French Language > Conjunctions, Constructions

Que, etc., and Inversion
Inversion of Subject and Verb in Subordinate Clauses in French

---

I. Inversion after the Relative Pronoun Que

Our English “that,” when it is a relative pronoun, can be either a subject or an object (a direct object, or an object of a preposition). The same goes for “who,” when we are not bothering to add an “-m” for the oblique forms.

• George is the name of the applicant that/who is coming here today. (subject [of “is coming”])
• George is someone that/who I don’t want to meet. (direct object [of “meet”])
• George is the person that/who you spoke with yesterday. (object of a preposition [“with”])

In the latter two cases, the relative pronoun can be omitted in English:

• George is someone (—-) I don’t want to meet. (direct object)
• George is the person (—-) you spoke with yesterday. (object of a preposition)

In French, in contrast, there is a clear, visible, inescapable distinction between

qui subject of its clause	and	que direct object of its clause
Ce sont des personnes qui m’ont profondément déçu. (These are persons who have deeply disappointed me.)		Ce sont des personnes que je n’ai aucune envie de revoir. (These are persons whom I have no wish to see again.)

As a consequence, French is capable of the following neat stylistic trick:

This is a neat device because it allows the writer to put the subject in an emphatic position. Consider the following examples (in which I have emboldened the que, engreened the verb, and reddened the subject):

• L’enquête que mène notre ami Paul devient de plus en plus compliquée. (The inquiry [that] our friend Paul is conducting is becoming more and more complicated.)
• Considérons seulement les cas qu‘a mentionnés ce conférencier. (Let us consider only the cases that this lecturer has mentioned.)
• Ces quatuors sont parmi les derniers que composa Mozart. (These quartets are among the last that Mozart wrote.)

It must be admitted that the relative clause must be quite simple, and not include much more than a subject, a verb, and a direct object; hence possibly the rule should read:

Other examples, provided by the Author of RFitAaS (see pages 96-97 and 101-02):

• Voilà les données qu‘a examinés ce physicien. (These are the data that this physicist has examined.)
• Voici un cas que n’explique aucun trouble organique. (Here is a case that no organic trouble explains [= can explain].)
• L’impression magique que produit la musique d’orchestre est renforcée par la grandeur de la salle. (The magical impression that orchestral music produces is reinforced by the large size of the hall.)
• (See also numbers 33, 35, and 36 on p102 of RFitAaS.)

And let us not forget Rousseau:

C’est un silence que ne trouble aucun autre bruit que le cri des aigles, le ramage entrecoupé de quelques oiseaux et le roulement des torrents qui tombent de la montagne.
It is a silence that no other sound disturbs save the cry of the eagles, the intermittent warbling of a few birds, and the rumbling of the torrents that fall from the mountain. – Jean-Jacques, Rêveries d’un promeneur solitaire

---

II. A Special Case of Inversion after Que ([A] qu’est [B])

A rather frequent form of this construction involves the verb être and is used for an emphatic sort of identification. The pattern is:

What is meant is something like:

Let’s work through an example.

Pourquoi, demandera le lecteur non averti, surchargez-vous un livre sur la rêverie avec le lourd appareil philosophique qu’est la méthode phénoménologique?¹

– Georges Bachelard

The part we are interested in is the following (I have made Noun A orange):

A straight word-for-word translation, clumsy and incorrect (since it treats the que as if it were subject):

“the heavy apparatus that is the phenomenological method“

A better translation—since it does not treat the que as a subject—but still a clumsy one:

“the heavy apparatus that the phenomenological method is“

The idea, however, is:

“the heavy apparatus constituted by the phenomenological method“

or

“the heavy apparatus that the phenomenological method amounts to”
or

Essentially, the construction is saying: Noun B belongs to the logical category of Noun A, or: Noun B is an example of Noun A. A translating rule (of sorts) could be formulated:

Another example:

Elle prenait goût à cette drogue que peut être la notoriété.
– David Phoenikos, Le Mystère Henri Pick

Somewhat closely translated: “She was developing a taste for the (that) drug that notoriety can be.” Less closely: “She was developing a taste for the drug of notoriety.”

Another example:

Il [le système thomiste] s’achève sur ce non-achèvement qu‘est ‘je ne peux pas‘.– Philipp Rosemann, Omne ens est aliquid

Possible translations:

Another:

Ce pas fut délibérément franchi par l’aventureux Juan Andrès, … puis, un peu plus tard, par les deux brillants généralisateurs… que furent P-L Ginguené et Simonde de Sismondi. – Alfred Jeanroy

In this case, the best solution is to dispense with the que furent and simply put the two names Ginguené and Sismondi in apposition with généralisateurs:

“This step was deliberately taken by the adventurous Juan Andrès, … then, a little later, by the two brilliant generalizers, P-L Ginguené and Simonde de Sismondi.”

---

IIbis. An Even More Special Case of the Last Special Case: [A] que [B].

Occasionally you find this identifying que without a verb at all.

