veil

[rare dune]

Please be patient

Our volunteers look into many questions every day; sometimes it takes them a little while to answer.

Pro tip: you can rename the thread title with `.tr <thread name>`

Make it descriptive, including relevant context, but also to the point. This way you improve your chances of getting a more relevant and specific answer.

[carmine fractal]

-Ils se sont souri.
-Ils se sont parlé
These two take indirect objects, so they never agree (parler à qqn, sourire à qqn).

Couldnt we just say ;
Elle a cassé la jambe.
Ils ont lavé les cheveux.
That can work, but it implies someone else's leg or hair. Parts of the body are often constructed using the reflexive + the part with the definite articles (not the possessive).
« Elle s'est lavé les cheveux », not « Elle a lavé ses cheveux ».

[smoky smelt]

And the does the reason why " elle s'est cassé la jambe, ils se sont lavé les cheveux" didnt make agreement is the COD of the verb came after it, so we just treat it like a verb conjugated with avoir in passe compose and when its object comes after the verb, then there is no agreement right ?

.

I saw that for the pronominal verbs, the réflexive pronoun counts as the COD of the verb and it is why we do agreement like ;

Elle s'est habillée.

[carmine fractal]

So the key is that « se » can be either indirect or direct, it depends on what other object comes after. For example, in the verb « s'habituer à qqch », « à qqch » is already an indirect object which means that « se » here is direct so we agree: « elle s'est habituée à ça ». Conversely, in the phrase before « se casser qqch », « qqch » is a direct object meaning that « se » here is indirect so we don't make the agreement: « elle s'est cassé la jambe ».

[carmine fractal]

For this one, « habiller » is transitive – it takes a direct object – so « se » here is direct and thus we agree : « elle s'est habillée ».

[smoky smelt]

So the second one says the thing you said, if the réflexive pronoun is indirect then there is no agreement

[carmine fractal]

Verbs have a non-pronominal and pronominal form (in general – some verbs have just one or the other), and that can help you in knowing which is which. For example, take « parler / se parler ». The verb « parler » takes an indirect object so its pronominal equivalent does too : « elle a parlé à elle -> elle s'est parlé ». Conversely, « promener » takes a direct object so its pronominal equivalent does too: « elle l'a promenée -> elle s'est promenée ».

[smoky smelt]

I see

[carmine fractal]

Mmhm

[smoky smelt]

What is the exact meaning of the second one

By your réaction i think it is not the same

[carmine fractal]

no it totally is, I was agreeing with you

[smoky smelt]

Confier à, succéder à

But succéder also takes direct object too

[carmine fractal]

ils ont succédé à eux -> ils se sont succédé
elles ont confié des secrets à elles -> elles se sont confié des secrets

[carmine fractal]

no it doesn't

[smoky smelt]

Im sorry yeah, it takes indirect object

[smoky smelt]

So generally we can understand that agreement by the verb's non pronominal version's transitivity

But it is not the case all the time

There are the verbs esentially pronominal too

[carmine fractal]

right but you can still guess by looking

for example, « se souvenir de X » is followed by a preposition, « de », so given that there's already an indirect object, « se » will be direct