Quick French question re: pronoun "on"

[Rozhen]

A quick question for the native/fluent French speakers:

So I am aware that colloquially (at least in Hex. French, don't know about Québec?) the pronoun on replaces nous. My question is, if e.g. on ne sait pas is interpreted naturally by francophones as "we do not know", then how does one render something like "you never know"/"one never knows" in colloquial French?

[Legion]

Actually no, "on" replaces "nous" because *it can replace any pronoun*, it just replaces "nous" *more often* in (not even very) colloquial speech (frankly that's probably the least colloquial of the colloquial things, even in a text that doesn't shock me).

So a sentence like "on ne sait pas" is *not* automatically interpreted as "we do not know", it could still mean "you do not know/one doesn't know". Context is a guide (when you need a clarification at all, many times it's not important to know if "on" implies 1PL or an impersonal, or anything else).

[Hakaku]

Consider the English pronouns "you" and "they". They could both refer to either specific people or to things in general, and it's the context that will disambiguate their meaning. So in a sentence like "They say there is no (...)" or "You would think (...)", we'll be more inclined to interpret the pronouns as being unspecified referents rather than actual specific people.

It's the same thing with the French pronoun "on". In a phrase like "On dit que (...)", 'on' can only be indefinite (unspecified), since it would be weird to state that a group of people including yourself say the same thing about something. With "On ne sait pas (...)", it's more or less the same thing: it would be strange to boldly state that others including yourself don't know something and exclusively stated it, so the indefinite (unspecified) is implied. Unless, of course, the person is speaking on behalf of, say, a company, or collaborators on a scientific paper, then it falls under both categories at once.

In a sentence like "On frappe à la porte", either interpretation is possible, but the context will tell you which prevails. If we're going to someone's house, then the ones knocking are 'us'. But if we're waiting inside the house already, then the one knocking isn't known, so they're unspecified. If we only had the sentence and no context, it's more natural to interpret it as the latter.

These are all fairly standard usages though. Where 'on' is considered colloquial is more in a sentence like "Moi et Marco, on s'en va au marché". The pronoun required here would be "nous", since I've explicitly stated that Marco and me are the subject.

[finlay]

From that it sounds like it could be a replacement for the passive voice. I mean I know you have passives in French too, but it's still almost like you're saying "it is said that ..." rather than "we say that ..."

[Yng]

From that it sounds like it could be a replacement for the passive voice. I mean I know you have passives in French too, but it's still almost like you're saying "it is said that ..." rather than "we say that ..."

It can replace passives, yes. Normal passives are comparatively rare; replacements with the middle voice or on are pretty common:

On m'a dit que les Français ont de bon fromage.

[Ser]

On m'a dit que les Français ont de bon fromage.

"du bon fromage", fromage is a mass noun so use the indefinite mass noun article (the so-called "partitive").

[candrodor]

'de bons fromages' -- Could you also say this, as in, some good types of cheese?

[Yng]

On m'a dit que les Français ont de bon fromage.

"du bon fromage", fromage is a mass noun so use the indefinite mass noun article (the so-called "partitive").

Damn you partitive, you win again

Although actually, are you sure? I was going on the 'use de before an adjective that comes before a noun' (although this appears to be the rule only for plurals, for some strange reason) and this suggests that it can be either de or du before a preceding adjective in the singular.

Incidentally, putting smileys after corrections makes them look very patronising.

[Legion]

du bon fromage if singular
de bons fromages if plural (here "de" is an allomorphe of "des" before an adjective)

In the singular it is a mass noun and thus requires partitive + definite article
In the plural it refers to kinds of cheese, or entire pieces of cheese, and thus requires the indefinite article
The singular of the second sentence is actually "un bon fromage" > "les français ont un bon fromage"

[Ser]

Although actually, are you sure? I was going on the 'use de before an adjective that comes before a noun' (although this appears to be the rule only for plurals, for some strange reason) and this suggests that it can be either de or du before a preceding adjective in the singular.

That's interesting. I checked a couple grammars, and they give contradicting "rules" though:

According to Modern French Grammar: A Practical Guide, 2nd ed. (1996, 2004) by Margaret Lang and Isabelle Perez (Routledge: London, New York), the "partitive" article normally changes to de/d' before an adjective, except if the mass noun forms a collocation with the adjective so common that it can be considered a single "unit" (their examples: C'est du bon café 'good coffee', dunno why they perceive it as a unit; des petits pains 'rolls') (pag. 13.).

According to A Student Grammar of French (2006) by Malcolm Offord (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo), the "partitive" doesn't change before an adjective (but the indefinite plural does, unless it's before a common collocation, their examples: des jeunes filles, des petits pois, des petits pains, but note: de magnifiques petits pains) (pag. 206, point #259).

So yes, two extremely different opinions, and then there's your link in the middle of the two opinions allowing both...

Incidentally, putting smileys after corrections makes them look very patronising.

In fact, I added it with the opposite intention. Corrections generally feel patronizing, there's no way around it I guess.