FR: (ne pas) avoir le/de/du temps

< Previous | Next >

acm2g

Member
USA
My textbook just covered partitive articles, indefinite articles, and definite articles, and the use of de/d' in a negative expression using partitive or indefinite articles.

In the next chapter, it gives this example sentence:
Aujourd'hui, je n'ai pas le temps.

Why wouldn't it be (could it be?) "Je n'ai pas de temps." ???

Merci d'avance!

Moderator note: Multiple threads merged to create this one. See also (ne pas) avoir le temps (de) / avoir du/de temps (pour) - article in the Français Seulement forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Canard

    Senior Member
    English, USA
    When you just have "le/la/les", it is not the partitive, so it doesn't change to "de". Another example: "Il n'a même pas le bon sens de..."

    [...]
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    acm2g

    Member
    USA
    Thanks... I think that second sentence seems conflicting as well.

    For the first sentence (Je n'ai pas le temps.), does this mean "I don't have the time... to do such and such" and the positive version would be j'ai le temps.

    Would it be possible to say "je n'ai pas du temps" (I don't have any time).

    [...]
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    geostan

    Senior Member
    English Canada
    In another forum, I suggested that students should follow the textbook until they have mastered the basics. In a sense, I was supporting the textbook. Now I read these examples, and wonder : "Who wrote the book?" If you have quoted the examples correctly, there are some basic pedagogical flaws with this particular book. What does your instructor say? Or did he/she write the book?

    Je n'ai pas le temps is not the kind of sentence one should be giving a beginning student who is just learning about the partitive and the negative.

    Canard's point is well taken. The affirmative of this sentence would be "J'ai le temps" But in another sentence, there would be a partitive connotation:
    Je n'ai pas de temps à perdre.

    As for the mixing and matching, that simply is poor pedagogy. It's either partitive or it's not; it shouldn't be both. And even if it were correct, why would a teacher inflict this on a beginning student?

    Good Luck with your studies!
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    qizi

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    Je n'ai pas ( ) temps de bavarder avec toi en ce moment.
    Would you please tell me why "le" is used here? I notice there is "ne...pas", so could I change "le" to "de"?
    Thank you.
     

    itka

    Senior Member
    français
    Parce que ce temps-là est bien défini. Il ne s'agit pas de n'importe quel temps, mais de "celui de bavarder avec toi".
    Je n'ai pas de temps libre.
    Je n'ai pas le temps de finir ce livre avant de partir travailler.


    Tu entendras souvent : "je n'ai pas le temps !" sans aucun complément, mais en fait ce complément est sous-entendu :
    "Tu viens avec nous à la piscine ?
    -Non, je n'ai pas le temps !"
    (==> je n'ai pas le temps de venir avec vous à la piscine.)
     

    geostan

    Senior Member
    English Canada
    Consider also the affirmative form:

    avoir le temps de faire quelque chose. Le is required because it is made specific by the infinitive phrase. Since the definite article is required in the affirmative form, it does not change in the negative form.

    Contrast this with:

    J'ai du temps à perdre. Here there is a quantitative notion, hence, the partitive article. This changes in the negative: Je n'ai pas de temps à perdre.
     

    francais_espanol

    Senior Member
    Canada, English
    I was taught in French class:

    avoir LE temps DE faire quelque chose

    but

    avoir DU temps POUR faire quelque chose.

    Is this correct ?
     

    geostan

    Senior Member
    English Canada
    You would think so. I might use the second construction in a situation like this: avoir du temps libre pour faire quelque chose. The addition of the adjective would make me want to use it. Without something to express a quantitative idea, I would stick to the first expression.
     

    itka

    Senior Member
    français
    avoir LE temps DE faire quelque chose
    but
    avoir DU temps POUR faire quelque chose.
    This is correct but the second one is really seldom used. Most of the time we say the first:
    J'ai (tout) le temps de me préparer avant de partir.
    Est-ce que tu auras le temps de me donner un coup de main ?
    Nous aurions aimé y aller, mais nous n'avons pas eu le temps.
    Je n'avais jamais le temps de lire un roman : je passais mon temps à étudier.
    Si tu te dépêches, tu auras le temps d'attraper le train de 8h47.
     

    itka

    Senior Member
    français
    Oui, cette phrase est correcte, mais je dirais beaucoup plus facilement : "Est-ce que, cet après-midi, tu auras le temps de faire ça ?"
     

