1

Le chanteur, qui est beaucoup aimé par ses fans, va chanter au concert demain.

Which of the following replacements of the relative clause are correct?

(a) Le chanteur, étant beaucoup aimé par ses fans, va chanter au concert demain.

(b) Le chanteur, beaucoup aimé par ses fans, va chanter au concert demain.

(c) Étant beaucoup aimé par ses fans, le chanteur va chanter au concert demain.

(d) Beaucoup aimé par ses fans, le chanteur va chanter au concert demain.

  • On peut aussi dire ici: "qui est beaucoup aimé de ses fans". – Frank Feb 1 '17 at 23:46
  • étant beacoup aimé par ses fans can mean: puisqu'il est très aimé de x; And beacoup aimé should be: Très aimé. – Lambie Feb 2 '17 at 14:35
3

I think they are all grammatically acceptable. But I would say (just to make things sounds more natural):

(a) Le chanteur, étant très aimé de/par ses fans, va chanter au concert demain.

(b) Le chanteur, très aimé de/par ses fans, va chanter au concert demain.

(c) Étant très aimé de/par ses fans, le chanteur va chanter au concert demain.

(d) Très aimé de/par ses fans, le chanteur va chanter au concert demain.

But the meaning changes quite a bit. Originally, we were just adding a precision about the singer with "qui...": that singer happens to be loved by his fans. In a,b,c,d though, we are now saying that the reason he is going to sing tomorrow is that he is loved by his fans. That was not present at all in the original "qui...". We have not just replaced the relative clause, but also changed the meaning!

So I would say that you cannot really replace the relative clause in this way while preserving the meaning, at least not in this case.

Note: (b) and (d) could IMHO go both ways: they could be understood to have the exact same meaning as the original sentence with the relative, or to introduce causation. The other 2, in my opinion, would normally be understood to introduce causation quite strongly.

  • I disagree on the fact that the meaning changed in a,b,c and d. Using "étant" introduces a causation as you said, but there is not necessarily one in (b) and (d). Qui implies the two clauses are unrelated to each other, but in (b) and (c) they are correlated. It's up to you to interpret them as linked or not. – Teleporting Goat Feb 2 '17 at 11:16
  • I mean you can say (b) and (d) with (seemingly) unrelated clauses, but not (a) and (d), they need causation. – Teleporting Goat Feb 2 '17 at 11:17
  • @TeleportingGoat - (b) and (d) can go both ways indeed. I noted that (b) dos, I can add (d). – Frank Feb 2 '17 at 15:30
  • (d) feels might go towards causation, because of its position at the beginning of the sentence. – Frank Feb 2 '17 at 15:32

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.