To mean "mounted", the verb would probably need some further information, like a direct or indirect object.
- je suis monté sur mon vélo = I mounted my bicycle
- j'ai monté le placard Ikea = I mounted the Ikea cupboard (change of auxiliary from "être" to "avoir" with a direct object)
I have mounted. That's a no-go? Are we ready to go on the trail? (yes) I have mounted.
Yes, that should work. "Mount" has several intransitive senses that would work here, including your example.
I suppose that "je suis monté dans la voiture" is language that dates from times where one had to climb up into vehicles. Mostly today, I find I need to "get down" to get into cars. But taking "monter" to mean "mount", and mounting a car to mean "get in", I said "Je suis monté" must mean "I got in". So, why is that an incorrect translation. And is "je suis monté" used to mean "mounting" other things, as in "getting in", even when the physical direction is downwards?
"Je suis monté" always conveys an upward direction (tree, car, bicycle, plane, ladder, hill...).
"J'ai monté l'armoire Ikea" (with auxiliary "avoir" and a direct object) = I mounted the Ikea cabinet.
But a car is not always an upward direction. For a small one, or a sports car, or something like that, is it even proper then to use "monter" to say that you're getting in? Is there another word or phrase to use in that situation?
One of the definitions the Larousse gives for "monter" is "prendre place dans ou sur un véhicule", so it is correct even if the actual direction is downward. Note that it's specific to vehicles - I don't think there's any other usage where the meaning has been stretched so far that "monter" could imply a downward direction.
So "I got in" should be a valid translation, along with "I boarded" and "I got on".
Your feet inside the car are above floor level, so, in a sense, you are in a higher place.
That certainly makes sense - one needs the right perspective. When I get into a car I sit, and when I sit, I sit down. I guess that's what I was thinking of. I sit down in a truck too, but my head may be higher than it was before, because there's a certain amount of "mounting" involved. It's interesting to see how people around the world normally look at these things in very subtly different ways. There's never just one way to look at even the smallest thing.
Another way of saying it, in Australia anyway, is "to climb into a car". That works equally well for a Lotus or a Landrover and gives the sense of "up". I just tried it ("I climbed in") and it wasn't accepted but I'll report it.
I think so too, CJ. "To climb into a car" is used in the U.S. also. Perhaps here, it's used mostly by adults talking to children, who may actually need to do a little climbing to make it in.
I agree with you that "Je suis monté" always conveys an upward direction "; but my answer "I got up" was rejected and corrected to " I got in"
“I got up.” has a specific translation into French and would be « Je me suis levé. (or levée for feminine person)
If it is what you mean with the English sentence, "je suis monté chez mes voisin(e)s" will be a correct translation. If they don't live upstairs from you (or up the hill), you can translate your sentence to "je suis allé jusque chez mes voisin(e)s".
It is a valid translation according to Larousse - http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais-anglais/monter/52368 -
Je suis monté jusqu'au "si" - I rose (sing) up to B
Je suis monté en grade - I rose in rank (promoted)
“I got up” was marked wrong and “I got in” offered as the correct answer.
“I got up” is used to mean “get up from bed” which uses a different verb in French. “Monter” is also used to “get into a car”. “Get” is rather generic and “climb” is more specifically correct. You can easily see that “getting up” is very different from “climbing up”, but “climbing into a car” is usually referred to as “getting into a car.”
Thanks, what I was envisaging was a response to a question along the lines of. “What did you do when the judge entered the court room?” “I got up” being a common way to referring to an action like standing up or stepping onto a stool in my corner of the UK.
Yes, this verb would definitely not be used for standing up and you would have to mention the stool for the second one.
Would this sentence apply to a mountain as well as stairs or a car? In which case would "I got up" be a good translation, as in "Je suis monte la montagne"= "I got up the mountain."
"je suis monté" can apply to any destination that is "up" from where you start from:
je suis monté dans la voiture.
je suis monté jusqu'au village sur la colline.
je suis monté au premier étage.
je suis monté à vélo, à cheval, à l'échelle...
