7

Dans le programme d’aujourd’hui on continue de parler des évènements en Lybie et qui ont eu beaucoup d’effet sur les pays de l’Afrique du Nord, le Moyen Orient et le monde entier.

I'm not sure how to understand that. As far as I know, qui is a relative pronoun in French that can be translated into English as that, which or who. Therefore, et qui ont eu literally means and which had, but I don't think the sentence reads well that way. If we remove et, then the sentence makes more sense to me: the events in Libya that had a lot of effect on.... That et (and) makes it hard for me to process this sentence. I think I don't understand something.

12

You aren't missing anything. This is not standard French. It's likely that the writer started to phrase the sentence in a certain way and then changed it but didn't complete that change. For example, maybe the sentence was originally “… des évènements qui ont eu lieu en Lybie et qui ont eu …”, then the writer decided that “qui ont eu lieu” was uselessly wordy and removed it.

Or maybe the writer was just careless or hurried, and has this “qui ont eu lieu” in mind but didn't write it. The sentence as a whole has a bit of an informal feeling, with the use of on (instead of a definite subject) and the lack of a comma after “Dans le programme d'aujourd'hui”.

A more correct way to write this sentence would be

Dans le programme d’aujourd’hui, nous continuerons de parler des évènements en Lybie, qui ont eu beaucoup d’effet sur les pays de l’Afrique du Nord, le Moyen Orient et le monde entier.

Nous continuerons” is correct if the author of the sentence is a participant in the program. If they aren't, then I think the sentence calls for naming the participants, or referring to them by some generic designation like “Pierre Durand et ses invités”.

The sentence is correct with and without a comma after Lybie, but leaving it out changes the meaning. With a comma, this is about “the events in Lybia” and the reader is supposed to already know which events the sentence is about; the part after the comma states an additional property of these events. Without a comma, “qui ont eu beaucoup d'effect …” specifies which events the sentence is about.

None of this matters very much to a native speaker. The sentence looks a bit odd, but there's no potential for misunderstanding.

  • 1
    This " et qui" is surely faulty. But "qui" is not perfect as it does not resolve the ambiguity about the target to which the pronoun is pointing : événements ? Lybie ? In this context "lesquels" could be much better. – Jhor Mar 16 at 13:25
  • 1
    @Jhor Your statement concerning the ambiguity of the pronoun is inaccurate, évènements is plural whereas Lybie (Libye ? whatever) is singular and the verb following the pronoun is in the plural form (ont eu, not a eu) and therefore it cannot refer to Lybie; in any case a country cannot meaningfully have "an/lots of effect" on other countries in French in this context. – suiiurisesse Mar 16 at 21:30

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.