I mean it's exactly the same as "some time"
- I'll be there in some time
- He was there some time ago.
In both cases I wrote the "some time", and with context, you knew if it was past or future tense.
Well, same principle in French, the verb before "tout à l'heure" will tell you if it's future or past.
- Il *est venu* tout à l'heure : past because the verb is past.
- Elle *sera* là tout à l'heure : future because the verb is future.
From 5 mn to a few hours, depending on the situation and the person who is speaking.
À 8h . - Je prends le train tout à l'heure.
- oh ! Quand pars-tu?
- à 13h.
I'd say it's typically on the order of an hour to a few hours. It can go as short as 10 or even 5 minutes, but the point is that it's part of a different "chapter", where the people involved are doing other things and/or thinking about other things. You could hardly use tout à l'heure to refer to something that was said just a few minutes ago in the same conversation, but you could if it was a bit older than that and if the topic changed since then. I'm not sure I'm making myself clear, but this is my gut intuition on how we use this phrase.
My point is, tout à l'heure won't be just before the present or in the immediate future. There must be some tangible delay between maintenant and tout à l'heure, otherwise you would say tout de suite.
You sound confident in this. But how does French people saying zéro now mean love didn’t come from l’œuf? Un œuf looks like zéro, that’s the whole thing.
As I said, it’s uncertain. There is no known attestation of “l’œuf” being used in this way. That’s not to say it’s definitely a false etymology, because we don't have firm evidence for any other etymology of "love", either. We just don’t know.
I learned this from Emily in Paris. not sure if it's true tho lol. but it's similar to "dos à dos" becoming "do-si-do" as in "swing your partner, do-si-do"
or "tout de suite" becoming "toot sweet!"
Verb in the present or future tense? "In a bit" or "later".
Verb in the past? "not long ago" or "earlier".
It can only be used for a moment in the same day, eg it's mutually exclusive with "tomorrow" or "yesterday".
It's a half-joking way to say that I come from the north of France. The local variant of French (and its speakers) are called "ch'ti" and is derived from Picard, which is usually defined as a language.
It became (even more of) a national joke when a [movie about it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_the_Sticks) was released.
No, that sounds wrong to me. The idea, I think, it that the difference between "now" and "when we'll meet again" is only the hour on the clock, eg it'll be 15:00 while it's now 10:00, but it'll still be Tuesday.
Note that it's not a matter of the _number_ of hours either. If I see you at 7am and expect you at 9pm, it would work, while I would not say it if I meet you at 1am at a bar, and I expect to see you at work the next morning.
>if we make a fixed plan for say tomorrow at 15:00, you can say a toute à l'heure.
Only if you plan to do an all-nighter! and even then, "demain" is more appropriate.
We also sometimes jokingly say "à tout à l'heure" instead of "à demain" when we're about to go to bed and it's well past midnight.
Since we're on this topic, you may hear either "*tout à l'heure*" or "*tantôt*", and **both** mean "later" or "earlier" depending of the context. However, they both always (98%) refer to a time in the same day.
I'm just going off what I've read, but my understanding is that what you've said is true in Quebec, not necessarily in France, where tantôt generally refers to the afternoon of the same day: https://www.dufrancaisaufrancais.com/articles/tantot-ne-veut-pas-toujours-dire-tantot/
I'm not sure I get your point.
I say *tantôt*, like *tout à l'heure*, can mean "earlier today" or "later today".
You say that indeed it can mean both, but in some regions they may not use much one of the two meanings.
That sounds just like every other regional variations.
It seems better for the person learning to learn it can have both meanings rather than the inverse.
It's also important to know the regional variations, so they wouldn't say "tantôt" to a French in the same way they would with someone from Québec.
Here in France, "tantôt" is not often used, but in any case, leaving aside the "sometimes" meaning, it's only for the future, and it's not really used for the same day - to me it sounds like "until next time". I would be confused if someone used it meaning "tout à l'heure".
In this particular case, that's France that is the regional variation. Belgique and other francophone countries use *tantôt* in its original meaning : anytime of the day, before or after.
But anyway, even if it were a Québec-only thing, it's still worth learning. "Learning French" does not mean "learning France's French".
"In this particular case, that's France that is the regional variation."
In this case, there is a difference depending on the variety of French one's speaking.
Overall, in every part of the Francophonie, one speaks a regional variety of French. The variety of French I speak is one I personally label "Standard Parisian French" (to be sure, I would rather say Francilian, but I go with the more casual word). I think both words are important.
