"Je ne veux plus."
Translation:I do not want to anymore.
in a negative expression, "pas" and "plus" are alternative, so you don't use both:
je ne veux pas = I don't want to
je ne veux plus = I don't want to anymore / I no longer want to
"je ne veux pas plus..." would be an incomplete sentence: "je ne veux pas plus de pain = I don't want any more bread.
But in the latter case, "plus" is pronounced PLUSS and is not part of the negation.
Yes, but then it's altogether another meaning. And the thing is:
you'll pronounce it [pluss] as opposed to [plu] in the exercise here
most likely, such sentence in French would use the pronoun "en" to mean "more [of it / that / them]:
"Seulement cinq, c'est tout ?" (Only five, is that it ?")
"Oui, c'est parfait ; je n'en veux pas plus" (Yes, that's perfect; I don't want more [of it / them])
Yes, it can happen, in the flow of a conversation where what you don't want is obvious.
There was an old song: "Tu veux ou tu veux pas ? si tu veux, c'est bien, si tu veux pas tant pis, j'en ferai pas une maladie, c'est comme ci ou comme ça, ou tu veux ou tu veux pas..." (and it was about having sex!)
With all due respect to the French natives you've asked, this sentence is totally fine.
For instance, kids typically answer that when their parents ask them to finish their meal :
Finis ton assiette !
Non, je ne veux plus ! (implied : je ne veux plus manger)
As stated in another post of mine, when you check if someone still wants [to do] something, they might answer that to you:
Tu veux toujours aller à l'expo demain ? (Do you still want to go the the exhibition tomorrow?)
Non, je ne veux plus, à vrai dire...
That answer in English should be "No, I don't want to anymore, to be honest", but I guess in conversational English someone could just say "I don't want anymore" (the to should appear, since "to want to" is a phrasal verb that demands the to when another verb follows or is implied, i.e. here go to the exhibition)
And what you say about "vouloir" being transitive and demanding an object is not totally true :
"boire" is transitive, yet you could use it without an object ("J'ai bu toute la nuit !" = "I've drunk all night")
it is very often used just with "bien" (a bit like "aimer"/"to love" with "aimer bien"/"to like"): "Tu peux faire ça pour moi s'il te plaît ?" (Can you do this for me please?), "OK, je veux bien" (OK, I will / I don't mind /...)
If it's accepting "no longer"-type answers where the missing object is a verb, as in that Spanish example, it should accept "want to", I think. Much more natural to say that in English than "I no longer want". "Do you still want to go to Spain?"/"Are you still going to Spain?"--Non, je ne veux plus = "No, I don't want to any more" or the more formal "No, I no longer want to". (And in real life probably "Nah, I've gone off the idea"!) Great site btw :-)
Because in English, "vouloir faire quelque chose" is "to want to do something".
And the French sentence in this exercise implies that the "thing" you don't want anymore is a verb, hence the use of "to" after "want" to imply the same in English.
We suppose that because if it was "I don't want any more of something" (an object as opposed to an action), the French version would've been "Je n'en veux plus". It's not compulsory (I can talk about food or any items and still say "Je ne veux plus" without the en) - but in that case, anyway, the English sentence should be "I don't want any more [of that/those thing/s]".
Thing is, with this French sentence, it can be both:
Tu veux toujours aller au ciné ce soir ? (Do you still want to go to the cinema tonight ?)
Non, je ne veux plus. (No, I don't want anymore)
So that's about "I used to want (to do) something, but now I don't want anymore".
Tu veux encore des frites ? (Would you like more chips / fries ?)
Non, je ne veux plus, merci. (No, I don't want any more, thanks).
That's about "I had enough of something, now I don't want any more of it".
Actually, that second option should state in French "Je n'en veux plus", which would be in English "I don't want any more of it". But just like you can drop and simply imply the "of it", you're not compelled to use the "en" in French, especially in oral French.
In the first option though, you cannot use "en", since the "ne...plus /not...anymore" is strictly on the verb "want", and not on a certain quantity of something which you don't want more of.
I was marked wrong for "I do not want anymore." Why is "to" included in the translation? Then I checked with Reverso, and they translated the sentence as I did. What gives? Also, I know this is A REPEAT question, but I really don't understand the answers thus far. Can someone concisely and clearly explain it?
I copy/paste one of my previous comments since it doesn't seem easy to find the answer by reading through :
The verb "to want" is built with "to" when another verb follows : "I want something" BUT "I want to do something".
Even when that following verb is implied (in a conversation, you may not repeat it), you should still use the "to". This is the case here, as the French sentence suggests. It's clearer with other examples of verbs built with the postposition "to" : let's take "to be going to [do something]" and "to have to [do something]".
Are you still going to work on that project today?
No, I'm not going to (anymore).
Do I have to write my name again?
No, you don't have to (anymore).
In both those examples, I guess it is obvious that you wouldn't pronounce those sentences without that "to". Same goes for "to want to".
I appreciate your confidence, but usage is a little more complicated than your black and white response.
