FR: verbes essentiellement pronominaux / réciproques / réfléchis

Canada - English
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Si le pronom se peut interpreter littéralement, ce n'est pas idiomatique. Mas s'il faut comprendre le complexe verbe + pronom comme un tout, c'est idiomatique.
    Hmmm, est-que Les années se sont succédé. utilise un v. pronominal idiomatique?

    Merci Outsider.

    Pourrais-tu me donné quelques exemples svp?
    Last edited by a moderator:
    Voici une explication avec plusieurs exemples. Il y en a beaucoup dans l'Internet. Cherchez aussi les mot clefs « verbe pronominal », « pronominal idiomatique » et « verbe reflexif » dans les WRF.

    Quant à « Les années se sont succédées », je dois admettre que je ne suis pas sûr de comme ont doit classifier le verbe ici. Ma première temptation serait de le classifier comme pronominal idiomatique, puisqu'on ne veut pas vraiment dire que les années se succédèrent à elles mêmes. Pourtant, ont pourrait interpreter le pronom se littéralement comme pronom réciproque: les années se sont succédées les unes aux autres...
    Could someone please describe to me the difference between "verbes pronominaux réfléchis ou réciproques" and "verbes essentiellement pronominaux"?
    Ils se parlent (c'est à dire, entre eux) ou ils se regardent ou ils se battent -- ce sont des verbes prominaux réciproques. (That is, they are doing the actions TO EACH OTHER)

    Ils se grattent, ils s'en vont, ils s'enfuient (chacun le fait envers lui-même) -- ce sont des verbes prominaux réfléchis (That is they are each doing the action to themselves at the same time).

    I hope I've remembered which is which :)
    "verbes pronominaux réfléchis ou réciproques" can be reflexive but don't have to be
    "verbes essentiellement pronominaux" only exist in the pronominal form

    Voici un lien utile.
    Si le pronom n'a pas de fonction propre, l'accord se fait avec le sujet. C'est le cas pour les verbes qui n'existent qu'à la forme pronominale (appelés verbes essentiellement pronominaux) et pour les pronominaux passifs.

    Le pronom des verbes pronominaux réfléchis (il se lave) et réciproques (ils se téléphonent) a une fonction qu'il faut analyser pour faire les bons accords.

    Last edited by a moderator:
    Thanks Avignonais, but you just told me the difference between reflexive and reciprocal, but I am confused with the essentiellement pronominaux verbs and why they are different than reflexive and reciprocal.
    Monsieur Hoole, thanks for the link, but it explains it the same way my french textbook does, what i am looking for is an easier english explanation?

    Thanks for your help!
    Verbs that are essentiellement pronominaux are those that exist only as pronominal verbs: s'évanouir, s'arroger. They must be used with a reflexive pronoun. With the exception of s'arroger, the past participle of essentially pronominal verbs agrees with the subject in the compound tenses.

    Elle s'est évanouie.

    There is another group, which includes verbs like s'en aller. There is a simple form, but in some way, the reflexive form has a meaning that can not be simply analysed. They behave like essentially pronominal verbs, and are called accidentally pronominal verbs.

    Last edited by a moderator:
    I'm trying accord the past participle when using the verb être, and I need to know if it's possible to know if a verb is uniquely pronomial. I have a short list that someone gave me, but I am just really confused as to how one would know if the verb is uniquely pronomial or not without memorizing some sort of master list (which I can't find anyway, even if I wanted to memorize it!).

    Example: "Nos jeunes années se sont enfuies à toute vitesse." S'enfuir is uniquely pronomial, and therefore always agrees with the subject when put in the past tense.

    My list also includes: s'abstenir, s'évanouir, se souvenir, s'en aller, s'emparer de, and se repentir, but if anyone knows how I can be sure that other verbs I come across are uniquely pronomial or not, that would be great!!

    Merci d'avance!
    At any rate, the problem Verbosealpaca is alluding to does not occur with the impersonal use of souvenir. However, he should be aware that there is one essentially pronominal verb that does not adhere to his rule: s'arroger. Since this verb takes a direct object, the position of the latter determines whether or not the past participle agrees. It does not agree with the subject.

    Elle s'est arrogé ces droits.
    Elle se les est arrogés.
    Les droits qu'elle s'est arrogés...

