlus

I am confused, very confused.
What does this _actually_ mean??

For instance, use laver (to wash)

Je me lave
Tu te laves
Il se lave
Nous nous lavons
vous vous lavez
ils se lavent

Could domeone please give me a definition for each? It would be greatly appreciated. Merci beaucoup.


----------



## fluxxii

Basically, it means I wash myself, you wash yourself, he washes himself, and so on. Reflexive verbs (which confused the heck out of me when I first started learning them) are basically actions that the subject performs on his or her own self.


----------



## Lisette123

In the present, I wash myself is "Je me lave"

How do I say "I washed myself" and "I will wash myself?"


----------



## kurban

I washed myself = Je me suis lavé (or lavée if you're a woman)
I will wash myself = Je vais me laver or je me laverai


----------



## jann

Lisette, did you know that we have a conjugator to help you answer this sort of question? 

se laver


----------



## Sponge78

Hi,

I would like to know how these phrases work in your mind.

non PP i understand eg;

Je me lave

...although 'I' and 'me' is the same person, 'I' is the subject and 'me' is the object. So it flows like this; I wash myself..

but..

Je me suis lavé

..since être (and not avoir) is used it implies to me that the phrase works the other way around, 

eg; I am washed ('I' is now the object), by myself ('me' is now the subject).

So my question is do french people feel these PP reflexive phrases the other way around (like I am suggesting), eg, I am washed by myself, and not, I washed myself ?

Thanks


----------



## dan144556

What I would ask you, Sponge, is what the difference is between "I am washed by myself" and "I washed myself" semantically speaking.  I don't think there really is one...so my advice to you is to think about the French language not as it corresponds to English grammatical structures, but as it corresponds to semantic meaning.


----------



## Sponge78

Ok thanks for your reply, maybe I'm not good enough at French yet to understand it properly.

I just thought there was always a 'flow/direction of meaning', eg, from subject to object, from word to word (even if 2 different words je/me represent the same thing) etc etc.


----------



## bloomiegirl

Hello Sponge... You're on the right track regarding _se laver_. 
In the present tense:_ je *me* lave_ : I wash (myself)

But for the _passé composé_, reflexive verbs use the auxiliary "_être_" instead of "_avoir_": _
je me suis lavé(e)_ : I washed (myself)

"_Je m'ai__ lavé_" would be wrong, grammatically (just as "j'ai allé" would be wrong, grammatically). But using "_être_" as the auxiliary verb doesn't turn "_je me suis lavé_" into a passive structure. The subject of the French sentence -- grammatically and semantically -- is still "_je_."


----------



## berndf

Sponge78 said:


> ...although 'I' and 'me' is the same person, 'I' is the subject and 'me' is the object. So it flows like this; I wash myself..





Sponge78 said:


> but..
> 
> Je me suis lavé
> 
> ..since être (and not avoir) is used it implies to me that the phrase works the other way around,
> 
> eg; I am washed ('I' is now the object), by myself ('me' is now the subject).


I think you fell victim here of a misunderstanding which frequently happens to English speakers. The fact that the auxiliary _être_ is used instead of _avoir_ does not imply _passive_ meaning. French uses two different auxiliaries to construct the _passé composé_ which corresponds to the English _present perfect_ (though the meanings differ somewhat): _avoir_ for transitive and _être_ for intransitive and reflexive verbs. There is no semantic difference associated with this. In practice, there is no risk of confusion because passive voice makes sense only for transitive verbs in French. In English there would be a potential for confusion because English passive constructions also work with indirect objects (e.g. _he is given the book_)_. _In French, such a construct would not be possible.


----------



## janpol

d'autres exemples : 
les 2 phrases
1 - Il est sorti par la fenêtre
et 2 - L'OM est dominé par l'OL (les équipes de football de Marseille et de Lyon !...)
semblent avoir la même structure : "Sujet - auxiliaire ETRE au présent - participe passé + par + nom"
Il n'en est rien : 1 - "est sorti" = verbe actif au passé composé + Compl. Circonst.
2 - "est dominé" = verbe passif au présent + Compl. d'agent
Ceci dit, on peut expliquer  "Je me suis lavé" au moyen de la phrase passive "J'ai été lavé par moi-même". Dans cette phrase (correcte mais que personne ne dirait spontanément  le sujet et le C. d'agent se confondent bien entendu en une seule et même personne.


----------



## Fred_C

Sponge78 said:


> So my question is do french people feel these PP reflexive phrases the other way around (like I am suggesting), eg, I am washed by myself, and not, I washed myself ?
> 
> Thanks


Hi,
Semantically speaking, no.
Because unlike English, where you can only use the verb "have" to form a past tense (like in "I have washed", meaning (more or less) "I washed"), French can also use the verb "être" for some verbs.
"I have eaten" is "j'ai mangé", but "I have fallen" is "je *suis* tombé".
You are right to point that "Je suis lavé" also can mean "I am washed" (i.e. a passive present tense), but The French are also accustomed to understand it as a past tense meaning "I have washed".
And the "Me" part still means "myself".

Note : Little children often wrongly say "Je m'ai lavé"...


----------



## dan144556

Absolutely right.  You explained it better than I could.

Now, if I might give a historical note about this discussion...keep in mind that what follows is purely historical and is not even close to the current language... 

Actually English used to use "to be" as well as "to have" to form the past in the same way as French...the most famous example is the Christmas carol "Joy to the world, the Lord *is* come."  Not "has come"..."is come."  This text was written in 1719.  There are some other examples in the King James Bible (1611) which is a good source for Early Modern English...

And he answered and said, Babylon *is fallen, is fallen*; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground. (Isaiah 21:9b)

The stone which the builders refused *is become* the head stone of the corner.  (Psalm 118:2)

     And she said, The glory *is departed* from Israel: for the ark of God is taken.  (1 Samuel 4:22)

     For death* is come* up into our windows, and *is entered* into our palaces, to cut off the children from without, and the young men from the streets.     (Jeremiah 9:21)

Hope you found that interesting!


----------



## Sponge78

Thanks soo much for the replies.

It is now clear to me that (as always) 'je' is the subject and 'me' the object.

So, 'me' is the object of 'being washed' (but in the PAST, (not passive present)), by subject 'je'.

dan144556. That historical note is fascinating.


----------



## emanko

Salut les amis

J'ai un ami avec qui j'avais programmer un appel et lorsque il était l'heure de l'appel, il ma dit "est ce qu'on peut s'appeler plus tard car je suis en train de laver là?". 
Est ce que "laver" ici veut dire "showering" or "washing something"

Merci


----------



## SwissPete

What he said makes no sense.

Are you sure that's all he said? Not: "Je suis en train de laver la voiture"? (for example).


----------



## Bezoard

Non, soit il a dit "en train de me laver" (éventuellement prononcé "de m'laver") voire "en train de me lever" (prononcé "de m'lever" ou "d'mel'ver"), soit il suppose que vous étiez au courant qu'il avait entrepris un grand lavage (son linge, la voiture, la cuisine ?).


----------



## Kitano

D'accord avec Bezoard, il est probable que votre ami ait dit "me laver". Mais cependant dans le langage courant, il se peut que "je suis en train de laver" signifie "je nettoie/lave le sol de ma maison/de chez moi"


----------

