hexdolk

[rich frigate]

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.

[lime swan]

For the « que » part, it's actually related to our conversation about emphasis yesterday. The original structure is:
« Ils savent ce qu'être heureux est (They know what being happy is [like]) ». With that, we can start putting in the parts in the sentence.

(1) c'est
This is similar to « est » becoming « c'est » like yesterday. The difference with yesterday is that for existential sentences like this one where we're just stating a simple sentence, French doesn't like having a personal subject so it'd rather have an impersonal. Because of that, the subject becomes an object.
« Être heureux est génial. »
No, « c'est génial d'être heureux. »
Wait, why is there a « de » in « d'être heureux » ? If you remember our conversation about à vs de, this is the same thing. Since « ce » is impersonal here, the preposition turns to « de » before an infinitive.

(2) que
Fortunately this is much shorter. Notice how in the example above, the structure is « c'est [adjective] de [verb] »? It's the same here but there's no adjective, right? The adjective « heureux » belongs in the infinitive « être heureux »; the actual clause « c'est » has nothing. In some situations, « que » is inserted here as a sort of 'completer' so that the argument isn't empty. It's optional; sometimes I've seen it without this « que ».

[minor pagoda]

Is there some source I can read about this in more details?

What is this topic called?

[lime swan]

For « c'est », it'd be in the extra « c'est » article I linked before
https://www.lawlessfrench.com/expressions/cest/

For « que », honestly it's one of those things that you just learn by exposure that no one knows the origins or reasons of

[minor pagoda]

If we breakdown this sentence, we can get:
Ils savent ce que (they know what)
c'est (it is)
d'être heureux (to be happy)

[lime swan]

yeah

They know what it is like to be happy

[minor pagoda]

So d' is there because instead of an adjective we use ils savent ce que c'est

[lime swan]

that 'like' is a bit untranslatable, kinda like « que » in the translation

[lime swan]

the « de » is there because of « c'est + infinitif »

[minor pagoda]

Right. So even if the adjective is after the infinitive we still use de.

[minor pagoda]

I don't think I understand que.

Why is c'est empty?

[lime swan]

It's basically the connector between « c'est » and « être heureux »

[minor pagoda]

So if we see c'est + infinitif it is always de.

[lime swan]

if it's impersonal, yeah

[lime swan]

Well, « c'est » needs something to complete it. You can think of « être » as an equals sign here.
« C'est une voiture -> Ce = une voiture ».
Nothing exists after « c'est … d'être heureux » to complete the equals sign so « que » is put in as a sort of completer

[minor pagoda]

I understand that this is like a completer but at the same time you can write the sentence without it?

What's the point of the completer then?

[lime swan]

You can, it just seems 'informal'

[minor pagoda]

Right, but why would c'est need a completer?
Ils savent ce que c'est que d'être heureux
They know what it is to be happy.
In English you don't say you know what it is that to be happy

Maybe it is just how it is and there is no real explanation?

[lime swan]

unfortunately

[lime swan]

you're also translating « que » as 'that'

it's not the case here

it's sort of similar to the 'like' in my sentence

They know what it's like to be happy

[minor pagoda]

Yes, this.

[lime swan]

little words like conjunctions don't translate well

otherwise you might be bewildered to translate « Il est aussi grand que moi (He is as tall as me) » and « Il est plus prospère que moi (He is more prosperous than me) »

[lime swan]

In the idea of a completer, you'll see this a lot later down the road

In English, we can leave something implied.
'She is angry and I am too.'
I am what? Angry. It's not said literally; it's implied because we've repeated the verb from before, just with a different person, so we can assume that the emotion is the same. The adverb 'too' strengthens that notion. In French, that is not the case.

« Elle est fâchée et je suis aussi. »
That is grammatically incomplete. In French, the idea that something can be implied is a bit… wrong. Because of that, French would either repeat the adjective (… et je suis fâché aussi), use the neuter object pronoun (… et je le suis aussi) or reformulate it (… comme moi) »

It just seems that in this context, that completer is becoming less and less obligatory because technically you didn't need it. It was just a quirk that happened due to us converting the original structure into an impersonal one

[minor pagoda]

So here is a sentence:
Mon objectif est d'apprendre à lire

Now why is it "d'apprendre"? Isn't Mon objectif personal?
So you would say "Mon objectif est à lire" (My goal is to read) but here you say "Mon objectif est d'apprendre à lire"
Is it because of two infinitives?

[wind depot]

Bonjour Hexdolk,

Great question, but as you can see by the amount of responses/explanations generated - (and you're probably not going to like what I'm about to say) --sometimes, some things/structures are better off left alone (i.e. study them as is and allow your mind to "tolerate" and fully embrace them until they start making sense on their own. It's always been part of the game, even for us, French native speakers.

Assuming English is your first language -- or a language you are fluent in-- I am sure there are similar grammar particles that would drive me (a non native speaker) nuts. I've been there. Just give your mind time to accept "de" in this sentence and formulate a simple formula to drill it down over and over.

For example, for "Ils savent ce que c'est que d'être heureux", I'd go with "They know what it is like TO be happy" and equate DE=to. Now equipped with my own formula, I'll give myself some drill activities:

a) Sais-tu ce que c'est que de passer la nuit à la belle étoile?" --> Do you have any idea/Do you know what it is like TO spend the night outside?
b) "Je sais ce que c'est que d'être abandonné de tous." --> I know what it is like TO be abandoned by everyone.
c) "Ces mecs ne savent pas ce que c'est que de manger de la bouillie tous les jours." -- These guys have no idea what it is like TO eat porridge every day".

And so on. See, there's definitely an answer out there for the use of DE in that sentence, but there are also linguistic research showing that foreign language learners that tend to do better than the 90 percent majority display signs of greater "tolerance" (flexibilty) in these kinds of situations 🙂 Like Bertiebear mentioned above, "little words like conjunctions don't translate well".

Bonne chance !

[lime swan]

The impersonal/personal distinction was an oversimplification. The main logic is to see what the verbs are acting on. If we look at the infinitive « apprendre », it acts not on the subject (mon objectif) but on the other infinitive (à lire). The idea of impersonal/personal is secondary and only appears when we're dealing with « c'est ». since we can't say for sure what role it plays.

The « à lire » is unrelated to the « à or de » debate. « à » appears because the verb « apprendre » takes « à » when followed by an infinitive. If we change the verb, we change the preposition as well.
« Mon devoir est de décider de faire ma responsabilité. »

[lime swan]

Il vaut mieux poser cette question dans la salle de classe elle-même pour qu’il y ait un fil consacré à ta question au lieu de la poser dans un fil qui y est pas lié