Wouldn't that be "Je ne veux plus à manger"? I don't believe that's synonymous with "Je ne veux plus rien manger." French, unlike English, allows double negatives; they're reinforcing, not canceling. So I believe this would translate to (in unacceptable English, but perfectly acceptable French) "I don't want nothing to eat no more."
This should be correct since "any more" here is 2 words which is related to "anymore" (1 word) but should not be interchanged since they have different meanings. For example: "You cannot have any more cookies..." which implies not having more cookies anymore (quantity). Whereas, "...because we do not have cookies anymore." which implies no longer having any cookies (time).
So "any" here would be translated as "rien" in this case and "more" would be "plus."
I agree partly with your argument, but disagree with your conclusion. In this case, I believe "plus" translates to "any more" and "rien" to "anymore." So, again became French allows double-negatives, to use your phasing, I believe it would be "I do not want any more cookies anymore." In French the double-negatives are reinforcing, not canceling.
"I do not want to eat any more" is not the only correct translation for this, and not the most obvious one from an English point of view. It's been awhile, but I believe that I answered "I do not want anything to eat any more" and it was accepted. This translation includes all the words, but it is kind of a double-negative in English. The problem is that double-negatives are okay in French; they are reinforcing, not negating, so "Je ne veut plus rien manger" still means "I don't want to eat any more," not "I no longer want nothing to eat" as a verbatim translation would give you.
"ne... rien" is not a double negative, nor "not... anything" either.
"ne... plus" is not a double negative, nor "not... any longer/anymore" either.
"ne... jamais" is not a double negative, nor "not... ever" either.
"ne... personne" is not a double negative, nor "nor... anyone/anybody" either.
In this sentence, the negative is "ne... plus", and temporal.
You could replace "rien" with a positive object, if it were the way the French say it and would get "I no longer want to eat a thing", which would be a perfect translation.
Precisely! We're saying the same thing, but thinking about it differently. It's the "Rien' can be positive (when "ne" applies to another negative)" part that doesn't work in English. To alter the example slightly and use "not" (rather than anything) for simplicity, "not" is always negative and "not not" is never proper usage in English (of course it gets used, but the writer is usually consciously breaking the rules), whereas in French "not not" is perfectly okay.
Sorry, this is a misconception because there is nothing like "not not" in French.
Negatives come in two different words: "ne" + another one among "pas, plus, jamais, rien, aucun, personne, guère, point".
The comparison with English works with:
- not any
- not anything
- not any longer
- not anymore
- not ever
- not anybody
- not anyone
When "rien" is positive, its translation is "a thing".
"Double negatives" in French start at 3 words, like "ne + pas + jamais", for instance.
@Sitesurf Okay, so please give me an example where "rien" is positive without the presence of "ne." To my English-steeped mind, saying "rien can be positive when ne applies to another negative" implies that without the presence of another negative, "rien" is negative. The only way to parallel that structure in English is by using a double-negative. I'm not arguing about the French at all, just how it translates to English. For all of the English examples you gave, the only way to change them from negative to positive (without changing the preposition itself) is by adding another "not," making it a double-negative. So, when translating, my mnemonic device for remembering that adding another negative can make "rien" positive is to think of it as adding another "not" to the English sentence, making it a double-negative. It's similar to the trick I use to remember the structure of "manquer à." I know it means "to miss" but I always have to think of it as "to be missing to" first.
I now understand you use this thinking as a mnemonic device.
A few examples with a positive "rien" (= quoi que ce soit = anything):
- Est-il rien de plus injuste ? = is there anything more unfair?
- Elle a cherché sans rien trouver = she searched without finding anything.
- Je réfléchis avant de rien entreprendre = I think before initiating anything.
@Sitesurf Thanks for the examples! I have seen "rien" used as in your second example, but not as in the first and third. I tried to think how I would have worded those phrases in French and I would have had to significantly rearrange the English to make it work. So, once again you've taught me something new despite my hard head. Thanks again!
This is correct.
A correct understanding of this sentence is necessary to find a close and acceptable translation:
- "ne plus" modifies "veux"
- "rien" is the direct object of "manger".
Therefore, the temporal "ne veux plus" should remain distinct from "rien manger".
The closest interpretation is:
- [I no longer want] || [to eat anything/anything to eat].
The only variants still faithful to the original sentence's meaning can change the word order, but not the links between each verb and its modifiers:
- [I do not want anything to eat] || [anymore/any longer].
- [I do not want to eat anything] || [anymore/any longer].
- "any more to eat / eat any more / nothing more / anything more / anything else / nothing else" are misinterpretations because they are about additional quantity, and all of them would back translate to such French phrases as "rien de plus à manger / rien d'autre à manger / quoi que ce soit d'autre à manger / manger quoi que ce soit d'autre..."
Hi All - I'm trying to reconcile the hint and solutions for this question:
Original question: Translate this text Je ne veux plus rien manger.
A solution which was marked incorrect includes 'any more'.
i do not want any more to eat
Duolingo's suggested correct solutions include 'any more':
• I do not want anything more to eat.
• I do not want to eat any more.
The hint for plus given by Duolingo includes 'anymore':
ne veux plus
do not want anymore
does not want anymore<pre>
I was marked wrong for "I no longer want to eat anything." To me, that means the exact same thing as "I do not want to eat any more." Also, one of the correct translations given was "I no longer want to eat." Why do you need "rien" in that sentence? Doesn't "Je ne veux plus manger" also mean "I no longer want to eat??"
I think I get what you're asking. The problem is how double-negatives are handled. In English they cancel, but in French they reinforce. So the literal translation would be "I don't want nothing more to eat," which is improper English, but perfectly okay in French. To eliminate the double-negative in translation, "nothing" is changed to "anything," thus "I don't want anything more to eat."
Not sure exactly what you mean, but if you mean without "rein" in French, I'm not sure you can make a French sentence that means the same thing without "rien." Haven't done this sentence for a while, but no matter what Duo says, I think this could be translated several ways: I no longer want to eat; I do not want anything more to eat; I want nothing more to eat. The last two mean exactly the same in that they say, "I'm full"; the first is slightly different, in that it can be also b interpreted as "I've lost my appetite, not because I've eaten but for other reasons."
This has been covered in this discussion, but you your English translation must cover both the negative adverb "ne ... plus" (no longer / not any longer / no more / not anymore) that modifies "veux" (want) and the negative pronoun "ne ... rien" (nothing / not anything) that is the object of "manger" (eat).
Your answer only covers the second one, and in French would be just "Je ne veux rien manger."
You are right However English and French are two very different languages. There are many verb tenses in French used to communicate different things. In English we have much more vocabulary that we use instead of different tenses of verbs. English is a more direct language than French and I will say that translation at least good ones are not literal.
I don't think the translation needs to be literal; in fact the two languages are different enough with double negatives that literal doesn't work. But for this sentence, the translation must incorporate both the ideas that the subject no longer wants to eat (a time related change) and that now they don't want to eat anything (as opposed, say, to no longer wanting to eat some specific food).
Rose275869's proposed translation would be a good one if "plus" wasn't in the French. A correct translation needs to account for both "plus" and "rien", especially in Duo where they are trying to teach how to deal with two negative words. Ideally, an English translation would back translate to French that uses both of these words.