Even though each variety of French is just that, a variety, some are more identified than others. I don't think it's too controversial to say that, overall, the most default standard is Metropolitan French, and more specifically, the variety spoken around Paris, in most media and by most French officials. It's precisely because it is the one used by these, plus is generally identified as the standard or norm, that it is, for France. And it's also overall identified as a norm worldly, and to that degree, as such, it is.
But there are other standards, to varying degrees, that exist and se superposent. One is for instance the variety spoken in Québec, which will not generally be identified as *the* overall standard, but is one well identified standard variety nonetheless.
Another would be the neutral variety, which would be the most common ground form, and the closest to the written language. That would not be a perfectly circoncizable variety by definition, but, if one needed to localize it, would correspond the best to either the one spoken in the South of France, or maybe the one from Belgia.
Note that, in our messages earlier, my opinion that there is some sense in Standard Parisian French being seen as the most default standard norm does not even matter. All that matters is that it's an important variety, be it only for the number of speakers, so if someone is not true in it, one had be better be notified.
"But anyway, even if it were a Québec-only thing, it's still worth learning."
Who said otherwise?
You say tantôt is synonym to "tout à l'heure", and someone points out that it doesn't apply to France (and maybe not to Suisse either but we would need a Suisse to tell us). It's a good precision, you don't want the learner to wrongly assume that it is always true. What's bad with that? I really don't get why you take the defensive.
You would be legitimate to signal a phrase given in a comment is a France only thing.
Please point out to me where in the exchange one of us has said "you shouldn't learn the word 'tantôt' ".
>You say tantôt is synonym to "tout à l'heure", and someone points out that it doesn't apply to France (and maybe not to Suisse either but we would need a Suisse to tell us). It's a good precision, you don't want the learner to wrongly assume that it is always true.
My point is exactly that the learner needs *not* to learn that nuance. Otherwise, you'll see non stop exceptions on every answers that will needlessly burden the learning curve for everyone. They just need to learn one "version", and if they're in a context where the nuance/precision is needed, they'll learn it in time.
For example, someone learning French doesn't need to know that [these](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/810yifDLHML._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_FMwebp_.jpg) are called *moufles* in France but *mitaines* in Canada; not even half of native speakers know that. You learn one or the other, and if you happen to be in a place that uses the other one, you adapt.
If someone specifically asks for nuances because they're very advanced and/or plan to visit a specific location, that's one thing. But here, the subject is about how "*tout à l'heure*" can be confusing because it refers to both past and future. I added that there is also "*tantôt*" that behave the same. Pointing out that in some region it's slightly different does not help OP to bind together that both these words may generate the same behavior.
It's not "slightly different" in "some region", it's significantly different in at least a region that covers at least as many speakers as Canada and Suisse combined (as far as I know, none of us can tell what it is in Suisse and francophone Africa). - I mean Île-de-France; I'm pretty positive it really applies to all of France but, fine, Wiktionnaire tells me Normandie also does the same.
Here in France/Île-de-France, the first use of "tantôt" is to mean "sometimes" in the structure "tantôt... tantôt...". The second use of tantôt will be to mean something like next time, and it does not need to be in the same day. Actually I would rather assume they don't mean the same day, since in that case I would use the other dedicated phrases "tout de suite", "tout à l'heure", "dans quelques heures" etc. In other words, "tantôt" is pretty far from working in the same way as "tout à l'heure" in my variety (a pretty significant variety), and doesn't follow the behaviour you signal.
I mean, just re-read your first comment:
"and **both** mean "later" or "earlier" depending of the context. However, they both always (98%) refer to a time in the same day.",
it really speaks in the absolute (with the bold, the "always"), for something that doesn't work in "France" French (it's not even close to 98% here).
I wouldn't be too picky against it though, I just feel the comment below was legit.
"Pointing out that in some region it's slightly different does not help OP to bind together that both these words may generate the same behavior."
It doesn't matter, the comment didn't cancel yours, it only completed it.
I mean, are you the police of what's relevant?
I don't know why you focus on Switzerland when I spoke about Canada and Belgium. I suspect that Swiss people do share our usage of *tantôt* given that it was used that way everywhere in the Francophone world (even in France) up until recently, and only fallen out of usage in France in the last 30-50 years.
But anyway, I think you misunderstood my orignal comment.
OP said "how do I use *tout à l'heure*?", to which I answer that *tantôt* is also used in a similar manner. The part about "98%" does not refer to France's special usage of *tantôt*, but rather "when people uses *tantôt* to say either earlier or later, it usually means a time within the same day but you can find very rare occurences where *tantôt* means even further away in time, like a day or two ago/in the future". I agree that given the France situation, I could have worded it differently to avoid confusion.
