Choucroute satisfaite!

Merci ma ptite poule pour l'explication. Tu remercieras bien sûr Julio! Je suis contente que le petit portrait de Jefferson t'ait plu. Je n'avais pas pensé au Boggart ms maintenant que tu le dis c'est clair je ne verrais jamais plus Jefferson de la mm manière. Je tiens également à te féliciter pour ta grande culture "Potterienne"! Je suis fière de toi.

Bonne fin de we et see you on Wednesday à 7h30! lol

Bizouilles

Une choucroute pour la table numéro deux, une !!!!

Jess, Jess, Jess... tu me feras toujours haluciner!!! La photo de notre ami "civilisationnel" est trop top!!! Ca m'a fait pensé au "boggart"dans Harry Potter 3.... le truc qui sort de l'armoire et qui prend la forme de notre plus grande peur .... pour le vaincre il faut penser à un truc super marrant ou à qqchose de ridicule . Enfin, simple culture personnelle. ( je sais, je sais ... trop de culture tue la culture). J'espère que vous allez passer une bonne soirée mes poules....et surtout ne mangez pas trop de bonbons !!!! (ou alors demander à Jess avant pour le nombre de points !!! hihihihihihi).
En ce qui concerne la choucroute Julio m'a expliqué et c'est moi qui t'écris. Alors, tu vas sur "telecharger.com"; ensuite il faut que tu trouves le programme de téléchargement que tu cherches (le mieux c'est "Shareaza" (version 2 ou 3)) puis tu le télécharges. Il faut ensuite que tu l'installes sur l'ordi. Pour trouver un film ou quoi que se soit d'autre tu peux passer par Shareaza mais souvent tu te retrouves avec qqchose de complètement différent ou avec qqchose dont la qualité est bidon. Le mieux c'est d'aller sur des sites tel que : divxovore.com/index.php
hackmania69.free.fr/menu.htm
couquine.free.fr/idonkey/V2/index.php
Tes téléchargements se feront sur Shareaza et une fois qu'il sont finis (et c'est là que ça se gâte parce que sa dépend de la version que tu auras téléchargée) tu peux les retrouver dans un dossier appelé "downloads" (enfin normallement).
Bon aller, gros bisous ma gueuze. A mercredi.

Happy Halloween les gueuzes!

En tant que "Capessiennes" d'anglais ns ns devons de nous souhaiter un Happy Halloween et surtout de manger pleins de bonbons au lieu de les donner aux mioches!

Trop de Civi tue la Civi!

Petite dédicace à ma Flo!
Don't worry ma poule, la civi c'est de la gnognotte....tu vas tout casser avec Yoyo jeudi.

Bizouille

salut choucroute !!!!!

Coucou poule .... j'ai pris note de ton petit message. En fait là on sort avec Julio et comme je sais pas trop comment tout ça marche j'ai demandé à Julio et demain il t'enverra un petit mot pour t'expliquer tout sur les sites de téléchargement. J'espère que cett réponse te satisfait. Pleins pleins pleins de gros bizoux ma caille. Reposes-toi bien ce weekend.
Tchou

Rien à voir avec la choucroute!

Salut Anne-Cé (oui je m'adresse à toi car pour l'instant on est 2 à faire vivre le blog LOL).

Je voulais te demander si tu pouvais me dire sur quel site télécharger des films et comment faire, histoire que je m'occupe un peu. Je n'ai pas l'âme à bosser today!

Merci d'avance......Bizouilles et bon week-end!

Moi je dis ......

Moi je dis bravo Madame pour cette liste super top méga cool !!! Mais ne crois pas que grâce à ça tu vas échapper aux quatre chapitres que tu dois ficher !!!!!! (hihihihi...)
Ca fait du bien de pas travailler le mardi les poules hein..?!
Pleins de gros bisous et à demain .

LEWIS & CLARK : Members of the expedition

Hello les girls! Vous passez un bon week-end ? Ca fait du bien de pouvoir se reposer un peu. Mais attention, se reposer ne veut pas dire ne pas bosser.....eh ouiiii. Alors je vous donne un peu de boulot (enfin y'a juste qu'à imprimer....ça va pas être trop dur pour vous ? lol). J'ai fait une grande trouvaille sur le net...vous le croirez ou pas, ms j'ai trouvé une liste des membres de l'expedition qui est apparemment super complète! Pas besoin de reprendre tout le livre...OUF! Vous me direz ce que vs en pensez. BIZOUILLES mes poules.

Captain Meriwether Lewis (1774–1809). Born in Virginia, he joined the army in 1794 and served in the Ohio Valley and the Old Northwest Territory, where he became friends with Clark. He became Jefferson's private secretary in 1801, while retaining his military rank, and in 1803 the president assigned him the task of conducting the expedition. After the expedition he became governor of Louisiana Territory, where he encountered difficulties that caused him severe emotional problems. He died by his own hand on the Natchez Trace in Tennessee.

Second Lieutenant William Clark (1770–1838). The younger brother of George Rogers Clark, he moved from Virginia, where he was born, to Kentucky with his family at the age of fourteen. Joining the army in 1792, he participated in the campaigns of General Anthony Wayne in the Northwest, rising to the rank of captain; Lewis was under his command for a time. He left the army in 1796 to attend to family business, but he kept in touch with Lewis and was apparently the other's first choice to share command of the expedition. Because of army red tape, he received only a second lieutenant's rank, but he and Lewis concealed this from the men, and he was always referred to as Captain Clark. After the expedition he had a distinguished political career, including the governorship of Missouri Territory, but for much of the time until his death he was in charge of relations with the Indians west of the Mississipi, with his headquarters in St. Louis. The Indians knew that city simply as "Red Head's Town," after him, and he strove to maintain some degree of justice and equity in the relations between Indian and white.

Sergeant Charles Floyd (1782–1804). Born in Kentucky, he was one of the nine young men from that state on the expedition. Lewis regarded him as "a young man of much merit," and he was made a sergeant before the start of the expedition. He is remembered principally as the only member lost on the voyage; he died on August 20, 1804, near present Sioux City, Iowa, perhaps of a ruptured appendix. He kept his journal until a few days before his death. He may have been a distant relative of William Clark. Floyd's (or Floyd) River in Iowa was named for him.

Sergeant Patrick Gass (1771–1870). Born in Pennsylvania, of Irish ancestry, he belonged to Captain Russell Bissell's company of the First Infantry, having joined the army in 1799 after service in a volunteer Ranger unit. He was promoted from private to sergeant after Floyd's death in August of 1804, having officially joined the expedition on January 1, 1804. His skill as a carpenter was of great value to the expedition. His journal, published in 1807 after considerable alteration, was the first journal from the expedition to see publication. He stayed on in the army and served in the War of 1812, losing an eye in an accident, which caused his discharge. Marrying at the age of sixty, he eventually settled in Wellsburg, West Virginia, and died there in 1870, the last known survivor of the expedition.

Sergeant John Ordway (ca. 1775–ca. 1817). One of the journalists of the expedition, he was born and apparently grew up in New Hampshire. He joined from Captain Russell Bissell's company of the First Infantry and was placed on the expedition roll on January 1, 1804, but he was already at Camp Dubois some time before that. He was the only one of the original sergeants to come from the regular army, and probably for that reason he often took care of the paperwork and was in charge of the camp when the captains were both absent. Ordway kept his journal faithfully throughout the expedition. He seldom appears in the journals except in carrying out some duty, attesting to his reliability. After the expedition he accompanied Lewis and a party of Indians to Washington, D.C., then returned to New Hampshire, having taken his discharge. In 1809 he settled in Missouri, became prosperous, and married. He and his wife had died by 1817.

