In the case of a sentence like this: 'Il n'y a pas une interdiction sur eux. (le cannabis et l'alcool)', is it correct to use 'sur eux'?


No. You can say “Ils ne sont pas interdits” instead.

Sur is not used together with interdiction except for the standard place indication as in l'interdiction de jouer au ballon sur la plage. As you can notice here as well, de can be used to specify the action which is forbidden. But there's no way you can complement interdiction with a concrete1 object directly. You should rephrase as mentioned above.

Otherwise, in other contexts, sur eux is the appropriate way to combine sur and the third person plural pronoun, for both persons and other objects. For example: Il n'y a pas d'ombre sur eux.

1. It's possible for some abstract nouns, e.g. interdiction de sortie, de vente, de stationnement, etc., or with a definite article in an affirmative sentence, e.g. l'interdiction du cannabis (if using a pronoun, son interdiction).

| improve this answer | |

As alreay stated "sur eux" can't be used here but should you want to keep a similar structure, you might say:

Il n'y a pas d'interdiction les concernant.

| improve this answer | |

Il n'y a pas d'interdiction:

  • contre eux;
  • envers eux;
  • pour eux. pour est neutre et fonctionne pour presque toutes les constructions.
| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.