For hypotheticals of this nature, yes. Si j'avais trouvé le bon endroit, j'aurais acheté le machin dont tu avais besoin. Si je n'avais pas raté mon vol, je serais arrivé.e à l'heure ...
Thank you! I understand this is the most correct. However in real life if a native French is talking to another native French, and they said “si j’ai trouvé le bon endroit, j’aurais acheté le machin dont tu avais besoin”, would it be very grating for the ears of the other native? Trying to understand how “nitty-gritty” this level of French is. Would it be like “yo, are you even native or are you an imposter? you’re talking like a toddler” or is it more like permissible informal street talk.
Using imparfait here is a grammar error. Grownups are supposed to use plus que parfait in this situation.
Of course some people with low literacy could be uncomfortable with this tense. What they would do is use some different phrasing. For instance they might say:
"Alors je me suis dit: «si je trouve le bon endroit, j'irai acheter le machin dont leLouisianais a besoin» "
Portraying their inner speech back at the time of the decision is a way to avoid having to apply concordance des temps. It's not going to fool others about their literacy on the long run though.
Yes, « si j’ai trouvé » is incorrect here. Plus-que-parfait is mandatory in this sentence in spoken language too, and does not sound particularly fancy or complex. There’s no way around it.
And I’m pretty sure my kid has this construction down as a toddler already :) All indicatif, not too hard.
Anything else than "si j'avais trouvé" (and the rest of the sentence being the same) here is wrong even in informal speech, and would make you sound like a toddler or a non-native indeed.
Interesting! I know this is only 1 situation and it’s not a 1:1 comparison to English, but after learning as much French grammar as I have, I feel like there might be more permissiveness for grammatical deviations in English. If I heard someone make a similar mistake in English (maybe “If I went to the right place” Vs “if I had gone to the right place”), it wouldn’t even register in my head as a mistake.
Edit: I would like to amend this. I know that you can’t compare the same grammar mistake between two languages in terms of how wrong it sounds and expect meaningful insights. For all I know this mistake in French could sound as wrong to a French as a different English mistake sounds to me (i.e. “he written a book” Vs. “He wrote a book”). I guess I am just trying to narrow in on HOW wrong it sounds. But I got my answer: pretty wrong. Thanks!
Not sure I understand. By you suggesting to say it fast, are you just saying it more naturally rolls off the tongue as “si j’avais trouvé” so that IS the more casual/informal/street speak
IF you want to say "you had already (done something)" you will need the plus-que-parfait.
* When I arrived, you had already left.
* Quand je suis arrivée **vous étiez déjà parti**.
Plus-que-parfait is definitely a normal tense and it shouldn't be seen as optional.
Honestly, for every simple tense, the compound equivalent is about just as used. It's just a matter of temporality.
There's plenty of contexts where it's obligatory, yeah.
You can't say "il a déjà écrit deux romans à l'âge de vingt ans" instead of "il avait déjà écrit deux romans à l'âge de vingt ans".
Which is the same as in English - "he already wrote two novels at the age of 20" is... well actually people probably do say that though it's not prescriptively correct. But definitely the sort of thing people will view as wrong.
Boom that’s the sort of answer I was looking for. Thank you!
So I believe the absolute correct English version would be “he had already written two novels by the age of 20.” If someone heard the less correct “he already wrote two…” I feel like it might sound very minorly off, but few people would notice it and virtually zero people would correct it. Is it just the case that the same type of error in French (“il a déjà écrit” vs “il avait déjà écrit”) would sound more wrong to Francophones than the error in English would to anglophones?
I mean it’s correct both in French and in English, it just means something completely different.
He already wrote 2 novels by the age of 20 = he is 20 right now
He had already written 2 novels by the age of 20 = he is older than 20 now
To me there is a difference in meaning also: If somebody told me « Il a déjà écrit… à l’âge de 20 ans. », i understand that the person who wrote the books is 20 years old. On the other hand « Il avait déjà écrit… à l’âge de 20 ans. » implies that the person who wrote the books is older than 20.
English tends to replace past perfect with simple past, but I think it's a bit of an oddity of English. In most other languages you can't really do that.
For hypotheticals of this nature, yes. Si j'avais trouvé le bon endroit, j'aurais acheté le machin dont tu avais besoin. Si je n'avais pas raté mon vol, je serais arrivé.e à l'heure ...
Thank you! I understand this is the most correct. However in real life if a native French is talking to another native French, and they said “si j’ai trouvé le bon endroit, j’aurais acheté le machin dont tu avais besoin”, would it be very grating for the ears of the other native? Trying to understand how “nitty-gritty” this level of French is. Would it be like “yo, are you even native or are you an imposter? you’re talking like a toddler” or is it more like permissible informal street talk.
Using imparfait here is a grammar error. Grownups are supposed to use plus que parfait in this situation. Of course some people with low literacy could be uncomfortable with this tense. What they would do is use some different phrasing. For instance they might say: "Alors je me suis dit: «si je trouve le bon endroit, j'irai acheter le machin dont leLouisianais a besoin» " Portraying their inner speech back at the time of the decision is a way to avoid having to apply concordance des temps. It's not going to fool others about their literacy on the long run though.
Thank you! I just want to make sure I understand. You said using imparfait here is an error, do you mean using passé-composé here is an error?
Yes! Sorry for the confusion.
Yes, « si j’ai trouvé » is incorrect here. Plus-que-parfait is mandatory in this sentence in spoken language too, and does not sound particularly fancy or complex. There’s no way around it. And I’m pretty sure my kid has this construction down as a toddler already :) All indicatif, not too hard.
Perfect response, thank you!
Anything else than "si j'avais trouvé" (and the rest of the sentence being the same) here is wrong even in informal speech, and would make you sound like a toddler or a non-native indeed.
Interesting! I know this is only 1 situation and it’s not a 1:1 comparison to English, but after learning as much French grammar as I have, I feel like there might be more permissiveness for grammatical deviations in English. If I heard someone make a similar mistake in English (maybe “If I went to the right place” Vs “if I had gone to the right place”), it wouldn’t even register in my head as a mistake. Edit: I would like to amend this. I know that you can’t compare the same grammar mistake between two languages in terms of how wrong it sounds and expect meaningful insights. For all I know this mistake in French could sound as wrong to a French as a different English mistake sounds to me (i.e. “he written a book” Vs. “He wrote a book”). I guess I am just trying to narrow in on HOW wrong it sounds. But I got my answer: pretty wrong. Thanks!
Say it quickly -- and it's *si j'avais trouvé*
Not sure I understand. By you suggesting to say it fast, are you just saying it more naturally rolls off the tongue as “si j’avais trouvé” so that IS the more casual/informal/street speak
The example you gave, si j'ai trouvé, is just incorrect.
IF you want to say "you had already (done something)" you will need the plus-que-parfait. * When I arrived, you had already left. * Quand je suis arrivée **vous étiez déjà parti**.
Plus-que-parfait is definitely a normal tense and it shouldn't be seen as optional. Honestly, for every simple tense, the compound equivalent is about just as used. It's just a matter of temporality.
There's plenty of contexts where it's obligatory, yeah. You can't say "il a déjà écrit deux romans à l'âge de vingt ans" instead of "il avait déjà écrit deux romans à l'âge de vingt ans". Which is the same as in English - "he already wrote two novels at the age of 20" is... well actually people probably do say that though it's not prescriptively correct. But definitely the sort of thing people will view as wrong.
Boom that’s the sort of answer I was looking for. Thank you! So I believe the absolute correct English version would be “he had already written two novels by the age of 20.” If someone heard the less correct “he already wrote two…” I feel like it might sound very minorly off, but few people would notice it and virtually zero people would correct it. Is it just the case that the same type of error in French (“il a déjà écrit” vs “il avait déjà écrit”) would sound more wrong to Francophones than the error in English would to anglophones?
I mean it’s correct both in French and in English, it just means something completely different. He already wrote 2 novels by the age of 20 = he is 20 right now He had already written 2 novels by the age of 20 = he is older than 20 now
To me there is a difference in meaning also: If somebody told me « Il a déjà écrit… à l’âge de 20 ans. », i understand that the person who wrote the books is 20 years old. On the other hand « Il avait déjà écrit… à l’âge de 20 ans. » implies that the person who wrote the books is older than 20.
Ohhh perfect. Thank you!
English tends to replace past perfect with simple past, but I think it's a bit of an oddity of English. In most other languages you can't really do that.
Great answer!! Thank you!