Sergeant Nathaniel Hale Pryor (1772–1831). He was born in Virginia and was a cousin of Charles Floyd, also with the expedition. He moved to Kentucky with his parents in 1783 and joined the expedition on October 20, 1803, at Clarksville, Indiana, as one of the nine young men from Kentucky. He was one of the few members already married, having taken a wife in 1798. He may have kept a journal, like the other sergeants, but none has been found. The captains considered him "a man of character and ability" and after the expedition helped him secure an officer's commission in the army. In 1807 he was in charge of the expedition to return the Mandan chief Sheheke to his tribe, but he was forced to turn back by the Arikaras. He resigned from the army in 1810 and entered the Indian trade on the Mississippi; he rejoined the army in 1813 and rose to captain, serving in the Battle of New Orleans. After the War of 1812 he became a trader among the Osages on the Arkansas River, married an Osage woman, and remained with the tribe until his death. He served briefly as government agent for the Osages in 1830–31. Pryor, Oklahoma, and the Pryor Mountains and town of Pryor, both in Montana, bear his name.

Private John Boley (dates unknown). Boley, sometimes "Boleye" in the records, was probably born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and was living in Kaskaskia when he joined the army in 1803. He came from Captain Russell Bissell's company of the First Infantry Regiment. He had some disciplinary trouble at River Dubois and was designated for the return party. After returning from Fort Mandan in 1805 he accompanied Zebulon M. Pike's expedition to the upper Mississippi in that year, and in 1806 he went with Pike to the southwest and the Rockies. Part of that group, including Boley, returned east down the Arkansas River before Pike and the rest were captured by the Spanish. After his discharge he settled in Missouri and reportedly accompanied a civilian party to the Rockies. In 1823, he and his wife were living in Carondelet, near St. Louis.

Private William E. Bratton (1778–1841). Often "Bratten" in the journals, he was born in Virginia and moved to Kentucky with his family in about 1790. He enlisted with the expedition on October 20, 1803, as one of the nine young men from Kentucky. Bratton was useful to the expedition as a hunter and blacksmith. During the spring of 1806 he was incapacitated for some weeks by a mysterious back ailment, perhaps the longest spell of serious illness experienced by any member of the expedition, finally being cured by an Indian sweat bath. After the expedition he lived in Kentucky and Missouri, served in the War of 1812, married in 1819, and lived in Ohio and Indiana. He died and was buried at Waynetown, Indiana.

Private John Collins (?–1823). Born in Maryland, Collins officially joined the expedition on January 1, 1804, although he was probably at the River Dubois camp before that; he may have transferred from Captain Russell Bissell's company of the First Infantry. Collins was involved in disciplinary troubles as often as any other man in the expedition, leading Clark to call him a "black gard"; at River Dubois he stole a local farmer's hog and was frequently drunk and disobedient. On the first summer of the voyage he was court-martialed for stealing whiskey from the official supply while detailed to guard it. Nonetheless, he was from the first a member of the permanent party, presumably because of redeeming qualities perceived by the captains. He may have settled in Missouri after the expedition. Later he was with William Ashley's trapping venture to the upper Missouri and was killed in Ashley's battle with the Arikaras in 1823.

Private John Colter (ca. 1775–1813). Colter, probably the only member of the Corps whose fame does not rest primarily on his service with the expedition, was born in Virginia. As a youth, he and his family moved to Maysville, Kentucky, where he intercepted Lewis on the captain's voyage down the Ohio, becoming one of the nine young men from Kentucky. His enlistment dates from October 15, 1803. After some disciplinary difficulties during the winter at River Dubois, he proved useful to the expedition as a hunter. On the return journey he received permission to leave the party at the Mandan villages to join a small trapping expedition headed back up the Missouri. He spent an additional four years in the mountains as an independent trapper and working for Manuel Lisa's Missouri Fur Company. In his wanderings he was apparently the first white man to see the region of present Yellowstone Park, and his tales of hot springs and geysers led to derisive jokes about "Colter's Hell." His escape, naked, from the Blackfeet near the three Forks of the Missouri has become a western legend. On his return to civilization in 1810 he was able to add information to Clark's great map of the West. Settling in Missouri, Colter married; he died in 1813 of jaundice.

Private Pierre Cruzatte (dates unknown). Often referred to as "Peter Cruzat" and other variations in the journals, he was half French and half Omaha. His official enlistment date was May 16, 1804, at St. Charles, Missouri, but he may have been recruited earlier. He was an experienced Missouri River boatman who had already participated in the Indian trade as far as Nebraska and was hired for his skill and experience. Unlike the other French boatmen, he and Fran ois Labiche were enlisted as members of the permanent party. He was one-eyed and nearsighted, and his fiddle playing often entertained the party. At times he also acted as an interpreter. Lewis paid tribute during the expedition to his skill and experince as a riverman and to his integrity, but in the postexpedition list of members he receives no special recommendation; this is perhaps because the myopic Cruzatte had accidentally wounded Lewis while the two were hunting in August 1806. Speculation places him with John McClellan's expedition to the Rockies in 1807. Clark lists him as "killed" by 1825–28.

Private John Dame (1784–?). Dame, born in New Hampshire, joined the army in 1801; he was assigned to the expedition from Captain Amos Stoddard's artillery company and designated for the return party. He is mentioned once in the journals, August 8, 1804, for killing a pelican.
Interpreter George Drouillard (?–1810). Generally "Drewyer" or some variant in the journals, he was probably born in Canada, the son of a French-Canadian father and a Shawnee mother, and migrated as a youth to the Cape Girardeau district of Missouri with his mother's people. He met Lewis at Fort Massac, Illinois, in November 1803, possibly while employed by the army there, and agreed to serve the expedition as an interpreter. He was apparently considered a civilian employee, not an enlisted man, during the expedition. His skill with the Indian sign language was of great value to the captains, and he was also one of the Corps's best hunters; whenever one of the captains set out to scout ahead of the party, Drouillard was likely to be chosen to accompany him, because of those abilities and his general skill as a scout and wilderness man. After the expedition's return he became a partner in Manuel Lisa's fur trading ventures on the upper Missouri and the Yellowstone. On a return trip to St. Louis he was able to contribute information to Clark's map of the West. Drouillard was with the party of Lisa's men who established a fur post at the Three Forks of the Missouri in 1810, and near there in that year he died at the hands of the Blackfeet.

Privates Joseph Field (ca. 1772–1807) and Reubin Field (ca. 1771–1823?). The two brothers, called "Field" or "Fields" at various times in the journals, were born in Virginia and came to Kentucky at an early age; they were among the nine young men from Kentucky, and their official enlistment date was August 1, 1803, indicating that they were among the first men recruited by Clark in the neighborhood of his home. Reubin had some disciplinary difficulties at River Dubois, but both were chosen for the permanent party. They were among the best shots and hunters in the Corps of Discovery and with George Drouillard were often chosen to accompany the captains on special reconnaissances; both were with Lewis in his fight with the Blackfeet on July 27, 1806. Lewis wrote, "It was their peculiar fate to have been engaged in all the most dangerous and difficult scenes of the voyage, in which they uniformly acquited themselves with much honor." Joseph apparently died less than a year after the return of the expedition; Clark listed him as "killed," as distinguished from those who died a natural death. One theory suggests that he was with the mysterious expedition of John McClellan to the Rockies when his death occurred, but in that case it hardly seems that word of his death could have reached Kentucky by October 1807, when it was officially recorded. Reubin settled in Kentucky, married, and died by early 1823.

Private Robert Frazer (?–1837). "Frazer" is the accepted form of his name, but in the journals he is often "Frazier," "Frasure," and other forms that probably indicate how his comrades pronounced his name. Accounts saying that he was born in Vermont and was once a fencing master are apparently in error; he was probably born in Virginia. There is no information on when he joined or if he had previously been in the army. Frazer was not at first part of the permanent party but was transferred from the intended return party on October 8, 1804, to replace Moses Reed after the latter's expulsion. Frazer kept a journal and received special permission from the captains to publish it, but the publication never took place and the journal is apparently lost. His map of the expedition, far below the standard set by Clark, has survived (Atlas map 124). He accompanied Lewis to Washington, D. C., after the expedition, then returned to Missouri and settled there. He died in Franklin County, Missouri.
Private George Gibson (?–1809). Born in Pennsylvania, he was one of the nine young men from Kentucky. He was a good hunter and played the fiddle for the party on occasion. He served as an interpreter, probably through the medium of sign language. He may have been with Nathaniel Pryor's party attempting to return the Mandan chief Sheheke to his home in 1807 and was perhaps wounded then. He died in St. Louis.