However, "monter" can have another construction, with a direct object instead of a preposition:
j'ai monté l'escalier
j'ai monté la colline
Therefore "je suis monté la montagne" is not correct: je suis monté sur la montagne or j'ai monté la montagne
- je suis monté à la corde (feminine = rope)
- je suis monté à l'échelle (feminine = ladder)
- je suis monté à l'escabeau (masculine = step stool)
- je suis monté au premier étage (masculine = first floor)
- je suis monté aux rideaux (masculine plural = curtains)
- je suis monté aux façades (feminine plural = façades/fronts)
So à l' for objects that begin with a vowel, à la for other singular feminine objects, au for other singular masculine objects, and aux for plural objects of either gender.
But then, just to complicate things, there are cases where the object doesn't take the definite article, like à vélo or à cheval. I think that only applies when monter would be translated as to ride.
I got up = je me suis levé . I climbed = j'ai grimpé . I got in, I went up, I ascended = je suis monté . I got down = je suis descendu . I went in, I came in = je suis entré . I went inside = Je suis allé à l'intérieur . I arose = j'ai surgi ....
pour quoi la règle " deux verbes se suit le deuxième de met a l’infinitif " ne s'applique pas ici ?
Quand deux verbes se suivent, le second est à l'infinitif, sauf si le premier est un auxiliaire.
Ici, il s'agit d'un temps composé avec être comme auxiliaire.
Are you talking about verbs that take "to be" rather than "to have" as an auxiliary? In that case, no there are a number of them, and "monter" takes "avoir". Those using "être" are introduced in the notes to the lesson on the passé composé (composite past).
"Je suis monté" is a use of the participle form of monter, not a past tense, and the participle is often found after "to be". That is a normal use of "to be" however. The participle is used as an adjective in this case.
No, I wanted to know if there was another to be verb besides "être" . Like in Spanish there is "ser", which is a permanent status (he is a lawyer, es abogado), and "estar", which is a temporary status (he is drunk, está borracho). Both ser and estar mean to be.
In French it's just « être ». Note that some phrases that use "to be" in English use "to have" in French: "I am thirsty" - « J'ai soif » ("I have thirst").
This is very confusing. In this thread Sitesurf repeatedly explained that "monte'" implies upward motion, and that "I got in" is not really correct. So why did DL just reject "I got on" (as in "I got on a horse, a train, a bike, or a streetcar") and suggest "I got in"? (Reported 5/31/18)
“I got up” would be “Je me suis levé.” “I got into a car.” would be « Je suis monté dans une voiture. » without the car, it will not mean “to get in”. So « monter » can mean “to go up” but not “to get up” and in some expressions “to get into a car”. Scroll up and read all of Sitesurf’s comments It cannot mean “I got on” without the word for train, bike, streetcar, horse etc. just like you wouldn’t say “I board the train.” without the train or “I mount the horse.” without the horse. It just means “I went up.”
"riding a horse" is being seated on the horse already.
I rode a horse = j'ai monté un cheval (change of auxiliary)
It seems the auxiliary can be either être or avoir, perhaps depending on the context: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1691184 http://www.etudes-litteraires.com/forum/post328123.html#p328123
"Je suis monté" is compound past, not present tense. So the "je suis..." is not translated as "I am..." but to indicate the compound tense rendered by the past participle of the verb (the root of which is "monté"). Since "monter" is "to go up", it becomes "I went up." Oh dear, I'm sounding very bookish. ;-(
This is a good example of a case that needed an explanation lesson, not just a question instead. Sitesurf answers demonstrate it. I didn't know wheather to this verb you ought to use "être" or "avoir" to realize the passé conposé, and turns out you can use both.
Most verbs are conjugated using avoir as the auxiliary verb.
The following is a list of verbs that use être as the auxiliary verb:
aller, venir, entrer, sortir, ressortir, arriver, partir, repartir, monter, remonter, descendre, naître, mourir, revenir, parvenir, retourner, tomber, rester, rentrer, devenir, and passer
Monter, descendre, sortir, entrer, and rentrer use avoir as the auxiliary when they have direct objects. When there is a direct object the context may change. (e.g. «elle est descendue» ("she came down") versus «elle a descendu les valises» ("she brought the suitcases down")).
