| |
| 1 July 2007 18:53 |
| Chrysso, "we are told" is "on nous dit".
But the original text has a double meaning. "On s'est dit" could be understood like two persons who had a conversation together, in which case it will be followed by an object, E.G. "on s'est dit tout ce qu'on avait à dire"("We told each other everything we had to say"
Second meaning would be when some people are telling something to themselves,E.G : "on s'est dit que cela n'était pas la peine d'emporter un parapluie"" ("We thought it wasn't worth to take an umbrella with us", or "we told ourselves it wasn't worth to take an umbrella with us"
In any way, here you will note that "on" is used instead of "nous". This is current spoken French,
mostly used by French speaking people, but also note that the verb "dire"is here used at its pronominal form " se dire", and the "auxiliaire" used is the verb "être" : Present tense : "On se dit" past tense : "on s'est dit"
Also note that "on" is always to be read at its singular form, never plural, even when it is used to replace "nous"(which is plural).
So due to the lack of context, both of these two meanings I told above could be retained. |
| 1 July 2007 19:57 |
| Thank you very much Franky!!! What do you think I should do? As you said, the context is incomplete! Should I make it "We told each other" and write below the other meaning "We thought" ??? |
| 1 July 2007 20:18 |
| Yes, Chrysso91, I think it is a good idea.
Cheers! |
| 2 July 2007 09:55 |
| |
| 2 July 2007 10:15 |
| Yes, it is.
Have a look here and you will see some more details about the way "on" or "l'on" is employed in "orthodoxe" French writen language, but keep in mind that "on" is very commonly used, in talken French, to replace "nous", and that most of French people, when they are talking, don't take too much care about employing properly "on" or "l'on".
(This link above is in French language, I sent it to chrysso91 some time ago...)
|
| 2 July 2007 10:40 |
| Sorry for those who voted "wrong "about the translation, but as a French native speaker I know about the meaning of this sentence into English, moreover I took the time to explain (above) what it really was about this short French text, so that before voting you should have had a look at what I wrote.
Translating "on" by "one" into English would be here a mistake, because of the following two words "s'est dit". The "on" which would be translatable by "one" into English is a much more general one, and you would be right if "on" was employed with the active present tense : "on dit"
Here the translation chrysso did is definitely right, sorry. |
| 2 July 2007 11:09 |
| well, isn't it like?..
they've told each other?
|
| 2 July 2007 12:34 |
| Most often when "on" is employed by French native speakers, as I said above, it is to mean "nous". With another context (a more explicit sentence) it could be translated more accurately, but here, as there's no context at all, just a subject and a verb, the most currently employed as a meaning of "on" by French speaking people is "nous".
|
| 2 July 2007 16:08 |
| I have asked the requester to provide more context, so that we can really know what it was. |
| 2 July 2007 17:47 |
| OK, if ever he answers your request, we will know a little more about the context, but chrysso91 did a good translation, and she hasn't got to see her translation refused because we will know something that wasn't possible to know when the translation was done. I took time to explain something, as a native French speaker, about "on s'est dit", and there aren't several more possibilities with "on s'est dit", could be
1) "on s'est dit au revoir" ("we said goodbye to each other(s)"
2) "On s'est dit que + a relative proposition" (we told ourselves that + relative proposition)
So chrysso91 gave these two possibilities, one in the translation field, and the other in the comments field.
|
| 2 July 2007 17:57 |
| Les deux se regardèrent (??) aux yeux et on s'est dit au revoir ... |
| 2 July 2007 18:17 |
| I don't understand too much the sentence you told, as "les deux se regardèrent dans les yeux" is third person plural.
