FR: Ce n'est pas de l'eau, ni du vin, mais de la bière

[mdjackessex]

Salut, je fais du travail sur des articles et des preposition mais il y a un truc qui m'a fais dû mal!

Ce n'est pas de l'eau, ni du vin mais de la bière

Dans cette phrase ici, on voit l'utilisation des articles partitifs mais comme 'ni du vin' ou 'ni de+le vin' mais je sais pas pourquoi, même que le nom d' 'eau' est masculin dans l'exemple 'Ce n'est pas de l'eau', il garde ce qu'il a l'air feminin.

Merci à l'avance,

Matthew

 

[ufoseeker]

I don't know if this answer is what you need, but we don't say "le eau" because the word "eau" begins on one of this letters a,e,i,o,u, so we use in french l' before such words

 

[mdjackessex]

Alors, ça c'est claire, mais quand la forme 'de l'eau' est utilisée pourquoi pas dit, tout simplement, d'eau qui viens de 'de+le = du eau' et aprés, donc, 'd'eau', si on enlève l'U?

 

[ufoseeker]

Yes, you are right, I had never thought about that before. For example, you will say :"Ce liquide est composé d'eau" but you will say too "Il y a de l'eau dans ce liquide"...very strange, I don't know what to answer you

 

[Matcauthon]

je pense que les deux sont utiliser, (d'eau et de l'eau) dépendant sur qui parle.

un français peut-être pour le clarifier?

 

[wildan1]

DE LA bière--OK as is ("some beer" or just "beer")
DE LA eau--> is shortened to DE L' A eau--de l'eau ("some water" or just "water")

 

[Matcauthon]

DE LA bière--OK as is ("some beer" or just "beer")
DE LA eau--> is shortened to DE L' A eau--de l'eau ("some water" or just "water")

http://www.wordreference.com/enfr/water

t'as raison, regarde le lien hypertexte et vous trouvez que verre d'eau est masculine, mais l'eau est feminine.

 

[DearPrudence]

[...]l'eau est feminine.

Let's note that when a word begins with a vowel it's great because you don't have to think about the gender of the noun:
" l'arrosoir "
" l'abricot "
" l'orange "
" l'échelle "

Some are feminine, some masculine but it doesn't matter, it's always " l' ".

So to answer your question, I would just say that consider that the article & the noun, in this case, are stuck together & you can't "merge" the previous "de" with the article.
You can only merge "de" + "le" => "du"
but not "de" + " l'" which remain like this, no matter what.

Yes, you are right, I had never thought about that before. For example, you will say :"Ce liquide est composé d'eau" but you will say too "Il y a de l'eau dans ce liquide"...very strange, I don't know what to answer you

It's a different & more complex matter.
With another noun, you would have had:
"Ce liquide est composé de vin", not "du vin" ("de le vin")
"This liquid is composed of Ø wine", not "of the wine"
Similarly, you would say
"Ce liquide est composé d'eau" (" d' " instead of "de" because the noun begins with a vowel)
& not
"Ce liquide est composé de l'eau" (" de la eau")

But I must say it's a bit too complex for me

I hope it's not too unclear.

 

[Matcauthon]

You're saying the original posters sentence should be " Ce n'est pas d'eau, ni de vin mais de bière"

If that's what you're saying I understand you, otherwise I don't. (regarding the second part you've started on)

 

[DearPrudence]

Yeah, I know. It's a shame that this forer@ introduced that omission or not of the article
It's very complex & I don't want to talk about it, all the more as it doesn't answer the original poster's question!!

He was asking why we didn't say "Ce n'est que du eau" but did say "C'est de l'eau".

The answer is very simple.
"de + le" => "du"
"de + la" = "de la"
"de + l' " = "de l' " (you don't even need to know if " l' " stands for "le" ou "la", it simply doesn't matter at all!!)
There is simply no contraction.

In the example of "Le liquide est composé d'eau/de vin", the article "le/l' " is omitted, so it has absolutely nothing to do here! Just forget it for the moment.

 

[jann]

There is one more piece to this picture.

We anglophones learn that du, de la, de l' and often des all become de or d' in the negative.
eg.
J'ai du vin --> Je n'ai pas de vin. / I have some wine --> I don't have any wine.
J'ai de l'eau --> Je n'ai pas d'eau.
J'ai de la bière --> Je n'ai pas de bière.

