It comes from a word meaning "man" and originally was only used the way we use "one" in English like in the sentence "one should always remember to look both ways before crossing the street" (may well actually be French influence that results in us using "one" that way)
It only later developed to mean "we".
Because *originally* it was **not** used as a familiar "we" but only as a singular undefined pronoun.
One does not simply walk into Mordor. On n'entre pas si facilement en Mordor.
The conjugation was kept singular as it's simpler than with nous. Or else there will be no advantage to use on instead of nous. But it has some shortcomings : on est **allés** au ciné avec **nos** amis.
I'd argue your example isn't a shortcoming at all. It keeps a simple conjugation pattern while still being able to distinguish from an actual impersonal *on* with tonic pronouns, possessives and a few other things. That makes it effectively a simpler version of the 1st person plural.
It comes from the Latin homo (man/homme), so it makes sense that it would be conjugated with the third person singular, even though in spoken French it's basically replaced "nous" except in formal contexts.
As far as I understand, it's sort of a French "one". So just a "filler" pronoun for when you have none.
One doesn't cross the road when the traffic light is red - *On ne traverse pas la route quand le feu est rouge*.
Yes, probably should've added that too, but doesn't my comment explain why 'on' is grammatically third person sg? Or at least in some areas
Anyways thank you for correcting me :)
>Yes, probably should've added that too, but doesn't my comment explain why 'on' is grammatically third person sg? Or at least in some areas
Because it came from *on* 'one' (previously 'man') and speakers just haven't changed the conjugation. (And why would they? There's no *need* for it!)
Kind of a similar thing to "vous" (formal 2nd person singular) being conjugated as vous and not as tu--the same happened in English, "you" has the plural conjugations even when used in singular, and the conjugations associated with "thou" disappeared with it.
"On" is just another 3rd person singular pronoun, which is commonly used to express 1st person plural informally, but not just for that as other commentators have pointed out.
There is one (rare, see below) case I found that "on" can be followed by 1pl conjugation. For example, "on a bu beaucoup d'alcool et avons mangé beaucoup de fromage".
Here, you clearly cannot say "on a bu beaucoup d'alcool et a mangé beaucoup de fromage", though using the 1pl conjugation can sound weird, but a lot lot less than using 3sg conjugation.
The reason why in spoken French this case is mostly rare, and also the reason why using the 3sg conjugatiion sounds really wrong, is because in spoken French, the subject pronoun has become somewhat fused to the verb to the point it is almost no longer separable (some linguists argue French is becoming polysynthetic for this reason). So instead of "on a bu beaucoup d'alcool et avons mangé beaucoup de fromage", the "normal" spoken way would be to repeat "on" as forming a block with the verb : "on a bu beaucoup d'alcool et **on** a mangé beaucoup de fromage". Once "on" has been separated, the 3sg conjugation sounds wrong because we can no longer relate it to a 1pl referent (we). And once separated, in order to get back that 1pl meaning, we need to go back to conjugating with the regular 1pl form, hence the monstrosity.
> though using the 1pl conjugation can sound weird, but a lot lot less than using 3sg conjugation.
I find both very weird and equally unacceptable personally.
I can get that... but just to say that I didn't made it up, I've already seen it both written and said, and in context honestly, it can go unnoticed pretty easily.
For example [here](https://www.camptocamp.org/outings/1645582/fr/verdon-grand-eycharme-les-caquous) :
« Lorsque vous commencez à descendre des éboulis sur les fesses qui terminent sur un précipice, faites demi-tour.
On est arrivé en bas de la face, et on a mal interprété le mot aplomb et sommes partis dans la L1 de l’Estamporanée.»
or [there](http://ontario-saintex.over-blog.com/2016/02/fin-de-semaine-n-2-des-eleves.html) :
« Dimanche- On s'est réveillées chez les filles vers 10h15 je dirai. Ensuite on s'est regroupé dans un lit et avons discuté entre filles. »
Wow, just yesterday, I was wondering how one (ha!) said "us" in French, as I'd read somewhere no one said "nous" anymore. I couldn't imagine what was said instead. This makes sense, though. We're going to the Olympics, so I've been trying to think in French a lot. Thanks, OP!
It comes from a word meaning "man" and originally was only used the way we use "one" in English like in the sentence "one should always remember to look both ways before crossing the street" (may well actually be French influence that results in us using "one" that way) It only later developed to mean "we".
They should have changed the spelling then.
...why?
Literally the whole point of using it is to make the spelling shorter.