    Last edited by a moderator:
    Isn't this a case, Geostan, where, although the verb is prenominal, the reflexive pronoun is itself an indirect object, and so the past participle doesn't necessarily agree with the subject? Although the prenominal verb is conjugated with être the agreement of the past participle is as for avoir (only with a preceeding direct object). In other cases (where the reflexive pronoun is a direct object) the past participle only agrees with the subject because the reflexive pronoun (a direct object) agrees with the subject and precedes the past participle.


    Elle s’est posé une question
    Elle s'est brossé les dents.


    Elle s'est assise dans le fauteuil

    Verbosealpaca's suggestion that with pronominal verbs the past participle always agrees with the subject is incorrect, and can lead to serious errors.
    Last edited by a moderator:
    Hello all,

    Gracelandmansion provided a helpful link to a list of verbs that are exclusively pronominal. We have also pointed out and discussed how se souvenir (which appeared in Verbosealpaca's original list from post #10) could be considered an ambiguous case if you are willing to consider literary and archaic usage in addition to everyday, modern speech.

    Since Verbosealpaca's interest in exclusively pronominal verbs stemmed from considerations of past participle agreement in the passé composé, we have also pointed out that (a) direct objects affect the past participle agreement of pronominal verbs and (b) at least one exclusively pronominal verb, s'arroger, can take a direct object. The original post contained no question or statement regarding the agreement of pronominal verbs that are not exclusively pronominal.

    At this point I think we have sufficiently addressed the question of identifying/memorizing verbs that are exclusively pronominal. If you would like to discuss a specific pronominal or exclusively pronominal verb in more detail, please open a new thread. General discussion of past participle agreement for pronominal verbs is out of place here. The topic is too vast to be discussed in a single thread, but if you have a specific example sentence you would like to discuss, by all means, please open a new thread!

    This thread is now closed. Thank you for understanding. :)

    Can all or most regular verbs become pronominal reflexive?

    Il regarde
    Il se regarde dans le mirrior

    This is possible.

    What about verbs like manger or frapper or avaler? Is there a rule on this aspect of grammar?

    Il se mange.

    This is a disturbing situation but it is possible. Il se frappe, this is possible, though not healthy. Or am I being too inventive with the language?

    Merci bien
    You could say that beside a mandatory list of reflexive verbs ("se souvenir de"), a lot of French verbs can be made reflexive for the purpose of conveying the correct meaning of what you want to say. But the tricky part is that many verbs will be made reflexive for humor, or forceful description only, meaning they're not used reflexively in standard French. I think that logic will dictate what you do: "Je me trouve beau"= I find myself handsome, but "Je me veux" (vouloir can be used like "want" in English with a sexual connotation) sounds weird, but could be used in skits or novels, etc.

    In addition, you have informal and slang expressions: "Je vais me le faire, ce connard" = "I'm gonna take care of this asshole."

    I guess when it comes to reflexive verbs in French, the question is not "is this feasible", but "does this make sense".
    I guess when it comes to reflexive verbs in French, the question is not "is this feasible", but "does this make sense".
    That's a good way to summarize it. :)

    A grammar book will tell you that there are different types of pronominal verbs:

    1. The "essentially" pronominal verbs require the pronoun we (confusingly!) call "reflexive." These include verbs like se souvenir. These verbs don't have meaning without the pronoun.

    2. The "occasionally" pronominal verbs can be used with or without the pronoun, depending on what makes sense. These "occasionally" pronominal verbs fall into several categories.
    • the ones that are truly "reflexive," because you're doing the action to or for yourself.... like se lever = to get (oneself) up, se laver les mains = to wash one's hands, s'habiller = to dress oneself, se mentir = to lie to oneself, se dire = to say to oneself, se préparer un café = to prepare/make a cup of coffee for oneself, s'acheter une voiture = to buy oneself a car, etc.
    • the ones that are "reciprocal," because two people are involved and each does the thing to or for the other person... like se parler = to talk to each other, se voir = to see each other, s'écrire = to write to each other, etc.
    • the ones that are used as passive voice alternatives... like l'anglais se parle à New York = English is spoken in New York; or la tache se voit bien = the stain is easily seen, i.e., the stain is obvious.
    • the "indistinct" pronominals, where the pronoun doesn't have an obvious function, but the verb would have a different meaning if you left the pronoun off... like se tromper = to make a mistake vs. tromper = to deceive someone or cheat on them; or s'apercevoir = to realize or become aware of something vs. apercevoir = to see something.
    Hope it helps. :)
    In this example , it's "sens réciproque" , right ?

