1

[j’ai dit] : Franchement, la pizza de guimauve... Ça a l’air pour le moins sucré... J’en ai des caries rien qu’à y penser.

I used « en » here, since I’m talking about an imagined situation. I don’t actually have a toothache; the idea is rather that eating such an overly sweet pizza would give me a toothache if I actually tried it.

If you omit « en » and say « j’ai des caries rien qu’à y penser », it sounds as if the mere thought of eating it actually makes a cavity, correct? Which doesn't make sense, of course...

J’en ai des frissons rien qu’à l’idée de devoir me traîner dans tant de neige jusqu'à chez moi chaque jour.

[ou bien] : J’ai des frissons rien qu’à l’idée de devoir me traîner dans tant de neige jusqu'à chez moi chaque jour.

With the first example in mind, would you include "en" in this sentence? The thought of trudging through cold snow gives me a chill, but it’s just in my head. If I omit « en », I wonder if it sounds as if I’m actually feeling cold physically?

Improve this question
0

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

"En" is a pronoun that replaces the initial sentence. Note that in "J'en ai des caries rien qu'à y penser", en is not necessary since y (another pronoun) has the very same role. Your second exemple is incorrect French. The en, being a pronoun, must be recalling something, and that something cannot be after the pronoun. That sentence would work just was well without it.

A better exemple where en changes the meaning:

  • Je regarde la mer, j'en ai des frissons
  • Je regarde la mer, j'ai des frissons

In the first sentence, it is clear that the shivering is emotional, while in the second, the shivering may be unrelated (for instance, due to cold wind on the beach)

Improve this answer
2
  • Quand un pronom n'est pas nécessaire, est-ce qu'il sert alors uniquement à la mise en relief ? Avec un antécédent contenu dans une phrase précédente avec un complément d'attribut (un adj. par ex.), pense-t-on qu'il soit possible d'avoir dans une phrase qui suit deux pronoms référant à un antécédent qui varierait (entre le sujet et son attribut, par exemple) ? Merci.
    – user3177
    Dec 20, 2016 at 1:56
  • 1
    AMAH deux pronoms pour la même chose c'est soit incorrect, soit, en litérature, du Bérurier.
    – xenoid
    Dec 20, 2016 at 9:43
1

I think you misunderstand the use of en in these cases. It doesn't change the meaning, it doesn't turn something real into some fantasy.

For your pizza example, in both cases you are saying that you have cavities just by thinking about eating a so sweet pizza. Of course it's not true.

It's exactly the same thing with the second example, with the little difference that you say you have chills, which can be true (you can have chills just by thinking about something cold, but however you can't get sick (still you could say "je tombe malade rien qu'à l'idée de...")).

So I'd say the use of en has the only purpose to emphasize.

Improve this answer
3
  • Hi. If you were saying these two sentences yourself, would you place "en"?
    – Con-gras-tue-les-chiens
    Dec 18, 2016 at 18:47
  • @Ahalone-zee Sometimes I would and sometimes I wouldn't, without any particular reason to do it or not.
    – Destal
    Dec 18, 2016 at 19:00
  • Pouvez-vous svp. préciser ce qui est mis en relief au juste avec ce pronom, ou comment d'un mot de deux lettre peut-il résulter cette transformation ici à votre avis ? Merci.
    – user3177
    Dec 19, 2016 at 5:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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