agreement of past participle

François Furet’s introduction to Tocqueville’s De la démocratie en Amérique, vol. 1, contains the following sentence:

Les Noirs, esclaves, sont une non-société, puisque la servitude est par définition un pur rapport de force, non un lien « social »; mais le principe de l’esclavage compromet l’existence de la société libre qui l’a instaurée, et qui, une fois qu’elle l’a instauré et perpétué, s’en trouve minée de l’intérieur.

Can anyone explain why the first past participle, instaurée, agrees with the object l’ whereas the subsequent past participles instauré and perpétué are left unmodified?

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

EducatorPermalink Reply by George Hunt on January 28, 2014 at 11:23am

I can only think it is because , although the object is still "la servitude" the author has half forgotten it and it thinking of them as "it".

Or perhaps it could be that it may be enough to use the agreement once and that subsequent uses are felt unnecessary (because it is now obvious what the object is).

Or could it be that the author is now making these past participles agree with "esclavage" (which has the same meaning but a different gender) ?

Again it could be just a mistake or looseness.

It is the first time that I have come across this.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fred Kameny on January 28, 2014 at 6:19pm

George,

Your explanations are all plausible, but I agree that this is an odd usage. Grevisse shed no light on it.

Best,

Fred

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chantal Savignat on January 29, 2014 at 10:10am

Hello.

I think it's an error, if points and ";" are exactly writed like that.

I would write this sentence "mais le principe de l’esclavage compromet l’existence de la société libre qui l’a instauré, et qui, une fois qu’elle l’a instauré et perpétué, s’en trouve minée de l’intérieur."

Because :

the past participle agrees with the objet l' = ok

but the objet l' is for "le principe" which is masculine.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert on January 29, 2014 at 10:31am

'Le principe' is the best choice as the antecedent to l' because it is the nearest noun to it.
'L'esclavage' is not as good because it is part of the adjectival phrase 'de l'esclavage.'

I agree with you, Chantal, except there is no English word 'writed.'

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chantal Savignat on January 29, 2014 at 6:38pm

"written" ... les verbes irréuliers !! ;-)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert on January 30, 2014 at 5:53am

What is the significance of 'en' ?

'Qui s’en trouve minée de l’intérieur'
'Qui se trouve minée de l’intérieur'

Merci.

▶ Reply

EducatorPermalink Reply by George Hunt on January 30, 2014 at 11:23am

I would translate it by "in consequence". I think the "en" has to refer back to something if only a vague "it" and I was taught that it is a shortened form of "de lui ,d'elle d'eux" .

So here perhaps it means "by it".

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert on January 30, 2014 at 2:01pm

That makes sense- it refers back to all the things said before as the causes or background of the current fact. If so, a good English word for that would be 'thus.'

...liberal society that installed it, and which, once having installed and perpetuated it, thus finds itself undermined from within.

(I am only guessing here.)

▶ Reply

EducatorPermalink Reply by George Hunt on January 30, 2014 at 2:34pm

Well it wouldn't be "liberal" for "libre".

I think the author is drawing a distinction between the "free" and the "enslaved" in the society then.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert on February 2, 2014 at 1:10pm

...free society that established it, and which, once having established and perpetuated it, as a consequence finds itself undermined from within.