En réponse à Philippe Caquant :


>You frighten me. Am I so old, or dead already ?

Neither, but your way of experiencing French is decidedly old-fashioned. I 
think most of our Academicians wouldn't dare by that old-fashioned ;) .

>Anyway, I wasn't surprised to read this expression
>under the "plume" of J.Cowan, so apparently I did hear
>it before, although less usually than "une pipe".
>I can't tell where. Maybe I read too many
>San-Antonios, but I wouldn't bet it was there I found
>it.

I would. San-Antonios are well-known to be written in a rather strange and 
uncommon version of French, which is part of their nature. Those books 
wouldn't be that famous without the special language they use. But that 
doesn't mean that this language is mainstream.
____________________________________________________________________________
En réponse à Philippe Caquant :


>In spite of the determination of my fellow citizen to
>prove me that French expressions I mention are dead
>long ago (and me too, by the same occasion),

Never said that. Don't try to second-guess my actions. You'd lose anyway ;) 
(for the simple reason that I *don't* have any goal).

>  here is
>yet another interesting one (I'm afraid I heard it at
>least once or twice this very week):
>
>"oui-oui-non-non".

This one I'm not gonna argue against, since I *know* it (and I'm happy to 
see that you do sometimes hear a bit of contemporary French ;)) ). My 
mother uses it quite often (as well as the even more common "oui-oui" and 
"non-non", which I use myself all the time when I speak French, and even 
when I don't ;)) ).

>What the hell can this mean ? It's hard to explain it
>properly. Mainly, it means you agree with your
>interlocutor, but then, why not limit oneself to "oui"
>or say, "oui-oui" ? Why add "non-non" ? I understand
>it somehow like: "yes, it's ok, no, there isn't any
>problem" (or: any reticence) + "we understand each
>other".

Well, it seems reduplication of such small words is common, for emphasis. 
As for the full expression "oui-oui-non-non", I believe it is used because 
of the very French habit of always asking, even after someone agreed, if 
they were really sure it wouldn't bother them ;))) . Typical conversation:

- J'peux t'emprunter un peu d'sel ? J'ai oublié d'en acheter (Can I borrow 
you some salt? I forgot to buy some).
- Oui oui, bien sûr ! (Of course!)
- T'es sûr que ça te dérange pas ? (Are you sure it doesn't bother you?)
- Oui oui, j'en suis sûr ! (Of course I'm sure!)
- C'est que j'veux pas t'embêter. P'têt que t'en as besoin (I just don't 
want to bother you, you may need it).
- Non non ! J'en ai pas besoin ! Prends tout le sel que tu veux ! Tiens, 
prends toute la salière, j'ai décidé de commencer un régime sans sel !!! 
Grrr !!! (No and no! I don't need it! Take all the salt you want! Here, 
take the full salt shaker, I've just decided to begin a salt-free diet!!! 
Grrrr!!!)

The expression "oui-oui-non-non" is probably an attempt to short-circuit 
this kind of conversations (not that it's successful most of the time ;)) ).

>- Now you really had to tell him to behave some other
>way.
>- Oui oui, non non !
>(the meaning of the answer could be: oh yes, surely I
>will do, don't worry, it won't go like this for a long
>time. Also: I'm well aware of the problem).
>
>They can be variants:
>- Now it's Monday morning and Anne-Sophie is ill
>again, just as every Monday morning.
>- Ah oui oui oui non non maiiiiis...
>(Possible translation: Oh yes I noticed it, don't
>worry, I know how she does and I share your
>reprobation, but it won't last forever, some day
>she'll get it)

These are uses I'm not aware of. I've only ever heard this expression in 
the kind of context where someone asks a favour to someone else.
____________________________________________________________________________
En réponse à Philippe Caquant :


>I invented nothing at all:
>
>http://french.about.com/library/verb/bl-subjunctive-su.htm
>
>(but you can find references to that special usage on
>French sites too).

Well, let's see:
- The case "que + subjunctive" I said I knew about.
- Set phrases don't count, by definition.
- Let's see the rest of the cases:
- "être": "soit" in mathematics is *not* associated with the verb "to be" 
anymore. Ask any student. Most of them will tell you it's a kind of 
preposition. Evidence: "soit" stays invariable even when what is defined is 
plural. If it was still seen as a verb, people would write "soient".
- "pouvoir": it's exactly the same case as "vouloir": it's 2nd person 
plural imperative. For many irregular verbs, the 2nd person plural 
imperative has been taken from the subjunctive ("être": "soyez" and 
"avoir": "ayez" are two other examples). That *doesn't* mean you can 
analyse them as subjunctives. They are imperatives, and seen as such by a 
majority of speakers. The origin of an expression doesn't matter when we're 
talking about its current use. So the site is incorrect in treating them as 
subjunctives. They are plain imperatives.
- "savoir": as I said, I've never heard or read the expression "je ne sache 
pas que". Even if it really appears, seen the rarity of the thing, I'd 
treat it as a set phrase, and set phrases don't count because they don't 
really have a structure in the speaker's mind. As for "pas que je sache", 
"que" is present, so I have nothing to say against it ;) .
- "venir": the site says "poetic". And I said that I was aware of the use 
of the subjunctive in main clauses in poetry. But by definition, poetry 
doesn't tell us about mainstream use.
- "vivre": same case as "être". The expression "vive la France" may have 
been the same as "que la France vive" (with subjunctive), "vive" is not 
seen as a verb anymore. Once again, the proof is that "vive" is invariable, 
even when what follows is plural. If it was still seen as a verb, we would 
write "vivent les mariés". I've never seen it written like that. It has 
always been "vive les mariés". "Vive" is also seen as a kind of preposition 
or conjunction. And before you say it's just a spelling mistake, let me 
remind you that I'm talking about actual use here, not prescriptivist use. 
All the evidence points out that "vive" is not seen as a subjunctive verb 
anymore. And that's good enough for me. I do have prescriptivist 
tendencies, but only when something hurts my idea of aesthetics. And this 
doesn't.

So, of all the "examples" of subjunctive not preceeded by "que", we've had:
- a few set phrases, which by definition of a set phrase are really seen as 
units without structure,
- things that started as a subjunctive long ago but are now invariable 
words ("soit", "vive"),
- incorrect analyses of imperative forms as subjunctives.
Well, not very convincing is it?

So I do agree that you didn't invent things (I was pulling your leg anyway 
on that one ;) ), but I stand by my claim that your way of speaking and 
experiencing French is archaic and prescriptivist, to a point where even 
*I* don't go.

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.