# EN/FR: very magnificent / très magnifique [sic]



## Candyli18

Hi, I am new to this forum and I'm currently learning French. I am abit confused with the usage of tres (very) + adjectives & superlative adjectives. I know/believe that tres cannot go with superlative adjectives but, how can i differentiate which french word is superlative or non-superlatives? E.g is beau a superlative adjective, is it correct to say "tres beau"? Merci!


----------



## snarkhunter

Hello, and welcome to this forum!

Basically, the French superlative is obtained by adding "(_le / la_) plus" before the concerned adjective.

beau -> adjective
très beau -> adjective (kind of "emphasized")
plus beau que -> comparative
le plus beau -> superlative

There are not so many adjectives that would be a superlative _per se_. Superlatives always result from a "root" _adjective_.

For instance :
_bon -> meilleur (que) -> le meilleur_


----------



## Wordsmyth

Hi Candyli, and welcome to the forum.

Firstly, "très beau" (don't forget the grave accent!) is perfectly correct — and _beau_ is not a superlative adjective (that would be _le plus beau_).

Spotting comparatives and superlatives is easy in French (unlike English, where sometimes you have _-er/-est_, and sometimes "_more xxx"_, "_the most xxx").
_
In French, the comparative is nearly always _"plus xxx"_, the superlative nearly always _"le plus xxx"_ (or _"la plus ..._" or _"les plus ..."_).

Ws

_[Edit: Oops, crossed posts with snarkhunter. Oh well, better twice than not at all!]
[Second edit: Added nearly (x2) in line 4, reflecting snarkhunter's correction of my statement]
__._


----------



## snarkhunter

Wordsmyth said:


> In French, the comparative is always _"plus xxx"_, the superlative always _"le plus xxx"_ (or "la plus ..." or "les plus ...").


Unfortunatey, I'm afraid not so...
The French comparative is not always "plus... que": There are some adjectives that are indeed dedicated _comparative forms_ and will therefore never have "plus" before them.

Just think of "meilleur", for instance (I had already used it as an example, and that was on purpose).

Still, this might be considered a rule since I cannot think of any other such examples as "bon" and "mauvais", that both have irregular _comparative/superlative_ forms.


----------



## Candyli18

thanks for replying.  i do understand your explanation to my question. But i got one more question to ask you. Why do my french teacher kind of explain that "tres magnifique" is incorrect because magnifique is already a superlative adjective, so can't add a tres infront? there isn't any (le/la) plus in this manner, but why is the word a superlative adjective then? :/


----------



## Wordsmyth

snarkhunter said:


> Unfortunatey, I'm afraid not...
> The French comparative is not always "plus... que": There are some adjective that are dedicated comparative forms and will therefore never have "plus" before them.
> 
> Just think of "meilleur", for instance (I had already used it as an example, and that was on purpose).


Sorry, and thanks snark, I posted too quickly there (and before seeing your post). For "always", please read "nearly always". There are of course the 'irregulars': _meilleur_, _le meilleur_, _pire, le pire_ [I believe they're the only ones ...?]



Candyli18 said:


> _ [...] _Why do my french teacher kind of explain that "tres magnifique" is incorrect because magnifique is already a superlative adjective_ [...] _? :/


 Ah, I see the confusion now. Snarkhunter and I were both talking about the definition of 'superlative' in grammar. 

Your teacher is talking about the meaning of words, and is suggesting that _magnifique_ is an absolute, like _perfect_ (you can't have _very perfect_ or _more perfect_ or _the most perfect_ — it's either perfect or it's not); similarly for _unanimous_, _maximum_, etc. I wouldn't call them 'superlative adjectives' (in the grammatical sense), but rather adjectives that cannot have comparative and superlative forms. But that's just semantics.

Strictly, I believe _magnifique_ (and _magnificent_ in English) are in the same 'absolute' category, but _magnificent_ is sometimes heard as an adjective expressing degree (_"even more magnificent", "the most magnificent"_) — I don't know whether that can happen in French. (?)

Ws


----------



## Candyli18

Oh, now i totally get it!  well, thanks alot for your ( *snarkhunter & **Wordsmyth)* help in explaining to me either way. Really appreciate.  Merci!


----------



## Wordsmyth

Avec plaisir (as we say in here in the sud-ouest). Maybe see you in another thread.

Ws


----------



## Viobi

The absolute superlative form (très+adj.) is seldom used (except by children or humorously) with adjectives which meaning implies an extreme degree of anything.

_Magnifique_, _sublime_, _abominable_, _délicieux_, _insoutenable_, etc. will not be used with _très_, but, if you really want to add yet-another-extra-layer-of-exaggeration-icing, you could use another adverb like "vraiment", "absolument", "indiscutablement", "véritablement", etc.: _vraiment formidable _works, whereas _très formidable _doesn't.

And if you want to dampen enthusiasm about the adjective, change it altogether: _légèrement __magnifique_, _relativement sublime, _etc. are really odd, and you'll want to fall back on less intense adjectives (_beau_, for instance).

It's about the same in English:_truly magnificent _works, but _very magnificent _doesn't...


----------



## Wordsmyth

Viobi said:


> _[...]_ It's about the same in English:_truly magnificent _works, but _very magnificent _doesn't...


 True, Viobi, and that's consistent with the idea that _"magnificent"_ is an absolute. _"Truly" _is simply affirming the truth of the statement, whereas_ "very"_ implies degree — and indeed _"very magnificent"_ doesn't sound at all right. However, if _"magnificent"_ is really an absolute, it shouldn't admit such expressions as _"even more magnificent"_ and _"the most magnificent"_; yet these are heard (and frankly don't shock me as _"very magnificent"_ would).

Looking at the adverbs you mention as usable with absolutes such as _magnifique_, they all fall into the same pot as _truly_, except for _absolument_, which does suggest the possibility of degree. 

So I'm wondering if _"encore plus magnifique"_ or _"le plus magnifique"_ could work, even though _"très magnifique"_ doesn't (*?*). If so, that would suggest a very close similarity between French and English, and a rather curious status of _very/très_.

Ws


----------



## Keith Bradford

I don't have trouble with _very magnificent_, except that it sounds rather exaggerated for a stiff-upper-lipped Englishman.  Few adjectives are in themselves superlative - *unique, ideal *and *perfect *are among the rare examples.  So I don't think our two languages have the same criteria here.


----------



## Viobi

Hello Wordsmyth,

 "Absolument" in French, doesn't necessarily imply a degree. I'd tend to liken it to "tout-à-fait". _Absolument splendide, tout-à-fait splendide_ are not, to me, suggestive of  "splendid to a higher degree than just splendid", rather of "splendid in every detail", "utterly flawless", etc. A work of art could be _overall _magnificent in spite of a little less-than-perfect detail, but if it's "absolument sublime", then no detail is imperfect.

"Encore plus magnifique" sounds weird to me, and would at least make me smile. It actually does when my six-year-old daughter says it, but at her age I guess it's normal to marvel at everything _and _to run short of synonyms at times. If an adult said "encore plus magnifique", I'd have a good mind to reply something like "Ben dis-donc, tu causes bien la France, toi!"... and would,  too, most of the time, but then I'm nasty.

Rather than "La cathédrale Saint-Machin est encore plus magnifique que la basilique Sainte-Bidule", I'd go for something like "La magnificence de la cathédrale Saint-Machin est telle qu'elle éclipse celle de la basilique Sainte-Bidule". Not that I actually say that a lot, mind you.


----------



## Viobi

Keith Bradford said:


> I don't have trouble with _very magnificent_, except that it sounds rather exaggerated for a stiff-upper-lipped Englishman.  Few adjectives are in themselves superlative - *unique, ideal *and *perfect *are among the rare examples.  So I don't think our two languages have the same criteria here.



Now, that's interesting... and I'd love to have more opinions from native speakers!
Now you mention it, I remember I raised an eyebrow the other day when I read in _Jane Eyre_: "Am I hideous, Jane?" "Very, sir: you always were, you know".

I'd never say _très hideux _/ _très affreux_ in French, and _very hideous _or _very awful _do sound strange to me.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Thanks for the insight into acceptable usage, Viobi. Although it seems it can't be satisfactorily explained by precise analysis. After all, if something can be _'overall' magnifique_ but with less-than-perfect detail, and something else can be _absolument magnifique (splendide, sublime, ...) _with no imperfect detail, that rather smacks of degrees of magnificence to me. 