Private Silas Goodrich (dates unknown). Goodrich, sometimes "Guterage" or some variation in the journals, was born in Massachusetts. The time and place of his joining the Corps are unknown, although he was officially enrolled in January 1, 1804; possible he was then a resident of Missouri, and he may already have been in the army. He was one of the expedition's best fishermen. He reenlisted in the army after the expedition. Clark lists him as dead by 1825–28.

Private Hugh Hall (ca. 1772–?). Hall was born in Massachusetts, joined the army in 1798, and was transferred to the expedition from Captain John Campbell's company of the Second Infantry Regiment in November 1803. Clark notes that he drank. He and John Collins were court-martialed in June 1804 for tapping the official ration whiskey and getting drunk, Collins having been detailed to guard the supply. Hall was in the St. Louis area in 1809, when he borrowed money from Lewis; Clark apparently had no information to record about him in 1825–28.

Private Thomas Proctor Howard (1779–?). Howard was born and reared in Massachusetts and joined the army in 1801; he was assigned to the expedition from Captain John Campbell's company of the Second Infantry Regiment, officially enrolling on January 1, 1804. Clark noted at River Dubois that Howard "never Drinks water." On February 9, 1805, returning to Fort Mandan from the Indian villages after the gate was closed, he climbed over the wall. The next day he was tried for setting a "pernicious example" to the Indians by showing them that the wall was easily scaled. The sentence was fifty lashes, remitted on the recommendation of the court. This was the last recorded court-martial of the expedition. A Thomas Howard was again serving in the army in 1808. Clark had no information to record on him in 1825–28.

Private François Labiche (dates unknown). He is referred to as "La Buish," "Leebice," and other spellings in the journals. Though traditionally regarded as half French and half Omaha, he may be the "mulatto" mentioned by Charles McKenzie as interpreting French for the captains at Fort Mandan. (The only other possible mulatto would have been York, who surely spoke no French). Labiche was apparently recruited at Kaskaskia, though the official date of his enlistment is May 16, 1804, at St. Charles, Missouri. Like Cruzatte he was an enlisted member of the permanent party, not a hired boatman, undoubtedly chosen for his experience as a boatman and Indian trader. Lewis took special note of his services as an interpreter, recommending that he receive a bonus; he went with Lewis to Washington, D.C., after the expedition to interpret for the Indian chiefs. He may be the Fran ois Labuche who lived in or near St. Louis and baptized seven children there between 1811 and 1834. It is possible that "Labiche" may have been a nickname, the family name being Milhomme. Clark listed him as living in St. Louis in 1825–28.

Private Hugh McNeal (dates unknown). He was born and reared in Pennsylvania and may have been in the army before joining the expedition. A man of that name was on the army rolls as late in 1811. Clark lists him a dead by 1825–28.

Private John Newman (ca. 1785–1838). Newman was born in Pennsylvania and joined the expedition from Captain Daniel Bissell's company of the First Infantry Regiment. He avoided the disciplinary troubles of some of the others at River Dubois, and his record was apparently good until October 1804, when he was confined for "having uttered repeated expressions of a highly criminal and mutinous nature." Tried by court-martial, he received seventy-five lashes and was expelled from the party. His offense may have consisted of angry, defiant words uttered in a moment of bad temper, or he may have been involved in something more serious in collusion with Moses Reed. Since he could not be abandoned in the wilderness, he accompanied the party to Fort Mandan, doing hard labor, then went back with the return party in April 1805. During the intervening months he worked hard to redeem himself, in the hope of being restored to the permanent party, but although the captains were pleased with his conduct, they did not deem it wise to alter their verdict. After the expedition Lewis suggested that Congress allow Newman the pay for his period of service up to his expulsion. He did receive some pay and a land warrant as a member of the expedition, and he may have settled in Missouri. He married at least once but had no children of record. In the 1830s he trapped on the Missouri in the Dakotas for some years and was killed by the Yankton Sioux in the summer of 1838. Clark included him in his list of 1825–28, indicating some interest in Newman's welfare, although he had no information to record.

Private John Potts (1776–1808?). Potts was born in Germany and had been a miller; he joined the U. S. Army in 1800. He was with Captain Robert Purdy's company in Tennessee when ordered to join the expedition in November 1803. In 1807 he joined Manuel Lisa's fur-trading venture to the upper Missouri. He was with his old comrade John Colter when the two were ambushed by Blackfeet near the Three Forks of the Missouri; Potts was killed and Colter narrowly escaped.

Private Moses B. Reed (dates unknown). Reed's antecedents and the point at which he joined the expedition are unknown. He was a member of the permanent party as it was originally constituted, but in August 1804 he attempted to desert; apprehended, he was tried, convicted, and expelled from the party. He remained with the expedition doing hard labor until sent back with the return party in April 1805. Ordway records that Reed was confined on October 12, 1804, at the same time that John Newman was arrested for "mutinous expression." This is the only indication that Reed may have been involved in Newman's offense, but if so, then Newman may have been guilty of something more than a fit of bad-tempered insubordination. Conceivably the two were in collusion to defy the captains' authority in some way, or perhaps Reed tried to induce some other men to support Newman's defiance. There is no other record of Reed's confinement at this time or of his being punished; since he had been dishonorably discharged, the captains may have doubted their legal authority to punish him. After his return to St. Louis, he dropped out of sight. When Clark made up his list of party members in 1825–28, he included Newman but not Reed, evidence of his total lack of interest in the latter's fate.

Private John Robertson (ca. 1780–?). Also "Roberson" in the journals, he is thought to be the Corporal John Robinson, born in New Hampshire, who was serving with Captain Amos Stoddard's artillery company at the time of the expedition. Clark refers to him as a corporal on December 26, 1803, but in subsequent references where rank is given he is a private; apparently he was demoted for some reason. Perhaps he was the unnamed corporal Clark criticized on January 4, 1804, for having "no authority" over his men; this is even more likely because the captains were so completely satisfied with Corporal Richard Warfington, the only other corporal with the expedition. Robertson had some difficulties involving drinking during the River Dubois winter. In an undated list in Clark's Field Notes (placed under April 12, 1804) he is designated for the return party. The last dated mention of his name is in the Orderly Book for April 1, 1804, where he is also designated as one of those to return from somewhere up the Missouri. There is no subsequent dated reference to his name, and he is not in the detachment order of May 26, 1804, concerning the organization of squads. On June 12, 1804, Joseph Whitehouse wrote that a man from Captain Stoddard's company was sent back to St. Louis with a trading party encountered coming down the river; no one else bothered to record the incident, and Whitehouse gives no name and no reason for his return. If Robertson was with the expedition until June 12, it is peculiar that he is not mentioned in the May 26 detachment order. If he was not the man from Stoddard's company sent back, then there are only two men known to have been from this company who are not mentioned in the journals after June 12, and if one of them was sent back, and Robertson had left some time earlier, then there exist problems in accounting for the six soldiers who were with the return party from Fort Mandan under Corporal Warfington in 1805. No reason is anywhere indicated why Robertson would be taken along yet not included in the detachment order of May 26. A purely speculative possibility may be mentioned. The detachment order of May 26 specifically exempts Thomas P. Howard from duty with the pirogues without giving any reason, such as a special assignment. It could be that Howard, designated for the permanent party, was temporarily incapacitated by some illness or injury but was expected to recover in a short time. Robertson might then have been taken along to replace Howard, the preferred man, if the latter did not recover as quickly as anticipated. However having improved as hoped, the less desirable Robertson was sent home. Difficulties with this hypothesis are that no such illness of Howard's is mentioned, and the party with which the unnamed man returned was not the first one met coming down the river. Presumably Robertson returned to his original unit, but there is no further record of him.

