# il a été hospitalisé 4 jours



## Capucine92

Hi every body
How you say in English " il a été hospitalisé 4 jours"
Thanks for your help


----------



## theironduck

He was hospitalized for 4 days.  
He was in hospital for 4 days.
He had to go into hospital for 4 days.


----------



## xiancee

He spent 4 days in hospital


----------



## Moon Palace

Hello Capucine, and welcome to the forum 

If this is your whole sentence, I would suggest the use of the present perfect: _he has spent four days in hospital. 
_Because of course, without the explicit sign that this action took place in the past, you cannot use a simple past. Unless it is part of a paragraph in which it is clear that the narrator is recounting a past incident that is not linked to the present.


----------



## xiancee

Yes I totally agree with Moon Palace! without tense marker, present perfect seems to fit here!


----------



## Nicomon

Good morning,

While I tend to agree with Moon (hello ) about present perfect (still not sure) I personally would have said like theironduck : _he was hospitalized for 4 days._

Granted, context would tell, but imho _he has spent 4 days in (the) hospital_ could be interpreted differently. 
For instance : _Il a passé 4 jours à l'hôpital avant d'être enfin vu par le médecin. _

This, to me, doesn't necessarily mean that he was actually hospitalized. I could be entirely wrong, though.


----------



## Moon Palace

I see your point, Nicomon (hello  ), but then we could say "he has been hospitalized for four days" to avoid any ambiguity. 
Besides, it could also mean : "he has been in hospital for four days, which is why he is now still weak", couldn't it?


----------



## Nicomon

I don't know. Wouldn't "he has been hospitalized for 4 days" imply that he is still in the hospital? That is _Il est hospitalisé depuis 4 jours._

Whereas, to me, _il a été hospitalisé_ means that he is no longer in the hospital. 

Compare :
_He was sick for 4 days : il a été malade (pendant) quatre jours_
_He has been sick for 4 days : il est malade depuis quatre jours / ça fait quatre jours qu'il est malade_
_Because he was so sick... he (has) spent 4 days in his room/at home : il a passé quatre jours dans sa chambre/à la maison_


----------



## Abbrevs

Either could work.  I think that "He spent four days in the hospital" sounds more fluent.

But, if you'd like to use "He has been in *the *hospital for four days" you may.


----------



## Nicomon

But if you say : _He has been in the hospital for four days..._ 
wouldn't it imply that he (whoever he is) is still is hospitalised/confined in the hospital? 

I'm seriously asking the question, as I'm now getting confused.


----------



## Moon Palace

I understand what you mean, but for the sake of clarity, we all agree that we need a time marker that would explicitly refer to the past to use the simple past, don't we? 
Now as regards the present perfect implying that the situation is still valid, we can find many examples when it is not the case: _he has bought a new car (_the purchase is over, and yet we also use a past in French: _il a acheté une voiture). _Likewise, I could say - or so I suppose - _he has been sick for four days, but today he is back. _


----------



## Abbrevs

If he is not in the hospital any longer, then I suggest you use either:

He was hospitalized for four days.   
or
He was in the hospital for four days.


----------



## Nicomon

Thanks Abbrevs. My point exactly. Just like theironduck suggested.


----------



## Moon Palace

Abbrevs said:


> If he is not in the hospital any longer, then I suggest you use either:
> 
> He was hospitalized for four days.
> or
> He was in the hospital for four days.



I understand your point, but there is something we learn and teach to students, which I would like to check here, because it is a key element in grammar, and for the sake of learners I would like this point to be clear: 
Is it possible to use a simple past in a sentence which is deprived of a time marker that explicitly shows it is no longer the case? 
Sorry for insisting, but I believe that if students read this post and take it they can use it without having *a context *that makes it obvious it is no longer the case, then they will be confused.


----------



## Capucine92

Many thanks for your help.
I am agree with "He was hospitalized for four days". 
(he is not in the hospital any longer)


----------



## massirifani

si je dis *he was hospitalized for* ..... C'est passe donc il me faut une date. Comme la semaine derniere, le mois dernier ou l'annee derniere. 
Sans quoi je ne peux utiliser que que le present perfect ou past perfect. 
Sans quoi, ns a dit la prof, on est en train de dire *On l'a hospitalise pendant*....


----------



## xiancee

Moon Palace said:


> I understand your point, but there is something we learn and teach to students, which I would like to check here, because it is a key element in grammar, and for the sake of learners I would like this point to be clear:
> Is it possible to use a simple past in a sentence which is deprived of a time marker that explicitly shows it is no longer the case?
> Sorry for insisting, but I believe that if students read this post and take it they can use it without having *a context *that makes it obvious it is no longer the case, then they will be confused.



Spontaneously, without a date, translating the original sentence, I woud use the preterit because the passé composé in French tells me it is over!
But what about American English?


