EN: to which nothing could shake

Bonjour à tous,

Dans la phrase suivante "There was the exhilaration in my independence, to which at that moment I was convinced that nothing, not le loneliness of the night, not nature's marauders, not even the human powers of mischief, could shake", si, comme je le crois, à tort ou à raison, "which", relatif ayant pour antécédent "independence" ou l'ensemble "the exhilaration [in my independence]", fonctionne comme complément d'objet direct de "shake", je ne vois pas la raison d'être du "to" devant "shake", sauf à ce qu'il existe une construction "to shake to", au sens d'"ébranler". Merci d'avance.
 
  • Bonjour et merci, Maître Capello,

    Quand vous écrivez "Le verbe shake n'est pas directement rattaché à to which. Il dépend en fait de I was convinced that", que reprend "il", "shake" ou "to which" ? J'exclus "shake" tant la construction est évidente (sur le modèle français "le stylo que je sais lui appartenir". Il ne peut donc s'agir que de "to which". Que signifie donc alors "to be convinced to X that..." ? Autrement dit, quelle est la fonction syntaxique précise de "to which" ? Merci.
     

    Omelette

    Senior Member
    UK English
    I've read the sentence several times and -unless I'm missing something - the 'to' is simply a mistake.
    You don't 'shake to' something.
     

    Maître Capello

    Mod et ratures
    French – Switzerland
    I was thinking that shake could be used intransitively and that to which would mean something like in which or about which… But this seems quite far fetched.
     

    Omelette

    Senior Member
    UK English
    Yes, I can see how 'about which' or 'of which' would be possible - though it seems a little clumsy. But it does seem surprising to use 'to' in that way.
     
    Last edited:
    Merci à tous deux, Maître Capello et Omelette, pour vos efforts respectifs, mais on sent que pour vous la phrase comporte une bizarrerie, voire une anomalie. Le malheur, c'est que cette phrase est une des rares de roman (et de celui-ci en particulier) dont je n'ai pu vérifier sur Google que le livre ne comportait pas d'erratum. Merci pour ces efforts.
     

    Étoile du Nord

    Senior Member
    English - Canada
    Bonjour, I might build the sentence like this:

    1. There was the exhilaration in my independence, which nothing could shake.

    2. There was the exhilaration in my independence, which at that moment, nothing could shake.

    3. There was the exhilaration in my independence, which at that moment, I was convinced that nothing could shake.

    4. There was the exhilaration in my independence, which at that moment I was convinced that nothing, not the loneliness of the night, not nature's marauders, not even the human powers of mischief, could shake.

    I am also not sure that the to in to which has been used correctly in this sentence. Thus, I excluded it. But, I can not explain the grammar. I hope it helps. :)

    'Que signifie donc alors "to be convinced to Xthat...'
    I was convinced that nothing could shake the exhilaration in my independence.
     
    Last edited:
    < Previous | Next >
    Top