Who composed The Bill's French lines for Ms Dreyfus?

[Ext User(Fran)]

Reg was struggling to convey the idea to the ostensibly Francophone Ms
Dreyfus that her bag had been stolen. He sought the participle for the
french irregular verb "prendre" (to take) (i.e. in this case "pris").

Dreyfus correctly suggests that the better word would be
"volé" (given that in context taken really means *stolen*) i.e.
Quelqu'un a volé vôtre pochette ..."

Then she goes on to add "but if you use *prendre* its "prend" --

Somebody missed conjugation classes, because it's certainly "pris".

e.g. Quelqu'un a pris vôtre pochette ...".

Deary me. The BBC can't find someone who can accurately render a
straightforward French phrase using orthodox syntax?

Fran

[Ext User(Horry)]

On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 19:42:24 -0800 (PST), Fran wrote:

> Reg was struggling to convey the idea to the ostensibly Francophone Ms
> Dreyfus that her bag had been stolen. He sought the participle for the
> french irregular verb "prendre" (to take) (i.e. in this case "pris").
>
> Dreyfus correctly suggests that the better word would be
> "vol?" (given that in context taken really means *stolen*) i.e.
> Quelqu'un a vol? v?tre pochette ..."
>
> Then she goes on to add "but if you use *prendre* its "prend" --
>
> Somebody missed conjugation classes, because it's certainly "pris".
>
> e.g. Quelqu'un a pris v?tre pochette ...".
>
> Deary me. The BBC can't find someone who can accurately render a
> straightforward French phrase using orthodox syntax?

Perhaps the BBC has introduced Deliberate Mistakes?

Well spotted, Fran!

[Ext User(Duggy)]

On Mar 9, 1:42 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Reg was struggling to convey the idea to the ostensibly Francophone Ms
> Dreyfus that her bag had been stolen. He sought the participle for the
> french irregular verb "prendre" (to take) (i.e. in this case "pris").
>
> Dreyfus correctly suggests that the better word would be
> "volé" (given that in context taken really means *stolen*) i.e.
> Quelqu'un a volé vôtre pochette ..."
>
> Then she goes on to add "but if you use *prendre* its "prend" --
>
> Somebody missed conjugation classes, because it's certainly "pris".
>
> e.g. Quelqu'un a pris vôtre pochette ...".
>
> Deary me. The BBC can't find someone who can accurately render a
> straightforward French phrase using orthodox syntax?

Maybe Dreyfus wasn't good at grammar in her native tongue.

Some people aren't.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Fran)]

On Mar 9, 7:17*pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 1:42 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Reg was struggling to convey the idea to the ostensibly Francophone Ms
> > Dreyfus that her bag had been stolen. He sought the participle for the
> > french irregular verb "prendre" (to take) (i.e. in this case "pris").
>
> > Dreyfus correctly suggests that the better word would be
> > "volé" *(given that in context taken really means *stolen*) *i.e.
> > Quelqu'un a volé vôtre pochette ..."
>
> > Then she goes on to add "but if you use *prendre* its "prend" --
>
> > Somebody missed conjugation classes, because it's certainly "pris".
>
> > e.g. *Quelqu'un a pris vôtre pochette ...".
>
> > Deary me. The BBC can't find someone who can accurately render a
> > straightforward French phrase using orthodox syntax?
>
> Maybe Dreyfus wasn't good at grammar in her native tongue.
>

It's the equivalent of someone saying to Reg "if you want to use "to
take" it's 'someone has take your bag'".

No native speaker of English would do that. Small children might say
"someone tooked your bag" or even "someone has taked your bag" but
"has take"? I don't believe so.

Fran



> Some people aren't.
>
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Ext User(Duggy)]

On Mar 10, 11:41 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's the equivalent of someone saying to Reg "if you want to use "to
> take" it's 'someone has take your bag'".

> No native speaker of English would do that. Small children might say
> "someone tooked your bag" or even "someone has taked your bag" but
> "has take"? I don't believe so.

Did she actually sayd "someone has taked your bag" or "you meant to
say 'taked'"?

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Fran)]

On Mar 10, 2:22*pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 11:41 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's the equivalent of someone saying to Reg "if you want to use "to
> > take" it's 'someone has take your bag'".
> > No native speaker of English would do that. Small children might say
> > "someone tooked your bag" or even "someone has taked your bag" but
> > "has take"? I don't believe so.
>
> Did she actually sayd "someone has taked your bag" or "you meant to
> say 'taked'"?