----------



## Moon Palace

I am deeply sorry, but this debate is maybe about "_fluency"_, but I feel sorry for those students who are going to read this and believe it, and then be penalized in class because they will have misunderstood.
I would advise all posters and readers to go back to posts on the present perfect and the simple past. 
Everybody knows that _"j'ai acheté une nouvelle voiture"_, in the _passé composé_, will not be translated thanks to a simple past, unless you say when the purchase took place. _"I have bought a new car_", oddly enough; will most certainly appear more fluent to English speakers.
The case here is exactly the same. Saying the contrary is like saying in French that "_j'ai été à New York" _is grammatically correct.


----------



## xiancee

The problem with students is that they tend systematically to translate "le passé composé" with "present perfect" due to the fact that the structure is the same : have + PP
And it does not always work that way! So Moon palace is right on stressing the point that pointing out the time marker is necessary!


----------



## Nicomon

I agree that if the sentence to translate was : _Il a passé 4 jours à l'hôpital (au chevet de son enfant hospitalisé) _without a time marker to tell us if it is recent or if it happened last week/month... it might be best to translate as: _He has spent 4 days in (the) hospital_.

But the thread title is _Il a été hospitalisé 4 jours_. It is clear that the person no longer is hospitalised. The hospitalisation is over; a thing of the past. If it weren't the case, we would say in French : _il est hospitalisé depuis 4 jours / depuis le 15 janvier, etc. _

Hence my insisting that the best translations are: _He was hospitalised for 4 days / was in the hospital for 4 days. _And other anglophones here agree on that. 

Here are similar examples, copied from bilingual websites:


> *Il a été hospitalisé plusieurs jours* *à Vancouver* avant d'être transféré dans un hôpital de son pays d'origine.
> *He was hospitalized in Vancouver for several days* prior to being transferred to a hospital in his native land.
> 
> Le (passager) blessé *a été hospitalisé trois jours*.
> The injured passenger *was hospitalized for three days*.


 
As for bought / have bought, copied from *this site*:


> *Emphasis on action *
> I bought a new bike. _(just telling what I did in the past.)_
> 
> *Emphasis on result *
> I have bought a new bike. _(With this sentence I actually want to express that I have a new bike now.)_


 
Edit : I also find of interest this *bilingual article* and *this page* which gives a quick summary.


----------



## xiancee

I think we all agree with you Nicomon and the most important element here is the emphasis on action / result for the difference past simple/p perfect


----------



## Moon Palace

Nicomon said:


> I agree that if the sentence to translate was : _Il a passé 4 jours à l'hôpital (au chevet de son enfant hospitalisé) _without a time marker to tell us if it is recent or if it happened last week/month... it might be best to translate as: _He has spent 4 days in (the) hospital_.
> 
> But the thread title is _Il a été hospitalisé 4 jours_. It is clear that the person no longer is hospitalised. The hospitalisation is over; a thing of the past. If it weren't the case, we would say in French : _il est hospitalisé depuis 4 jours / depuis le 15 janvier, etc. _
> 
> Hence my insisting that the best translations are: _He was hospitalised for 4 days / was in the hospital for 4 days. _And other anglophones here agree on that.
> 
> Here are similar examples, copied from bilingual websites:
> 
> 
> As for bought / have bought, copied from *this site*:
> 
> 
> Edit : I also find of interest this *bilingual article* and *this page* which gives a quick summary.



With due respect, I believe this is misleading for learners. You will emphasize action if you are in a context where you are *narrating past events *_(_as the beginning of your post says). 
Anglophones agree on the past because they see a *past context* around it, but _4 days _in itself is not a sign that it took place in the past, it is merely a duration, as if you had said _for four days, _as show both examples you mention since they all contain an additional tense marker_. _
I merely wanted to remind learners of the need for a past context.


----------



## Nicomon

Moon,

There was a sentence to translate, and it was correctly translated right from the beginning, in post # 2. 

I never said that 4 days was a tense/time marker. It is the past participle « _il a été » _before_ hospitalisé_ » that tells us it is past. 
Plus I added what we would say in French, if it wasn't a thing of the past. 

To me the example below, that I gave earlier, is very similar to the thread title.


> Le (passager) blessé *a été hospitalisé trois jours*.
> The injured passenger *was hospitalized for three days*.


 
Besides... I gave 3 links to sites/documents that I think of interest, to further help. All this in the *vocabulary* (not grammar) forum. 
So if my post was misleading, well, I'm very sorry.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Abbrevs said:


> Either could work.  I think that "He spent four days in the hospital" sounds more fluent.
> 
> But, if you'd like to use "He has been in *the *hospital for four days" you may.


 
I'm unsure why you appear to be insisting on the use of "the". American English uses "in _the_ hospital", however British English uses "in hospital", unless a specific hospital is being referred to, while in Irish English both forms are acceptable.

As regards the original question, _he was hospitalized for 4 days_ seems the best translation to me. _He has spent four days in the hospital_ indicates that he is still there, which doesn't work unless of course that is what the French is trying to imply.


----------



## xiancee

I was always told the difference between "hospital" and "the hospital" as follows : 

He's in hospital = he is ill
He's in the hospital = he's in the building, he's visiting or a nurse or a doctor ...

Is it so???