    "Mon copain et moi , on se voit chaque weekend"

    In this example , it's "sens réfléchi" ?

    " Je me suis trompé " / " Nous nous sommes excusés "

    What is the exact difference ? or is it just common sense ?
    1. The "essentially" pronominal verbs require the pronoun we (confusingly!) call "reflexive." These include verbs like se souvenir. These verbs don't have meaning without the pronoun.
    I'm interested in point #1 above. Is it safe to say that there really is no logic behind some of these verbs? And maybe I should call them pronominal and not reflexive.

    I'm asking because I'm helping two women who are taking French for fun. We were reading in a beginning book, and there was a line: "'Trop de grenouilles!' s'écrie Jean." They asked me why the verb was reflexive. I didn't have a good answer. You might not either--but if you do, I'm all ears. I think it's the same with s'exclamer. I noticed it on another page where something was "s'évader" -- it had to do with a design "jumping off" the page, I believe. I didn't understand why there either. My only answer would be... some verbs are just like that and there's not a good reason.... except I think there must be. Am I wrong?

    I did find this online:

    Verbs that are reflexive "just because they are"
    There are some verbs in French that are reflexive "just because they are". In these cases, more technically called intrinsically pronominal verbs or lexically pronominal verbs, it's difficult to attribute any specific meaning to the pronoun, or say that the verb has a particular meaning without the pronoun.

    Maybe I need to go study pronominal verbs. If I learned about them, it was a lonnnnnggg time ago!!

    Last edited by a moderator:
    You should treat reflexive pronouns of essentially pronominal verbs (like s'écrier, s'exclamer, s'évader, etc.) as being really part of the verb, without real intrinsic meaning. This is analogous to English phrasal verbs where the particle or preposition doesn't have its original meaning but just changes the overall meaning of the verb (e.g., to give up).
    Se dépêcher est un verbe essentiellement pronominal ou de sens réfléchi ?

    ex. Elle s'est dépêchée pour ne pas manquer le bus.
    Dépêcher a un sens transitif non pronominal qui signifie : "envoyer quelqu’un rapidement (pour aller quelque part, faire une commission, etc.)".
    Exemple tiré de la presse : "La France a dépêché un patrouilleur de haute mer, (...) qui doit arriver cet après-midi pour participer aux recherches" (Vosges Matin, 23 mai 2016)
    C'est toutefois un sens formel ou littéraire assez rare.

    Se dépêcher (qui est beaucoup plus commun) peut donc être interprété comme la forme réfléchie de ce sens non pronominal : se dépêcher, c'est "dépêcher soi-même (pour aller quelque part, etc.)"
    Last edited:
    qui signifie : "envoyer quelqu’un rapidement (pour aller quelque part, faire une commission, etc.)".
    Oui, mais pas seulement. Le sens peut également être expédier (un travail, une tâche, etc.).

    Selon le TLFi :
    A.− Accomplir une tâche avec rapidité ou précipitation afin d'en finir ou de s'en débarrasser (cf. expédier). Dépêcher un travail :
    1. D'un geste précis, en femme qui a l'habitude de dépêcher la besogne pour aller travailler à l'usine, madame Julien s'empara du bagage de Pauline, le porta dans la chambre et sortit aussitôt.Chardonne, Les Destinées sentimentales,Porcelaine de Limoges, 1936, p. 24.
    P. ext. et souvent fam. Faire vite quelque chose. Dépêcher un discours; un écolier qui dépêche ses devoirs; dépêcher ses prières, son chapelet, dépêcher une messe. Enfin s'il dort..., il dort vite, dépêchant son sommeil comme il dépêche sa vie (Balzac, Œuvres div.,t. 2, 1850, p. 223).
    Dépêcher son repas. Manger vite.

    C'est donc bien un verbe pronominal réfléchi occasionnel ; ce n'est pas un verbe essentiellement pronominal.