    Unicornjumper

    Senior Member
    English
    Bonjour!

    Je veux ecrire ' if you have the time to read my cv, i will be grateful'

    si vous avez le temps pour lire mon CV, je serais reconaissante. c'est correcte?
    ou
    si vous avez le temps de lire mon CV, je serais reconaissante. ?

    aussi, est-ce qu'il y a autres phrases qui tu penses être mieux?

    Merci
     

    jann

    co-mod'
    English - USA
    There are two possible expressions, but you cannot mix them. :)

    avoir le temps de
    avoir du temps pour


    See also the thread from the French Only forum --> (ne pas) avoir le temps (de) / avoir du/de temps (pour) - article


    PS. There are some other problems in your sentence. In a sentence with "si," you cannot mix present with conditional. Instead you must choose between present + future ("if you have time, I will be grateful") or imperfect + conditional ("if you had the time, I would be grateful"). And the set expression for expressing gratitude is je vous en serai(s) (très) reconnaissant(e) -- literally "I will/would be (very) grateful to you for that."
     

    budleia

    Member
    English, UK
    I'm a bit confused about the difference between these two constructions.

    J'aimerais qu'on me laisse le temps de réfléchir.
    (my guess - I wish they would let me have the time to think it over.)
    J'aimerais qu'on me laisse du temps pour réfléchir.
    (I wish they would let me have some time to think it over.)

    There doesn't seem to be much difference between them. Am I missing something?

    Many thanks

    B
     

    Fred_C

    Senior Member
    Français
    Bonjour.

    The phrase “le temps de réfléchir” is a nominal group, object of the verb “laisser”, it means “the time to think over”.
    But in the sentence “j’aimerais qu’on me laisse le temps pour réfléchir”, the object of the verb “laisser” is just “le temps”, and “pour réfléchir” is an adverbial complement, indicating the scope : “in order to think over”.

    Noun complements can hardly be introduced by another preposition than “de” or “à” in French.
     

    budleia

    Member
    English, UK
    Is there also a difference in nuance between the two expressions, with 'J'aimerais qu'on me laisse du temps pour réfléchir.' suggesting perhaps a slightly greater sense of urgency?
     

    Kelly B

    Senior Member
    USA English
    For the first sentence (Je n'ai pas le temps.), does this mean "I don't have the time... to do such and such" and the positive version would be j'ai le temps.

    Would it be possible to say "je n'ai pas du temps" (I don't have any time).
    It's an oversimplification, but in the negative,
    Je n'ai pas le temps = I don't have the time (to accomplish that specific task)
    Je n'ai pas de temps = I don't have any time (to do some open-ended activity that will interfere with my other obligations)
     

    Pecannoix

    Member
    English
    trouver le temps pour/de (faire)

    - Is there a difference between using "pour or "de" ? Is one more formal?

    Thank you :)
     

    OLN

    Senior Member
    French - France, ♀
    Bonjour.

    A priori :
    prendre, avoir le temps de faire qch.
    trouver du temps pour faire qch ; trouver le temps [qu'il faut] pour faire qch
    find time to do [sth], find the time to do [sth] vtr + n (activity: fit in) trouver le temps de faire [qch], trouver du temps pour faire [qch] loc v
    I am very busy, but I will try to find time to see you.
    Je suis très occupé mais j'essaierai de trouver du temps pour te voir.
    […]
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    < Previous | Next >
    Top