#fowkys
austere saddle
midnight sequoia
"ce qui je veux" is not correct
"qui je veux" is correct and commonly used
where did you read that?
crisp turret
Moreover, "ce qui" notes the (unspecified) subject of the subordinate clause.
So "ce qui je veux" would never work.
midnight sequoia
yeah, "qui" and "ce qui" work very differently.
"qui" on its own is basically "who/whoever" indicating a person
"qui" following "ce" is a relative pronoun giving additional info on something based on an action it's doing (which is why "ce qui je veux" doesn't work, it can't do the action "je veux" because "je" is doing it)
buoyant glade
"Si le pronom relatif est nominal (ou sans antécédent : cf. § 651),
la proposition relative elle-même a dans la phrase (ou, éventuellement, dans une proposition) la fonction de sujet ou de complément :
QUICONQUE DEMANDE reçoit, QUI CHERCHE trouve, et l'on ouvrira À QUI
FRAPPE (Bible, trad. CRAMPON, Matth., VII, 8). — Je choisirai QUI JE VEUX.
Qui (§ 715) et que (§ 718) comme nominaux sont des restes d'une ancienne
syntaxe. La langue ordinaire les fait précéder d'un démonstratif (celui, ce) dont le rôle
est de transformer ces nominaux en représentants (ou, si l'on veut, de permettre à la
proposition relative d'avoir les fonctions d'un nom). Cf. § 691. "
That example wasn’t actually used I just inferred it incorrectly
midnight sequoia
also while it doesn't apply in this case, I highly recommend against using archaic forms in DELF and other exams, you'd much rather show that you can speak like a native person and not be an oddball. Because such forms aren't even in use it might also be considered a mistake
crisp turret
Qui = la personne qui (in literature or in some expressions). You'll note it acts as the subject of the relative clause.
Problem: the qui in "je choisis qui je veux" is the object. I'd say the example is ill-chosen.
buoyant glade
I want to convey both, that I studied grammar thoroughly and that I can speak naturally, so thanks for poiting out that this would be odd
and for the correction too
midnight sequoia
I want to convey both, that I studied grammar thoroughly and that I can speak na...
you can speak formally as long as you're consistent, but be careful to use constructions that are still in use.
If I were to write "You shouldst not have done that" in an English test exam it'll raise doubt
buoyant glade
Not only knowing, but showing that you know is hard, I’ll try to improve it Thanks you both for the help
But you said that "Je choisirai qui je veux" is commonly used, but isn’t it archaic? Are there specific usages nowadays, or is it better to avoid it as a non-native?
midnight sequoia
But you said that "Je choisirai qui je veux" is commonly used, but isn’t it arch...
it means "I'll pick whoever I want" and it's completely natural sounding
pretty much word for word translation from the english sentence
buoyant glade
So, when can I use qui as nominal without it sounding odd?
midnight sequoia
So, when can I use qui as nominal without it sounding odd?
if you use it as subject of a verb to give more info on that person, it does sound antiquated
"qui cherche trouve" => archaic
"on ouvre à qui frappe" => archaic
"il décide qui s'en va" => common, the verb is the result of the main action and not giving additional info
"qui s'en va ?" => common
crisp turret
Qui rira bien rira le dernier
Also archaic but very common.
midnight sequoia
yeah the construction itself is archaic but a few sayings and phrases stuck
buoyant glade
if you use it as subject of a verb to give more info on that person, it does sou...
what would be the common relative pronoun in such sentences? "Celui qui cherche trouve"?
lilac niche