Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 January 10

= January 10 =

1647 French birth record
Can someone verify that this is a 1647 birth record of Guillaume Cartier in Drain in Anjou, France? What date does it show exactly and an English translation of the record where it says the Guillaume information (if it isn't too difficult). Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes:...Mardi, dixneufième jour du fevrier mille six cent quarante sept, à L'église de Drain(?), Guillaume ....est nè. I'll provide a translation in a minute... Lectonar (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * French hasn't changed that much in half a millenium. "Tuesday, nineteenth day of February, one thousand six hundred forty-seven, at the Church of Drain, Guillaume .... is born".  -- Jayron  32  23:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "...was born", in fact. Naître takes être in the perfect. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Verily. -- Jayron  32  01:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Um, my aged eyes may be failing me, and my French isn't that great, but I'm not seeing "est nè" anywhere in that. It's a baptismal record written by the priest of the "église de Drain" (André somebody; I can't make out the surname), saying that Guillaume was baptised ("fui baptisé", end of second line) on that date. Presumably he was born some days earlier. Deor (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, Deor, I see "fui baptisé", but not "est nè" (or even "est né"). Also, his name seems to be Quartier, not Cartier, but with writing like that, who would really know.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And according to the third line he was the son of Julien "Quartier" (just an old spelling of the name) and his wife Françoise Bourdin. The names in the last two lines (hard to decipher) would appear to be the names of the babe's godparents and/or sponsors. (And on second look I think it's "fus baptisé", not "fui".) Deor (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation. Yes, Julien Cartier and Françoise Bourdin were Guillaume's parents. I assume Guillaume is the English William, oui?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, Guillaume is William, and sorry for the break yesterday, I had an internet breakdown. And yes, I obviously expected a "né" (and so read it), but it is "baptisé". Sorry about that too. Lectonar (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Since it hasn't been transcribed here yet, here is my stab at it:


 * Mardy dixneufiesme jour de fiburier mil six cent quarente et sept, dans l'église de Drain, par Msgr André M(?), prestre fus baptisé Guillaume fils de Julien Quartier et de Françoise Bourdin sa femme, parrain Msgr Guillaume (?)indriau mary de (femme de ?) marrain Marguerite (Fagan?) femme de Jacques du (Pessy?)

Sorry, there are a few things missing, but it lists his godparents too. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone mind transcribing the entire birth record in French? I want the transcription posted at File:Guillaume Cartier birth 1647.jpg. Then it can be translated into English. Also the file needs a description in French. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Side discussion
Actually, "is born" is cromulent, as is "Christ has died, Christ is risen". Certain English intransitive verbs of motion and transformation historically took to be rather than to have in the perfect. μηδείς (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, except the sense there is of continuing state of being. He has died (in the past), he is risen, in the sense that the state of being risen is where he is now.  The difference in tense is purposeful there, since he is no longer dead, having risen.  Furthermore, the full statement is "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again", so you have the nice tripartite symmetry of past, present, and future.  -- Jayron  32  01:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Medeis is correct - English used to exhibit the same behaviour that I originally mentioned with regards to French above: phrases such as "when they were come" crop up quite a lot in the KJV. However, to translate into idiomatically correct modern English, you need to correct for the fact that French has retained this feature and (outside liturgical contexts) English hasn't. But like Deor, I can't see "est né" in the manuscript; from my own study of equivalent English documents, I'd expect to see the birth date in the margin, if at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Medeis is correct insofar as there is the usage of the verb "to be" for some forms of past tense. I don't believe Medeis chose a useful example to demonstrate that, as I think that the use of "is" in her example actually is meant to be present tense, for the reason I expanded on regarding the full statement.  -- Jayron  32  02:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Minor points. I am fairly certain the use of "has died" instead of "is died" (as opposed to the older "is dead") is simply idiomatic in the way that French and German disagree over ist gewesen and a été.  Also, if we don't want to use "is born" as the perfect, we can't use "was born" either--since that's the simple past passive.  The perfect (with have) of "to be born" (i.e. naître) is has been born, not "was born". μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "risen" is both a verb and an adjective: has risen vs. is risen. Whereas died is a verb and dead is an adjective: has died vs. is dead. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But Medeis, the perfect in French often corresponds to the simple past in English, since everyday French has lost the passé simple. --ColinFine (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bugs, your observation is correct, but its not problematic, and its what I was referring to obliquely when I called dead the older form. Past participles generally are used as adjectives, e.g., "broken", but not those of certain intransitive verbs like cry or laugh. We don't say the "cried child" or the "laughed audience".  The perfect actually arises historically in German and Romance from this adjectival aspect.  "I have the pie, cooked" > "I have cooked the pie" for transitive verbs, "I am come" > "I have come" for intransitives.  I do see how one could, from a modern standpoint alone, reanalyze "is risen" back to an adjectival rather than a perfect construction, but there really is no difference, and we do know that historically verbs like "is come" and "is risen" were being used as perfects with to be because there were no perfect with to have forms to replace them.
 * Of course the discussion is made difficult to the point of frustration because of idiomatic differences with the very basic and irregular verbs being compared. There is no simple infinitive &#x2731; to born to compare with French naître.  French "he has died", il est mort, is identical to "he is dead", il est mort.  English dead and death are native Anglo-Saxon words that both come from the Proto-Germanic *dauthaz (remember I said old?) while the Old English cognate verb for "to die" was déadian, which was replaced by a word borrowed from Norse, deyja, with a (new) past tense coined in English with the productive -ed ending.  And all this is, of course, hugely oversimplified.
 * Yes, Colin, I am aware that as a matter of translation one often uses the simple past in English for the French passé composé. I can't even read the OP's text, and understand that il est né isn't even shown there?  But my original point was internal to English, not one of interpretation. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)