I see your point too. But does such a thing really happen in real life when real people talk ? As such, if you hear "beaucoup des", the first thing you think is "wow, that's wrong!" But if after there is a relative clause, you can think "Ah OK". But if not, it just sounds wrong.

I realize that such examples aren't likely in an everyday conversation (hence, I wrote technically in one of my previous posts). I also realize that at a first glance they seem to be lapsus linguae, but if one delves into nuances...

On the other hand, the context is everything and in some ones hardly anyone would ever noticed any oddity. Which is not to say that the frequency of constructions of this ilk is high, they are, I think, rather particularities if compared to the mainstream.

It's also worth noting that distirbution of certain constructions in languages can also be different--even though the constructions may have direct (or more or less direct) couterparts their distribution in a language may highly differ. For instance:
"beaucoup des gens (qui...)" may be less acceptable in French than "a lot of the people (who...)" in English in spite of their being sound in each language from a grammatical standpoint.

"beaucoup des gens (qui...)" may be less acceptable in French than "a lot of the people (who...)" in English in spite of their being sound in each language from a grammatical standpoint.

Click to expand...

Might be, I suppose, but isn't as far as I know - why do you say that? "Beaucoup des gens" as long as it's followed by a clause is very common, just as in English (and equally it is wrong to miss out the clause in English and say something like "many of the people like cake").

I think that DP's point was that it risks sounding wrong - but equally that is the case in English. For example, even in the example above if someone had just said "No one in Scotland likes chocolate", it would be grammatically fine to reply "but many of the people like cake" (eg "the people who live in Scotland" being understood). In isolation - and perhaps in the mouth of a foreign-speaker, against whom natives of all languages are ready to hear errors - "many of the people like cake" sounds strange.

PS: What is the other reason the example is wrong? Je donne ma langue au chat.

Might be, I suppose, but isn't as far as I know - why do you say that? "Beaucoup des gens" as long as it's followed by a clause is very common, just as in English (and equally it is wrong to miss out the clause in English and say something like "many of the people like cake").

Click to expand...

I knew I risked giving this as an example (this is actually the reason why I used may).
I couldn't be bothered to look for some examples that would trully illustrate what I was aiming at, and took the ones I found in this thread. It was an example of my point though without actual representation, sorry if that confused anyone.
On the other hand, why do you find sentenes like "many of the people like cake" wrong?

I think that DP's point was that it risks sounding wrong - but equally that is the case in English. For example, even in the example above if someone had just said "No one in Scotland likes chocolate", it would be grammatically fine to reply "but many of the people like cake" (eg "the people who live in Scotland" being understood). In isolation - and perhaps in the mouth of a foreign-speaker, against whom natives of all languages are ready to hear errors - "many of the people like cake" sounds strange.

Click to expand...

Is there something that contradicts this? I realize this, I tried to point out that in certain cases constructions of this type would probably pass without anyone's noting them. Would the example you gave stirike you as unusual if you heard it form a native speaker.
It also seems to me that the natves' acceptance of, say, peculiar constructions employed by natives is much higher than if the same constructions are used by a foreginer who uses the language in question (and it's not their mother tongue) even though both used them correctly.

I think you could say, "Beaucoup des personnes qui fréquentent ce forum sont à l'université." Meaning "a lot of the people who . . ." as opposed to "a lot of people" in general. Ai-je raison, les francophones natifs? (Can I say "francophones natifs" as opposed to a francophone who can only speak the language as a result of studying it?)

M.H. and geostan,
I have a question. I read the thread [...] and appreciated the logic that the specificity of an additional clause necessitates "many of the" in English and "beaucoup des" in French. However, my question is: since when did French follow the rules in English. By its own logic, French is more of a stickler for rules and, for this reason, I am not sure why it would be wrong to say:
Beaucoup de gens dont j'ai longuement parlé sont ici?
Why would French in trying to be like English subvert its own rule and force us to say:
Beaucoup des gens dont j'ai longuement parlé sont ici?

OK, the simpler version of the question is: Is it wrong to say "beaucoup de gens dont j'ai parlé sont ici"?

However, my question is: since when did French follow the rules in English. By its own logic, French is more of a stickler for rules and, for this reason, I am not sure why it would be wrong to say:
Beaucoup de gens dont j'ai longuement parlé sont ici?
Why would French in trying to be like English subvert its own rule and force us to say:
Beaucoup des gens dont j'ai longuement parlé sont ici?

Click to expand...

One facet of your question needs to be addressed. The fact that English and French agree on a usage does not mean that one is following the other's rules. Quite often grammatical logic dictates the same rule in many languages.

Concerning the nature of the definite article, I usually follow the notion that if the definite article is required (not merely optional) in the one language, it is usually required in the other. It does not always work, but it does more often than not. Certain idiomatic expressions by their nature escape this logic, e.g. I don't have a choice - Je n'ai pas le choix. (I might add here that the French version is more logical because a choice usually suggests one alternative vs another.)

Capello has shown that your example is a possible French sentence, but it is the same in English. The two langauges are on the same wave length.

Many people I talked about...
Many of the people I talked about (the more usual one, I might add).

I know that after an expression of quantity such as 'beaucoup de', you never use 'des', even if the noun is plural. However, does this still apply when there are multiple nouns, such as in my sentence: 'La ville a beaucoup de jardins, de parcs, et de sentiers de découverte de la nature.' Do all the nouns keep 'de', or should the last two use 'des'?

