chatnappers

[late grove]

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.

[gentle prawn]

You've understood correctly, but that doesn't cover the entirety of the rule
You only make the past participle agree if the verb is preceded by a direct object

So,

Ils se sont appelés
but
Ils se sont téléphoné

appeler takes a direct object and téléphoner takes an indirect object
(appeler quelqu'un, but téléphoner à qulequ'un)

[ionic pollen]

Basically if you know how avoir verbs agree, pronominals function exactly the same

• the participle isn't technically agreeing with the subject, but rather, the direct object (if before the verb)
  It just so happens that pronominals by nature have the object and subject matching

[pallid dock]

Wait, shouldn't it be "Ils se sont téléphonés" since there is no direct object?

[balmy spruce]

The agreement is with the reflexive pronoun so it depends on what that reflexive pronoun is. In « se téléphoner », it's indirect since « se » is representing « téléphoner à soi-même »

The logic of 'If the sentence has a direct object you don't make agreement' is a simplification. French forbids having two direct objects for the same verb so the logic is that if you have a pronominal with a direct object like « se casser la jambe », the reflexive pronoun « se » must be indirect because you already have a direct object.

[pallid dock]

So would it be, je me suis cassés les mains, since in this example cassé is agreeing with the direct object, les mains?

[balmy spruce]

No, the agreement is to the pronoun BEFORE the verb

[pallid dock]

Oh wait, I got the rule wrong

[balmy spruce]

The principle of past participle agreement:
J'ai vu les fleurs (no direct object behind verb so no agreement)
Je les ai vues (vues agrees with « les » representing « les fleurs »)
Les fleurs que j'ai vues (vues agrees with « les fleurs que »)

If I used a verb that took an indirect object, there will be NO agreement.
—> J'ai parlé à Émilie => Je lui ai parlé
—> J'ai renoncé à ses responsabilités => J'y ai renoncé
—> J'ai déjà parlé du problème => J'en ai déjà parlé

The same logic applies to pronominals except that the object pronoun behind the verb is the reflexive pronoun.

[pallid dock]

Okay, so in the example in the picture posted, the author put,
->Elle s'est lavé les mains
as an example

And you said that the past participle agrees with the pronoun behind it, which in this case is 'se'

Does 'se' here refer to Elle or 'les mains'?

[balmy spruce]

Elle

[pallid dock]

So it should be lavée

[balmy spruce]

No

Okay look

The reflexive pronoun agrees with the subject pronoun in person

so if you have « je » you have « me », if you have « tu » you have « te », etcetera

[pallid dock]

Right right

[balmy spruce]

However, the reflexive pronoun for direct objects is identical to the reflexive pronoun for indirect objects

so « me » can either be direct or indirect, it depends on the verb used

[pallid dock]

Well except for lui and leur

[balmy spruce]

That's not a reflexive pronoun

[pallid dock]

But it is an indirect object pronoun

[balmy spruce]

But yes, as far as object pronouns are concerned, only the third person non-reflexive object pronouns are distinguished by their direct/indirect nature (le/la/les for direct objects, lui/leur for indirect ones)

[balmy spruce]

Yeah but our discussion here is about reflexives

I brought up lui earlier to show the logic

before showing how it's applied to the reflexives

[pallid dock]

Oh wait, I remember that some verbs need prepositions, and therefore indirect objects to make sense in French

[balmy spruce]

Right and that's what téléphoner mentioned above does

Since it takes a preposition, it's an indirect object

Thus if you make it pronominal, the reflexive pronoun will always be indirect and thus no agreement

[pallid dock]

Okay, so it depends on the verb as well

[balmy spruce]

Right

[pallid dock]

The book didn't tell me that

[balmy spruce]

What kinds of objects a verb takes depends on the verb

and from there the object pronouns you can use

and the past participle agreements from those object pronouns

[pallid dock]

So for example, the verb, laver requires a direct object right?