Similarly if the _magnificence_ of a cathedral can eclipse that of another edifice, surely that indicates that the one is _plus magnifique_ than the other. I'm not refuting that _plus magnifique_ is a no-no, just saying that I'd hate to have to justify that in front of a _tribunal de grammairiens_ using those examples.

As for _very hideous_ and _very awful,_ I see no problem there at all. _Hideous_, like _ugly_, can definitely have differing degrees (and _très laid_ works in French!). Similarly for _awful_: there are different degrees of _awe_, as with any other emotion. 

So the non-use of _très_ doesn't seem to be related purely to adjectives with an absolute meaning, if _hideux_ and _affreux_ are included in that pack. Why _très effrayant_, but not _très affreux_? Again, I'm not disputing the facts, just looking for some kind of logic (if such exists).

Ws


----------



## Viobi

Wordsmyth said:


> As for _very hideous_ and _very awful,_ I see no problem there at all. _Hideous_, like _ugly_, can definitely have differing degrees (and _très laid_ works in French!). Similarly for _awful_: there are different degrees of _awe_, as with any other emotion.
> Ws



Well, _très laid _parallels _très beau_, hence no problem: it's  aesthetically good or bad, more or less so.

Now _hideux _is not just ugly, it's already extremely ugly... so,  very extremely ugly? Well...

I agree that one might call "awful" things that can't be equated: it's awful to lose your job, to have your house burnt to ashes, to lose all your family in a car accident, and an earthquake that kills thousands is awful too. 
So yes, there _are _degrees in the reality described. It's just about the phrasing.

I just feel it sounds awkward. Googling "très hideux", (nearly) all I came up with was a quote from La Fontaine --hyphenated, at that: "très-hideux". It's really like in those 1001 Nights Tales: "Ô Très Vénéré Maître"... it's just too much, just like repetitions of _très: "C'est très très très très _très très bon, la glace au chocolat!" (dixit my son, aged three).


I wouldn't spontaneously say "très effrayant", either -- vraiment effrayant, rather.

But on the whole, I agree, it's essentially a matter of opinion and personal analysis. Such are the marshy lands of language usage.

D'après d'Alembert (je ne cite  pas toujours que mon fils ):

*ABOMINABLE*
DÉTESTABLE, EXÉCRABLE, synonymes. L'idée primitive & positive de ces  mots est une qualification de mauvais au suprème degré : aussi ne  sont-ils susceptibles, ni d'augmentation, ni de comparaison, si ce n'est  dans le seul cas où l'on veut donner au sujet qualifié le premier rang  entre ceux à qui ce même genre de qualification pourroit convenir :  ainsi l'on dit la plus abominable de toutes les débauches ; mais on ne  diroit guere une débauche très-abominable, ni plus abominable qu'une  autre : exprimant par eux-mêmes ce qu'il y a de plus fort, ils excluent  toutes les modifications dont on peut accompagner la plûpart des autres  épithetes. Voilà en quoi ils sont synonymes.

Très immonde, très ignoble, très atroce, très abominable, ne se trouvent quasi pas, sauf contextes humoristiques volontairement exagérés...

Would you say thingslike "a very obnoxious person", "a very horrifying prospect", etc?


----------



## Wordsmyth

Viobi said:


> _[...]_ But on the whole, I agree, it's essentially a matter of opinion and personal analysis. Such are the marshy lands of language usage. _[...] _


 I was reaching the same conclusion. Trawling the web, I found numerous clear-cut indications of which adjectives can't have a comparative or superlative form: irregulars (_meilleur, pire, moindre_); those with no related degree of intensity (_entier, cadet, principal, prochain, unique,_ etc); quantity (_double, triple,_ etc); objective and non-quantifiable condition (_carré, allumé,_ etc) — all of which are very logical. The examples given were many more than those I've quoted, but not one included *magnifique* (nor _affreux, hideux_). So for such words, it seems that it's a question of what sounds right to the speaker, rather than one of logical definition.


Viobi said:


> _[...] _ainsi l'on dit la plus abominable de toutes les débauches ; mais on ne diroit guere une débauche [...] plus abominable qu'une autre _[...] _


I guess that French (at least according to d'Alembert, je dirois!) must have a much finer concept of what constitutes "degré": you can say "the most abominable of all debaucheries", but not that it's more abominable than the others!! For me, both pass perfectly well in English.


Viobi said:


> _[...] _Would you say things like "a very obnoxious person", "a very horrifying prospect", etc?