Private George Shannon (1785–1836). The youngest member of the party, Shannon was born in Pennsylvania and moved to Ohio with his family in 1800. He joined Lewis at Maysville, Kentucky, with an official enlistment date of October 19, 1803, and is usually listed with the nine young men from Kentucky. In the fall of 1804 he as lost for over two weeks and nearly starved; some sources state that he was continually getting lost, which is unjust, since the only other time he was separated from the party for a few days, on the headwaters of the Missouri in 1805, was hardly his fault. In 1807 he was with Nathaniel Pryor's party in the attempt to return the Mandan chief Sheheke to his people and was wounded in the encounter with the Arikaras; the wound cost him his leg. Eventually he received a government pension for his injury. In 1810 he assisted Nicholas Biddle in the preparation of his history of the expedition. Clark offered him an opportunity to join him in the fur trade, but Shannon chose to study law, and by 1818, after university training, he was practicing in Lexington, Kentucky. He pursued the legal and political career common on the frontier in his day, eventually serving as senator from Missouri. He died and was buried in Palmyra, Missouri.

Private John Shields (1769–1809). Born in Virginia, Shields emigrated with his family to Tennessee in 1784; in 1790 he married and was thus one of the few married men with the expedition. He enlisted on October 19, 1803, and is usually listed as one of the nine young men from Kentucky; in fact, he was the oldest member of the permanent party whose age is known, with the exception of Toussaint Charbonneau. Shields was involved in a virtual mutiny against Sergeant Ordway's authority at River Dubois, greatly disappointing the captains, who evidently expected him as the oldest to display a greater sense of responsibility. During the expedition, however, his skills as a blacksmith, gunsmith, and carpenter were invaluable. "Nothing was more peculiarly useful to us, in various situations," wrote Lewis, "than the skill and ingenuity of this man as an artist, in repairing our guns, accoutrements, &c." Lewis recommended that Congress give Shields a bonus for his services. After the expedition Shields trapped in Missouri for a time with Daniel Boone, a kinsman, then settled in Indiana, where he died and was buried.

Private John B. Thompson (dates unknown). His place of birth and date of joining the expedition are unknown, but he may have lived in Indiana. He seems to have had some experience as a surveyor. Clark refers to him during the expedition as "a valuable member of our party." His postexpedition career is equally obscure; Clark listed him in 1825–28 as "killed." Speculation places him with John McClellan's expedition in the Rockies in 1807.

Private Ebenezer Tuttle (1773–?). Tuttle was born in Connecticut and joined the army in 1803. He was a member of Captain Amos Stoddard's artillery company. The only mention of him in the journals is in a detachment order of May 26, 1804. Possibly he was the unnamed man from Stoddard's company sent back on June 12, 1804; otherwise he was with the return party from Fort Mandan in 1805, as originally planned.

Corporal Richard Warfington (1777–?). In the journals his name appears as "Warpenton," "Worthington," "Wortheyton," and other versions. He was born in North Carolina, joined the army in 1799, and was transferred to the Corps of Discovery from Captain John Campbell's company of the Second Infantry Regiment on November 24, 1803, holding the rank of corporal. The captains apparently found him reliable and efficient and decided to put him in charge of the party they intended to send back from some point on the Missouri. That party was not dispatched nearly as soon as originally intended, and on August 4, 1804, Warfington's enlistment expired. Believing that he was the only one of the intended return party who was really trustworthy, the captains asked Warfington not to take his official discharge at that time, so that he could retain his rank and authority over the return group and ensure the safety of the dispatches, journals, and specimens sent back. Warfington remained with the group at Fort Mandan, conducted the return party to St. Louis in 1805, and carried out his command of that body to the captains' complete satisfaction; he even managed to keep alive a prairie dog and four magpies Lewis sent to Jefferson. Lewis recommended that Warfington receive a bonus beyond his regular pay. Clark apparently had no information about him in 1825–28.

Private Peter M. Weiser (1781–?). Weiser, descended from the noted frontier diplomat Conrad Weiser, was born and apparently reared in Pennsylvania. He was probably a member of Captain Russell Bissell's company of the First Infantry Regiment, stationed at Kaskaskia, before joining the expedition. In spite of some minor disciplinary trouble at River Dubois he was made a member of the permanent party. In 1807 he joined Manuel Lisa's fur-trading venture up the Missouri, and for the next few years he was on the Yellowstone and the Missouri headwaters with Lisa's men, including some old comrades from the expedition. It has been conjectured that he also crossed the Continental Divide to the Snake River valley in Idaho; at any rate, Clark's map of the West (Atlas map 126), published in 1814, shows "Wiser's R." as a tributary of the Snake in western Idaho, in country not visited by the expedition. It is not known whether Clark received the information from Weiser himself or from one of his associates, such as Drouillard or Colter. The river, with the correct spelling, and an Idaho town, still bear his name. Clark listed him in 1825–28 as "killed"; he may have been one of those killed by the Blackfeet while operating out of Lisa's post at the Three Forks of the Missouri in 1810, or perhaps he fell in some later fur-trade skirmish.

Private William Werner (dates unknown). Often "Warner" in the journals, he may have been born in Kentucky and may have been in the army before joining the Corps; his actual date of joining is uncertain. He fought with John Potts during the River Dubois winter, and he was convicted of being absent without leave at St. Charles, Missouri, at the outset of the expedition. Otherwise his service was apparently satisfactory but unremarkable. He appears briefly in the records after the expedition, having been advanced some money in 1807 by Lewis and allowed the use of a government horse. In 1825–28 Clark understood him to be living in Virginia.

Isaac White (ca. 1774–?). White was born in Massachusetts and joined the army in 1801. He was a member of Captain Amos Stoddard's artillery company. The only mention of him in the journals is in a detachment order of May 2, 1804. Possibly he was the man of Stoddard's company sent back on June 12, 1804; otherwise he was with the return party from Fort Mandan in 1805.

Private Joseph Whitehouse (ca. 1775–?). An expedition journalist, Whitehouse was probably born in Virginia and went to Kentucky with his family in about 1784. He enlisted officially on January 1, 1804, transferring from Captain Daniel Bissell's company of the First Infantry Regiment, stationed at Kaskaskia. He was in some sort of disciplinary difficulty during the winter at River Dubois but was allowed to remain with the expedition. During the expedition he often acted as a tailor for the other men. In 1807 in Missouri he was ordered arrested for debt. He later rejoined the army, served in the War of 1812, and deserted in 1817. Clark apparently had no information about him in 1825–28.

Private Alexander Hamilton Willard (1778–1865). Born in New Hampshire, he was living in Kentucky when he enlisted in Captain Amos Stoddard's artillery company in 1800. He was tried and convicted on July 12, 1804, of sleeping while on sentry duty; the offense, under the military regimen of the Corps, was punishable by death, but instead he was given one hundred lashes. He was a blacksmith and apparently assisted John Shields in this work during the expedition. Lewis hired him as government blacksmith for the Sauk and Fox Indians in 1808, and the next year he held the same position with the Delawares and Shawnees. He served in the War of 1812 and lived in Missouri and Wisconsin. His marriage in 1807 produced twelve children. In 1852 he emigrated with his family to California and there died and was buried near Sacramento. There is some suggestion that he kept a journal on the expedition, but if so, it is lost.

Private Richard Windsor (dates unknown). Often "Winser" or Winsor" in the journals, he may have come from Captain Russell Bissell's company of the First Infantry Regiment. Like many of the other soldiers detailed to the expedition, he officially enlisted for the expedition on January 1, 1804. During the trip he was often assigned as a hunter. He settled in Missouri after the expedition but rejoined the army and served until 1819. In 1825–28 Clark listed him as living on the Sangamon River in Illinois.

