# FR: de + person - Indirect object pronoun



## ajglywakyta

I know that indirect object pronouns are generally used to replace the preposition "*à + person*".  And I know that with "de + object" you can use the pronominal adverb "en".  However, I was wondering if there is ever a situation where you would use an indirect object pronoun to replace "*de + person*", "*pour + person*" or other pronouns...  Is the only way to use a disjunctive pronoun with prepositions like these (i.e. "de lui" or "pour lui")?

Note:  I think I have seen the use of "en" to replace "de + person" sometimes but it strikes me as a bit old-fashioned.  Is this type of usage still common?

Merci d'avance


----------



## Fred_C

Hi,
I think the only use of indirect object pronouns is to replace the proposition "à+person". 
For "à+object", you must use the pronoun "y", which is the exact equivalent of "en", but for the preposition "à".

I think you are right, for the preposition "de" and a person, the only way is to use a disjunctive pronoun : like in "j'ai rêvé de lui" (for a person) or "j'en rêve" for an object.


Sometimes, you will hear people use the pronouns "en" and "y" to replace "de + person" and "à + person", but this is incorrect. Not old-fashioned, incorrect. (As far as I know).


----------



## CapnPrep

For "_à_ + object" the pronoun is usually *y*, but some verbs always take indirect object pronouns (e.g. _convenir_, _succéder_). Unfortunately this information is not given in any dictionary.



Fred_C said:


> Sometimes, you will hear people use the pronouns "en" and "y" to replace "de + person" and "à + person", but this is incorrect. Not old-fashioned, incorrect. (As far as I know).


According to Riegel et al., "_En_ est oligatoire pour renvoyer au compléments animés non définis : _Il s'occupe d'enfants handicapés_ / _Il s'en occupe_."


----------



## ajglywakyta

2 questions:
What is you are saying:
"Il s'occupe de *ses *enfants" where the compliment is definite, can you still say "Il s'en occupe"? If so, why and are there any other situations where this kind of replacement is obligatory with _compléments animés._

2. When you say, "je lui ai acheté qq'ch", is the "lui" replacing the disjunctive prepositional phrase "pour lui"?  If so, is the us of the indirect object pronoun for a preposition that is not "à + person" an irregularity here, or can "pour + person" be replaced by a I.O. pronoun in other situations?

Thanks so much for your help.


----------



## Fred_C

ajglywakyta said:


> 2 questions:
> What is you are saying:
> "Il s'occupe de *ses *enfants" where the compliment is definite, can you still say "Il s'en occupe"?


According to CapnPrep, yes, this is allowed.
I did not know.
I thought it was incorrect and you should say "il s'occupe d'eux" instead.

Anyway, if the "en" pronouns is allowed for animated object, the converse is absolutely not true. The use of disjunctive pronouns is forbidden when talking about inanimate objects.



ajglywakyta said:


> 2. When you say, "je lui ai acheté qq'ch", is the "lui" replacing the disjunctive prepositional phrase "pour lui"?


No, not at all.
the lui is replacing the disjunctive "à lui".
I am positive on this one.

If you mean the preposition "pour", you must say : "J'ai acheté quelque chose pour lui". (And there is no way to avoid the disjunctive pronoun here)
Note that the disjunctive pronouns lui and elle can only be used to replace people. 
If you want to replace "pour + object", you cannot use a disjunctive pronoun. Instead, you must use an adverb that will mean "for it". the french adverb meaning "for it" in French is just "pour".
Like in : "Je vote pour." (I vote for it).
There is a list of adverbs to use in correspondance with each preposition, to avoid the use of the disjunctive pronouns when you are not replacing people:
Avec -> avec
pour -> pour
sur -> dessus
sous -> dessous
etc...
(I can help you with a more exhaustive list, if you like.)


----------



## CapnPrep

Fred_C said:


> According to CapnPrep, yes, this is allowed.
> I did not know.
> I thought it was incorrect and you should say "il s'occupe d'eux" instead.


The exception given by Riegel et al. only applies to _indefinite_ nouns. If you have "s'occuper *des/de ses* enfants" then "d'eux" is required, as you said.

The example that they give for "s'en occuper" is quite artificial. I would recommend using something like "s'occuper de quelques-uns" instead.

The only time you really have to use "en" for people is with numbers and other indefinite quantity expressions: _Combien de frères a-t-il ? Il en a trois.

_


----------



## janpol

"en" me semble parfois incontournable pour remplacer un nom "animé", "humain" COI :
A-t-il changé de secrétaire ? Oui, il en a changé.
(Et ce n'est pas du machisme :
A-t-elle changé d'amant ? Oui, elle en a changé.)

"I vote for it" (dans un des posts qui précèdent) : l'emploi de "it" me surprend. 

La phrase  : "je lui ai acheté qq chose" est ambiguë : "lui" peut être le marchand ou le destinataire du cadeau : 1) "Il n'avait encore rien vendu alors je lui ai acheté qq chose" (j'ai acheté à X) 2) "Tu as acheté un cadeau pour Pierre ?" "Oui, je lui ai acheté qq chose" (pour X)


----------



## Fred_C

janpol said:


> "en" me semble parfois incontournable pour remplacer un nom "animé", "humain" COI :
> A-t-il changé de secrétaire ? Oui, il en a changé.
> (Et ce n'est pas du machisme :
> A-t-elle changé d'amant ? Oui, elle en a changé.)


 
This is a very different case: the use of the pronoun "en" to replace an grammatical object that was previously mentioned with the INDEFINITE article, or with NO article."
In that case, the preposition de is not even necessary : 
"Tu mange des pommes?
oui, j'EN mange".