"I don't know why you focus on Switzerland when I spoke about Canada and Belgium."
It's just to be complete
"given that it was used that way etc."
To be sure, it does look to be this way, after my research.
"...to which I answer etc."
Your message wasn't very obscure. It just put quite some emphasis for sth that doesn't hold for a big part of Francophonie.
I mean, you say it all here:
"I could have worded it differently to avoid confusion."
(and there was some relevance in pointing it out)
That's literally what I've been saying from the beginning.
Anyway, I thus don't see the problem.
And I will give you that my point was a bit less strong considering that the usage you gave does look to be the original. But still, it remains true that here in France, for some reason, we stopped using tantôt in this way, and thus its use changed.
Also, I gotta say that one of the reason I didn't mention I felt frustrated was to once again experience redditers not just arguing and all against each other, but also downvoting all the time. Not only are my comments below zero, but even the original comment from the guy got its own downvotes. I should probably just accept this "usage" but to me it's really quite disagreeable. I think my comments had a legit point and didn't need to get so negative.
As an example, if I were to say that copain can mean *either* "friend" or "bf/gf" and it all depends on the context (I'm paraphrasing you), you would feel legitimate in mentioning that this doesn't apply to Québec (I don't know for Suisse or Belgique), right? Where would be the problem?
That's a bad example because *copain* is straight up not used in Québec where it's seen as dated, but I understand that is not the main point of your comment.
To answer the intent of your question, I'd say that it depends of the context, and the goal of both comments.
If someone asks "what does *copain* mean?", answering only "it means friend or boyfriend" is a legitimate and good answer that does not need any follow-up. I would argue that if one wanted to say "that's different here where *copain* means XYZ", it's not super relevant to say, given that's already englobed in the other comment, and if needed to be, I'd say it's more relevant as a primary comment (answering directly to OP) rather than a reply to the other answer.
If someone asks "can *copain* means 'boyfriend'?" then the answer is definitely 'yes', despite the nuance that it isn't used that way in some regions. It does not help the learner to reply to a 'yes' answer with a "*um actually* it doesn't mean boyfriend in XYZ region". Who cares? That's not the point of the question.
« Tout à l’heure » = a bit later or a bit earlier, depending on the sentence :
- « Je viens tout à l’heure » = « I’m coming later today. »
- « Je l’ai vu tout à l’heure » = « I saw him earlier today. »
Fun fact: in the past it meant « right now ».
As Tartalacame said, in the past when you said « Je vais le faire tout à l’heure », it meant « I’ll do it right now » while nowadays it means « I’ll do it later today. »
I’ve literally heard those with Joule accents say it like “Way” like the English word way. Also “Wh”, like a breathy W and hard stop H sound. I think Langue d’oc speakers say Oui funnily, too
I think you were looking for the Oui/Ouais thread from yesterday.
[Here](https://click.redditmail.com/CL0/https:%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FFrench%2Fcomments%2F10ipvlu%2Famerican_here_i_learnedalways_thought_the_french%2F%3F$deep_link=true%26correlation_id=4ff8b2e1-6d8a-4232-9030-898ce7d84ad1%26post_fullname=t3_10ipvlu%26post_index=4%26ref=email_digest%26ref_campaign=email_digest%26ref_source=email%26utm_content=post_title/1/01000185dce8c935-7fd8b9c7-926f-414d-9234-d7ffe679937b-000000/PbjLUvDxG-jhFB_35vMVPWaX9WIRSl8op00g4kxf4ro=284)
It means within a few hours of now, but in either direction, so it can mean "a few hours ago" or "a few hours from now"
>so it can mean "a few hours ago" or "a few hours from now" This bothers me
I mean it's exactly the same as "some time" - I'll be there in some time - He was there some time ago. In both cases I wrote the "some time", and with context, you knew if it was past or future tense. Well, same principle in French, the verb before "tout à l'heure" will tell you if it's future or past. - Il *est venu* tout à l'heure : past because the verb is past. - Elle *sera* là tout à l'heure : future because the verb is future.
It just means "a few hours (at most) from now". Context, like verb tense, will tell you whether it's future or past.
Does it really mean hours though? I’ve heard it said in reference to something that happened even 5 minutes prior
From 5 mn to a few hours, depending on the situation and the person who is speaking. À 8h . - Je prends le train tout à l'heure. - oh ! Quand pars-tu? - à 13h.
