Talk:L'Arc Qui Ne Faut

Translation
L'Arc Qui Ne Faut is French for "the bow which never fails". This actually a pretty bad traduction. «L'Arc Qui Ne Faut» is not a complete sentence in French. «Faut» is the conjugated stance of «Falloir» which translate to the verb «Have to». The «Ne» infront of the verb is the first part of a negation. There's a «pas» missing after the verb. The correct sentence would be «L'Arc qui ne faut pas» which is French for "the bow you don't want".

"L'Arc Qui Ne Manque Jamais" is French for "The bow which never fails".

Chobihige (talk) 00:59, July 15, 2016 (UTC)


 * Nope. If it was “The bow that you do not want,” it is obligated to have the verb “avoir” as in “L'arc qu'il ne faut pas avoir,” because, indeed, using “qui” instead of “qu'il” is grammatically incorrect. Though, there is no need for a “pas” after the negation is set in “L'arc qui ne faut,” I have to say it does sound quite special and archaic, but it actually works. Maybe it's not accepted in the current version of the language, but as an obsolete/archaic form, it totally works ;)


 * FrenchTouch (talk)


 * You're right. It didn't cross my mind that the translator was aiming for an archaic form. Maybe adding that "L'Arc Qui Ne Faut" is Old French for "the bow which never fails"?


 * Chobihige (talk) 14:34, July 17, 2016 (UTC)Chobihige

FrenchTouch (talk)
 * Well it's not only correct in Old French, but also in Modern French, simply, once again, through archaism&mdash;The French language has greatly evolved but what makes our strength is that we can read Old and Middle French as well as the current version.


 * I would like some sources on how it's correct in Modern French. I've never seen nor read this form used except in the book Tristan and Iseut. I am confident that if I use Old French in any of my work I would be called out for using an outdated language. Old French is full of gramatical error when you compare it with its modern counterpart. At this point, they are not the same language. Personnaly, when I had to read Old French I had to use a dictionnary and other tools to help me grasp the essence of what I was reading. I still think it  would be wiser to just write its Old French and avoid confusion.
 * Chobihige (talk) 04:11, July 20, 2016 (UTC)Chobihige

Well, yes, Old French is a different language from Modern French, I'm sure everyone knows that&mdash;what I mean is that, as a name, and through archaism, the phrase is correct. Something archaic is something antique, old, for example, a native French speaker, with a little literacy, can easily read all of Middle French and most of Old French, so my wording is poor - it's not correct as is in the Modern French language, but archaically, it's okay, it's tolerated, that's the word. So you can use it in your work, whatever it may be, but then it's just linguistic debate, and linguistic debate is pretty excruciating, actually.

EDIT: I see you hail from Canada&mdash;that's probably a reason why that seemed incorrect to you, “Canadian French” is quite different from the literary French, so much so that there were books created to uniformise the language, (cf. 1000 mots illustrés, ou, Gravures et mots by Étienne Blanchard, former deputy of Verchères) so that's kind of a problem, when it conflicts with encyclopedic content.

FrenchTouch (talk)