 Absolutely yes. (And I suspect Keith might as well ).

Ws


----------



## Keith Bradford

Yip, count me in.


----------



## Viobi

Thank you guys, I learnt something today!


----------



## geostan

While I don't take issue with most of what was said,  I must say that _*very magnificent*_ sounds peculiar to me. *Absolutely magnificent *or* really magnificent*, on the other hand, do not bother me at all. And I cannot explain why.


----------



## Viobi

Keith, that's two to one!


----------



## Maître Capello

geostan said:


> I must say that _*very magnificent*_ sounds peculiar to me. *Absolutely magnificent *or* really magnificent*, on the other hand, do not bother me at all. And I cannot explain why.


I think I understand why, but I hope I can explain it clearly: _absolutely, __really,_ _truly, _and the like are quite different from _very_. In the first case, you mean _nothing less than, nothing short of_. In the latter, you imply _more than_, which is odd with an absolute adjective because it doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Viobi

That's it, but it still doesn't seem to convince everbybody! (see #10-17)


----------



## Wordsmyth

Maître Capello said:


> _[...]_ _absolutely, __really,_ _truly, _and the like are quite different from _very_. In the first case, you mean _nothing less than, nothing short of_. In the latter, you imply _more than_, which is odd with an absolute adjective because it doesn't make much sense.


 Actually, Maître C, I see it as a touch more complex than that. 

Case 1: Assuming that _magnificent_ *is* an absolute:

- "_A really_ (or _truly_) _magnificent ..._" : OK. It means I'm saying that something is magnificent, and I assure you that I'm not lying or exaggerating.

- "_An absolutely_ _magnificent ..._" : At best a pleonasm; or worse, a paradox, as it suggests that on other occasions, _magnificent_ might be less than absolute.

- "_A very_ _magnificent ..._" : As you say, it makes no sense if _magnificent_ is absolute.

Case 2: Assuming that_ magnificent_ *is not* an absolute:

- "_A really_ (or _truly_) _magnificent ..._" : OK. Same meaning as above.

- "_An absolutely_ _magnificent ..."_ : OK. In effect a superlative; it indicates that on this occasion magnificence has "topped out" (can't be bettered). 

- "_A very_ _magnificent ..._" : OK. If magnificent is not absolute, different degrees are possible.

Which again raises the question: are the adjectives _magnificent_ and _magnifique_ absolute?  Dictionary definitions of _magnificent_ include _splendid, impressive in appearance, noble, elevated,_ none of which has an absolute meaning — and the Latin root is _magnus_ (= _great_) or more specifically _magnificus_ (= _great in deeds_), again admitting the possibilty of degree. So I can't see a logical explanation of an 'absolute' status. I suspect it's more a question of linguistic fashion or individually preferred style.

Ws


----------



## Assurancetourix

To me, _very magnificent _sounds wrong, but I can think of sentence where _more magnificent _sounds OK. I suggest that by default _magnificent _is an absolute, but it can be used comparatively provided that the comparison is made explicit.

So:

 Alice rushed through endless state rooms, each more magnificent than the last.

but

 Alice entered a very magnificent state room.

I hadn't previously thought about _hideous_, but a while back someone was described to me as _very gorgeous_ and this struck me as annoying because it was robbing me of the full (absolute) meaning of _gorgeous_. Still, and in the same vein as above _she's even more gorgeous than his first wife _sounds OK to me.

We very often do say _absolutely [insert preferred absolute adjective] _so it would be unfortunate if we had to analyse this as a pleonasm or paradox as Wordsmyth suggests. It seems to me that in this context _absolutely _has the same value as _truly / genuinely _etc. It means _I have no reservations in saying..._


----------



## Keith Bradford

I hear what you all say, but I think we should distinguish between grammatically correct and stylistically desirable.

I would find "very magnificent" and "very hideous" rather overblown in style, but until the beginning of this thread I'd never heard it suggested that they were ungrammatical.  They're just as correct as "awfully pretty" or "frightfully adorable"; that is to say they are correct but suggest some naivety or pretentiousness in the person using them.  (Mind you, 400 years ago, anyone using the word "very" was thought to be pretentious.)

Don't take French rules to be valid for English usage.


----------



## Viobi

Keith Bradford said:


> Don't take French rules to be valid for English usage.



That's obvious. 