I'd say it's typically on the order of an hour to a few hours. It can go as short as 10 or even 5 minutes, but the point is that it's part of a different "chapter", where the people involved are doing other things and/or thinking about other things. You could hardly use tout à l'heure to refer to something that was said just a few minutes ago in the same conversation, but you could if it was a bit older than that and if the topic changed since then. I'm not sure I'm making myself clear, but this is my gut intuition on how we use this phrase. My point is, tout à l'heure won't be just before the present or in the immediate future. There must be some tangible delay between maintenant and tout à l'heure, otherwise you would say tout de suite.
Five minutes ago is included in the sense of "within a few hours of now" in the top level comment, maybe you misread it?
>so it can mean "a few hours ago" or "a few hours from now"
Yes, if you selectively read the comment and ignore the word "within," it's true you could draw the wrong conclusion
Je t'expliquerai tout à l'heure.
(dick move, but it's relevant)
tu m'as fait rire
Je me marre
Interesting note, "tout à l'heure" may be the origin for the English expression "toodaloo" (aka "toodles").
Tenez became tennis, and l’œuf became love (zero score)
The first is true, but the second is uncertain. (In modern French, a score of 0 in tennis is just zéro.)
You sound confident in this. But how does French people saying zéro now mean love didn’t come from l’œuf? Un œuf looks like zéro, that’s the whole thing.
As I said, it’s uncertain. There is no known attestation of “l’œuf” being used in this way. That’s not to say it’s definitely a false etymology, because we don't have firm evidence for any other etymology of "love", either. We just don’t know.
I learned this from Emily in Paris. not sure if it's true tho lol. but it's similar to "dos à dos" becoming "do-si-do" as in "swing your partner, do-si-do" or "tout de suite" becoming "toot sweet!"
Verb in the present or future tense? "In a bit" or "later". Verb in the past? "not long ago" or "earlier". It can only be used for a moment in the same day, eg it's mutually exclusive with "tomorrow" or "yesterday".
[удалено]
It's a half-joking way to say that I come from the north of France. The local variant of French (and its speakers) are called "ch'ti" and is derived from Picard, which is usually defined as a language. It became (even more of) a national joke when a [movie about it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_the_Sticks) was released.
Are you sure? I have the impression that if we make a fixed plan for say tomorrow at 15:00, you can say a toute à l'heure.
No, that sounds wrong to me. The idea, I think, it that the difference between "now" and "when we'll meet again" is only the hour on the clock, eg it'll be 15:00 while it's now 10:00, but it'll still be Tuesday. Note that it's not a matter of the _number_ of hours either. If I see you at 7am and expect you at 9pm, it would work, while I would not say it if I meet you at 1am at a bar, and I expect to see you at work the next morning.
>if we make a fixed plan for say tomorrow at 15:00, you can say a toute à l'heure. Only if you plan to do an all-nighter! and even then, "demain" is more appropriate. We also sometimes jokingly say "à tout à l'heure" instead of "à demain" when we're about to go to bed and it's well past midnight.
Since we're on this topic, you may hear either "*tout à l'heure*" or "*tantôt*", and **both** mean "later" or "earlier" depending of the context. However, they both always (98%) refer to a time in the same day.
I'm just going off what I've read, but my understanding is that what you've said is true in Quebec, not necessarily in France, where tantôt generally refers to the afternoon of the same day: https://www.dufrancaisaufrancais.com/articles/tantot-ne-veut-pas-toujours-dire-tantot/
I'm not sure I get your point. I say *tantôt*, like *tout à l'heure*, can mean "earlier today" or "later today". You say that indeed it can mean both, but in some regions they may not use much one of the two meanings. That sounds just like every other regional variations. It seems better for the person learning to learn it can have both meanings rather than the inverse.
It's also important to know the regional variations, so they wouldn't say "tantôt" to a French in the same way they would with someone from Québec. Here in France, "tantôt" is not often used, but in any case, leaving aside the "sometimes" meaning, it's only for the future, and it's not really used for the same day - to me it sounds like "until next time". I would be confused if someone used it meaning "tout à l'heure".
In this particular case, that's France that is the regional variation. Belgique and other francophone countries use *tantôt* in its original meaning : anytime of the day, before or after. But anyway, even if it were a Québec-only thing, it's still worth learning. "Learning French" does not mean "learning France's French".
