# FR: It was in French, which I don't understand



## thedov

I would like to say:
It was in French, which I don't understand.

C'était en français, ce que je ne comprends pas.

But I'm not sure whether to use 'que' or 'ce que'. 
Can someone help please?


----------



## snarkhunter

I would say "que je ne comprends pas".

Because the same sentence with "ce que" would imply that it's the thing itself that you cannot understand, rather than the language. Of course, I know this does not make any actual difference as to the end result.

"*C*'était en français, *ce* que je ne comprends pas."

"C'était en *français*, *que* je ne comprends pas."


----------



## thedov

But there might be a difference. It could be that the thing in French (it's a 'carte de vins', by the way) is incomprehensible but I do speak some French. Then 'que' would be used?


----------



## snarkhunter

No, you would use "ce que" in the latter case: If you stick to "que" alone, you really mean you do not understand the language, whatever the _thing_ may be...


----------



## thedov

Sorry, I meant 'ce que'


----------



## snarkhunter

Then I agree. But please note that "ce que" could also be related to the full "_c'était_ en français" part of the sentence, which would then mean you cannot understand why it was in French!


----------



## Francobritannocolombien

I agree with snarkhunter's latest comment: "C'était en français, _ce que_ je ne comprends pas" can be interpreted as "I don't understand _why _it was printed in French" (and whether or not I understand that language is beside the point). A bit like saying "she sang _Happy Birthday to You_ in B_b_ , which I don't understand" (i.e. I don't understand why she chose to sing it in that key, when everyone else was singing in G#"). A less ambiguous way to express the original idea could be "c'était en français, _(une)_ _langue _que je ne comprends pas."


----------



## Nicomon

Hello,

Is it just me, or isn't the comma misleading in the original sentence?

_It was in French*,* which I don't understand.
_Here, I read that you don't understand French anymore than I do Japanese, and would say like Francobritannocolombien : 
- _C'était en français, une langue que je ne comprends pas _or _C'était en français, et je ne comprends pas cette langue / le français. 
_
_It was in French which/that I don't understand._ (no comma, and I prefer "that" in this case)
Here, I may want to say that I do understand some French, but not the specific French "wine jargon" (see post #3) :
- _C'était (écrit) dans un (jargon) français que je ne comprends pas. 

_*Edit :* I forgot to mention that I agree with snarkhunter and Francobrit. 
The original sentence, with a comma, could also be interpreted as "(and) I don't understand why". 

So another option would be : 
_- C'était en français, ce que je ne comprends pas = C'était en français, et je ne comprends pas pourquoi._ 
(Sous-entendu possible : ils savent bien que je ne maîtrise pas la langue... pourquoi m'ont-il envoyé ce texte en français?)

_- Je comprends assez bien le français, en général. 
*- Ce que *je ne comprends pas, c'est le jargon des vins/le langage administratif/le dialecte ch'ti/l'accent québécois, etc._


----------



## TSR

Nicomon, without the comma, I think that the article is required, in order to extract _one_ element out from the whole category.

_It was in *a* French which I don't understand._
(or _*the*_, which would mean that you've already talked about that type of French before)


----------



## Nicomon

Thank you TSR. I probably should have thought of the article, just as I would say "_in *a* language_", not "_in language_".  
I guess I was wrong thinking that "_a kind/form of_" was sort of understood.


----------



## Charlie Parker

I think TSR's sentence is quite clear, but I would be more inclined to qualify as Nico does: "It was in a form of / a kind of / a sort of French which I don't understand." One could certainly say "in language" without the indefinite article. Let me give two examples: "It was written in a language that I do not understand_." _The person has seen a sign or perhaps a website written in a foreign language which he does not understand. He may not even know which language it is. "It was written in language that I do not understand." Here, perhaps, the person has read a document from the government or, worse, the ministry of Education, but it is filled with jargon (and badly written to boot), so that he cannot understand it. I hope I haven't muddied the waters too much.


----------



## Nicomon

Thanks a million, Charlie.  This is now crystal clear to me.


----------



## Lacuzon

Bonsoir,

That's puzzling me a little!

Would I be right saying:

It was in French, what I do not understand -> je ne comprends pas pourquoi c'était en français.
It was in (a) French that I do not understand -> C'était en un français que je ne comprends pas (je ne comprends pas ce français).
It was in French which I do not understand ->C'était en français, langue que je ne comprends pas.


----------



## Charlie Parker

In my view, these are correct, Lacuzon, except that in your first sentence I would say "..., which I do not understand." The addition of the comma produces a slight pause in the speaker's voice which suggest the meaning: "I do not understand why it was in French." However, at first glance, I suspect the majority of anglophones would understand the sentence to mean: "...in French, a language I do not understand." The more I think about it, the more I think the comma is necessary even in the third sentence. To my ear, it doesn't sound quite right without the little hesitation that a comma would indicate.


----------



## Lacuzon

Merci Charlie,

I do not remember where I read it, but I I read something saying that when which is refering to the whole preceding proposition no comma is needed.


----------



## Nicomon

Hello,

*This page* (which, that, who... comma or not) may be of help. 

I'm no native, but I would also add a comma for the third meaning. A comma is not needed when "which" can be replaced by "that"... and this is your second example, Lacuzon. 

See also:

Using which, that and who
Commas with which, that and who


----------



## geostan

Lacuzon said:


> Merci Charlie,
> 
> I do not remember where I read it, but I I read something saying that when which is refe*r*ring to the whole preceding proposition no comma is needed.



I would say the opposite. If *which* is referring to the whole clause, it is introducing a non restrictive clause, and as such would require a comma.


----------



## Lacuzon

Thanks Geostan, 

You are probably right!


----------



## Nicomon

Lacuzon said:


> Thanks Geostan,
> 
> You are probably right!


 Well, in case you wouldn't have clicked on the links that I provided in post #16... you'll find in them (almost) everything you wanted to know about wich + restrictive or non restrictive clauses.


----------



## Aoyama

I agree with both Nico and Lacuzon, you need to add "langue" in French to translate "which" properly.
C'était en français, (une) langue que je ne comprends pas.
Saying "c'était en français, ce que je ne comprends pas" is possible, but it would mean (as explained already) : "it was (surprisingly) in French, something that I don't understand (why was it in French)".


----------

