# EN: je suis né en 1892



## Gegeleblond

Could you help me please? 
If I want to say in English "je suis né en 1892", have I to say "I was born in 1892" or "I am born in 1892"?

Thanks


----------



## SwissPete

Welcome to the forum, Gegeleblond.

"I *was* born in 1892".


----------



## jann

Bienvenue, Gegeleblond !

Au niveau de la signification, "je suis né" = "je naquis".  En anglais, il vous faudra donc le passé, au lieu du présent. 

I was born in 1892 
I am born in 1892 

PS.  En fait, ça vient du verbe transitif _to bear_ = donner naissance, mettre au monde.  Le participe passé _born_ peut servir d'adjectif, comme en français.  Au niveau de la construction grammatical, on a donc :  _I was born_ = j'étais mis au monde.


----------



## Gegeleblond

Thank you but if I say "I am born", what does it mean actually?


----------



## cropje_jnr

Gegeleblond said:


> Thank you but if I say "I am born", what does it mean actually?


 
It depends on the context, but I would ordinarily say "_je suis né_". Note though that if you wish to say "_je suis né_" it is always "I *was* born" in English.

Confusingly, we do however say "a star is born". This is because it is present tense in English, whereas I presume that _une étoile est née _is past tense, in French (think of "I understand" versus "_j'ai compris_" and you'll get a vague idea of the link).

"I am born" sounds odd - there are very few contexts where it sounds correct. The present tense form would become the progressive - "I am being born" (e.g. "if you look at this photo you'll see me being born").

Short answer - it doesn't mean much at all!


----------



## jann

cropje_njr said:
			
		

> Short answer - it doesn't mean much at all!


I really don't quite agree...   But I am also about 100% certain that Gegeleblond hadn't seen my PS in post #3 above when he typed his question in post #4.  (I had to split this question from a separate thread, and it caused confusion - sorry!)

The active form would be _My mother bore me.  _When you say _I was born_ you are using the verb "to bear" = "to give birth to a child" in a passive construction.  The past participle of _to bear_ is _born_, and like the past participles of most transitive verbs, it can be used as an adjective.  Hence _I was born_ on the exact same model as any other passive construction in the past tense (I was hurt, I was pampered, I was surprised, etc).


----------



## Gegeleblond

Merci à tous, ce forum est vraiment fabuleux !


----------



## Aoyama

> Confusingly, we do however say "a star is born". This is because it is present tense in English, whereas I presume that _une étoile est née _is past tense, in French (think of "I understand" versus "_j'ai compris_" and you'll get a vague idea of the link).


Interesting reasoning ...
In "A star is born" = "Une étoile est née", it is a past tense but in reality , due to the meaning of the verb/expression "to be born" (from bear), it is a *finished action* .
You coud say in French : "une étoile *naît *" (unusual but possible) = +- " a star *is about to be born*".
To be born and to be dead both use the past tense as a result of a finished action (though you could say to die).
I am dying (je meurs/ old French je me meurs) does not have an equivalent with to be born.
This being said, you could have , in a narration, the following phrase :
"il naît à Paris en 1906, habite au début le Xème arrondissement puis part vivre à Rouen où il reste pendant toute son enfance ..."
where all verbs are written at the present tense, something not possible (?) in English.


----------



## dudumomo

If my english is correct : I was born in 1987 but I was born on 28th november 1987


----------



## geostan

jann said:


> Bienvenue, Gegeleblond !
> 
> Au niveau de la signification, "je suis né" = "je naquis".  En anglais, il vous faudra donc le passé, au lieu du présent.
> 
> I was born in 1892
> I am born in 1892
> 
> PS.  En fait, ça vient du verbe transitif _to bear_ = donner naissance, mettre au monde.  Le participe passé _born_ peut servir d'adjectif, comme en français.  Au niveau de la construction grammatical, on a donc :  _I was born_ = j'étais mis au monde.



Rather, j'ai été mis au monde.


----------



## geostan

dudumomo said:


> If my english is correct : I was born in 1987 but I was born on 28th november 1987



I was born (on) November 28th 1987.
I was born on *the* 28th *of* November 1987.

These would be the usual options.


----------



## dudumomo

oups ! Thank you !


----------



## Zerstoren64

dudumomo said:


> If my english is correct : I was born in 1987 but I was born on 28th november 1987



Depending on how you write the date, you can leave out the definite article.

I was born in 1987, but I was born on November 28th, 1987.

I was born on the 28th of November 1987.

I think in America we use the first one more often.


----------



## ascoltate

Note, people may _write_ :

"I was born on 28 November 1977."

but it would still be read (unless maybe reading a passport or other official document) aloud as "the 28th of November"...

a little bit like how "8:00" is always read aloud as "eight o'clock"...


----------