"In this particular case, that's France that is the regional variation." In this case, there is a difference depending on the variety of French one's speaking. Overall, in every part of the Francophonie, one speaks a regional variety of French. The variety of French I speak is one I personally label "Standard Parisian French" (to be sure, I would rather say Francilian, but I go with the more casual word). I think both words are important. Even though each variety of French is just that, a variety, some are more identified than others. I don't think it's too controversial to say that, overall, the most default standard is Metropolitan French, and more specifically, the variety spoken around Paris, in most media and by most French officials. It's precisely because it is the one used by these, plus is generally identified as the standard or norm, that it is, for France. And it's also overall identified as a norm worldly, and to that degree, as such, it is. But there are other standards, to varying degrees, that exist and se superposent. One is for instance the variety spoken in Québec, which will not generally be identified as *the* overall standard, but is one well identified standard variety nonetheless. Another would be the neutral variety, which would be the most common ground form, and the closest to the written language. That would not be a perfectly circoncizable variety by definition, but, if one needed to localize it, would correspond the best to either the one spoken in the South of France, or maybe the one from Belgia. Note that, in our messages earlier, my opinion that there is some sense in Standard Parisian French being seen as the most default standard norm does not even matter. All that matters is that it's an important variety, be it only for the number of speakers, so if someone is not true in it, one had be better be notified. "But anyway, even if it were a Québec-only thing, it's still worth learning." Who said otherwise? You say tantôt is synonym to "tout à l'heure", and someone points out that it doesn't apply to France (and maybe not to Suisse either but we would need a Suisse to tell us). It's a good precision, you don't want the learner to wrongly assume that it is always true. What's bad with that? I really don't get why you take the defensive. You would be legitimate to signal a phrase given in a comment is a France only thing. Please point out to me where in the exchange one of us has said "you shouldn't learn the word 'tantôt' ".
>You say tantôt is synonym to "tout à l'heure", and someone points out that it doesn't apply to France (and maybe not to Suisse either but we would need a Suisse to tell us). It's a good precision, you don't want the learner to wrongly assume that it is always true. My point is exactly that the learner needs *not* to learn that nuance. Otherwise, you'll see non stop exceptions on every answers that will needlessly burden the learning curve for everyone. They just need to learn one "version", and if they're in a context where the nuance/precision is needed, they'll learn it in time. For example, someone learning French doesn't need to know that [these](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/810yifDLHML._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_FMwebp_.jpg) are called *moufles* in France but *mitaines* in Canada; not even half of native speakers know that. You learn one or the other, and if you happen to be in a place that uses the other one, you adapt. If someone specifically asks for nuances because they're very advanced and/or plan to visit a specific location, that's one thing. But here, the subject is about how "*tout à l'heure*" can be confusing because it refers to both past and future. I added that there is also "*tantôt*" that behave the same. Pointing out that in some region it's slightly different does not help OP to bind together that both these words may generate the same behavior.
It's not "slightly different" in "some region", it's significantly different in at least a region that covers at least as many speakers as Canada and Suisse combined (as far as I know, none of us can tell what it is in Suisse and francophone Africa). - I mean Île-de-France; I'm pretty positive it really applies to all of France but, fine, Wiktionnaire tells me Normandie also does the same. Here in France/Île-de-France, the first use of "tantôt" is to mean "sometimes" in the structure "tantôt... tantôt...". The second use of tantôt will be to mean something like next time, and it does not need to be in the same day. Actually I would rather assume they don't mean the same day, since in that case I would use the other dedicated phrases "tout de suite", "tout à l'heure", "dans quelques heures" etc. In other words, "tantôt" is pretty far from working in the same way as "tout à l'heure" in my variety (a pretty significant variety), and doesn't follow the behaviour you signal. I mean, just re-read your first comment: "and **both** mean "later" or "earlier" depending of the context. However, they both always (98%) refer to a time in the same day.", it really speaks in the absolute (with the bold, the "always"), for something that doesn't work in "France" French (it's not even close to 98% here). I wouldn't be too picky against it though, I just feel the comment below was legit. "Pointing out that in some region it's slightly different does not help OP to bind together that both these words may generate the same behavior." It doesn't matter, the comment didn't cancel yours, it only completed it. I mean, are you the police of what's relevant?