"nous nous sommes promenés ensemble tout l'aprés-midi, et au moment de partir, elle a pleuré quand on s'est dit au revoir"( "we went for a walk on the whole afternoon, and when it was time to go, she cried when we said goodbye to each other"
"Quand on a vu le temps qu'il faisait, on s'est dit qu'il était préférable d'emporter un parapluie"("When we saw the weather, we told ourselves we'd better take an umbrella with us"
Were you looking for an example, or is it what speak up sent you? Here above are two more examples about the different ways to use "on s'est dit"
with this "on s'est dit" there are two possibilities, but there aren't three. |
| 2 July 2007 20:52 |
| i understood the meaning of "on s'est dit"
what i did not understand is why it is said
"on s'est dit" and not
"on s'a dit"
merci beaucoup |
| 2 July 2007 21:03 |
| You asked: "Were you looking for an example, or is it what speak up sent you?"
I was looking for a counter-example. I thought the sentence I made up would be translated, "They looked into each other's eyes and then they said goodbye (to each other)", but I guess I was wrong.
I had already understood that it could be translated "we said to each other" - I just thought it could also be "they said to each other" in some cases, as tristangun said above. |
| 3 July 2007 00:25 |
| No, "on" couldn't replace the third person plural in this case. Not when it is said "on s'est dit". if "on" can sometimes mean "they"("on dit" : "people say", "one says" ![](../images/emo/wink.png) it is definitely not the case here. if the present tense was used, simply at the present tense of indicative,and at the active mode(without the "s'" then it could be translated by "one"
or even by "it is said", or "it is told".(eg : "on dit qu'il fait froid au Canada" ![](../images/emo/wink.png) ...
But the difference with this submitted text is that it is used at the pronominal form, using "s'"("se dire" : "to tell each other", or "to say to each other", or "to tell something to oneself". Here you got : "on s'est dit"
it means that it is a personal narrative way to describe something one, two or several people did, told by one of them. EG the examples I gave above in my preview post.
I hope you understand better now, but you simply should trust me, as I really am a french native speaker, and I don't see one single French native speaker who could infirm what I'm trying to explain. I know it is a translation into english, but if one wants to respect the meaning of these three simple words put together, you need a French expert to explain, am I wrong?
to resume, in any case, "on s'est dit" is translatable ONLY by "we told each other", or by "we told ourselves" (we thought) |
| 3 July 2007 06:27 |
| Francky, thanks, I've read the comments about this translation. I voted "wrong" because "on" for me is neutral, but I understand now the sense of this translation, you're a french native speaker! |
| 3 July 2007 14:27 |
| Thanks, Francky. Sorry I doubted you. I validated the translation yesterday. |
| 3 July 2007 14:46 |
| Yes, I saw, and was glad you did, it means my explainations weren't too confusing. I'm like Iepurica is with Romanian, I really love my mother tongue, so that there's nothing I would post if I wasn't 100% sure it was true. Then one other thing is that spoken French is much different sometimes from writen (academic) French, but I guess it is the same thing with the English...
About French language, I was surprised to see that one of the most accurate websites about it was a French-Canadian one (druide), because when I hear some French-Canadian talking French, I just can't understand what they say. But have a look to one link I posted above in this discussion (about academic way to use "on" and "l'on" 2 Juillet 2007 10:15)
, you'll see "druide" is really an accurate one! Cheers! |
| 3 July 2007 14:51 |
| One of the problems with Québecois French is that the pronunciation is so different. I've been trying to pick up some of it since I moved to Canada - I have a French conversation group, and some of the members are Québecois native speakers.
Of course, they also have a lot of borrowed words from English! |
| 3 July 2007 17:35 |
| Any time one hears a Québecois speaking French here in France, one's face is always enlightened with a large smile... but not only the accent is funny, their expressions really have to be translated from Canadian-French to French!
I recently had a look to a little miscaellenous book, you know this kind of very thin book containing a lot of various informations, and some of the expressions used would never been understandable to another French speaking person.
It is from far the most different to our French from France, with the strongest accent too.
Some Belgian people from Brussels have got another strong accent, though more understandable, then people from Switzerland speak real funny (to a French from France), with a very slow spelling motion; It must be the easiest French for foreigners, because it is talken in slow motion! |