Now, did any one actually suggest that "very magnificent" or "very hideous" were agrammatical? I don't think so. Wordsmyth and Assurancetourix merely say "very magnificent" sounds "wrong" to them.

And even about the French, d'Alembert doesn't go any further than "on ne  diroit guere", which seems to condemn rather the style than the syntax proper.

Anyway, I didn't expect anything that is downright unacceptable in French on grounds of "over-exaggerated over-exaggeration" could be merely "rather overblown in style" for a "stiff-upper-lipped Englishman"!


----------



## Wordsmyth

Viobi said:


> _[...]_ Now, did any one actually suggest that "very magnificent" or "very hideous" were agrammatical? I don't think so. Wordsmyth and Assurancetourix merely say "very magnificent" sounds "wrong" to them._ [...]_


 Curiously, as this thread has unrolled, perhaps because I've now read _"very magnificent"_ several times, it no longer seems so strange to my ear; on the other hand _"très magnifique"_ still doesn't sound right. Maybe, to 'linguistic fashion' and 'individually preferred style', I should add 'familiarity'. It's a well-known phenomenon: the more you hear something, the more normal it sounds (regardless of logic, grammar or common sense).


Assurancetourix said:


> _[...]_ We very often do say _absolutely [insert preferred absolute adjective] _so it would be unfortunate if we had to analyse this as a pleonasm or paradox as Wordsmyth suggests._ [...]_


 I'm not really saying we should. My suggestion was a "what if" : *if* _magnificent_ were absolute (which so far hasn't been supported by any reasoning or hard evidence), then ... . And if it is absolute, then _"absolutely magnificent"_ is like _"an absolutely wooden chair" or "coming absolutely second". 
_
Reversing the argument, if we don't say the last two because _wooden_ and _second_ have absolute meanings (no possibility of degree), but we do say _absolutely magnificent_, that might suggest that _magnificent_ isn't absolute — unless of course it's being used with the particular sense of "I'm of the opinion, without reservation, that it's magnificent" (a curious syntax, because grammatically _"absolutely"_ modifies _"magnificent"_, but in reality it relates to the strength of conviction of the speaker, and not at all to the magnificence!). So usage with _absolutely_ isn't a good indicator. 


Assurancetourix said:


> _[...]_ I suggest that by default _magnificent is an absolute, but it can be used comparatively provided that the comparison is made explicit.__ [...]_


 Since _magnificent_ can be preceded by _more_ and _most_ (which isn't the case with truly absolute adjectives like _unique, maximum, dead_), and since there's nothing intrinsic in the word to make it an absolute, I now lean towards the suggestion that by default _magnificent_ is not an absolute (because it permits degree and comparison), but that its use with _very_ is restrained (some would say proscribed) — possibly because it already expresses a much-higher-than-average degree of something, so that the potential for variation is reduced. As Viobi remarked in post #15, can you have 'very something' when that something is already 'very' (relative to something else)? Maybe, but that might explain a reticence to say _'very magnificent'_ (or _gorgeous, or hideous, ..._). 

Perhaps we're saying the same thing (glass half-full or half-empty?).

I'd like to apply the same reasoning to _"magnifique"_, but I'll heed Keith's warning .

Ws


----------



## Maître Capello

Pour ce qui est du français, voici un extrait du _Répertoire des délicatesses du français contemporain_ de Renaud Camus :


> Certains adjectifs peuvent être appelés _absolus_ parce qu'ils signifient de la façon la plus emphatique ce qu'ils ont à signifier, et qu'ils se tiennent d'emblée, et uniquement, au plus haut point de leur sens.
> De tels adjectifs n'admettent pas de degré. Ils ne sauraient être relativisés adverbialement. […]
> Sans doute s'agissait-il d'une plaisanterie, à l'origine. […] Un objet, un acte ou un être ne peuvent être _assez géniaux_, ni _un peu géniaux_, ni _très géniaux_… Ils sont géniaux ou ils ne le sont pas.
> Un film ne peut pas être _assez génial_, un plat ne peut pas être _assez sublime_, ni un livre _très passionnant_, ni une attitude _assez hallucinante_, et pas davantage un regard _relativement terrifiant_. […]


----------



## Viobi

Merci, cher Maïtre, de nous fournir une source un peu plus récente que d'Alembert.... 

This thread is very fascinating!


----------

