EN: each fire one shot

[Aterian]

Bonjour,

Dans le film Three Amigos, il est lu une incantation autour d'un feu de bois :

"When we find the singing bush, we say the magic chant, each fire one shot in the air, and that will summon the invisible swordsman."

Est-ce normal ce each fire ? Est-ce une élision de have to ? Un impératif ?

Merci.

 

[olivier68]

Bonsoir Aterian,
Cela manque un peu de contexte général, en fait.
Mais ce me semble cependant bien représenter une idée "au futur".
Le "we find" pourrait bien se traduire par un futur antérieur, le "we say" par un futur simple, le "each fire" soit par un impératif soit par un subjonctif volitif, éventuellement par un futur élidé,et le "that will" final par un futur.
Attendons les réponses des experts.

 

[Maître Capello]

La phrase est bancale. Each doit être suivi d'un verbe au singulier, à moins d'être précédé du sujet. Autrement dit, on devrait avoir soit each fires, soit we each fire.

le "each fire" soit par un impératif

L'impératif ne convient pas dans ce contexte. Si c'était un impératif, ce serait fire each plutôt que each fire.

 

[olivier68]

et un subjonctif ?

 

[Maître Capello]

En anglais moderne, le subjonctif ne s'emploie plus guère que dans certaines constructions bien particulières (notamment après certains verbes et dans les propositions conditionnelles irréelles). Mais ici je ne vois pas bien comment il pourrait se justifier dans le contexte.

 

[The Newt]

Est-ce normal ce each fire ? Est-ce une élision de have to ? Un impératif ?

I think it's an elision of the future: "When we find the singing bush, we will say the magic chant, each of us will fire one shot..."

 

[Maître Capello]

It may also come from the fact he is reading some instructions. Maybe something like the following:

To summon the invisible swordsman:
- Go east through the desert.
- Find the singing bush.
- Say the magic chant.
- Fire one shot in the air, each one of you.

P.S. Some time later he recaps the instructions (emphasis mine):

Each have to fire one shot in the air, say the magic chant, and the invisible swordsman will appear.

 

[Maîtreaupôle]

The wording is clumsy, but easily rendered both grammatically correct and unambiguous by replacing "each fire one shot" with "we each fire one shot".

 

[johngiovanni]

Je ne pense pas qu'il y ait d'ambiguïté ou de mal formulation - bien qu'il puisse y avoir des problèmes avec mon français !

Selon le Cambridge Dictionary, en anglais britannique, lorsque nous utilisons each pour faire référence au sujet de la proposition, il apparaît généralement dans la position médiane normale pour les adverbes : entre le sujet et le verbe principal, après le verbe modal ou le premier verbe auxiliaire, ou après be comme verbe principal.

Dans une liste d'actions séparées par une virgule, si le pronom sujet ne change pas, souvent on ne répète pas le sujet. Dans cette phrase, le pronom we est déjà apparu deux fois, et on comprend bien, même si le pronom n'est pas répété dans la seconde action prévue, que « each fire » signifie « we each fire ». Donc la forme verbale plurielle s'accorde avec le sujet.

L'utilisation du présent simple pour faire référence aux actions futures que nous planifions au présent n'est pas inhabituelle.

“This is what’s happening tomorrow. We have breakfast at eight, then it’s off to the shops as the fridge is looking empty…We call at Grandma's on the way to see if she needs anything picking up...”.

 

[Maîtreaupôle]

Je ne pense pas qu'il y ait d'ambiguïté ou de mal formulation - [etc.]

All i can say is the Three Amigos were not grammarians and their English would hardly have been guided by the rigours of English grammar. The sentence I suggest, if not grammatically ideal, is nonetheless idiomatic and in an appropriate register relative to the Three Amigos.

 

[Maître Capello]

Dans une liste d'actions séparées par une virgule, si le pronom sujet ne change pas, souvent on ne répète pas le sujet. Dans cette phrase, le pronom we est déjà apparu deux fois, et on comprend bien, même si le pronom n'est pas répété dans la seconde action prévue, que « each fire » signifie « we each fire ».