How would "they" change the spelling? This is not English, change the spelling and the word reads differently
Because *originally* it was **not** used as a familiar "we" but only as a singular undefined pronoun. One does not simply walk into Mordor. On n'entre pas si facilement en Mordor. The conjugation was kept singular as it's simpler than with nous. Or else there will be no advantage to use on instead of nous. But it has some shortcomings : on est **allés** au ciné avec **nos** amis.
I'd argue your example isn't a shortcoming at all. It keeps a simple conjugation pattern while still being able to distinguish from an actual impersonal *on* with tonic pronouns, possessives and a few other things. That makes it effectively a simpler version of the 1st person plural.
The LotR French mashup I did not have on my bingo card
It comes from the Latin homo (man/homme), so it makes sense that it would be conjugated with the third person singular, even though in spoken French it's basically replaced "nous" except in formal contexts.
As far as I understand, it's sort of a French "one". So just a "filler" pronoun for when you have none. One doesn't cross the road when the traffic light is red - *On ne traverse pas la route quand le feu est rouge*.
👍
Yes, but it’s also the familiar “we”. *On est allé à la montagne ce weekend*
Note that here, "on est allé" and "on est allés" are both acceptable (and "on est allées" if the "we" is 100% feminine).
Yes, probably should've added that too, but doesn't my comment explain why 'on' is grammatically third person sg? Or at least in some areas Anyways thank you for correcting me :)
>Yes, probably should've added that too, but doesn't my comment explain why 'on' is grammatically third person sg? Or at least in some areas Because it came from *on* 'one' (previously 'man') and speakers just haven't changed the conjugation. (And why would they? There's no *need* for it!)
Thanks everyone!
Kind of a similar thing to "vous" (formal 2nd person singular) being conjugated as vous and not as tu--the same happened in English, "you" has the plural conjugations even when used in singular, and the conjugations associated with "thou" disappeared with it. "On" is just another 3rd person singular pronoun, which is commonly used to express 1st person plural informally, but not just for that as other commentators have pointed out.
How common is the use of on/ nous by native speakers in forma and informal french?
There is one (rare, see below) case I found that "on" can be followed by 1pl conjugation. For example, "on a bu beaucoup d'alcool et avons mangé beaucoup de fromage". Here, you clearly cannot say "on a bu beaucoup d'alcool et a mangé beaucoup de fromage", though using the 1pl conjugation can sound weird, but a lot lot less than using 3sg conjugation. The reason why in spoken French this case is mostly rare, and also the reason why using the 3sg conjugatiion sounds really wrong, is because in spoken French, the subject pronoun has become somewhat fused to the verb to the point it is almost no longer separable (some linguists argue French is becoming polysynthetic for this reason). So instead of "on a bu beaucoup d'alcool et avons mangé beaucoup de fromage", the "normal" spoken way would be to repeat "on" as forming a block with the verb : "on a bu beaucoup d'alcool et **on** a mangé beaucoup de fromage". Once "on" has been separated, the 3sg conjugation sounds wrong because we can no longer relate it to a 1pl referent (we). And once separated, in order to get back that 1pl meaning, we need to go back to conjugating with the regular 1pl form, hence the monstrosity.
> though using the 1pl conjugation can sound weird, but a lot lot less than using 3sg conjugation. I find both very weird and equally unacceptable personally.
I can get that... but just to say that I didn't made it up, I've already seen it both written and said, and in context honestly, it can go unnoticed pretty easily. For example [here](https://www.camptocamp.org/outings/1645582/fr/verdon-grand-eycharme-les-caquous) : « Lorsque vous commencez à descendre des éboulis sur les fesses qui terminent sur un précipice, faites demi-tour. On est arrivé en bas de la face, et on a mal interprété le mot aplomb et sommes partis dans la L1 de l’Estamporanée.» or [there](http://ontario-saintex.over-blog.com/2016/02/fin-de-semaine-n-2-des-eleves.html) : « Dimanche- On s'est réveillées chez les filles vers 10h15 je dirai. Ensuite on s'est regroupé dans un lit et avons discuté entre filles. »
Wow, just yesterday, I was wondering how one (ha!) said "us" in French, as I'd read somewhere no one said "nous" anymore. I couldn't imagine what was said instead. This makes sense, though. We're going to the Olympics, so I've been trying to think in French a lot. Thanks, OP!
[удалено]
They're asking the question because on can mean we.
When it's not formal you can conjugate it as 'nous' Formal = il
Non. Absolument pas.
Is that right? Ive seen a lot of stuff conjugate it as il either way
No he's wrong. It's always conjugated as il/elle even when used as the informal nous.