York (ca. 1770–?). York is the only name given for Clark's slave in the journals or any primary document. He seems to have been about the same age as Clark, or a few years younger, and to have been Clark's companion from childhood, in the fashion of the slaveholding South. Clark legally inherited York from his father in 1799. The journals and other primary sources indicate that he was large and strong and perhaps overweight. He seems to have carried a gun and to have performed his full share of the duties with other members of the party; a body servant who could neither defend himself nor carry his share of the load would have been an unacceptable luxury on the expedition. Tales of his sexual prowess among Indian women or of his being the expedition's buffoon rest largely on the racial bias of later historians, not on evidence in the journals. York received his freedom sometime after 1811 and then operated a wagon freight business in Tennessee and Kentucky. By Clark's account, the business failed, and York then decided to rejoin his old master in St. Louis but died of cholera on the way, sometime before 1832. An alternative account has it that he made his way west to the Rockies and was living with the Crows in the 1830s; the tale is unlikely but not wholly impossible.

Engagé E. Cann (dates unknown). He appears in Clark's list of engagés under July 4, 1804. Elsewhere in the journals that name appears in versions that have been deciphered as "Carr," "Cane," and "Carn"; some of the variation may be due to Clark's handwriting, not his spelling. Cann was presumably with the return party of 1805. He has been identified as Alexander Carson (ca. 1775–1836), a relative of Christopher "Kit" Carson, on the basis of a second-hand account stating that Carson claimed to have come to the mountains with Lewis and Clark; there is no more direct evidence. Cann was perhaps born in Mississippi and wintered with the Arikaras in 1809–10. In 1811 he joined the overland Astorians led by Wilson Price Hunt, crossing the Rockies with them, and spent a number of years trapping in the mountains and on the Columbia, working for the North West Company and the Hudson's Bay Company. In 1833 he settled permanently in the Willamette Valley in Oregon and was killed by Indians in 1836.

Engagé Charles Caugee (dates unknown). He is mentioned in a list of engagés under July 4, 1804, and may have been with the return party from Fort Mandan in 1805. Nothing else is known of him.

Engagé Joseph Collin (dates unknown). He should not be confused with John Collins, an enlisted man with the permanent party. Collin is listed as an engagé on May 26, 1804, and in no other list. Because there is no record of his being paid, he may have been paid in cash when discharged in the fall of 1804, at either the Arikara or Mandan villages. He may also be the man picked up at the Arikara villages on the expedition's return in 1806. A Joseph Collin from the Montreal area in Canada was married at Portage des Sioux, Missouri, in 1818. See also the sketch of La Liberté, below.

Engagé Jean Baptiste Deschamps (dates unknown). He was the "patroon"—foreman—of the French boatmen, presumably because of his experience and maturity. Virtually nothing is known of him, though he may have been residing with his wife at St. Charles, Missouri, in 1792.
Engagé Charles Hebert (dates unknown). He is listed as an engagé on May 26, 1804, and nowhere else. Possibly he is the "Charlo" of Clark's list of July 4, 1804. He has been identified as a Canadian who married in St. Louis in 1792 and may have lived near St. Charles or Portage des Sioux, Missouri. Since there is no record of his being paid, he may have been discharged at the Mandan villages in the fall of 1804 and paid in cash. Perhaps he returned with the return party of 1805, having wintered with the expedition at Fort Mandan.

Engagé Jean Baptiste La Jeunesse (?–1806?). He is also "La Guness" and, apparently, "Lasones," in the journals. He was probably from St. Rose, Quebec, Canada. In 1797 in St. Louis he married the sister of Etienne Malboeuf, another expedition engagé. La Jeunesse was discharged, and presumably paid off, at the Mandan villages in the fall of 1804 and set off with Paul Primeau downriver in a canoe on November 6. He may have stopped off at the Arikara villages or elsewhere for the winter. He was apparently dead by September 1807, when his wife remarried.

Engagé La Liberté (dates unknown). An engagé of this name was sent on July 29, 1804, to the Oto Indians in northeastern Nebraska to invite them to confer with the captains. He took the opportunity to quit the expedition, and though a party was sent to apprehend him, he escaped and appears no more in the expedition record. Attempts to identify him further have mired in confusion about his actual name. La Liberté seems to have been a common name among the French Canadians and Mississippi Valley French involved in the fur trade and river travel at the time. Thus, a La Liberté was working for the North West Company in Canada in 1799 and might be the same man. The engagé who left the party spoke the Oto language to some extent, so he must have lived among them for a while. His singularly appropriate name may be only a dit name, not a formal surname. He does not appear under that name in the list of engagés in the detachment order of May 26, 1804; this could mean that he was hired later, perhaps picked up from some party of traders headed down the Missouri. However, he may only be concealed on the May 26 list under another name, especially if La Liberté is only a dit name. The list of July 4, 1804, in Clark's Field Notes gives "Joseph La bartee," and also "J. Le bartee"; each time the name has an asterisk beside it. On the first occurrence, "Le bartee" is assigned to a pirogue, the second time to the large keelboat. Did Clark err and list the same man twice, or were there two men with the same surname or dit name? Did the asterisk indicate the error, or refer to the similarity of names? Ordway refers to the deserter first on July 29, 1804; Quaife gives the name as "Jo Barter," but Ordway's manuscript version can as readily be interpreted as "Bartee." At any rate, Ordway later calls him "La Liberty," confirming that he is one of the possible two "Le bartees." Donald Jackson has uncovered, in an 1819 Illinois legal document, a reference to "Joseph Callin dit La Liberty of portage des Scioux." This could easily be the engagé Joseph Collin of the expedition, especially since he is not mentioned by the name Collin in the Field Notes list of July 4. This could explain how La Liberté became "Joseph Le bartee" in that list.

The question remains, however, whether there were two men with this dit name or only one, and whether, if there were two, Collin was the deserter. (Technically, he was not a deserter in the military sense because he was a hired boatman rather than an enlisted man.) There is no record of Collin's having been paid, which would have been the case if he had deserted, but it could also mean that, like some other engagés, he was discharged at the Arikara or Mandan villages and paid in cash. A man picked up at the Arikaras in 1806, who had perhaps been with the expedition in 1804, could have been Collin; this man, in any case, could hardly have been the deserter, since he would have avoided the expedition, and they would not have given him a ride home. Thus it is quite possible that Joseph Collin bore the dit name La Liberté and is referred to as "Joseph Le bartee" by Clark because of this. It is also possible, however, that there was another engagé with that same dit name, and if so, either might have been the deserter. Since he was a civilian employee, not an enlisted soldier, his desertion was not quite so serious as that of Moses Reed, which occurred at about the same time, although La Liberté did take a "public horse" with him when he was sent to the Otos. A Joseph La Liberté was married in St. Louis in 1835, and a La Liberté, aged 60, was buried there in 1837.

If there are two La Libertés, and Collin is one of them, which other engagé is concealed under this name? One is clearly named Joseph, while the initial of the other appears to be "J." Besides Collin there is no other "Joseph" among the known engagés. The only other whose initial might be "J." is Baptiste La Jeunesse, whose actual given name was presumably Jean-Baptiste. However, he apparently appears as "Lasones" in the same July 4 list as the two Le bartees. The discrepancies in both name and number between the principal lists of engagés do not allow any certainty on this matter.

Engagé Etienne Malboeuf (ca. 1775–?). He was from Lac de Sable, Canada, and his mother may have been an Indian; he was baptized in St. Charles, Missouri, in 1792. In 1804, he was residing in Kaskaskia, Illinois. Like most of the other engagés, he returned from Fort Mandan in 1805.

Engagé Peter Pinaut (ca. 1776–?). Undoubtedly Pierre to his fellow Frenchmen, he is presumably the "Charles pineau" of Lewis's financial accounts. He may also be the "Charlo" mentioned in one list in Clark's Field Notes. Pinaut was the illegitimate son of a French father and a Missouri Indian mother, and was baptized in St. Louis in 1790, suggesting that he grew up in the Indian country on the Missouri. The only mention of him in the journals is in the detachment order of May 26, 1804.

Engagé Paul Primeau (dates unknown). He is variously "Primaut," "Preemau," and "Premor" in the journals. He came from Chateauguay, Canada, and was married in St. Louis in 1799. He was discharged, and presumably paid off, at the Mandan villages in the fall of 1804, and on November 6, with Jean-Baptiste La Jeunesse, set out downriver in a canoe for St. Louis. He may have wintered with the Arikaras or elsewhere. In 1807 he was probably in Missouri.