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

xiancee said:


> I was always told the difference between "hospital" and "the hospital" as follows :
> 
> He's in hospital/he's in the hospital = he is ill
> He's in the hospital = he's in the building, he's visiting or a nurse or a doctor ...
> 
> Is it so???


 
It depends on context. _He's in*__ the hospital _can either mean that a person is in a hospital visiting etc. or is being taken cared of as an in-patient. This form is prevalent in North American English.

_He's in hospital _is the preferred British construction, meaning that a person is ill and is being treated in a hospital.


----------



## xiancee

Ok thanks for those elements of answer!


----------



## Nicomon

Hello,

In addition to PyLT's posts, and as found googling:



> A few 'institutional' nouns take no definite article when a certain role is implied: for example, _at sea_ (as a sailor), _in prison_ (as a convict), and _at/in college_ (for students). Among this group, BrE has _in hospital_ (as a patient) and _at university_(as a student), where AmE requires _in *the* hospital_ and _at *the* university_ (though AmE does allow _at college_ and _in school_).


 *Source : *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences

And this, below, was copied from a forum:


> BriE usage:
> I was in hospital = I was a patient.
> I was in the hospital = I was visiting or was in the building but not as a patient.
> 
> Perhaps it may seem a bit more reasonable if you consider "in prison", "in jail", "in high school", etc. The British usage with "hospital" follows the same pattern, in that what's focussed on is more a status or condition than a location. "He's been in jail four times, but never twice in the same one."


----------



## xiancee

OK more information !!!


----------



## Moon Palace

Nicomon said:


> Moon,
> 
> There was a sentence to translate, and it was correctly translated right from the beginning, in post # 2.
> 
> I never said that 4 days was a tense/time marker. It is the past participle « _il a été » _before_ hospitalisé_ » that tells us it is past.
> Plus I added what we would say in French, if it wasn't a thing of the past.
> 
> To me the example below, that I gave earlier, is very similar to the thread title.
> 
> 
> Besides... I gave 3 links to sites/documents that I think of interest, to further help. All this in the *vocabulary* (not grammar) forum.
> So if my post was misleading, well, I'm very sorry.



The problem with English and French is that grammar tenses do not always suffice to give an accurate idea of the perspective the locutor has on the event. 
In the same way as "_my wallet has been stolen" _does not allow to point to a specific time in the past, the French _passé composé _has what we call _une valeur résultative, _which exactly matches the value of the present perfect. See this site. To illustrate this point, when you say in French "_j'ai fini dans une minute," _of course if you believe the verb points to the past, then you are mistaken. 

On the other hand, my Cambridge Grammar of English says this about the past: 


> The most common type of reference to the past is through definite time adjuncts and definite adverbial clauses. (...)
> Often there is no explicit time marker, but definite past time may be implied either by the situation of speaking or writing, or by assumptions of shared and general knowledge. In such cases, the simple past may be used.



I am sorry, but all this leads me to conclude that in the absence of more context, it is not the case here. Hence my asking for context, which would release us from a lengthy discussion.


----------



## Nicomon

Shouldn't this lengthy discussion be moved to the grammar forum? 

As far as I'm concerned, vocabulary wise, it has long been answered. As copied from this site for beginners 





> *The present perfect is used with for and since, when the actions have not finished yet: I have lived in Victoria for five years.*
> *(I still live in Victoria.)*
> 
> *The simple past is used with for and since, when the actions have already finished: I lived in Victoria for five years.*
> *(I don't live in Victoria now.) *


 *Present perfect would be in French : Je vis à Victoria depuis 5 ans / Il y a 5 ans que je vis à Victoria.*
*Simple past would be : J'ai vécu 5 ans à Victoria / J'ai vécu à Victoria pendant 5 ans. *

And as copied from this document


> Le present perfect implique deux idées principales:
> a) l'action ou événement se produit à un moment précédant le moment présent (perfect)
> b) l'action ou événement a une influence ou une *conséquence* quelconque sur le présent. (present)
> 
> - *nous sommes intéressés par le résultat dans le présent de l'action passée (et non sur l'action elle-même ou le moment auquel l’action se déroule)*
> ex: 1. I've broken my arm (= je suis maintenant dans le plâtre).
> 2. I've lost my key. (= je ne peux pas rentrer chez moi.)


 
My understanding is that if you say "my wallet has been stolen", you're implying consequences/results (e.g. : therefore, I have no money/no identity cards)
Whereas if  you say "my wallet was stolen", you're simply stating the fact. 

Capucine, who opened this thread, is francophone and specifically said (post #15) that the person is no longer hospitalised. I'll repeat that if the person was still in (the) hospital, we'd say in French : _Il est hospitalisé depuis 4 jours. _

No further context is needed to translate Capucine's specific question, in my opinion. 
I'm officially signing off this thread. I think.


----------



## pines222

In US English, one would say "in the hospital." "In hospital" sounds very British to a U.S. speaker (but is grammatically correct)..

However, US speakers do say "at college," so I do not think there is a set rule when not to include the article for the U.S.


----------

