# FR: I want to go



## star5432

Hi, I don't really have something specific I'd like to say, I just thought of the simplest example.  I would just like to know if one does not use the subjunctive when technically he/she should, how bad is this?

For example: "I want to go to NY one day."  If I said it like "Un jour je veux aller a NY" (and without using the conditional of "je voudrais.") how does this sound in French, do people even notice?


----------



## pieanne

:S Why does your title mention the subjunctive?

As to the conditional of "vouloir", I guess the difference is the same as "I'd like to" and "I want to"...


----------



## star5432

Because wouldn't the sentence litterally have to be "Je veux que j'aille a NY" (beause it's not definite that I will go)?


----------



## pieanne

No, you don't use the subjunctive with "vouloir" when you have only one subject, you use the infinitive:
"je veux aller à NY": the person who wants and the person who goes are the same.
Now, if you have 2 different subjects, you have to use the subjunctive:
"*Je* veux que *tu* ailles à NY", for instance.


----------



## star5432

Okay, but if I said "Je veux que tu va a NY" is that very wrong or only a slight gramatical error that can be overlooked?


----------



## pieanne

No, alas, it cannot be overlooked!


----------



## Outsider

star5432 said:


> Okay, but if I said "Je veux que tu va a NY" is that very wrong or only a slight gramatical error that can be overlooked?


When the main verb is in the infinitive (_to go_), you don't need to worry about the indicative/subjunctive distinction. It becomes irrelevant.


----------



## juliobenjimino

when you change person:

*I* want *you* to go....
*she* wants *you* to see...
*We* want *her* to be...

you _must_ use the subjunctive (and separate the pronouns with a 'que'):

je veux que tu ailles...
elle veut que tu voies...
nous voulons qu'elle soit...

however, if your subject/pronoun is the same, no subjuctive necessary:

*I *want to go to = je veux aller a
*I* wish *I* were taller = j'aurais voulu etre plus grand

once you get the hang of it, it comes naturally. If you don't use it, you _will_ sound a distinctly foreign and bizarre...


----------



## Thomas1

So, does the sentence make any sense if we use the subjunctive?
_Je veux que j'aille à NY une journée_?

Tom


----------



## pieanne

Thomas1 said:


> So, does the sentence make any sense if we use the subjunctive?
> _*Je* veux que *j*'aille à NY une journée_?
> 
> Tom


No, you have to use the infinitive if both subject are the same
"Je veux aller à NY pour une journée"


----------



## Outsider

Thomas1 said:


> So, does the sentence make any sense if we use the subjunctive?
> _Je veux que j'aille à NY une journée_?


I would say that it makes sense, but sounds awkward (too convoluted), and it's never actually used.


----------



## pieanne

Outsider said:


> I would say that it makes sense, but sounds awkward (too convoluted), and it's never actually used.


I'm sorry, Outsider, but it's 100% incorrect...


----------



## Thomas1

Outsider said:


> I would say that it makes sense, but sounds awkward (too convoluted), and it's never actually used.


Could you please elaborate?

Tom


----------



## Outsider

pieanne said:


> I'm sorry, Outsider, but it's 100% incorrect...


I did say that it's never used. In that sense, it is incorrect. 
However, it seems to me that the reason why it's not used is because it would be too convoluted, and sound awkward. This rule that foreign language students are apparently taught, that you use the infinitive when the subject is the same and the subjunctive when it's different, I personally find confusing, and even a little misleading. I think it's simply a matter of what sounds right. When I'm speaking, I don't give a thought to whether the subjects are different or the same.


----------



## pieanne

It may be so, but that's the way French works 
I'm afraid the reason it's incorrect isn't because it's never used. It's incorrect because it isn't grammatical.


----------



## Outsider

And why is it not grammatical? Because it's never used!


----------



## Thomas1

Because the subjects are the same.


----------



## pieanne

Outsider said:


> And why is it not grammatical? Because it's never used!


Outsider, I'm afraid it's the other way around...
It's not grammatical because it doesn't correspond to the French grammar rules, which say that when the subjects are the same, blah blah...
And it's not used because it's not grammatical.
It's getting childish!


----------



## Elmarit

Yeah, it's simply grammatically incorrect.


----------



## Outsider

« Je veux te *voir réussir*. »

Is this sentence incorrect?


----------



## pieanne

No, it's perfectly correct.


