Translation:Information, knowledge and communication
Also (because a recent commenter seems to have missed it):
This reminds me of the mottoes across the coats of arms of universities. In the US they are generally in Latin, but I have also seen them in Spanish. And they generally omit articles. The one for Yale for example is "Lux et Veritas" which would translate to the English "Light and Truth," the Spanish "Luz y Verdad" and the French "Lumiere et Verite" also, one must not forget the motto of revolutionary France: "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite," which is generally translated without any articles.
Book titles typically adhere to a certain grammar. Also:
I'm with you. However, in French it's not typical, except where each subsequent term (and not just the final term in the list) is preceded by a conjunction:
- La terre était belle, et riche, et féconde (Lamennais, Paroles d'un croyant, III).
I gather that there are exceptions for clarity, but that seems subjective. In my view, if you're not an editor bound by house rules, you can do what you like. My inclination is to use the serial comma in French just as in English.
In a different question, I had to provide the french from the english - naturally I put the articles. Lost a heart.
The only thing I can think of it that it is like "Égalité, liberté, fraternité" which also usually appears without articles. Also titles of scientific articles and headlines in newspapers often have no articles.
eg from "Les Echos" * «Filiation, origines, parentalité» : le rapport dont la gauche ne veut pas *
I don't know how we are to know for sure when it is OK to omit them - maybe if they are not in a sentence?? But there are quite a few incomplete sentences ….
Hopefully a native speaker can enlighten us.
I accidentally put 'informations' and was marked wrong, but thought it could be right so looked it up on reverso. To me reverso seems to be saying it could be right. I am not now able to report it, but can anyone confirm my opinion that it is correct to put 'informations'? It was a write what you hear exercise.
I don't think pluralization works with "savoir", which, to me, pushes the other two towards their uncountable forms as well.
As a matter of speculation I suppose it wouldn't be impossible for the plural countable forms of the other two to be used in this way, despite "savoir", but I'm not sure it's really worth dwelling on here.
This is likely one of those frustrating points where English speakers looking in from the outside tend to find a lack of real satisfaction, but French speakers probably have absolutely no misgivings.
You'd know by the context. English has the same sort of thing, e.g.: (1) "to research something" (verb); and (2) "to do research on/into something", "after years of diligent research", "her research has paid off" (noun). There's no real magic to it.
Of course, when it's used as a verb, you'll often see it conjugated. When it's used as a noun, you'll often see it with an article or other determiner. (The example sentence is a bit of an exception, which can occur with lists.)
I reckon PeaceJoyPancakes has already answered it really well, but I guess I'll try my own version as well.
The meaning of 'savoir' depends on its grammatical usage in the sentence, whether it is being used as a noun or a verb.
it means 'knowledge' when it is being used as a noun.
and as a noun, it follows the rules of every other noun. i.e must have a determiner and could also have a modifying adjective to describe it.
it is also only used in one form 'savoir'.
it means 'to know' when it is being used as a verb.
and as a verb, it follows the rules for verbs. i.e if it was the main verb in the sentence, it conjugates differently with each subject and in different tenses.
it could also be used in negations and questions.
if it was preceded by another main verb, it presents in a non-conjugated form 'savoir' but then it will be easily distinguishable from any other nouns in the sentence.
Hope this helps.