Sans la présence du each, je serais d'accord avec vous, mais je trouve la non-répétition de we assez étrange avec each. Autrement dit, je n'ai rien contre l'ellipse suivante :

We say the magic chant, we fire one shot in the air, and that will summon the invisible swordsman.​

Mais elle me dérange dans :

We say the magic chant, we each fire one shot in the air, and that will summon the invisible swordsman.​

parce qu'elle donne l'impression que le sujet n'est plus we, mais each.

L'utilisation du présent simple pour faire référence aux actions futures que nous planifions au présent n'est pas inhabituelle.

Oui, ce n'est pas la question. On emploie d'ailleurs similairement le présent en français en pareil cas. Voir par exemple :
EN: I'm in London next week - present tense for an event in the future
FR: présent / futur - using the present to express the future

The sentence I suggest

Rather, the sentence we suggest (see post #3).

 

[johngiovanni]

I disagree with MC about the omission of “we” giving the impression of the subject not being “we” but “each”. Apart from the general point I made earlier about not repeating pronouns, the mere fact that the verb form is plural as is the preceding verb form which has “we” as its subject, leads the reader to think that the subject is plural “we” and not “each”. The non-repetition of “we” may seem strange to some, but I find it perfectly natural.

"We say the magic chant, each fires one shot in the air" to me would sound strange.
However, "We say the magic chant, each of us fires one shot in the air" would also sound natural.

“Each” does not have to be followed by a verb in the singular if it is part of the subject and is preceded by a noun or pronoun in the plural - even when the pronoun is understood from what has come before.

 

[Maîtreaupôle]

It seems to me what is being discussed is a piece of text read aloud or paraphrased by one of the Three Amigos. To my mind, what can be sensibly questioned is whether the dialogue spoken, whether read aloud or paraphrased, might have been better scripted. That's a consideration that doesn't necessarily relate either to whether it is grammatically correct or awkwardly phrased.

The question is only is it being read off verbatim or is it being paraphrased. If verbatim; then it's a question of its corresponding believably in the audience's mind to what some imagined author would have written. If paraphrased; then it's a question of whether it corresponds believably in the audience's mind to what a comic idiot - one of the Three Amigos - would have said in paraphrasing it. What I offered in post #8 is one such possibility among many that is appropriate idiomatically and in register. It's also believable even if not up to the standards of a fussy English speaker.

Finally, I'd ask that as a line in a comic script being spoken by an idiot, does it really require change? Frankly, though I've offered a workable alternative, I don't really believe it does.

 

[johngiovanni]

I think the original sentence was perfectly acceptable, not clumsy and not in need of being rendered grammatically correct and unambiguous because it was already correct and unambiguous. You don't have to be a grammarian to speak and write grammatically, and the "comic idiot" uttered a sentence which was, to my mind, well scripted.

The "workable alternative" proposed in post 8 is also correct and unambiguous, appropriate idiomatically and in register, but the original was all these things and did not require change.

But perhaps that misses the point. This is a grammar forum. I do think that the different ways in which we use "each" in English can sometimes be confusing to non-native speakers, and I hope that this thread has helped to clarify a number of grammatical issues.

 

[Maître Capello]

The more I read the sentence, the more it seems logical. I therefore agree with JG that its grammar is sound and correct.

When we find the singing bush, we say the magic chant, each fire one shot in the air… (= … we say the magic chant, we each fire one shot in the air…)​

However, some time later the same guy recaps these instructions as I mentioned earlier. In that case he omits the subject “we” altogether. I think this is incorrect, isn't it?

Now let me see here. Each have to fire one shot in the air, say the magic chant, and the invisible swordsman will appear. (Wrong because the subject “we” is missing or the modal verb should be “has” instead of “have.”)​

By the way, the missing “we” was added in the transcript: Now let me see here. We each have to fire one shot in the air…

 

[johngiovanni]

Interestingly, in the recap the order of the actions is different. As all of us children know, for the magic to work properly one has to do things in the right order! 🙂

Yes, strictly speaking we need a plural subject, “we” in the recap. But he is recalling or re-reading the original version where “each have to” is the second action and where the “we” was not repeated, and perhaps that accounts for the omission of “we” here.