Whose/of which

Whose/of which
Message de bibvx posté le 16-09-2019 à 03:33:34 (S | E | F)
Bonjour,
j’ai été amené à traduire la phrase suivante du français vers l’anglais : ... un livre dont tu penses aux émotions que tu as eues en le lisant...
cela m’a conduit à un blocage concernant l’utilisation de ‘of which’
Est-ce que la phrase ‘a book of which you think about the emotions you experienced while reading it’ est grammaticalement correcte? L’usage de ‘of which’ est-il juste ?
Merci par d'avance ^^

-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 16-09-2019 07:54

---

Réponse : Whose/of which de gerondif, postée le 16-09-2019 à 09:50:57 (S | E)
Bonjour
un livre dont tu penses aux émotions que tu as eues en le lisant... est une phrase tout à fait incorrecte en français et donc pas étonnant qu'elle ne soit pas traduisible en anglais telle quelle.
On peut dire : Le livre auquel tu penses est intéressant. Le livre dont tu penses qu'il est nul ne l'est pas tant que ça. Mais votre phrase sera plutôt :
Le livre qui te rappelle les émotions que tu as eues en le lisant est intéressant. The book that reminds you of the emotions you had reading it is interesting.
Le livre dont tu te remémores les émotions qu'il t'a procurées est ici.The book whose emotions you recall when you read it is here.
Ou encore : Le livre dont tu te rappelles les passages émouvants est intéressant. The book whose moving pages you remember is interesting.

Sinon il arrive en effet que whose remplace of which bien que l'antécédent ne soit pas une personne vivante.
The car whose window I broke à la place de the car the window of which I broke.

Dont ne se traduit pas toujours par whose.
La personne dont tu parles : the person who /whom /that you are speaking about.
La personne dont tu t'occupes : The person you are taking care of.
etc

---

Réponse : Whose/of which de traviskidd, postée le 16-09-2019 à 19:56:24 (S | E)
Hello; the most grammatically correct and literal translation of your phrase (it's not actually a sentence) is "a book that you think about the emotions you had while reading". But this is very clumsy. More natual would be something like "a book that makes you think about the emotions you had while reading it".

I have recently been interested in the operation of relative pronouns, and their ability to reference antecedents in subclauses. For example:

- I don't like pizza. --> Pizza is something (that) I don't like. (This is good.)
- I don't like people who like pizza. --> People who like pizza are (among the) people I don't like. (This is OK.)
- I don't like people who like pizza. --> Pizza is something (that) I don't like people who like. (This is technically correct, but very clumsy.)

- Ted said (that) John ate a pizza.
--> Ted is someone who said (that) John ate a pizza. (Good.)
--> John is someone (who) Ted said ate a pizza. (Good.)
--> A pizza is something (that) Ted said (that) John ate. (Good.)

- I don't like John playing the piano.
--> John is someone (who) I don't like playing the piano. (Good.)
--> The piano is something (that) I don't like John playing. (Good.)

- I waited for John to bring the biscuits.
--> The biscuits are something (that) I waited for John to bring. (Good.)
--> John is someone (who) I waited for to bring the biscuite (OK but clumsy.)

- I like the fact that John brought the biscuits.
--> The biscuits are something (that) I like the fact that John brought. (Clumsy.)
--> John is someone who I like the fact that brought the biscuits. (Wrong!)
--> John is someone I like the fact that who brought the biscuits. (Wrong!)

In short, the ability of relative pronouns to reference antecedents in subclauses is fairly broad, but not limitless. I'm not sure whether I know an exact rule, so I will just say that it is best not to make relative pronouns work harder than they have to.

See you.

---

[POSTER UNE NOUVELLE REPONSE] [Suivre ce sujet]

Cours gratuits > Forum > Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais