and also it indicates "If you don"t have what you love, you have to love what you have actually." (from en.wikiquote).

You are watching: Quand on a pas ce que l’on aime, il faut aimer ce que l’on a

I wonder what this « l"» implies and also if

« Quand on n"a pas ce qu"on aime, il fait aimer ce qu"on a. »

renders sense. Thank you !

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Neil Coffey on February 22, 2012 at 5:42am

In terms of definition, they"re fundamentally equivalent<*>. The difference is even more one of style: l"on is an extra literary variant.

If an author decides to use l"on at all, they"ll generally usage it after a vowel, to stop 2 different vowels next to one an additional. Hence in your example, on is used in the first circumstances (bereason the final -d of quand would certainly be pronounced in this case) and also l"on in the second.

<*> On the other hand, bereason it is a function of literary language, l"on would mainly intend "one in general" fairly than "we", bereason in a literary style, nous would rather be provided to expect "we".

Permaconnect Reply by joll on February 22, 2012 at 11:10am

Thank you exceptionally much for your clear explanation.

In addition, can I think of this l" as a definite article? (I"m simply curious...)

Permaconnect Reply by Neil Coffey on February 22, 2012 at 3:34pm

There"s bit syntactic reason to carry out so-- it"s absolutely not behaving like anything else that you"d speak to a definite article.

I"d really simply think of "l"on" as a addressed different to "on" and leave it at that.

Permalink Reply by joll on February 23, 2012 at 10:14am

Thank you!

Permalink Reply by booneavenueboy on February 23, 2012 at 6:59pm

Here is a long swarm "syntactical" factor for the "l": The write-up lends emphasis to the verb. Here is a translation that renders feeling to me: If you can"t have what you love, then you need to love what you DO (or can) have actually.

Jes" guessin".

Permaconnect Reply by Neil Coffey on February 23, 2012 at 7:27pm

I think you"re reading also a lot right into it!

It"s really simply a historical relic, and also these days the reason for utilizing it is essentially euphony (that"s an elaborate means of saying once an writer thinks it "sounds better"). Normally, l"on is supplied where on alone would certainly leave 2 vowels beside each other -- it"s a way of "breaking up the vowels", if you like. But it"s entirely optional and a matter of style. In speech, it would certainly sound odd/pretentious.

Historically, l"on (spelt l"en in some previously texts) was provided even more generally, and what has reportedly happened is that speaker slowly wanted the form on, the archaic form is kept in a few cases. You"ll also uncover variation, e.g. some authors will certainly usage l"on at the start of a sentence (once there"s obviously no dispute to perform so in terms of "breaking up vowels"), whereas others wouldn"t.

Permaattach Reply by Neil Coffey on February 23, 2012 at 7:32pm

But of course, what "sounds better" is rather subjective and also dependent on the state of the language at a offered time.

And in any instance, there are squillions of areas in French wbelow 2 vowels will certainly take place to fall alongside one another-- and also indeed words which have 2 vowels alongside one another inside the word. It"s not clear why there"s a must go on a crusade versus this phenomenon in this specific instance...


Welcome toFrench Language

Sign Upor Sign In


How Much Was A Dollar Worth In 1930 → 2021, 1930 Dollars In 1925

Please check your web browser settings or call your system administrator.