et qui - how do you really understand that kind of phraseology?
Dans le programme d’aujourd’hui on continue de parler des évènements en Lybie et qui ont eu beaucoup d’effet sur les pays de l’Afrique du Nord, le Moyen Orient et le monde entier.
I'm not sure how to understand that. As far as I know, qui is a relative pronoun in French that can be translated into English as that, which or who. Therefore, et qui ont eu literally means and which had, but I don't think the sentence reads well that way. If we remove et, then the sentence makes more sense to me: the events in Libya that had a lot of effect on.... That et (and) makes it hard for me to process this sentence. I think I don't understand something.
sens conjonctions pronoms-relatifs
asked yesterday
user69786user69786
30019
add a comment |
Dans le programme d’aujourd’hui on continue de parler des évènements en Lybie et qui ont eu beaucoup d’effet sur les pays de l’Afrique du Nord, le Moyen Orient et le monde entier.
I'm not sure how to understand that. As far as I know, qui is a relative pronoun in French that can be translated into English as that, which or who. Therefore, et qui ont eu literally means and which had, but I don't think the sentence reads well that way. If we remove et, then the sentence makes more sense to me: the events in Libya that had a lot of effect on.... That et (and) makes it hard for me to process this sentence. I think I don't understand something.
sens conjonctions pronoms-relatifs
asked yesterday
user69786user69786
30019
add a comment |
Dans le programme d’aujourd’hui on continue de parler des évènements en Lybie et qui ont eu beaucoup d’effet sur les pays de l’Afrique du Nord, le Moyen Orient et le monde entier.
I'm not sure how to understand that. As far as I know, qui is a relative pronoun in French that can be translated into English as that, which or who. Therefore, et qui ont eu literally means and which had, but I don't think the sentence reads well that way. If we remove et, then the sentence makes more sense to me: the events in Libya that had a lot of effect on.... That et (and) makes it hard for me to process this sentence. I think I don't understand something.
sens conjonctions pronoms-relatifs
asked yesterday
user69786user69786
30019
Dans le programme d’aujourd’hui on continue de parler des évènements en Lybie et qui ont eu beaucoup d’effet sur les pays de l’Afrique du Nord, le Moyen Orient et le monde entier.
I'm not sure how to understand that. As far as I know, qui is a relative pronoun in French that can be translated into English as that, which or who. Therefore, et qui ont eu literally means and which had, but I don't think the sentence reads well that way. If we remove et, then the sentence makes more sense to me: the events in Libya that had a lot of effect on.... That et (and) makes it hard for me to process this sentence. I think I don't understand something.
sens conjonctions pronoms-relatifs
sens conjonctions pronoms-relatifs
asked yesterday
user69786user69786
30019
asked yesterday
user69786user69786
30019
edited yesterday
user69786
asked yesterday
user69786user69786
30019
asked yesterday
user69786user69786
30019
asked yesterday
user69786user69786
30019
30019
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
You aren't missing anything. This is not standard French. It's likely that the writer started to phrase the sentence in a certain way and then changed it but didn't complete that change. For example, maybe the sentence was originally “… des évènements qui ont eu lieu en Lybie et qui ont eu …”, then the writer decided that “qui ont eu lieu” was uselessly wordy and removed it.
Or maybe the writer was just careless or hurried, and has this “qui ont eu lieu” in mind but didn't write it. The sentence as a whole has a bit of an informal feeling, with the use of on (instead of a definite subject) and the lack of a comma after “Dans le programme d'aujourd'hui”.
A more correct way to write this sentence would be
Dans le programme d’aujourd’hui, nous continuerons de parler des évènements en Lybie, qui ont eu beaucoup d’effet sur les pays de l’Afrique du Nord, le Moyen Orient et le monde entier.
“Nous continuerons” is correct if the author of the sentence is a participant in the program. If they aren't, then I think the sentence calls for naming the participants, or referring to them by some generic designation like “Pierre Durand et ses invités”.
The sentence is correct with and without a comma after Lybie, but leaving it out changes the meaning. With a comma, this is about “the events in Lybia” and the reader is supposed to already know which events the sentence is about; the part after the comma states an additional property of these events. Without a comma, “qui ont eu beaucoup d'effect …” specifies which events the sentence is about.
None of this matters very much to a native speaker. The sentence looks a bit odd, but there's no potential for misunderstanding.
answered yesterday
Gilles♦Gilles
42.7k884194
1
This " et qui" is surely faulty. But "qui" is not perfect as it does not resolve the ambiguity about the target to which the pronoun is pointing : événements ? Lybie ? In this context "lesquels" could be much better.
– Jhor
yesterday
@Jhor Your statement concerning the ambiguity of the pronoun is inaccurate, évènements is plural whereas Lybie (Libye ? whatever) is singular and the verb following the pronoun is in the plural form (ont eu, not a eu) and therefore it cannot refer to Lybie; in any case a country cannot meaningfully have "an/lots of effect" on other countries in French in this context.
