We cannot infer that she had been speaking and then stopped. When used reflexively "se taire" expresses that idea but "taire" does not mean that invariably. "Shut up" suggests the interruption of speech (in English). But we should use caution when projecting meaning from an English expression into a French word. "Taire"= to conceal, to say nothing, to keep quiet, to keep a secret. http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais-anglais/taire/75555
There is an awful lot of discussion of the finer linguistic points, which is probably good but leaves the rest of us wading through this one. I remembered se taire too late and, like tuer, (and/or se tuer?) it does not seem to feature on any unusual verb sites for learners. That leaves us going away for a 30 minute lesson elsewhere, or rolling the dice! Hmmm.......
I think you are spot on. "To be quiet" is the simple state of not making a noise; "To fall/become silent" is the changing state that you describe where someone was speaking or making a noise but gradually stops; "To keep silence" is a more deliberate act, such as someone paying respects to the dead, or someone defiantly refusing to speak often when challenged to support or defend something or someone. All of these, I think, can be translations of "se taire", but other expressions also could be used - and as always, the full context would show which was appropriate. (I am English, as you've probably guessed!)
I am no challenger of your word.
1 3 : to continue doing something : MAINTAIN keep silence keep on working keep that up and you'll get into trouble (http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student?keep)
2 1 Corinthians 14:34 reads, 'Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted to them to speak'
3 But the LORD is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him. OR The elders of the daughter of Zion sit upon the ground, and keep silence: they have cast up dust upon their heads; they have girded themselves with sackcloth: the virgins of Jerusalem hang down their heads to the ground. OR Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him.(*King James Bible, Authorized Version, Cambridge Edition)
4 11. To continue any state, course or action; as, to keep silence; to keep the same road or the same pace; to keep reading or talking; to keep a given distance. (Webster's 1828 English Dictionary as quoted at http://sorabji.com/1828/words/k/keep.html)
To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: a time to be born and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. (Ecclesiastes, 3:1-8.)
DISCLAIMER: I am not a student of Bible nor am I affiliated with any religious society/faith-based organisation
PS And I was wrong regarding keep silent
The linguistic term Modern English differentiates English from Old or Middle English and begins with Shakespeare and the King James bible. That translation is one of the codifiers of what Modern English is, sweetie. And the English spoken today is a complex, variegated language. Many of the idioms we use today originate from the KJ bible. Richard Dawkins promotes the teaching of the bible as literature for precisely that reason. Also, English has a lot of regional variation, like any language, and people often use archaisms and antiquated prose. English has a significant body of literature written between the 1500s (the KJ bible) and whenever you consider to be the formation of your very-specific brand of modern English. Some students of English probably want to learn to have access to more literature. That's one of the most prominent reasons I study language. So, sweetie, you can actually learn a lot about English from the bible. It's far more interesting as a linguistic text than as a religious one.
My apologies for my message. It was rather harsh and pompous. I'm a bit of an arrogant person sometimes.
I only mentioned Richard Dawkins to clarify that I'm not defending the bible on religious reasons. I don't know if he's a qualified linguistic authority. I'm unfamiliar with the word tyro. Could you define it for me?
My poorly-formed, acerbic point was that many people use biblical idioms and phrases in their daily language. I found several documents on the influence of the KJV with a quick search (http://www.york.edu/news/2011/documents/Commonidioms.pdf , for example).
I wouldn't recommend Shakespeare or the KJV to any non-native speaker either. It would be like me trying to read Les Misérables in French instead of English. Madness.
I think I noticed that bit, but by then I had a rant forming. I'm very sorry for my unpleasantness. I hate to have been another faceless internet bugbear. Please forgive me and have a bonne journée.
I get the impression I somehow offended you by calling Dmytro 'sweetie'. That's the exact opposite of the effect I was aiming for, so I confess I am puzzled by that. It seems to me that your use of the word is meant ironically. I meant it kindly.
I wouldn't argue for a second with you about the linguistic case for studying the Bible. Faced with Richard Dawkins, I would shut up and listen: I know when I am mentally out-gunned.
That being said, Dawkins is an English speaker, with a way above average command of spoken and written English. With an English vocabulary at his fingertips of between 35 and 40 thousand words. Not the 500 words that a tyro in the language would have.
I am a fan of Shakespeare, and I love to look closely at the language, as well as the 'poetry' of it - but that doesn't mean I would recommend it to a relative beginner in English to help them make sense of English conversation in a coffee shop.
I stand by my statement, as it was meant, to Dmytro. To pick up modern English, as a fledgling second language speaker, there are better and easier ways than reading the Bible.
I am sorry I offended you. Especially sorry since I find the tone of your reply unpleasant.
Should we need to interact again, I promise not to call you sweetie.
PS I wasn't using the linguistic term Modern English. I was using everyday parlance, modern English. The capital M was merely because I started the sentence with it.
But I am guessing you know that, right?
Please note that there are newer translations of the Bible that may be more easily understood by people with a lesser grasp of the literary style of the early 17th century. There are even Bibles in English more suitable for those with a limited English vocabulary. See: https://www.easyenglish.bible/english-learners-bible/genesis-taw.htm which only needs a vocabulary of 1200 words. So, if someone has a Bible in their own language, plus this Bible in English, it could be used to help learn English.
When I lived with the Zulus I had a Bible in Zulu which was not in simple Zulu but I certainly learned some Zulu from it with the help of my English Bible.
I have looked but failed to find a French Bible in simple French so that I can use this in the same way. Currently I am stuck with a St. John's Gospel in the Segond 21 translation. I am not as advanced in French as I was in Zulu, and would appreciate it if someone could let me know of a simpler French version.
It is so helpful to read something in another language when one knows it is one's first language. At school when learning Latin which I did for just one year we had a Latin 'Winnie the Pooh' which was fun.
For "My aunt had gone quiet," Duolingo gives the correct answer as "Ma tante s'était tue." But when you translate, "Elle s'était tue" (same sentence except for the use of a subject pronoun) as "She had gone quiet," it is marked as wrong. Reported it, but the discussion here goes back 5 years, so I can't imagine it hasn't been reported before. A little consistency, please!