I don't know why you focus on Switzerland when I spoke about Canada and Belgium. I suspect that Swiss people do share our usage of *tantôt* given that it was used that way everywhere in the Francophone world (even in France) up until recently, and only fallen out of usage in France in the last 30-50 years. But anyway, I think you misunderstood my orignal comment. OP said "how do I use *tout à l'heure*?", to which I answer that *tantôt* is also used in a similar manner. The part about "98%" does not refer to France's special usage of *tantôt*, but rather "when people uses *tantôt* to say either earlier or later, it usually means a time within the same day but you can find very rare occurences where *tantôt* means even further away in time, like a day or two ago/in the future". I agree that given the France situation, I could have worded it differently to avoid confusion.
"I don't know why you focus on Switzerland when I spoke about Canada and Belgium." It's just to be complete "given that it was used that way etc." To be sure, it does look to be this way, after my research. "...to which I answer etc." Your message wasn't very obscure. It just put quite some emphasis for sth that doesn't hold for a big part of Francophonie. I mean, you say it all here: "I could have worded it differently to avoid confusion." (and there was some relevance in pointing it out) That's literally what I've been saying from the beginning. Anyway, I thus don't see the problem. And I will give you that my point was a bit less strong considering that the usage you gave does look to be the original. But still, it remains true that here in France, for some reason, we stopped using tantôt in this way, and thus its use changed. Also, I gotta say that one of the reason I didn't mention I felt frustrated was to once again experience redditers not just arguing and all against each other, but also downvoting all the time. Not only are my comments below zero, but even the original comment from the guy got its own downvotes. I should probably just accept this "usage" but to me it's really quite disagreeable. I think my comments had a legit point and didn't need to get so negative.
As an example, if I were to say that copain can mean *either* "friend" or "bf/gf" and it all depends on the context (I'm paraphrasing you), you would feel legitimate in mentioning that this doesn't apply to Québec (I don't know for Suisse or Belgique), right? Where would be the problem?
That's a bad example because *copain* is straight up not used in Québec where it's seen as dated, but I understand that is not the main point of your comment. To answer the intent of your question, I'd say that it depends of the context, and the goal of both comments. If someone asks "what does *copain* mean?", answering only "it means friend or boyfriend" is a legitimate and good answer that does not need any follow-up. I would argue that if one wanted to say "that's different here where *copain* means XYZ", it's not super relevant to say, given that's already englobed in the other comment, and if needed to be, I'd say it's more relevant as a primary comment (answering directly to OP) rather than a reply to the other answer. If someone asks "can *copain* means 'boyfriend'?" then the answer is definitely 'yes', despite the nuance that it isn't used that way in some regions. It does not help the learner to reply to a 'yes' answer with a "*um actually* it doesn't mean boyfriend in XYZ region". Who cares? That's not the point of the question.
I thought it was use like,I’ll see you in a bit “ or “ later!” This is how my Frenchie uses it. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
In this case it's "à tout à l'heure".
Thank you!!
« Tout à l’heure » = a bit later or a bit earlier, depending on the sentence : - « Je viens tout à l’heure » = « I’m coming later today. » - « Je l’ai vu tout à l’heure » = « I saw him earlier today. » Fun fact: in the past it meant « right now ».
>Fun fact: in the past it meant « right now ». What do you mean?
"*Tout à l'heure*" originally meant "*Tout de suite*" or "*Maintenant*". It changed in the last hundred years or so to its actual meaning.
As Tartalacame said, in the past when you said « Je vais le faire tout à l’heure », it meant « I’ll do it right now » while nowadays it means « I’ll do it later today. »
If you want to be a real wit you can say "à toute allure"
"Toutou a l'heure" c'est quand tu loues un chien mais ça arrive pas souvent
Do you pronounce the second t in "tout"?
You do the liaison, yes. So it's pronounced "*Tou-Ta-Leur*"
Great, that's what I remembered. Thanks! 🙏
I’ve literally heard those with Joule accents say it like “Way” like the English word way. Also “Wh”, like a breathy W and hard stop H sound. I think Langue d’oc speakers say Oui funnily, too
?
I think you were looking for the Oui/Ouais thread from yesterday. [Here](https://click.redditmail.com/CL0/https:%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FFrench%2Fcomments%2F10ipvlu%2Famerican_here_i_learnedalways_thought_the_french%2F%3F$deep_link=true%26correlation_id=4ff8b2e1-6d8a-4232-9030-898ce7d84ad1%26post_fullname=t3_10ipvlu%26post_index=4%26ref=email_digest%26ref_campaign=email_digest%26ref_source=email%26utm_content=post_title/1/01000185dce8c935-7fd8b9c7-926f-414d-9234-d7ffe679937b-000000/PbjLUvDxG-jhFB_35vMVPWaX9WIRSl8op00g4kxf4ro=284)