L’Objet d’Art et le Mauvaise Grammaire

[johnsapphire]

One of my few french plays. Again, it is more of a scene than a full play. Ah, well. Opinions?

In French, with English stage directions

SCENE – We are in the French Ambassador’s office. A secretary is at a desk. There is a door to one side of the stage. There is a window to one side of the secretary. A knock is heard.

SECRETARY
Qui est-ce?

AMBASSADOR O.S.
C’est je!

SECRETARY
Ça n’est pas exact grammaire.

AMBASSADOR O.S.
C’est!

SECRETARY
Ce n’est pas. Dire, “c’est moi,” est bien, mais dire, “c’est je,” est incorrect, parce que c’est un sujet, et nous avons besoin d'un objet.

AMBASSADOR O.S.
Un objet d’art?

SECRETARY
Oui. Nous avons besoin de un objet pour notre sentence et aussi d’art.

AMBASSADOR O.S.
J’ai un objet d’art.

SECRETARY
Tu as?

AMBASSADOR O.S.
Oui, j’ai. Puis-je entrer?

SECRETARY
Si tu dis “c’est moi”.

AMBASSADOR O.S.
Et si ce n’est pas moi?

SECRETARY
C’est toi, néanmoins.

AMBASSADOR O.S.
Mais si je suis toi?

SECRETARY
Ç’est impossible, parce que je suis moi.

AMBASSADOR O.S.
Qui dit que tu es toi?

SECRETARY
(irritatif)
Je dis que je suis-moi!

AMBASSADOR O.S.
Alors, si tu es toi, on peut dire “Tu es ce,” et si on peut dire, “Tu es ce,” on peut dire aussi dire, “Je suis ce,” et si on peut dire, “Je suis ce,” pourquoi est ce mal dire, “C’est je”?

SECRETARY
(aussi irritatif)
Ç’est mauvaise grammaire parce que c’est un sujet, et nous avons besoin d'un objet!

AMBASSADOR
Ici est un objet! Un objet d’art!

A statue is thrown through the window and lands on the secretary’s desk.

~Le Fin~

[Angie]

www.proboards.com/tos.html

"C. User's message board and Web site must be in English. "

Please either translate this into English, or request to have the thread removed.

[johnsapphire]

SECRETARY
Who is this?

AMBASSADOR O.S. It is I!

SECRETARY
That is not exact grammar.

AMBASSADOR O.S. It is!

SECRETARY
It is not. To say, "it is me," is well, but to say, "it is I," is
incorrect, because it is a subject, and we need an object.

AMBASSADOR O.S. An objet d'art?

SECRETARY
Yes. We need an object for our sentence and also art.

AMBASSADOR O.S. I have an objet d'art.

SECRETARY
You have?

AMBASSADOR O.S. Yes, I have. Can I enter?

SECRETARY
If you say "it is me".

AMBASSADOR O.S. And if it is not me?

SECRETARY
It is you, nevertheless.

AMBASSADOR O.S. But if I am you?

SECRETARY
It is impossible, because I am me.

AMBASSADOR O.S. Who says that you are you?

SECRETARY
(irritated) I say that I am me!

AMBASSADOR O.S. Then, if you are you, one can say "You are this," and
if one can say, "You are this," one can also say to say, "I am this,"
and if one can say, "is I is this," why this incorrect: "It is
I"?

SECRETARY
(also irritated) It is bad grammar because it is a subject, and we
need an object!

AMBASSADOR
Here is an object! An objet d'art!

With statue is thrown through the window and Lands one the
secretary's desk.

~Le Fin~

Le Fin means the end. An objet d'art is an object of art, a phrase inducted into english in a vain attempt to sound sophisticated. Also, while in english 'it is I' is correct, in French 'It is me' is correct. Speaking of which, this is an internet translation. Assume the original is far more delightful. Or learn French.

[Deleted]

i prefered the french version splendid. does have the potential to be humourous but somehow it just fails on that front....

[johnsapphire]

The guild as a whole seems to concur that all my writing is just short of humorous. Kind of "internal smile" funny, but not, "laugh out loud" funny.

[Emily]

I thought it was entertaining, and I understood the french version (what on earth is wrong with me!??)

Short - but sweet.

[johnsapphire]

I've only been studying french for just over two years. I tried to make this as short and self-contained as possible. Emily, nothing at all (btw, I'm told that when I say 'at all' it comes out as 'a tall') is wrong with you. On earth or elsewhere.

~JS

[jollymcjollyson]

I prefer the French version, if I have to pick one. But this really isn't that subtle a commentary on language, assuming that's what you were going for, and the vocabulary of the play is just too elementary. It's like Samuel Beckett without the rich language and well-developed themes.

[johnsapphire]

I don't claim to be advanced.

[jollymcjollyson]

johnsapphire said:

I don't claim to be advanced.

Sorry, sorry! I missed your post saying you'd been studying for only two years.

In that case, kudos to you for taking the initiative to write something in another language! We'll never understand English if we can't understand language as a whole, and the best way to do that is to learn as many languages as one can.

[johnsapphire]

My sentiments precisely.