Engagé François Rivet (ca. 1757–1852). Born at Montreal, Rivet, also referred to as "Reevey" and such variations, came to the Mississippi Valley at an early age and engaged in hunting and trading in Louisiana. He may have left the return party of 1805 at the Arikara villages. He soon headed up the Missouri again, perhaps with Manuel Lisa's trading company, for about 1809 he was in the Flathead country of northwest Montana, where he married and fathered two sons. In 1813 he was employed by the North West Company among the Flatheads, and was still there in 1824, working as both trapper and interpreter. In 1829 he transferred to Fort Colville on the upper Columbia, and in 1832, at the age of seventy-five, he was placed in charge of the post by the Hudson's Bay Company. After retiring in 1838 he settled in the Willamette Valley in Oregon.

Engagé Peter Roi (dates unknown). There were many early settlers in the "Illinois country" with the surname Roi or Roy, descended from pioneers of French and Indian blood who were there even before the founding of St. Louis, having come from Canada. Pierre Roy, born in 1786 at Ste. Genevieve, Missouri, may be the man, but there is no evidence. Clark also gives the name as "Roie." On August 21, 1806, at the Arikara villages in South Dakota, the returning expedition encountered one of their former engagés, whom Clark identifies as "Rokey"; he had probably stayed behind when the return party of 1805 went down to St. Louis and now returned to Missouri with the expedition. It has been suggested that his name was Rocque, a name that appears on no expedition roster. John Ordway also refers to this man by name, and in Quaife's edition the name is given as "Ross." Examination of the manuscript shows that Ordway's letters can easily be interpreted as "Roie" or even "Roei." "Rokey" was therefore probably Peter Roi, and there is no need to search for Rocque or Ross. This interpretation is strengthened by the fact that Roi was not among the expedition engagés who received their pay in St. Louis in 1805.

prouttttt!!!

Hello les girls!
je fais juste un essai parce que je suis chez ma reum qui (oh miracle!) a une connection internet en état de fonctionner!!
Bon, je vous bizouille bien fort sur chaque miche
A plus
Yoy

Happy Birthday!!!!

Décidemment aujourd'hui tu es une vraie star....tout le monde pense à toi! Mais comment oublier Melle Muller? Pas facile n'est-ce pas? Je te souhaite un Joyeux Anniversaire et surtout de recevoir pleins de beaux cadeaux! lol Faut bien se faire plaisir nan? Have a nice day!!!!
Bizouilles

Joyeux Anniversaire !!!!!

Alors comme ça mademoiselle prend un an de plus aujourd'hui? Vas y faut pas te gêner !!!
Bon, étant donné qu'on peut plus rien y faire je te souhaite quand même un Joyeux Anniversaire, mais attention.... que celà ne se reproduise plus !!!
Plein de gros bisous Miss, passe une bonne journée, et je te dis à demain !!!
Tchou !

Good morning planète CAPES !!

Au tout début du blog de Jess j'avais mis les adresses des sites pour Lewis et Clark dont je vous avez parlé mais comme je savais pas trop comment ça marchait je les avais mises en commentaire et je sais pas si tout le monde les a vues!!!!
Alors voila : - www.lewis-clark.org et - www.lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu
Passez un bon lundi et à domani.
Bizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Melle Muller professeur d'anglais

Tout d'abord je tiens à féliciter Anne-Cé....bienvenue ds le monde du blog!
Alex ma poule, je voulais te dire "CACAAAAAA" pour demain bien que je te fasse entièrement confiance. J'ai hate que tu ns raconte tt ça. En attendant, profite à fond de cette semaine qui ne sera sûrement pas la dernière de l'année!
Bizouilles ma poule.

ça marche !!!

1 2, 1 2 ... eh ... ça marche !!! Voilà je voulais juste essayer. Gros bisous les gueuzes et Alex .. bonne chance pour lundi, faudra que tu nous racontes.
Bizzzzzzz

Mode d'emploi

Salut les poules!

Tout d'abord je tiens à vous dire que je suis super contente que vous ayez accepté de participer au blog. J'avais peur que ça ne vs dise trop rien.
Je vais en qqs mots vous expliquer comment écrire des messages (comme celui-ci) qui apparaissent sur le blog comme ça tt le monde voit ce que vs avez à dire et on n'a pas à aller cliquer à chaque fois sur "commentaire".

1ère étape : aller sur www.blogger.com/start (vs pouvez le mettre ds vos favoris, ça vs évite de tt retenir).

2° étape : En haut à droite vous devez rentrer votre nom d'utilisateur + mot de passe puis cliquez sur "connexion".

3° étape : Cliquez sur le nom du Blog "CAPES Girls".

4° étape : Cliquez sur l'onglet "envoi" puis sur "créer".

5° étape : Tapez ce que vs avez à dire, choisissez votre police, couleur....et publier votre message sur le Blog.

On ne peut pas joindre de fichier sur le Blog, par contre on peut utiliser copier/coller. Pour l'explication des faits de langue, je suis allée sur Word, j'ai copié tt le doc puis je suis allée ds "envoi" "créer" (étape 4) et j'ai collé. Voila ya pas plus simple les gueuzes!!!!
Vous pouvez aussi mettre des photos qd vs êtes ds "créer" en cliquant sur le carré avec une image ds la barre d'outil (c'est à côté de la gomme).

Bon, j'espère que mon explication n'est pas trop floue. Je vous conseille d'afficher la page www.blogger.com/start et de suivre les étapes à côté.

Your turn!

Gram. Polycop : L'explication des faits de langue

Hello les girls ! Je mets sur le blog ce que R. Merry nous a envoyé la semaine dernière car Anne-Cé n'a pas pu l'ouvrir. Voilà poule, maintenant tu pourras vérifier si tu l'as ou pas.

JessOuille.

L'EXPLICATION DES FAITS DE LANGUE AU CAPES

1. REPERAGE DU PROBLEME

1.1. Il s'agit d'identifier et de décrire le(s) problème(s) posé(s) par les éléments du texte qui ont été soulignés, naturellement en respectant scrupuleusement le soulignage proposé (en fait, imposé!), que l'on respectera scrupuleusement. La première question à poser concerne l'ensemble du segment souligné : est-ce un constituant complet ? Si c'est le cas, quelle en est la nature (la catégorie) et la fonction ? Pose-t-il un problème de détermination nominale, de détermination verbale, de syntaxe (de construction) etc. ?. On doit à ce stade procéder à un inventaire des éléments à commenter, avec, si c'est possible et utile, un étiquetage, et éventuellement un découpage en morphèmes. Par exemple, on analysera la séquence soulignée dans la phrase qui suit comme réductible à la suite de morphèmes qui figure à droite:

It had been raining heavily. -ED + (HAVE + -EN) + (BE + -ING) + RAIN

a) morphème dit Passé (conventionnellement désigné par -ED) ;
b) forme dite "perfective" (constituée de HAVE et de la terminaison du Participe Passé, conventionnellement désignée par -EN) ;
c) forme dite "progressive" (constituée de BE et de -ING, terminaison du Participe Présent) ;
d) verbe lexical (rain).

1.2. Il faut cependant, même à ce stade précoce, éviter d'en rester à une attitude purement descriptive et contemplative, et autant que faire se peut, poser un ou plusieurs problèmes (l'étiquetage des formes lui-même peut faire problème). Le minimum sera d'annoncer que l'on a à justifier la présence dans la suite à analyser de chacun des morphèmes que l'on vient d'isoler et d'étiqueter - fût-ce de façon provisoire (dans l'exemple qui précède, il s'agira de justifier le choix fait par l'auteur de -ED, de (HAVE + -EN), et de (BE + -ING).

