# One of these days, that man will do for you.



## Chrisahlia

En fait je n'arrive pas à traduire cette phrase "one of these days, that man will do for you"!!! je ne sais pas dans quel sens prendre le "for"...


----------



## XPditif

Convenir.


----------



## Chrisahlia

je ne pense pas parce qu'en fait le monsieur en question est violent envers son ex-femme, et une voisine de la dame lui dit: "One of these days, that man will do for you." Donc je ne sais pas si cela signignie: "un de ces jours il viendra à bout de toi"....


----------



## XPditif

Si do n'est pas prit dans le sens de convenir, 
il manque alors un élément dans la phrase,
... man will do *something* for you (pas d'indice dans la phrase qui précède?)
sinon, ça n'a pas de sens A MA CONNAISSANCE.
Good luck.


----------



## Chrisahlia

Non il n'ya aucun autre indice!! c'est une phrase complète  je me disais aussi qu'il yavait un truc qui manquait mais voila... Merci quand même


----------



## Novanas

My dictionary defines this use of "do for" as "to cause the ruin, death or defeat of".  So, "this man will do for you" basically means he's going to do something very bad to you.  Exactly what, perhaps the context will make clear.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

Salut,

Following Seneca the Duck's explanation,  how about: « Un de ces jours, cet homme aura ta peau » ? And following marget's one: « ... tu auras cet homme dans la peau » ! (I'm at a loss... )


----------



## marget

I can actually imagine "That man will do for you" to mean "you'll accept him". If someone asks my opinion of something and I feel it's satisfactory, but not necessarily any better than that, I say "It'll do", meaning it will suffice, but I'm not really wowed/bowled over by it.  Perhaps convenir could actually work if the neighbor meant that the ex-wife might eventually take him back.


----------



## Nicomon

KaRiNe_Fr said:


> Salut,
> 
> Following Seneca the Duck's explanation, how about: « Un de ces jours, cet homme aura ta peau » ? And following marget's one: « ... tu auras cet homme dans la peau » ! (I'm at a loss... *au contraire*... *you're on a roll* )


   Moi, je trouve ça excellent. 

Selon Robert & Collins, "do for" en parlant d'une personne = to kill = liquider/supprimer.  Dans le contexte  (l'homme est violent envers son ex-femme)  la première version me semble parfaite.  

Mais avant de lire le contexte... j'avais compris le titre comme marget l'a expliqué.


----------



## XPditif

Mais bien sur Cobuild (BE) m'a sorti l'explication de tout le monde:
having a serious and harmful effect on one's life.

On le trouve également sous la forme: I can't finish the job *I'm done for*.

J'aime bien "te mènera à ta perte / causera ta perte / te fera du mal".


Thanks everybody for the enlightment.


----------



## paulvial

The way I remember hearing  it,  is as follows : 


I will do *you for* : I will *do you in*     = I will kill you 
he will *do him in */ he *will do him for  * = he will kill him  
 (though I have more often heard  "do someone in " on it's own to mean killing someone 


I will _*do for you *_ =  I will be acceptable to you  
he _*will do for me *_= il me conviendra 

*I am done for* if this is not done in time:   come XPeditif l'a dit ,  "je suis foutu si ce n'est fait à temps " 

Hope it helps


----------



## Chrisahlia

Graaaand merci à tous!!! seneca tu as raison  Thx encore


----------



## Nicomon

paulvial said:


> The way I remember hearing it, is as follows :
> I will do *you for* : I will *do you in* = I will kill you
> he will *do him in */ he *will do him for *= he will kill him
> (though I have more often heard "do someone in " on it's own to mean killing someone


 Merci de le confirmer, paulvial. 
C'est ce dont je me souvenais aussi. C'est la raison pour laquelle à la lecture du titre, je l'avais d'abord compris comme marget l'a expliqué : te conviendra. 

Mais dans le contexte... précédé de "One of these days that man will", ça ressemble à un avertissement de danger.


----------



## paulvial

Nicomon said:


> Merci de le confirmer, Plauvial.
> C'est ce dont je me souvenais aussi. C'est la raison pour laquelle à la lecture du titre, je l'avais d'abord compris comme Marget l'a expliqué : te conviendra.
> 
> Mais dans le contexte... précédé de  "One of these days that man will", ça ressemble à un avertissement de danger.



Pas nécessairement  : 
Un de ces jours , cet homme te conviendra ( tu ne feras plus la fine bouche  )


----------



## Melanieemer

Pour ma part, vu le contexte, je pense aussi que c'est un avertissement. "un jour cet homme tu tueras".


----------



## akaAJ

It's karine's "Un de ces jours, cet homme aura ta peau", and the opposite of  Melanieemer's "un jour cet homme tu tueras" (namely, "un jour, cet homme te tuera).


----------



## Melanieemer

how is it an opposite?

Si tu as la peau de quelqu'un (comme dans les vieux westerns) tu les tues, non? I admit was translation wasn't great but still...