Plus as a comparative or superlative adverb is the exception to the above rules. When the comparative or superlative plus is in the middle of a sentence, it is pronounced [ploo], unless it precedes a vowel, in which case the liaison causes it to be pronounced [plooz]. When plus is at the end of a sentence, as in the final example, it is pronounced [ploos].
So I guess I just answered my own question. The example "je ne veux plus" is not being used as a comparative or superlative, but as a negative, so those usage rules apply when at the end of a sentence, I guess.
Uh... I am not sure I understood everything you meant.
first [ploo] and [plooz] are misleading "phonetic" transcriptions, as [oo] refers either to a sound as in "cool" or "moulin", or to a long "O" for some other speakers (e.g. Dutch). I am very positive about this : it is in any case a [u] which in international phonetics is /y/
of course, and I'm sorry about this, I was talking about the word "plus" used alone, i.e. as opposed to used in a comparative / superlative structure. But the initial question was about at the end of a sentence, and well... a comparative or superlative does not end with a "plus" !
examples about comparative (more than) / superlative (the most) : "Je suis plus grand que toi" (I am taller than you), here "plus" is pronounced [plu] ; but in "Je suis plus âgé que toi" (I am older than you), "plus" is pronounced [pluz] because of the following vowel, as you mentioned very well. Same for "Je suis le plus [plu] grand / Je suis le plus [pluz] âgé" (the tallest / the oldest).
but I disagree with the "at the end of a sentence" rule you mention, if I understood it correctly : it will be pronounced [pluss] if it means "more", and [plu] if it means not any more.
examples : "J'en veux plus!" = I want (some) more (of it). Here it must be pronounced [pluss]. Whereas : "Je n'en veux plus" = I don't want any more (of it) ; here it must be pronounced without the -s [plu].
Thank you for your thoughtful response. The "end of the sentence" rule I found while researching online at: http://french.about.com/library/weekly/aa101300v.htm. As for the phonetics, I agree with you that international phonetics are better. The convention used in the article was the one I used to make the point.
I don't know/think that many people may know a phonetic alphabet. Also, some devices cannot write some symbols, even ß, i.e.
So, I too have always used that kind of more simple notation.
As “ny“ for “gn“ or “ ñ “ in Spanish. I wouldn't have thought it could be interpreted as “noo“... Sorry to trouble... :·|
Yes, you're right, I have already explained that on posts here.
But to answer your question, "Je ne veux plus" is - to me and out of context - "I don't want to anymore" rather than "I don't want any more".
As explained in more detail above, "I don't want any more (of something)" would rather be in French "Je n'en veux plus": the "en" in French is sort of equivalent to the "any" which is emphasized by standing alone, and not in one word with "more".
"Anymore" generally applies its effect on the verb (I do not want anymore, the desire is gone), whereas "any more" is about the object which you have had enough of (I do not want any more of this whatever).
Are we still going to the exhibition tomorrow? = On va toujours à l'expo demain ?
I don't want to anymore... = Je ne veux plus (or rather, in natural, common French: "Je n'ai plus envie", i.e. I don't feel like it anymore)
Another piece of cake? = Une autre part de gâteau ?
Thanks, but I don't want any more = Merci, mais je n'en veux plus.
They're not really equivalent.
The results are the same, but grammatically:
"I don't want anymore" = no more "wanting", the "not...more" applies to the verb
"I don't want more" = no more of "that something which is implied", the "not ...more" applies to the object. Maybe I just want less/fewer...
It's clearer if you take another verb, e.g. "I can't see anymore" (you turned blind) vs "I can't see more" (you've had enough).
Are you sure you read the whole thread?
- I don't want more = je n'en veux pas plus (I've had enough)
- I don't want anymore = je ne veux plus (I wanted to, but I changed my mind)
- I don't want to anymore / I no longer want to = je ne veux plus le... faire/dire/manger... any verb fitting the previous context. Or simply: je ne (le) veux plus (with "le" optional and representing a previously described action).
Because the verb "to want" is built with the postposition "to" when a verb follows:
I want holidays
I want to go on holiday
That "to" needs to be there even if the following verb is implied (like in this exercise, "I don't want to anymore" is actually maybe "I don't want to sleep / work / etc. anymore").
You can see that more easily with the phrase "to be going to" (to express future tense).
- I'm going to help you.
Imagine someone asks:
You're still going to help me today, right ?
No, I'm not going to anymore.
If you just said "I'm not going anymore", you would change the meaning of the sentence (i.e. "I'm not leaving anymore"). Therefore, that "to" needs to be there, even with "want", because they go together (hence the name "postposition" as its presence after the verb is necessary).
There are too many comments and I couldn't find an answer to my question, so I'm sorry if it was already asked. Why is it "I don't want to anymore" and not "I don't want it/this/something anymore"? I'm not a native english speaker (Duolingo isn't very complete in my language), so maybe I'm missing something, but when I hear "I don't want to anymore" it seems I don't want to perform some action anymore. The french sentence has no indication of whether that which is unwanted is a thing or an action.