La ville a beaucoup de jardins, de parcs et de sentiers de découverte...

It does not matter if the general thing you have a lot of is singular or plural, you use de... and if there are multiple nouns in a list, you still use de, repeating it in front of each of the nouns, just as you did.

However, the statement that you will "never" use des after an expression of quantity is not correct. You must distinguish between definite and indefinite usage.

Indefinite: you won't use des with an expression of quantity
Remember that the indefinite articles are un, une and des: un jardin = a garden, des jardins = gardens (in general). The indefinite plural combines as de + des = de, so

beaucoup de + des jardins = beaucoup de jardins, many gardens

Definite: you can use des even with an expression of quantity
When you speak of specific gardens, instead of gardens in general, you will need a definite article ("the garden(s)" instead of "a garden" or "gardens"). The plural definite article les combines as de + les = des, so

beaucoup de + les jardins de Paris = beaucoup des jardins de Paris, many of the gardens of Paris

Which gardens? Specifically, the gardens of Paris. Obviously we expect this sentence to continue to tell us something about "many of the gardens of Paris"... that they are maintained by city funds, that they close at dusk, that they have playgrounds for children, etc.

That makes perfect sense. Thank you very much for the explanation! I'll copy it down into my notes. For years, my French teachers have just taught 'never use des after an expression of quantity!' and then bombarded us with a list of expressions of quantity, so it's great to finally get an actual, logical explanation

Just remember to always use « beaucoup de » or « beaucoup d'X » when the next word begins with a vowel.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid that's not quite accurate.

It is absolutely possible to have du/de la/de l'/des or even d'un(e) after beaucoup. It is true that you will very often need de, but you are by no means limited to de! The base expression is beaucoup de = "a lot of." But then the preposition de/of on the end of this expression can combine with the definite (le/la/les), indefinite (un/une) or partitive article (du/de la/des).... so whether you keep the de or change it to something else depends on what comes afterwards.

e.g., Au zoo, j'ai vu beaucoup de + des oiseaux exotiques --> Au zoo, j'ai vu beaucoup d'oiseaux exotiques.
= I saw a lot of exotic birds at the zoo.
In English, if there's one bird, we say "a bird," but if there are several we get to drop the article and just say "birds." It doesn't work that way in French. The plural of un oiseau is des oiseaux: you have to include the article des. Then this plural article des combines with the preposition de from beaucoup de to give you de back again.

e.g., Au zoo, j'ai vu beaucoup de + les oiseaux que tu m'avais décrits. --> Au zoo, j'ai vu beaucoup des oiseaux exotiques que tu m'avais décrits.
= At the zoo, I saw a lot of the exotic birds that you had described to me.
Now we're talking about certain specific birds. Which birds? The birds that you had described to me. We need the definite article "the" in English, and we need it in French too (les). And then de definite plural les combines with the preposition de from beaucoup de to give you des.

So why do so many students of French learn that they should automatically put de after beaucoup? With an expression of quantity like beaucoup de, the thing we have a lot of is usually partitive or indefinite plural. That means we very frequently have beaucoup de + du/de la/des XXX --> beacoup de XXX... so most of the time, we end up getting de back again. This is the origin of the inaccurate rule. As you can see, it's not so much that the rule is "wrong" as that it is oversimplified. You will often use de after beaucoup, but by no means "always."

I think that one needs to get the logic of the system to understand these differences.
In English the plural s is pronounced but in French it isn't so it's essential the plural indefinite article des (with countable nouns). I eat oranges/je mange des oranges.
When there is a quantifier, for example, beaucoup, it's obvious that beaucoup means plural, so the plural indefinite article is not essential. Beaucoup d'oranges.
The same when there is an attributive adjective before a plural noun. Je mange de bonnes oranges. In this case is the adjective (mandatory liaison) which tells us that the noun is plural (but until XVI century the final s was always pronounced).

So, with beaucoup, when the noun is indefinite, there's no need to put the plural indefinite article before the noun, but when the noun is definite, one has to put the definite article (de + le, la, les).

In English the plural s is pronounced but in French it isn't so it's essential the plural indefinite article des (with countable nouns). [...] When there is a quantifier, for example, beaucoup, it's obvious that beaucoup means plural, so the plural indefinite article is not essential.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I think this explanation is misleading.

It's not true that the plural indefinite article is non-essential or omitted in French. The plural indefinite is present in contracted form. Just as de + le = du for the m. sing. definite article, there is a contraction rule for the indefinite plural article: de + des = de.

Now perhaps your thinking helps to explain why the contracted form de looks exactly like the preposition de (I don't know enough about etymology and history of language to say, though we have a forum for that)... but I don't feel that it's accurate to say that the indefinite article has been omitted in beaucoup de + plural noun.

The same when there is an attributive adjective before a plural noun. Je mange de bonnes oranges. In this case is the adjective (mandatory liaison) which tells us that the noun is plural (but until XVI century the final s was always pronounced).

Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. If this argument were true -- that the "s" of des may be dropped because the phonetics of the liaison convey the plural meaning -- then how do you explain cases where the liaison is present even in the singular? (gros ennui, faux ami, etc.)