For instance, the following sentence. Note that the sentence begins with the first noun phrase, lacking an article and preceded by an affective adjective, while the second noun phrase is introduced by a demonstrative:

Etrange paradoxe que cette défaillance de l’Aquinate!

Possible translations:

—or, with a comma instead of the verb “is”:

—or, correctly but rather dully:

Here’s another example:

Singulière peine, il faut l’avouer, que celle à laquelle le condamné craint de se soustraire.
What a singular punishment, one must admit, this one the convict fears to be removed from!–Beaumont and Tocqueville, Du système pénitentiaire aux Etats-Unis

And a slight variation on the pattern from popular science-fiction author Jules Verne:

Ce fut un enchantement que cet éblouissant spectacle!
What an enchantment, this dazzling spectacle (was)! –Jules Verne, Vingt mille ligues sous les mers

From all of which we derive another possible rule:

---

III. Inversion after the Indefinite Relative Pronoun Ce Que

What works for the ordinary relative pronoun que also works for the indefinite variation on the same (ce que = “that which” = “what”). Examples:

• « Grégoire nous y décrit ce qu’était le premier Adam. » (“Gregory describes for us there what the first Adam was.”)– Jean Daniélou
• « Ces gens ne sont d’aucune secte, ni idolâtres, mais très doux et ignorants de ce qu‘est le Mal. » (These people are not of any sect, nor idolaters, but very mild-mannered and ignorant of what Evil is.)– Christopher Columbus
• Nous faisons aujourd’hui ce que faisaient nos pères et nos grand-pères. (We are doing today what our fathers and grandfathers used to do.)

---

IV. Inversion after Other Relative Forms Than Que: Dont, Où

The same device can be used when a clause begins with other relative forms that are clearly not the subject form qui, which is to say the relative adverb où:

– and the relative adverb dont:

---

V. Inversion after Comme

Consider:

---

VI. Inversion after Connector Que

The form que has many functions in French. In addition to being a relative pronoun, que is used to connect many things. It connects two clauses, when it is used to introduce a noun clause:

As a component of a larger word or phrase, que also serves to introduce many an adverbial clause: bien que, quoique, pour que, afin que, lorsque, à moins que, pourvu que…

Here I am interested in a couple of special cases in which que functions as a connector, and in which inversion may occur.

A. Comparisons

Que is the usual connector between the two terms of a comparison. It is the equivalent in English of “than” (inferiority and superiority) and “as” (equality).

Now, The latter part of the comparison in the sentence “Estelle est cleverer than Patricia”—that is, the single word Patricia—is implicitly an entire clause: “Patricia is intelligent.” (Only, of course, not as intelligent…) French authors will sometimes give the complete clause, in which case inversion is likely:

Ledit bâtiment [= the Abbey of Thélème] était cent fois plus magnifique que n’est Bonivet, Chambord, ou Chantilly.”
The aforesaid building was 100 times more magnificent than is Bonivet, Chambord, or Chantilly.² –Rabelais, Gargantua

B. The French Isolating-Emphasizing Construction

If a word does not come towards the end of a groupe de souffle (breath group), generally speaking you cannot emphasize it the way you would in English, that is, by saying it louder. French has other ways of emphasizing a form when it needs to, and one of them is what I call “the isolating-emphasizing construction.”³

For instance, take the sentence:

You Want to Emphasize…	So You Say…
The subject: Le berger	C’est le berger qui a indiqué aux touristes le chemin de Yonville. (The shepherd pointed out the way to Yonville to the tourists.)
The direct object: le chemin de Yonville	C’est le chemin de Yonville que le berger a indiqué aux touristes (The shepherd pointed out the way to Yonville to the tourists.)

In the two cases above, whether the subject and the direct object are being emphasized, the forms qui and que are simply the relative pronoun. However, you can choose other parts of a sentence to emphasize. In such cases, the form is always que, and it is then not really a relative pronoun, but simply…a connector.

You Want to Emphasize…	So You Say…
The indirect object: aux touristes	C’est aux touristes que le berger a indiqué le chemin de Yonville. (The shepherd pointed out the way to Yonville to the tourists.)

When the structure of the part of the sentence coming after the que is simple, containing no more than the subject and the verb, inversion is possible.

• C’est mardi soir que reviendra ton gouverneur. (It’s on Tuesday evening that your tutor will return = Your tutor will return on Tuesday evening.)
• C’est sur le sang des innocents que furent érigés ces grands palais. (It was on the blood of innocents that these great palaces were erected = These great palaces were erected on the blood of innocents.)

1. The sentence could be translated quite simply and clearly as: “Why, the uninformed reader will ask, do you burden a book on revery with the heavy philosophical apparatus of the phenomenological method?” But doing so would defeat my larger pedagogical purpose here.[↩]
2. Sites of famous Renaissance châteaux.[↩]
3. A French term for this construction is: une phrase clivée = “a cleft sentence.” A more general linguistic term for this kind of process is: “focalization.”[↩]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.