The verb passer is tricky - a good dictionary will help. ;-) I never quite remembered all the different instances when to use avoir with passer. This should help - http://www.larousse.com/en/dictionaries/french-english/passer/661830
Their translation as "I have gone up" is no good, as this would be pluperfect, instead of simple past tense.
No, pluperfect would be "I had gone up."
"Je suis monté" is passé composé, which can correspond to the present perfect "I have gone up," the simple past "I went up," or the emphatic past "I did go up."
According to the OED, the verb "mount" has a number of intransitive senses as well as transitive ones. Some are quite commonly used and could easily apply here. For example "To travel or proceed in an upward direction; to ascend or climb." or "To get up on to the back of a horse or other animal (occas. on a person's shoulders) for the purpose of riding."
Not enough information, does the intransitive sense of mount correspond to the intransitive sense of "Je suis monté." See, in English we can say "I mounted." and not mention the horse and know by context that was meant, but the expression in French is "monter à cheval" and not just "monter".
Yes, there are some uses, but do they work with this subject. https://dictionary.reverso.net/english-french/mount
In context, you can also say "je suis monté(e)" with no mention of the horse.
Then, “I have mounted.” and “I mounted.” should be accepted as correct and why not “I am mounted.” ?
Usually, yes. Occasionally, in specific contexts, it doesn't, but most of the time it does.
"I turned up" with the meaning of "I arrived" does not match the French meaning of "je suis monté" which is "I went/came up", like "upstairs" or "a ladder".
I guess it can mean 'turned up' as in 'turned up the volume', but that doesn't make sense in this case. It would need an object, and it would take the auxiliary 'avoir' rather than 'être'.
My dictionary gives that as "turn up the temperature", etc. To me "I turned up" means "I arrived".
Yeah, that's what it means to me too, without an object, but that definitely doesn't work for 'je suis monté'.
"I went upstairs" is given in reverso context with many examples. I was marked wrong
You have to watch out for examples. Sometimes they represent a possible use of a word or phrase. But it could very well be that without supporting context, listeners would more likely take some other meaning from the phrase.
If you are home in your pajamas and coming back from the stairs leading to the bedroom saying ...je suis montre ....would likely be taken to mean you went upstairs. But not if you are standing at the bottom of a mountain. Or leaving a hot air balloon ride.
Je suis monté doesn't mean .. I went upstairs..... However, it can be used to mean that in circumstances where your audience already knows what you are talking about.
The hints for a word always give several possible translations, but you still have to figure out which one is appropriate in the context of the sentence you're translating. Otherwise you're just learning to copy and paste.
Admittedly, it sounds a little bare without context, but it is nevertheless completely correct and reasonable. If you say "we would not say xxxx", then please include what you actually would say in this circumstance based on the meaning of the French.
Perhaps a context should be added. Je suis monté dans la voiture or Je suis monté dans la montagne.
Since in previous sentences "monte" means "died". Does "monte" in this context mean or have a root in that a person went to heaven?
However, "monté" does mean "went up" and it can mean as opposed to going down to that other place. So, if the context is that someone was very ill and then someone said that the person went up to a better place....
« monter » means "to go up", "to climb up", etc. Are you perhaps getting it confused with « montrer », "to show"? "To show up" can be translated as « apparaître » or « se montrer ».
Could this also mean "im turned up" lol an american euphemism for either being 1. Really hype and lively at a social gathering/event or being nice at tipsy at any event lol or has that not made it to france yet lol
Adding "lol" to every bit of your question does not really help understanding it. Anyway, the French can be turned up as anybody else, but they would not use the verbe "monter" to express it.
They would say "je suis ivre, aviné, éméché, émoustillé, gris, mûr, pinté, pompette, rétamé, schlass, soûl" (+ a number of slang words I won't give you here).