What our instructors usually forget to tell us is that this rule does not apply when you are identifying something with the verb être:
eg.
C'est du vin --> Ce n'est pas du vin. / It is (some) wine. --> It is not wine.
C'est de l'eau --> Ce n'est pas de l'eau.
C'est de la bière --> Ce n'est pas de la bière.

Remember that ni is a negation... so the sentence says "It's not water, nor wine, but beer." Clearly, we are using être to identify this substance, so we cannot replace the partitive with de.

Ce n'est pas d'eau, ni de vin, mais de la bière.
Ce n'est pas de l'eau, ni du vin, mais de la bière.

Mdjackessex, if you're still confused, maybe this article will help, and then you could try to help us undersand your question a bit better.

 

[geostan]

The reduction of a partitive after a negative does not apply to the verb etre because it is not a question of absence, but of identification. When one says:

Je n'ai pas d'argent. We show an absence of money.
But when we say Ce n'est pas de l'eau, there is no absence; there is something there; it's simply not water.

 

[Thomas1]

I think I might have noted some paralels:

There is one more piece to this picture.

We anglophones learn that du, de la, de l' and often des all become de or d' in the negative.
eg.
J'ai du vin --> Je n'ai pas de vin. / I have some wine --> I don't have any wine.
J'ai de l'eau --> Je n'ai pas d'eau.
J'ai de la bière --> Je n'ai pas de bière.

The partitive in the informative sentences would be likely to be translated as some (although, in many cases it is omitted). Whereas in negative sentences when it becomes de it is translated as any (see also below).

What our instructors usually forget to tell us is that this rule does not apply when you are identifying something with the verb être:
eg.
C'est du vin --> Ce n'est pas du vin. / It is (some) wine. --> It is not wine.
C'est de l'eau --> Ce n'est pas de l'eau.
C'est de la bière --> Ce n'est pas de la bière.

Remember that ni is a negation... so the sentence says "It's not water, nor wine, but beer." Clearly, we are using être to identify this substance, so we cannot replace the partitive with de.

Ce n'est pas d'eau, ni de vin, mais de la bière.
Ce n'est pas de l'eau, ni du vin, mais de la bière.
[...]

The reduction of a partitive after a negative does not apply to the verb etre because it is not a question of absence, but of identification. When one says:

Je n'ai pas d'argent. We show an absence of money.
But when we say Ce n'est pas de l'eau, there is no absence; there is something there; it's simply not water.

The rule is that the partitive article doesn't become de in the construction C'est/Ce sont. I see another parallel:
C'est de la bière --> Ce n'est pas de la bière.
This is beer. --> This is not beer.
Ce sont des pommes de terre. --> Ce ne sont pas des pommes de terre.
These are potatos. --> These aren't potatos.
So, here we have the partitive article in both French sentences and its equivalent in the English ones, that's to say its absence.
du/de la/d'/des = ø (very often, but not always).

Using être to point out the absence of something we need another construciton, for instance:
Il n'y a pas de
Il y a du vin. There's (some) wine.
but
Il n'y a pas de vin. There's no wine.

I hope I didn't make any mistake in what I've just written.

Tom

 

[geostan]

So, here we have the partitive article in both French sentences and its equivalent in the English ones, that's to say its absence.
du/de la/d'/des = ø (very often, but not always).

Tom

If you are saying that in Ce n'est pas de la bière, there is an absence of beer, that is true. However, that was not my point. The difference between the example with etre and the one with "il y a," is that with the latter, there is an absence, period! With être, there is no real absence, since there is something there. It merely needs to be correctly idenitified. So my original analysis stands: with être, there is no real absence, merely misidentification.

 

[dicomec]

Ce n'est ni eau, ni vin, mais de la bière. Je crois que c'est ça ce que vous voulez dire.

 

[Thomas1]

If you are saying that in Ce n'est pas de la bière, there is an absence of beer, that is true. However, that was not my point. The difference between the example with etre and the one with "il y a," is that with the latter, there is an absence, period! With être, there is no real absence, since there is something there. It merely needs to be correctly idenitified. So my original analysis stands: with être, there is no real absence, merely misidentification.

Yes, did I say something contrary to that?
My point is that in English we have (in many cases) absence of the equivalent of the French partitive article :
Ce sont des pommes de terre. --> Ce ne sont pas des pommes de terre.
These are ø potatos. --> These aren't ø potatos.
So, here we have the partitive article in both French sentences and its equivalent (i.e. the equivalent of French partitive) in the English ones, that's to say its absence.
du/de la/d'/des = ø (very often, but not always).