On pourra être amené à signaler que la séquence considérée (e.g. John had several watches stolen from the shop) peut hors contexte avoir plusieurs sens possibles et que le problème va être de voir quel sens particulier est retenu dans le contexte particulier du texte étudié. Quand c'est possible et justifié, il est bon (pour éveiller l'intérêt) de montrer le caractère paradoxal ou apparemment exceptionnel etc. du phénomène à étudier (e.g. on a ENOUGH après un nom: The fact that he did so much is proof enough that Mary's ideas were relevant to him), bien qu'évidemment on doive s'efforcer dans l'exposé lui-même de le rattacher à des phénomènes bien connus. Un repérage bien fait permet aussi souvent d'avancer certaines hypothèses (que l'on se propose de vérifier), et d'amorcer la réflexion. Bref, il s'agit de lancer le débat dans la bonne direction.

2. EXPLICATION

2.1. On sera souvent amené à dégager la valeur fondamentale, centrale (l'invariant de sens, le "signifié de puissance" etc.) d'une forme donnée (par exemple pour -ED, la notion de distance, de désactualisation, de fiction, ou de présupposition non-réelle) en la justifiant brièvement, au besoin par quelques exemples (pris, si possible, dans le texte lui-même).

2.2. On aura recours ensuite au contexte, contexte de droite ou de gauche, contexte étroit de la phrase, ou contexte large du paragraphe ou du texte tout entier, considérée dans son contenu littéral et/ou littéraire (le commentaire grammatical cherche lui aussi à reconstruire du sens; comme le commentaire littéraire, il vise à "faire signifier" le texte - cf. Conclusion).

La confrontation avec les éléments pertinents du contexte permet soit de justifier l'apparition de la forme examinée, soit de rendre compte de l'effet de sens (le "signifié d'effet") qui se manifeste, et qui est dû à l'interaction entre la valeur fondamentale de la forme et le contexte. Par exemple, dans John must be repairing the car, l'auxiliaire modal MUST a la valeur dite épistémique (modalité de la connaissance), qui s'accorde bien avec une valeur interprétative de BE + -ING, et non pas la valeur pragmatique (modalité de l'action), exclue par la valeur stative et partiellement rétrospective (procès partiellement accompli) de BE + -ING, en l'absence d'un repère temporel dans l'avenir (cf. par contre You must be doing your homework when I get back from the office).
Il conviendra ici de bien veiller à distinguer ce qui dû à la forme examinée et ce qui n'est dû qu'au contexte (ce qui permet, par exemple, de voir que BE + -ING n'a pas en soi la vertu de renvoyer à l'avenir, cette forme est seulement compatible avec le renvoi à l'avenir, le Présent simple aussi du reste - comparer John is dining at the Wilsons' tomorrow , John dines at the Wilsons' tomorrow , et John is not in, he’s dining at the Wilsons' ).

Pour prendre un exemple particulier, dans le contexte, de nombreux éléments peuvent avoir une influence sur la valeur particulière que prend un auxiliaire modal : la nature du sujet, celle du procès, la présence de marques aspectuelles comme HAVE + -EN ou BE + -ING (cf. ci-dessus), la présence de la négation ou de tel ou tel adverbe, la marque de Temps accompagnant (toujours) le modal, le type de proposition (indépendante ou subordonnée), le type d'énoncé (interrogatif ou déclaratif) mais aussi (et on oublie souvent d'en parler) la prosodie (essentiellement l'intonation et l'accent de phrase).

2.3. Il est souvent utile et nécessaire de procéder à des manipulations pour mettre en évidence certaines valeurs ou propriétés des éléments à étudier.

2.3.1. Les changements apportés au texte d'origine peuvent donner trois types de résultat:

- on peut obtenir une paraphrase, c'est-à-dire quelque chose qui est équivalent sur le plan sémantique (i.e. celui du sens). Il faudra ici être très prudent et garder à l'esprit que l'équivalence sémantique n'est jamais totale, et que deux énoncés de forme différente n'ont jamais exactement la même valeur sur tous les plans (ils ne sont pas strictement interchangeables; cependant, ils peuvent partager une propriété commune qui est cruciale dans la démonstration. Par exemple, si dans un texte on peut paraphraser John may come par It is possible that John will come et par Perhaps John will come, on sait que l'on a affaire au MAY épistémique, et non pas au MAY pragmatique, qui n'est pas paraphrasable ainsi. On peut aussi utiliser une glose en français dans certains cas.

- on peut obtenir un changement de valeur de la séquence manipulée, dont on devra bien sûr tirer toutes les conséquences. Par exemple, si l'on passe de Can you see what I mean? à Do you see what I mean?, on a un changement de sens, qui montre que même avec un verbe de perception, CAN ne désigne pas le fait lui-même (comme DO), mais virtualise: dans l'exemple donné, il signifie bien "parvenir/arriver à", et on n'est pas très loin de l'idée de "être en mesure de", "être capable de". De même, I can see what you mean n'a pas vraiment le même sens que I see what you mean, tout ceci contribuant à montrer l'insuffisance de l'idée qu'avec un verbe de perception, CAN désigne la perception effective (il y a d'autres arguments).

- on peut obtenir une impossibilité, dont on devra bien sûr également tirer toutes les conséquences. Par exemple, à partir de the parents of the boy killed in the crash, on ne peut guère obtenir * the boy killed in the crash's parents (l'astérisque * signalant une séquence agrammaticale, incorrecte). Ceci devra faire l'objet d'une explication (qui est, en gros la suivante: un groupe nominal comme the boy killed in the crash, qui contient au niveau sous-jacent une relative - laquelle a été réduite, comme le montre la paraphrase the boy who was killed in the crash, ne peut être employé au Génitif - cf. l'impossibilité de *the man who came last night's daughter). Il est recommandé d'être très prudent avec les énoncés agrammaticaux; il ne faut pas en couvrir le tableau, surtout si l'on omet de mettre les astérisques (il est même plus prudent de les rayer carrément, le jury n'oubliant pas que le candidat, s'il est admis, aura devant lui des élèves, que l'on ne peut exposer à des énoncés incorrects qu'avec la plus grande prudence).

2.3.2. Les grands types de manipulation sont les suivants:

- effacement (suppression) : par exemple on passe de See to it that everything is ready on time à See everything is ready on time . Il faudra naturellement tirer une conclusion (à savoir que si la préposition TO n'est pas séparée de THAT par IT, elle disparaît; on vérifiera rapidement qu'il y a un principe général selon lequel toute préposition disparaît ainsi au contact direct de THAT, avec de très rares exceptions telles que IN ou EXCEPT).
- insertion (addition, ajout): par exemple à partir de the only film I saw last year, on peut obtenir the only film that I saw last year (mais pas * which I saw...) ce dont il faudra tirer des conclusions. A partir de What do you think happened to them?, par contre, on ne peut obtenir *What do you think that happened to them?, ce dont il faudra également tirer des conclusions (en expliquant pourquoi le marqueur de subordination THAT est inacceptable dans cette structure).

- déplacement (mouvement): par exemple, à partir de John took the curtains down last night, on peut obtenir Last night, John took the curtains down (il faudra commenter le changement produit par cette manipulation, laquelle contribue à montrer que last night est un complément dit traditionnellement circonstanciel; essentiellement périphérique, il est d'ailleurs suppressible).

- permutation (double déplacement): par exemple à partir de John took down the curtains, on peut obtenir John took the curtains down, ce qui montre que down est ici, non pas une particule transitive (i.e. une préposition), mais une particule intransitive (i.e. une particule adverbiale). Par contre, à partir de He was walking down the street, on ne peut obtenir *He was walking the street down (down est ici une particule transitive, qui doit donc être suivie de son complément, the street).

- remplacement (substitution): par exemple à partir de John took down the curtains, on peut obtenir en substituant un pronom à the curtains: *John took down them et John took them down (ce qui confirme la conclusion donnée ci-dessus). On pourra dans certains cas, en remplaçant un groupe de mots par un seul mot sans grand changement de sens, montrer que le groupe remplacé constitue une unité. Par exemple, à partir de Some of the hostages will be let go, on peut obtenir Some of the hostages will be released, ce qui tendra à prouver que dans le premier énoncé, l'expression let go, passivée en bloc, fonctionne comme une locution verbale ayant une cohésion sémantique et syntaxique (autre exemple, remplacer He was made fun of par He was ridiculed, d'où l'on conclut que make fun of fonctionne comme un verbe transitif simple, et donc que c'est une locution, une sorte de verbe complexe - transitif).