----------



## Outsider

Thank you. And yet it has:

- different subjects in the main clause and the subordinate clause, but
- verbs in the infinitive in the subordinate clause (not the subjunctive).

This is why I don't like the "rule".


----------



## pieanne

Outsider said:


> Thank you. And yet it has:
> 
> - different subjects in the main clause and the subordinate clause, but
> - verbs in the infinitive in the subordinate clause (not the subjunctive).
> 
> This is why I don't like the "rule".


Yet the rule is still respected, Outsider...

<Je veux te *voir réussir*.>

"Te" is a pronoun, 2nd pers. sing. and a Direct Object Compl. of "voir", it's not the subject.

The person who wants and who sees is "je"

To rewrite the sentence in an i*ncorrect* manner, you'd have to say "*je* veux que *je* te voie réussir", which, of course, is plain wrong!


----------



## Outsider

Fair enough, but language students don't need to make such syntactic analyses if they just remember that sentences like "*je veux que je te voie réussir" are not used because they are needlessly convoluted.

Notice also that the sentence could be rephrased as 

_Je veux que tu réussisses._

which has the same basic meaning and similar structure, yet uses the subjunctive rather than the infinitive. So, the infinitive and the subjunctive are not incompatible in this situation, as the rule may mislead students into thinking.


----------



## OlivierG

Outsider said:


> Fair enough, but language students don't need to make such syntactic analyses if they just remember that sentences like "*je veux que je te voie réussir" are not used because they are needlessly convoluted.
> 
> Notice also that the sentence could be rephrased as
> 
> _Je veux que tu réussisses._
> 
> which has the same basic meaning and similar structure, yet uses the subjunctive rather than the infinitive. So, the infinitive and the subjunctive are not incompatible in this situation, as the rule may mislead students into thinking.


Why lying to the student, and tell them that it's "needlessly convoluted" while it's grammatically incorrect?
In both case, the result is: don't use this sentence structure.


----------



## Outsider

By all means, tell them they shouldn't use it. I would do the same, but with a different argument. And it would not be a lie. I still maintain that the reason why native speakers do not use the syntax in question is _because_ it is convoluted. (I thought this was obvious enough, but it seems to not have got through to some of my fellow posters.) 

Furthermore, the alternative is another, more complicated "lie", namely the misleading idea that you always need to check whether main clauses and subordinate clauses have the same subject, and use:

- the infinitive when they have the same subject;
- the subjunctive when they have different subjects.

I hope I have shown with the examples above that these "rules" have the potential to be misunderstood, and create new errors just as they prevent others.


----------



## pieanne

Outsider said:


> Fair enough, but language students don't need to make such syntactic analyses if they just remember that sentences like "*je veux que je te voie réussir" are not used because they are needlessly convoluted.
> This kind of sentences, as I stated, are not used because they are 100%/plain wrong. (Not correct. Not grammatical. Not French.) *Not *because they are <needlessly convoluted.>
> Notice also that the sentence could be rephrased as
> 
> _Je veux que tu réussisses._
> 
> which has the same basic meaning I'm sorry, but it doesn't have the same basic meaning.
> In "je veux que tu réussises", the "je" imposes his/her will on another person.
> In "je veux te voir réussir", the "je" simply states his wish to witness another person's success.
> 
> and similar structure the structure is not similar at all:
> Je veux que tu réussises (2 subjects: *I *want/*you* succeed)
> Je veux te voir réussir (1 subject: *I* want/ *I *see you -DOC- succeed=
> , yet uses the subjunctive rather than the infinitive. So, the infinitive and the subjunctive are not incompatible in this situation, as the rule may mislead students into thinking.


If you happen to teach students, It would be better for them - and for their French - if you *simply* taught them *this* rule


----------



## Outsider

> This kind of sentences, as I stated, are not used because they are 100%/plain wrong. (Not correct. Not grammatical. Not French.) *Not because they are <needlessly convoluted.>*


Says who? The bolded part, I mean.



> I'm sorry, but it doesn't have the same basic meaning.


That's a very minor difference of perspective. I don't see how it matters to the current discussion.



> the structure is not similar at all:


That's a matter of opinion. I find it similar, and I bet many other non-natives would also.


----------



## Thomas1

Outsider said:


> Fair enough, but language students don't need to make such syntactic analyses if they just remember that sentences like "*je veux que je te voie réussir" are not used because they are needlessly convoluted.
> 
> [...]