----------



## akaAJ

You said "You'll kill him" (as in the commandment, "Tu ne tueras point"); I said "He'll kill you"


----------



## Melanieemer

erm nope... as you pointed out with your spelling correction, the subject is "cet homme" donc c'est l'hommes qui va tuer la femme... alors que dans le contexte que tu viens de donner "tu ne tueras point" c'est le "tu" qui est le sujet de la phrase... 
i'm sure you will find some delicious spelling mistakes in this message to point out... anyway I meant to write "cet homme te tuera" but i agree that "cet homme aura ta peau" has a better ring to it...


----------



## akaAJ

I pointed out that "tu" is the second person singular subject and "tueras" is second person singular future, hence "tu tueras"  = you will kill (Thou wilt kill).  A grammatically correct sentence using that form would have been "Un jour, cet homme*,* tu *le* tueras" (Some day, that man, you are going to kill him).  In your version, "cet homme" is the direct object in inverted position; in normal order "Tu tueras cet homme*="You will kill that man".

I'm sorry, but when I read "tu tueras" I don't transform it to "te tuera".


----------



## Nicomon

Hello,

For those interested in context... and I hope I indeed did find the right one... just click on one of the two links entitled "ABC murders", at the bottom of *this search*. 

It seems to me that it is either a typo and it should read "_will do you_".  Or that _for _and _you_ were inverted and it shoud read: _will do you for._ Then again... I'm no native.


----------



## Novanas

I don't see any problem here.  "That man will do for you" seems to me perfectly acceptable.  No need to invert "for" and "you", no need to omit "for".  We should remember that this is Agatha Christie, who was writing quite some time ago.  Nowadays, I think someone might say, "That man will do you."  But there is nothing wrong with "Do for you".


----------



## Nicomon

You're probably right, Seneca. But marget - who is American -  said that it could be interpreted another way.

Let's say that had Agatha Christie written _will do you_ _for/will do you_... this thread's mistery would have been solved earlier.


----------



## Novanas

Yes, "do for you" can be interpreted another way.  But for me, in this context there is no doubt about what it means.

Having said that, I perhaps have read this book.  I've read a lot of Agatha Christie, especially the Poirot mysteries.  But that was years ago, and if I've read this one, I don't recall it in the least.  So how the mystery would have been resolved earlier, as you say, I can't comment on that.

Also, some people are suggesting that one could say "do you for" as well as "do for you".  I have never heard anyone say "do you for", and as far as I know, it means nothing in English.

Finally, one small point, Nicomon: I'd be very grateful if you would not refer to me as "STD", which in English means "sexually transmitted disease" and which I believe translates into French as MST.


----------



## Nicomon

Seneca the Duck said:


> Yes, "do for you" can be interpreted another way. But for me, in this context there is no doubt about what it means.


To me neither (I approved of Karine's first solution right from start) but not everyone seemed to agree.



> So how the mystery would have been resolved earlier, as you say, I can't comment on that.


 I actually wrote solved, as in "solve a riddle/puzzle". It was a lame attempt at a pun... refering to this specific thread' "mistery sentence", and the two different interpretations.  



> Also, some people are suggesting that one could say "do you for" as well as "do for you". I have never heard anyone say "do you for", and as far as I know, it means nothing in English.


 "Do you for" - in that order - may not be right. Although I'm pretty sure that I've heard it. But "do you *in" *is. 
As in : _He will do for Mr so and so = He will do Mr so and so in._ And the latter is what I (and I believe paulvial as well) remembered hearing.


> *do for somebody/something*
> 
> *phrasal verb*
> _*British English informal*_ to kill someone or harm something or someone very badly:
> _Working 100 hours a week nearly *did for me*._
> 
> *do somebody** in*
> 
> *phrasal verb*
> *1* to kill someone:
> _He was planning to *do himself in.*_


 The former is obviously BE, and I believe that the latter is more "international". 



> Finally, one small point, Nicomon: I'd be very grateful if you would not refer to me as "STD", which in English means "sexually transmitted disease" and which I believe translates into French as MST.


Post corrected. And I'm sorry; I honestly never thought of it.


----------



## akaAJ

As Seneca the Duck says, Karine Fr's first attempt "aura ta peau" is exact, and "do for you" is clear in BE and understandable in USE.  "That man will do you" is more recent USE, with exactly the same meaning in this context.  "Did you do _her_" always has violent or contemptuous connotations, and could mean "kill" or "rape" (or, at best, loveless intercourse).


----------



## Novanas

"Do you for" is possible, so long as the expression is completed by an object.  E.g., "If you take that without paying for it, they'll do you for shoplifting."  That is, they'll prosecute you for shoplifting.  But, "that man will do you for" full-stop is not possible.


----------



## Nicomon

Seneca the Duck said:


> But, "that man will do you for" full-stop is not possible.


 Understood.  And case solved, as I confirmed earlier, in post # 9.  Karin'es first solution has got my vote.


----------



## Novanas

Nicomon said:


> Post corrected. And I'm sorry; I honestly never thought of it.


 
No apologies needed.  I know it didn't occur to you.  But if there's a member of this forum called "Mec Sans Titre", then it will be my turn to be careful, won't it?


----------