She said that the word was 'prend' (or perhaps 'prends' (these are
sounded the same in French)

That means it's either:

the third person singular indicative or the first or second person
singular indicative


In English for the verb 'to take' this is, in the case of the third
person singular indicative 'takes' or the first or second person
singular indicative 'take'.

Fran

[Ext User(Duggy)]

On Mar 11, 10:54 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2:22 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 11:41 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > It's the equivalent of someone saying to Reg "if you want to use "to
> > > take" it's 'someone has take your bag'".
> > > No native speaker of English would do that. Small children might say
> > > "someone tooked your bag" or even "someone has taked your bag" but
> > > "has take"? I don't believe so.
> > Did she actually sayd "someone has taked your bag" or "you meant to
> > say 'taked'"?
> She said that the word was 'prend' (or perhaps 'prends' (these are
> sounded the same in French)

> That means it's either:

> the third person singular indicative or the first or second person
> singular indicative

> In English for the verb 'to take' this is, in the case of the third
> person singular indicative 'takes' or the first or second person
> singular indicative 'take'.

Thank you for ignoring my question.

Did she say, as you claim "someone has taked your bag" or something
more like "you meant to say 'taked'"

The first is a pretty bad thing someone to say. It's possible, but
unlikely. It's a bad thing for a french character to say. And it's a
bad thing for a french actress like Eglantine Rembauville-Nicolle to
say as well.

The second way. More disconnected from the first is more likely,
especially if the character is drunk to the point of needing to be
locked up until they were sober...

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Fran)]

On Mar 11, 12:30*pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 10:54 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 2:22 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > > On Mar 10, 11:41 am, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > It's the equivalent of someone saying to Reg "if you want to use "to
> > > > take" it's 'someone has take your bag'".
> > > > No native speaker of English would do that. Small children might say
> > > > "someone tooked your bag" or even "someone has taked your bag" but
> > > > "has take"? I don't believe so.
> > > Did she actually sayd "someone has taked your bag" or "you meant to
> > > say 'taked'"?
> > She said that the word was 'prend' (or perhaps 'prends' (these are
> > sounded the same in French)
> > That means it's either:
> > the third person singular indicative or the first or second person
> > singular indicative
> > In English for the verb 'to take' this is, in the case of the third
> > person singular indicative 'takes' or the first or second person
> > singular indicative 'take'.
>
> Thank you for ignoring my question.
>
> Did she say, as you claim "someone has taked your bag" or something
> more like "you meant to say 'taked'"

No, she just suggested the word.


Fran

[Ext User(Duggy)]

On Mar 11, 1:45 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 12:30 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > Did she say, as you claim "someone has taked your bag" or something
> > more like "you meant to say 'taked'"
> No, she just suggested the word.

So a french actress, playing a french character who was extremely
drunk didn't say "someone has taked your bag", but rather suggested
the ungrammatical "taked".

I have no problem with that.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ext User(Fran)]

On Mar 11, 3:01*pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 1:45 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 11, 12:30 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > > Did she say, as you claim "someone has taked your bag" or something
> > > more like "you meant to say 'taked'"
> > No, she just suggested the word.
>
> So a french actress, playing a french character who was extremely
> drunk didn't say "someone has taked your bag", but rather suggested
> the ungrammatical "taked".
>

'take' or 'takes' actually

> I have no problem with that.

My problem was with the sloppy work of the translator.

Fran

[Ext User(Duggy)]

On Mar 11, 2:05 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 3:01 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Mar 11, 1:45 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 11, 12:30 pm, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > > > Did she say, as you claim "someone has taked your bag" or something
> > > > more like "you meant to say 'taked'"
> > > No, she just suggested the word.
> > So a french actress, playing a french character who was extremely
> > drunk didn't say "someone has taked your bag", but rather suggested
> > the ungrammatical "taked".
> 'take' or 'takes' actually

I was just using your example.

> > I have no problem with that.
> My problem was with the sloppy work of the translator.

And the french actress saying the lines.

But given that the character was extremely drunk, I can accept
grammatical errors, especially in a detached correction rather than a
clear statement.

===
= DUG.
===