Could you please tell what convoluting you see in this sentence? All rules aside. I'd want to know your feeling of it rather than a theoretical approach.



Tom


----------



## pieanne

Outsider said:


> Says who? The bolded part, I mean.
> 
> That's a very minor difference of perspective. I don't see how it matters to the current discussion.The meaning is different. The (grammatical)rendering is different
> 
> That's a matter of opinion. I find it similar, and I bet many other non-natives would also Thing is, a language can't be ruled by its non-natives [sad].


----------



## pieanne

Thomas1 said:


> Could you please tell what convoluting you see in this sentence? All rules aside. I'd want to know your feeling of it rather than a theoretical approach.
> 
> I'd say "convoluting" is more or less synonym to "wordy", "complicated"
> 
> Tom


----------



## Outsider

Thomas1 said:


> Could you please tell what convoluting you see in this sentence? All rules aside. I'd want to know your feeling of it rather than a theoretical approach.


« Je veux que je te voie réussir. »

So many pronouns in a row, including two "je"s, sounds convoluted to me, when the simpler alternative "Je veux te voir réussir" is also available. You would never say in English "I want that I see you..." either, and this has got nothing to do with subjunctives. "I want to see you..." is shorter and neater.


----------



## pieanne

Well, at least if you're not a teacher, I guess the main thing is you only use the correct form, albeit for the wrong reason


----------



## Outsider

There is no "wrong" and "right", Pieanne, unless you've done some survey to actually _ask French speakers_ why the construction is wrong, which I doubt very much.

They are just two different rationales for the same rule, mine being simpler and less misleading than the one normally found in textbooks.


----------



## pieanne

And how would you formulate your rule, Outsider? I'm really eager to know! (might come in handy!)


----------



## Outsider

More or less as I did above.



Outsider said:


> « Je veux que je te voie réussir. »
> 
> So many pronouns in a row, including two "je"s, sounds convoluted to me, when the simpler alternative "Je veux te voir réussir" is also available. You would never say in English "I want that I see you..." either, and this has got nothing to do with subjunctives. "I want to see you..." is shorter and neater.


----------



## pieanne

Why don't you use "je veux voir toi réussir"?


----------



## ChiMike

Thomas1 said:


> Could you please elaborate?
> 
> Tom


 
It's the same as saying: "I desire (will - used as a modal, which is no longer proper English) that I may go to New York some day." This sentence, in English, is not incorrect as a matter of grammatical construction, but it is never used. Likewise in French. 

The real problem you are confronting is that, in English, we no longer use a subjunctive contruction after volitional verbs:
"I will (desire, want) that he go from here." 
We always use a construction in which the person is the object of the willing (desiring) and what that person is to do is expressed in an infinitive clause:
"I want him to go". In French, you have to say: I desire (want) that he go..." 

When "I" is the subject, we use this construction but do not make it reflexive (I want to go; I want to go away). Same in French: Je veux aller; je veux partir.


----------



## MrPedantic

Outsider said:


> Fair enough, but language students don't need to make such syntactic analyses if they just remember that sentences like "*je veux que je te voie réussir" are not used because they are needlessly convoluted.


 
When you first learn a language, you're not in a position to say whether this or that construction is _needlessly_ convoluted.

When you _are_ in a position to say, you have moved beyond the point where you need simplified rationales.

MrP


----------



## itka

I've just been reading this thread and I'm nearly afraid !

What would you think if I tried to explain to an english native that his english who be easier to me if I changed the rules ?

I'm sorry, Outsider, you can speak as wrong as you wish, but please don't tell other people trying to learn french that they can choose the way they prefer !

The rule is very clear. Pianne explained it very well. 
Of course, everybody would understand if you say :
*je veux que j'aille à New York,
...but in the meantime they would understand that you are beginning to learn french and that you have not yet learnt this rule.

Is it your aim ?


