Timeline for Sens de « qu'est-ce que » dans deux contextes particuliers
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 13, 2019 at 21:14 | vote | accept | LPH | ||
| May 13, 2019 at 20:54 | comment | added | LPH | (puzzlement) and then this new case that occurred to me tends to confirm that the why is but an accessory notion. That way of speaking would seem to be a regressive way, in which the words aren't used to carry the meaning but instead open the road to a variety of meanings left to be expressed by whatever chosen attitude of the speaker : a real economy of words but more incertitude. (end) | |
| May 13, 2019 at 20:45 | comment | added | LPH | I share this point a view : the basic idea, raising a concern as to the why of whatever is being questioned, is not central and there is something else, not conveyed by the "tag" (qu'est-ce que), which is after all deprived of much meaning here, but by the tone, the attitude of the speaker; in certain cases, there is hardly the possibility of a why : "Qu'est-ce que vous me parlez de présidents avant 1700, il n'y a jamais eu que des rois jusque là!." This particular case could be rendered by more than one idea I think, for instance, "Je ne comprends pas, êtes-vous fou ?" (champ 1) | |
| May 13, 2019 at 20:08 | history | answered | Papa Poule | CC BY-SA 4.0 |