Toutes ces opérations reviennent en définitive à des combinaisons variables de l'addition et de la suppression (effacer, c'est remplacer par zéro, insérer, c'est au contraire remplacer zéro par rien, déplacer, c'est effacer à un endroit et insérer à un autre). D'autre part, on doit toujours manipuler (et raisonner) en fonction de deux axes:
1° l'axe syntagmatique, qui est celui des combinaisons, celui sur lequel se succèdent linéairement les unités syntaxiques (c'est l'axe de la chaine parlée). On peut procéder sur cet axe à des permutations, au sens large de remaniements de l'ordre des mots (e.g. actif -> passif)
2° l'axe paradigmatique, qui est celui des substitutions possibles à tel point de la chaine (c'est l'axe des choix). On peut procéder sur cet axe à des commutations (et montrer par exemple qu'à tel endroit de la chaine, il y a une opposition entre SOME et ANY, SHAL et WILL, ou entre zéro et tel marqueur, c'est-à-dire entre absence et présence de tel élément - on n'oubliera jamais le principe fondamental selon lequel les langues sont essentiellement des systèmes d'oppositions, dans lesquels les éléments ne valent que les uns par rapport aux autres : tous les choix sont significatifs, et de ce point de vue, l'absence de choix est un choix parmi d'autres... le choix de l'absence!).

Ces deux dimensions (que l'on peut se représenter comme respectivement horizontale et verticale) sont fondamentales, et on doit toujours les garder présentes à l'esprit lorsque l'on procède à des manipulations, visant à mettre au jour des propriétés.

3. ELARGISSEMENT DU PROBLEME

Il est souvent possible, et utile, une fois que l'on a bien identifié et expliqué un phénomène, de citer d'autres manifestations de ce même phénomène en anglais (plus généralement, il est bon de nourrir son exposé d'exemples variés, idiomatiques, éclairants). Par exemple, supposons que l'on ait à analyser la forme knew dans I wish I knew the answer. On pourra dans un premier temps montrer que l'adverbe now ne serait pas incompatible avec ceténoncé. Donc le -ED (morphème Passé) du Prétérit knew n'a pas une valeur temporelle, mais une valeur modale, plus précisément d’irréel (on dit aussi contrefactuel : l'énoncé à analyser implique en effet I do not know the answer). Une fois effectuée cette petite démonstration, il est bon de citer d'autres cas d'emploi du Prétérit dit modal en anglais, semblables (If I knew the answer, I would tell you), ou un peu différents (I'd rather you came with us, It's time the children went to bed, Any student who didn't know this would derserve to fail, etc.)

On pourra comparer ce que l'on a à analyser dans le texte, non seulement avec d'autres cas en anglais, mais avec des phénomènes observables dans d'autres langues que l'anglais: par exemple, on pourra comparer When John comes, I'll talk to him avec Quand Jean viendra, je lui parlerai, mais aussi avec Cuando Juan venga, hablaré con él (l'espagnol a un subjonctif, mode du virtuel par excellence, dans ce cas!). La comparaison avec le français sera sans aucun doute la plus facilement utilisable, et il faut toujours penser à ce que donnerait la traduction du passage à expliquer. Cependant, il faut aussi savoir que la traduction à elle seule ne suffit pas. elle ne peut qu'éclairer ou étayer une argumentation donnée de façon indépendante, se référant au système de l'anglais considéré pour lui-même. Par exemple, si will n'apparaît pas après when dans l'exemple précédent, cela est dû au fonctionnement de WILL dans le système de l'anglais: d'une part le Présent simple, comme on l'a vu, peut parfaitement renvoyer à l'avenir en anglais, d'autre part WILL n'est pas un marqueur de futur, mais un auxiliaire modal, qui implique une prédiction fondée sur une inférence (étant donné X, j'ai toutes les raisons de croire que Y). Tout comme dans If John comes, I'll talk to him, le jugement modal qui vient d'être défini est très logiquement attaché, non pas à la proposition subordonnée, mais à la surordonnée (qui est ici la principale): c'est dans cette partie de la phrase qu'est effectuée l'opération modale décrite. On remarquera que, pour les mêmes raisons, WILL apparaît fort bien après WHEN lorsque celui-ci est adverbe relatif (There will come a time when you will understand ), et que par contre il n'apparaît pas dans un certain nombre d'autres cas où WHEN n'est pas impliqué (You will do what you like, The pupils who find the solution will get a good mark).

4. CONCLUSION

Il s'agit de reprendre sous une forme très condensée ce que l'on a dit à propos du point à expliquer, ou de faire ressortir tel ou tel point important de la démonstration. Lorsque cela est possible, il est très bon de faire le rapport entre le phénomène que l'on avait à expliquer et le contenu littéral et surtout littéraire (ou autre) du texte. Il ne faut pas oublier ici que l'analyse grammaticale ne vise qu'à mettre au jour, tout comme l'analyse littéraire, les opérations par lesquelles se construit le sens: il s'agit dans les deux cas de "faire signifier" un texte (qui rappelons-le, est étymologiquement un tissu, avec une trame, un entrelac d'éléments où tout se tient, où chaque partie n'a de valeur complète que par référence à l'ensemble). Il faut donc éviter la froideur des analyses purement formelles, et ne jamais perdre de vue l'intention de communication et la mise en oeuvre de moyens qui lui est subordonnée.
Le dernier conseil concernera la terminologie: elle doit inévitablement, à certains moments devenir technique, mais il faut à ce sujet faire plusieurs remarques: toutes les terminologies "d'école" (culiolienne, adamczewskienne, guillaumienne, générativiste etc.) sont admises, et le candidat peut de ce point de vue faire feu de tout bois. Mais il importe évidemment que les termes techniques employés soient clairement définis à chaque fois (par exemple, on dira que "le parcours est une opération qui consiste à passer en revue tous les éléments d'une classe sans s'arrêter à aucun" - c'est donc en un sens l'opposé de la stabilisation). Il faut bien évidemment que ces termes techniques soient employés à bon escient, et qu'ils éclairent vraiment le problème examiné. Il faut ensuite que les différents termes techniques employés le soient de façon cohérente (qu'il n' y ait pas d'incompatibilité entre eux). En tout état de cause, il faut se rappeler que les personnes que les candidats ont à convaincre du bien fondé de leurs analyses ne sont pas dans tous les jurys des spécialistes de linguistique. Il faut, quoi qu'il arrive, essayer de leur tenir un langage compréhensible. On peut tenir de fort bons raisonnements avec une terminologie "douce", entendons par là transparente, sans prétention, d'apparence non-technique, voire très traditionnelle (tout n'est pas à rejeter dans la grammaire traditionnelle!). Il ne faut pas oublier que l'explication de faits de langue est avant tout un exercice de communication. Il ne s'agit pas d'éblouir, mais de "faire voir". Et il faut se persuader qu'en matière de linguistique, comme du reste aussi en matière de littérature, on peut parfaitement se montrer intelligent tout en restant intelligible.

Welcome back!!!

2004, 2005, 2006....ne comptons plus!
Le plus important c'est d'éviter 2007 nan ? Pour cela, je vous propose qu'on se serre les coudes et qu'on partage nos connaissances, nos recherches à l'aide de ce petit "blog". On peut aussi partager nos doutes, nos coups de gueule et bien d'autres choses!!! Je sais qu'on nous répète que cette année on est tous en compétition ms je préfère penser que ns sommes un groupe en compétition contre tous ces autres cons.
Bref, j'espère que vous trouverez cette idée pas trop conne...je sais que ça va être dur vu que ça vient de moi ms bon, un ptit effort les poules! Lol