----------



## ascoltate

I just read through this as a linguist, and I felt the need to explain the word "grammatical". It has two distinct meanings:
1. PRESCRIPTIVELY ungrammatical : not "correct" according to rules that people learn in school (an example of this in English would be the rule against ending a sentence in a preposition--everyone does it, but it is supposedly wrong)
2. DESCRIPTIVELY ungrammatical: not "correct" because no native speaker could ever say it, and thus you are not a native speaker of the language if you utter it (an example in English would be the rule that articles precede nouns: if you said "book the", it would simply be WRONG--not because of some rule you learn in school but because it's a rule you learn when you acquire the language as a child)

So, "je veux que j'aille" is both PRESCRIPTIVELY ungrammatical (the rule is that you don't use the subjunctive in a second clause if the subjects are the same) and DESCRIPTIVELY ungrammatical (no native speaker would ever say it.)

On the other hand, as to your original question, there are cases where not using the subjunctive is PRESCRIPTIVELY wrong, but DESCRIPTIVELY fine, and vice versa. Not so much with "vouloir", where pretty much everyone would use the subjunctive, but take an example such as:

Il est rare que vous passiez [subjunctive] chez nous.
Il est rare que vous passez [indicative] chez nous.

Both sound totally fine and you will certainly hear both by native speakers, but the first one is prescriptively correct.
On the other side:

Ils vont passer après que le film aura fini [future perfect=indicative].
Ils vont passer après que le film ait fini [past subjunctive].

In this case, you are PRESCRIPTIVELY supposed to use the indicative, but many native speakers will use the subjunctive.

Does that answer your question? I don't think you'd find a list of expressions where it's okay to use the indicative, b/c native speaker kids learn in school NOT to use the indicative in these contexts (similarly the other way with "après que"), but one of the main contexts is "il est + ADJECTIVE" -- but with certain expressions (like "vouloir" and "il faut"), it would be very rare for you to hear these used with the indicative (although I don't want to say it's impossible...).


----------



## kbbylily

as you say itka, this is frightenning...
i don't speak english very well so I decide to change english rules, so my mistakes are not mistakes anymore...
that's tempting however !!


----------



## kbbylily

ascoltate said:


> Il est rare que vous passiez [subjunctive] chez nous.
> Il est rare que vous passez [indicative] chez nous.



Sorry but... I never heard anyone saying the second sentence or other sentenses formed like that... it's TOO BIG!!
the person he's talking to would stare at him with big eyes!


----------



## ascoltate

I don't understand your use of the word "big" in English, but I used this example because it is very frequent in Québec with indicative. Anyway, there are plenty of examples; I just gave one...



kbbylily said:


> Sorry but... I never heard anyone saying the second sentence or other sentenses formed like that... it's TOO BIG!!
> the person he's talking to would stare at him with big eyes!


----------



## kbbylily

ascoltate said:


> I don't understand your use of the word "big" in English, but I used this example because it is very frequent in Québec with indicative. Anyway, there are plenty of examples; I just gave one...



ho sorry, I should have said that I was talking about france.

In france we don't say something like " Il est rare que vous passez [indicative] chez nous."
Or if you do, people will correct you or think that you maybe don't have aducation enough to speak french properly.
But of course, if you have the "accebt quebequois" they wouldn't!


----------



## ascoltate

Well, your reaction that it implies that you "don't have education to speak French properly" (rather than, "you are crazy or have a brain disorder") implies that it is DESCRIPTIVELY correct (i.e., a native speaker might say it, even if not an upper middle class speaker)--
but I'm sure there's an example where it would sound fine to anyone; I'm trying to think of one...

How about : "Je cherche un homme qui puisse / peut m'aider"--prescriptively it's "puisse" but many people would say "peut"...


----------



## Outsider

itka said:


> I'm sorry, Outsider, you can speak as wrong as you wish, but please don't tell other people trying to learn french that they can choose the way they prefer !


It's tiresome to keep seeing people misrepresent what I wrote as a defense of incorrect grammar. I can only conclude that your domain of the English language is even shakier than my domain of French.


----------



## juliobenjimino

ascoltate said:


> How about : "Je cherche un homme qui puisse / peut m'aider"--prescriptively it's "puisse" but many people would say "peut"...


 
and 'pourrait', I've often heard. It's nice to have a choice!


----------



## kbbylily

ascoltate said:


> Well, your reaction that it implies that you "don't have education to speak French properly" (rather than, "you are crazy or have a brain disorder") implies that it is DESCRIPTIVELY correct (i.e., a native speaker might say it, even if not an upper middle class speaker)--
> but I'm sure there's an example where it would sound fine to anyone; I'm trying to think of one...
> 
> How about : "Je cherche un homme qui puisse / peut m'aider"--prescriptively it's "puisse" but many people would say "peut"...