[balmy spruce]

It does

[pallid dock]

And because of that, the past participle does not need agreement and just uses the default masc. singular form?

[balmy spruce]

Before we go there, let's take a moment to analyse the objects in « Elle s'est lavé les mains »

[balmy spruce]

This is where the original logic kicks in

We have two objects here: the reflexive pronoun « se » and another object « les mains »

We see that « les mains » is not preceded by a preposition so « les mains » is a direct object

Because you can't have two direct objects, this means that « se » is indirect.

Because the pronoun before the verb, « se », is indirect, you don't have agreement.

[pallid dock]

So agreement only happens if the reflexive pronoun IS the direct object

[balmy spruce]

Yup

Agreement, in general, only happens if the object pronoun is a direct object

[pallid dock]

But if there is a direct object that goes after the past participle, then the reflexive pronoun becomes the indirect object

Therefore, no agreement

[balmy spruce]

You got it

[pallid dock]

But what about pronominal verbs without any direct objects after the verb

How can we know if the reflective is direct or indirect?

[balmy spruce]

That depends, again, on the verb

For example, « appeler » takes a direct object: « appeler quelqu'un »
Thus, in « se rappeler », « se » is direct

[pallid dock]

Yeah I've never seen this side of French

So with French verbs, not only do I have to understand the meaning, but also possible prepositions that come with it and whether or not it's transitive or intransitive

And the meaning of that verb can change depending on these factors

[balmy spruce]

Yeah

[balmy spruce]

Transitive here just means 'has an object'

[pallid dock]

Right, like laver as we've discussed

[balmy spruce]

Mmhm

[pallid dock]

I wash my hands

I can't just say, je me lave, right

[balmy spruce]

yeah that just means 'I wash myself'

It can work, just means something else

[pallid dock]

Oh right, it can be transitive and intransitive

But the meaning changes

[balmy spruce]

I should add though that this is a particular thing with limbs

in English we would use the possessive plus the limb like 'I wash my hands'

[pallid dock]

Right, you never say mes mains, always les mains

[balmy spruce]

but in French we tend to just use the definite article (les mains) and use an indirect pronoun to mark possession

Je lave les mains à Amélie (I wash Amélie's hands)

which becomes « Je lui lave les mains »

when that possessor is yourself, well that « lui » becomes – you guessed it – the reflexive pronoun

Je lave les mains à moi => Je me lave les mains

[pallid dock]

Wouldn't this be an indirect object pronoun, not reflexive?

[balmy spruce]

It is

[pallid dock]

Because reflexive pronoun always agrees with the subject

[balmy spruce]

Because I'm washing someone else's hands

Reflexive means that the object is the same as the subject, basically

[pallid dock]

But it's not in this scenario, because it's someone else's hands

Not mine

Okay, so back to the original example, I should be able to say,
'Elle s'est lavée' OR
'Elle s'est lavé les mains'

[balmy spruce]

You got it

[pallid dock]

But if I mix it up, it's wrong

Okay, I think I kinda get it

[balmy spruce]

I would say that if you have a good grip on non-pronominal past participle agreements, understanding this wouldn't be that hard

so try to understand how past participle agreements work in general before moving to pronominals

[pallid dock]

Okay, I might have to look other sources because this book doesn't explain agreements too well

[balmy spruce]

Learning in general means relying not on one source but plenty so this is a good mentality to have

[pallid dock]

Oh one more question while you're here

Agreement applies to both être and avoir passé composé right?

[pallid dock]

There was no way in hell duolingo is going to explain this rule tbh 🤣

[balmy spruce]

Yes though with « être » the logic is different

Similar but different

With « être », the past participle agrees with the subject since être verbs can't take any objects

[pallid dock]

Wait

Elle s'est lavê les mains

[balmy spruce]

(I'm excluding pronominals)

[pallid dock]

Oh

So pronominals is just a special case

[balmy spruce]

Yeah

[pallid dock]

Where it looks like an être verb but it follows avoir verb rules

[balmy spruce]

Right