----------



## janpol

Certes, Fred, mais le nom "pommes" est un complément "non animé", "non humain"
Normalement, l'emploi de "en" pour désigner une personne est fautif : c'est "chosifier" cette personne. On entend très souvent la faute (commise par des Français : "il parle de son voisin" = "il en parle*" au lieu de "il parle de lui". (Montesquieu, si mes souvenis sont exacts, commet volontairement ce type de faute dans son texte sur l'esclavage des nègres)


----------



## ajglywakyta

Fred_C said:


> According to CapnPrep, yes, this is allowed.
> I did not know.
> I thought it was incorrect and you should say "il s'occupe d'eux" instead.
> 
> Anyway, if the "en" pronouns is allowed for animated object, the converse is absolutely not true. The use of disjunctive pronouns is forbidden when talking about inanimate objects.
> 
> 
> No, not at all.
> the lui is replacing the disjunctive "à lui".
> I am positive on this one.
> 
> If you mean the preposition "pour", you must say : "J'ai acheté quelque chose pour lui". (And there is no way to avoid the disjunctive pronoun here)
> Note that the disjunctive pronouns lui and elle can only be used to replace people.
> If you want to replace "pour + object", you cannot use a disjunctive pronoun. Instead, you must use an adverb that will mean "for it". the french adverb meaning "for it" in French is just "pour".
> Like in : "Je vote pour." (I vote for it).
> There is a list of adverbs to use in correspondance with each preposition, to avoid the use of the disjunctive pronouns when you are not replacing people:
> Avec -> avec
> pour -> pour
> sur -> dessus
> sous -> dessous
> etc...
> (I can help you with a more exhaustive list, if you like.)


 
Could you possibly explain this a bit more? For one thing, I always thought "sur+indefinite object" and "sous+indefinite object" changes to "là-dessus" and "là-dessous". Can you leave out the "là" here? Also, would you mind explaining this concept with prepositions like "avec", "pour" and others that follow the same model?
Thanks.


----------



## CapnPrep

À propos de Montesquieu : En français classique, l'emploi de *y* et de *en* à référence animée n'était pas une faute. 

Grevisse/Goosse §678c, 2º h :


> _En_ et _y_ se rapportaient autrefois à des personnes bien plus librement qu’ils ne font dans l’usage moderne.


Même aujourd'hui, les grammairiens s'accordent à dire qu'il est préférable d'employer *en* et *y*, plutôt que de répéter la préposition : 
_De son voisin, il en parle._
_On y pense, à Jean._​


----------



## Fred_C

ajglywakyta said:


> Could you possibly explain this a bit more? For one thing, I always thought "sur+indefinite object" and "sous+indefinite object" changes to "là-dessus" and "là-dessous". Can you leave out the "là" here? Also, would you mind explaining this concept with prepositions like "avec", "pour" and others that follow the same model?
> Thanks.


 Hi
The difference between "là-dessus" and "dessus" is the same as between "that" and "it".
"that" is demonstrative. It has no meaning unless you are pointing at something with your finger (at least mentally).
"Là-dessus" is demonstrative.

In this thread, we are not discussing demonstratives, we are discussing pronouns like "le" or "lui" (disjunctive or not)
They correspond to the English "it", and associated with the preposition "sur", you must use the adverb "dessus", which is a "pronominal" adverb and is not demonstrative.
Example : "Regarde la table, j'ai mis des assiettes dessus". "Look at the table, I put plates on it."
On it -> dessus. It is not a demonstrative.


----------



## Fred_C

"Je pose le livre _sur_ la table" -> "Je pose le livre _dessus_" (on it)
"Je place le livre _sous_ la table" -> "Je place le livre _dessous_". (under it)
"Je voyage _avec_ ma voiture" -> "Je voyage _avec_" (with it)
"Je vote pour la nouvelle loi" -> "Je vote pour" (for it)
"Ne sors pas _sans_ ton manteau" -> "Ne sors pas _sans_" (without it)

In the first column, you have prepositions with nouns representing objects, in the second column, you want to replace the nouns with the pronoun it, but in french, you cannot use a disjunctive pronoun "lui", (because the noun does not represent someone), So you use the corresponding adverb.
for the preposition "de", the word to use is the pronoun EN
for the preposition "À", the word to use is the pronoun Y.

For some prepositions, there does not exist a corresponding adverb:

Par:
"Je suis passé par le chemin" -> Impossible to replace "le chemin", there does not exist an adverb associated with the preposition "par". 
You could say : "Je suis passé par là", but that would be cheating, because "là" is a demonstrative, and we are not discussing demonstratives.


----------



## ajglywakyta

Thanks very much FredC. I recognize these from speech but I never fully understood the concept. Your post is very helpful.  Do you know where I might find a comprehensive list of these?


----------



## janpol

J'ai retrouvé la phrase de Montesquieu : "Les peuples d'Europe ont dû  mettre en esclavage ceux de l'Afrique pour s'en servir" 
Sans doute, l'emploi des pronoms était-il plus libre au 18è... Les analyses que j'ai entendues de ce texte considéraient tout de même que le choix de "en" n'était pas innocent et qu'il contribuait à donner un ton ironique à ce texte... 
Il y pense, il en parle (à son voisin, de son voisin) : peut-être Grevisse accepte-t-il ces pronoms : il accepte si souvent une chose et son contraire qu'on peut se demander où est... le bon usage.
J'aurais beaucoup de mal à accepter ce 'en" et ce "y", alors que l'on peut dire "il pense à lui", "il parle de lui".


----------



## Fred_C

ajglywakyta said:


> Thanks very much FredC. I recognize these from speech but I never fully understood the concept. Your post is very helpful. Do you know where I might find a comprehensive list of these?


 Hi,
No, I do not know.
However, I think it will be very easy for you to find a comprehensive list of prepositions. Send it to me, I will give you the corresponding adverbs.


----------