– Survenant9r7
yesterday
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "299"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ffrench.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34298%2fet-qui-how-do-you-really-understand-that-kind-of-phraseology%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You aren't missing anything. This is not standard French. It's likely that the writer started to phrase the sentence in a certain way and then changed it but didn't complete that change. For example, maybe the sentence was originally “… des évènements qui ont eu lieu en Lybie et qui ont eu …”, then the writer decided that “qui ont eu lieu” was uselessly wordy and removed it.
Or maybe the writer was just careless or hurried, and has this “qui ont eu lieu” in mind but didn't write it. The sentence as a whole has a bit of an informal feeling, with the use of on (instead of a definite subject) and the lack of a comma after “Dans le programme d'aujourd'hui”.
A more correct way to write this sentence would be
Dans le programme d’aujourd’hui, nous continuerons de parler des évènements en Lybie, qui ont eu beaucoup d’effet sur les pays de l’Afrique du Nord, le Moyen Orient et le monde entier.
“Nous continuerons” is correct if the author of the sentence is a participant in the program. If they aren't, then I think the sentence calls for naming the participants, or referring to them by some generic designation like “Pierre Durand et ses invités”.
The sentence is correct with and without a comma after Lybie, but leaving it out changes the meaning. With a comma, this is about “the events in Lybia” and the reader is supposed to already know which events the sentence is about; the part after the comma states an additional property of these events. Without a comma, “qui ont eu beaucoup d'effect …” specifies which events the sentence is about.
None of this matters very much to a native speaker. The sentence looks a bit odd, but there's no potential for misunderstanding.
answered yesterday
Gilles♦Gilles
42.7k884194
1
This " et qui" is surely faulty. But "qui" is not perfect as it does not resolve the ambiguity about the target to which the pronoun is pointing : événements ? Lybie ? In this context "lesquels" could be much better.
– Jhor
yesterday
@Jhor Your statement concerning the ambiguity of the pronoun is inaccurate, évènements is plural whereas Lybie (Libye ? whatever) is singular and the verb following the pronoun is in the plural form (ont eu, not a eu) and therefore it cannot refer to Lybie; in any case a country cannot meaningfully have "an/lots of effect" on other countries in French in this context.
– Survenant9r7
yesterday
add a comment |
You aren't missing anything. This is not standard French. It's likely that the writer started to phrase the sentence in a certain way and then changed it but didn't complete that change. For example, maybe the sentence was originally “… des évènements qui ont eu lieu en Lybie et qui ont eu …”, then the writer decided that “qui ont eu lieu” was uselessly wordy and removed it.
Or maybe the writer was just careless or hurried, and has this “qui ont eu lieu” in mind but didn't write it. The sentence as a whole has a bit of an informal feeling, with the use of on (instead of a definite subject) and the lack of a comma after “Dans le programme d'aujourd'hui”.
A more correct way to write this sentence would be
Dans le programme d’aujourd’hui, nous continuerons de parler des évènements en Lybie, qui ont eu beaucoup d’effet sur les pays de l’Afrique du Nord, le Moyen Orient et le monde entier.
“Nous continuerons” is correct if the author of the sentence is a participant in the program. If they aren't, then I think the sentence calls for naming the participants, or referring to them by some generic designation like “Pierre Durand et ses invités”.
The sentence is correct with and without a comma after Lybie, but leaving it out changes the meaning. With a comma, this is about “the events in Lybia” and the reader is supposed to already know which events the sentence is about; the part after the comma states an additional property of these events. Without a comma, “qui ont eu beaucoup d'effect …” specifies which events the sentence is about.
None of this matters very much to a native speaker. The sentence looks a bit odd, but there's no potential for misunderstanding.
answered yesterday
Gilles♦Gilles
42.7k884194
1
This " et qui" is surely faulty. But "qui" is not perfect as it does not resolve the ambiguity about the target to which the pronoun is pointing : événements ? Lybie ? In this context "lesquels" could be much better.
– Jhor
yesterday
@Jhor Your statement concerning the ambiguity of the pronoun is inaccurate, évènements is plural whereas Lybie (Libye ? whatever) is singular and the verb following the pronoun is in the plural form (ont eu, not a eu) and therefore it cannot refer to Lybie; in any case a country cannot meaningfully have "an/lots of effect" on other countries in French in this context.
– Survenant9r7
yesterday
add a comment |
You aren't missing anything. This is not standard French. It's likely that the writer started to phrase the sentence in a certain way and then changed it but didn't complete that change. For example, maybe the sentence was originally “… des évènements qui ont eu lieu en Lybie et qui ont eu …”, then the writer decided that “qui ont eu lieu” was uselessly wordy and removed it.
Or maybe the writer was just careless or hurried, and has this “qui ont eu lieu” in mind but didn't write it. The sentence as a whole has a bit of an informal feeling, with the use of on (instead of a definite subject) and the lack of a comma after “Dans le programme d'aujourd'hui”.