Hello again. I probably didn't explain myself very well. The sentence you said earlier is not correct, it's not french, and the only way you could hear it from a french mouth is if this person didn't go enough to school


----------



## ascoltate

kbbylily said:


> Hello again. I probably didn't explain myself very well. The sentence you said earlier is not correct, it's not french, and the only way you could hear it from a french mouth is if this person didn't go enough to school



I understood perfectly--
si tu peux dire que la personne n'a pas fait assez d'école, ça veut dire que la phrase peut se dire-- parce que c'était effectivement "pas du français"- tu dirais plutôt-- la personne est pas francophone.

Par exemple, il y a des Français qui diraient "Si j'irais à la plage, je me baignerais"--ce n'est effectivement pas "correct" (prescriptivement) selon les règles que l'on apprend à l'école (pas de conditionnel après le "si"), mais c'est quand même "du français" parce qu'on le dit. Par contre, si je disais "Si j'eus été allé à la plage, je me baignerais"- ce ne serait pas correct (descriptivement) parce qu'aucun Francophone ne le dirait (et on aurait même du mal à comprendre...)--là, la reaction serait pas "il est pas assez instruit" mais "il a une maladie mentale" ou "il est étranger" ou qch du genre...


----------



## pieanne

ascoltate said:


> il y a des Français qui diraient "Si j'irais à la plage, je me baignerais"--ce n'est effectivement pas "correct" (prescriptivement) selon les règles que l'on apprend à l'école (pas de conditionnel après le "si"), mais c'est quand même "du français" parce qu'on le dit.


 
De mon vécu, ce sont surtout (mais pas seulement) les enfants qui disent cela... Ils n'ont pas encore assimilé la règle de "pas de cond. après "si", mais par contre ils ont bien compris ce que "condition/conditionnel" veut dire! Un peu trop bien, d'ailleurs! 

Ceci dit, il y a plusieurs niveaux dans toute langue...
- La façon dont les enfants, justement, parlent, parce qu'ils n'ont pas encore assimilé toutes les règles de leur langue.
- La façon dont les adultes parlent, qui peut être plus ou moins laxiste, selon "divers" facteurs.
- La façon dont on écrit notre langue... Un texte écrit ne ressemblera jamais tout à fait à ce que l'on aurait dit de vive voix.
- Et la façon dont parle/écrit une personne qui apprend cette langue...


----------



## itka

La différence que fait Ascoltate, du niveau purement linguistique, distingue une phrase "grammaticale" même si elle n'est pas "correcte" d'une phrase "agrammaticale". Il ne s'agit plus de la différence entre "phrase respectant la norme" et "phrase incorrecte" au regard de cette norme.

L'exemple donnée plus haut : "si j'irais à la plage, je me baignerais" pour incorrecte qu'elle soit, est bien une phrase grammaticale française. Nombre de gens l'emploient (nombre d'autres pensent qu'ils ne sont pas assez instruits !) et tout le monde la comprend. Ce n'est pas pour autant qu'il faut la recommander aux étrangers apprenant le français.

Une phrase "agrammaticale" elle, est rigoureusement impossible dans la bouche d'un locuteur francophone...(voir le 2e exemple d'Ascoltate).

kbbilily, j'ai fait la même remarque à Ascoltate en ce qui concerne cette phrase. Cet exemple ne convient pas, ce qui n'enlève rien à l'exactitude de sa démonstration.

Mais la nuance entre les deux n'est pas toujours claire. "Le français" peut avoir des variations régionales, à ce niveau (alors qu'il n'y en a pas lorsqu'il s'agit de norme). Telle phrase, jamais prononcée par un Français pourra l'être par un Québécois ou un Suisse. 

Quant à la syntaxe des enfants...je dirais qu'elle est bien grammaticale. Les erreurs des enfants sont souvent dues à l'hypercorrection. Ils ont bien saisi le mécanisme. Ils l'ont si bien saisi qu'ils l'appliquent partout - y compris là où il ne faudrait pas : *_je courirai, *je mourirai

_La notion de "grammaticalité" ne repose que sur le sentiment des locuteurs natifs... c'est bien pourquoi elle ne peut jamais être définie par un locuteur étranger, même s'il a la certitude de connaître parfaitement une langue étrangère.


----------