A more correct way to write this sentence would be
Dans le programme d’aujourd’hui, nous continuerons de parler des évènements en Lybie, qui ont eu beaucoup d’effet sur les pays de l’Afrique du Nord, le Moyen Orient et le monde entier.
“Nous continuerons” is correct if the author of the sentence is a participant in the program. If they aren't, then I think the sentence calls for naming the participants, or referring to them by some generic designation like “Pierre Durand et ses invités”.
The sentence is correct with and without a comma after Lybie, but leaving it out changes the meaning. With a comma, this is about “the events in Lybia” and the reader is supposed to already know which events the sentence is about; the part after the comma states an additional property of these events. Without a comma, “qui ont eu beaucoup d'effect …” specifies which events the sentence is about.
None of this matters very much to a native speaker. The sentence looks a bit odd, but there's no potential for misunderstanding.
answered yesterday
Gilles♦Gilles
42.7k884194
You aren't missing anything. This is not standard French. It's likely that the writer started to phrase the sentence in a certain way and then changed it but didn't complete that change. For example, maybe the sentence was originally “… des évènements qui ont eu lieu en Lybie et qui ont eu …”, then the writer decided that “qui ont eu lieu” was uselessly wordy and removed it.
Or maybe the writer was just careless or hurried, and has this “qui ont eu lieu” in mind but didn't write it. The sentence as a whole has a bit of an informal feeling, with the use of on (instead of a definite subject) and the lack of a comma after “Dans le programme d'aujourd'hui”.
A more correct way to write this sentence would be
Dans le programme d’aujourd’hui, nous continuerons de parler des évènements en Lybie, qui ont eu beaucoup d’effet sur les pays de l’Afrique du Nord, le Moyen Orient et le monde entier.
“Nous continuerons” is correct if the author of the sentence is a participant in the program. If they aren't, then I think the sentence calls for naming the participants, or referring to them by some generic designation like “Pierre Durand et ses invités”.
The sentence is correct with and without a comma after Lybie, but leaving it out changes the meaning. With a comma, this is about “the events in Lybia” and the reader is supposed to already know which events the sentence is about; the part after the comma states an additional property of these events. Without a comma, “qui ont eu beaucoup d'effect …” specifies which events the sentence is about.
None of this matters very much to a native speaker. The sentence looks a bit odd, but there's no potential for misunderstanding.
answered yesterday
Gilles♦Gilles
42.7k884194
answered yesterday
Gilles♦Gilles
42.7k884194
answered yesterday
Gilles♦Gilles
42.7k884194
answered yesterday
Gilles♦Gilles
42.7k884194
42.7k884194
1
This " et qui" is surely faulty. But "qui" is not perfect as it does not resolve the ambiguity about the target to which the pronoun is pointing : événements ? Lybie ? In this context "lesquels" could be much better.
– Jhor
yesterday
@Jhor Your statement concerning the ambiguity of the pronoun is inaccurate, évènements is plural whereas Lybie (Libye ? whatever) is singular and the verb following the pronoun is in the plural form (ont eu, not a eu) and therefore it cannot refer to Lybie; in any case a country cannot meaningfully have "an/lots of effect" on other countries in French in this context.
– Survenant9r7
yesterday
add a comment |
1
This " et qui" is surely faulty. But "qui" is not perfect as it does not resolve the ambiguity about the target to which the pronoun is pointing : événements ? Lybie ? In this context "lesquels" could be much better.
– Jhor
yesterday
@Jhor Your statement concerning the ambiguity of the pronoun is inaccurate, évènements is plural whereas Lybie (Libye ? whatever) is singular and the verb following the pronoun is in the plural form (ont eu, not a eu) and therefore it cannot refer to Lybie; in any case a country cannot meaningfully have "an/lots of effect" on other countries in French in this context.
– Survenant9r7
yesterday
1
1
This " et qui" is surely faulty. But "qui" is not perfect as it does not resolve the ambiguity about the target to which the pronoun is pointing : événements ? Lybie ? In this context "lesquels" could be much better.
– Jhor
yesterday
This " et qui" is surely faulty. But "qui" is not perfect as it does not resolve the ambiguity about the target to which the pronoun is pointing : événements ? Lybie ? In this context "lesquels" could be much better.
– Jhor
yesterday
@Jhor Your statement concerning the ambiguity of the pronoun is inaccurate, évènements is plural whereas Lybie (Libye ? whatever) is singular and the verb following the pronoun is in the plural form (ont eu, not a eu) and therefore it cannot refer to Lybie; in any case a country cannot meaningfully have "an/lots of effect" on other countries in French in this context.
– Survenant9r7
yesterday
@Jhor Your statement concerning the ambiguity of the pronoun is inaccurate, évènements is plural whereas Lybie (Libye ? whatever) is singular and the verb following the pronoun is in the plural form (ont eu, not a eu) and therefore it cannot refer to Lybie; in any case a country cannot meaningfully have "an/lots of effect" on other countries in French in this context.
– Survenant9r7
yesterday
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to French Language Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2ffrench.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34298%2fet-qui-how-do-you-really-understand-that-kind-of-phraseology%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
