Pesky 'y'

[Sally mills]

'Je n'y connais rien aux ordinateurs'
Why do we need to include 'y'?

[Jon Head]

Sorry Sally, this isn't an answer...just an additional question to tag on to yours!

Is it also valid to simply say 'Je ne connais rien aux ordinateurs'?

If so, is there any difference in meaning between the two?

[George Hunt]

I think your phrase (according to Google at least) is more common as 'Je ne connais rien aux ordinateurs'.

So it doesn't seem to be necessary in that context..

I am not quite sure what the practical difference would be (if any) but generally speaking (in my mind)  s'y connaître  as opposed to se connaître is  a nice little embellishment  .

In addition there would  be a real difference when  you would need to say ils se connaissent to mean  they know each other as opposed to ils s'y connaissent  to mean that they  had knowledge in a particular area.

[Chantal Savignat]

Hello

In my mind :

the good sentence is "Je ne connais rien aux ordinateurs", and if we speak twice in the same sentence about the same thing, the second time we replace it by "y" : "Je possède un ordinateur mais je n'y connais rien". "y" is here to stand in for the second "ordinateur". "y"is the pronoun that replaces "ordinateurs" the second time.

If there are  "y" and "aux ordinateurs" in the same sentence it's a kind of insistence, but it's not a necessity.

But ! In oral language, we most often hear "je n'y connais rien aux ordinateurs". "Je ne connais rien aux ordinateurs" sounds like a written sentence. Oral language is often different than literary language.

The two sentences have exactly the same meaning.

[Vedas]

If I may add something to Chantal 's explanations:

"y" and "en" may prove difficult to explain in certain contexts and often resist precise analysis

it's even called "imprecise value" in French grammar

Personal pronouns that substitute  for complements which are in the beginning or in the end of a sentence are not so rare in a casual conversation as Chantal mentioned but it can be found in written language as well so as  to accentuate a part of the discourse even if it sounds redundant, a bit like the use in English of an auxiliary in an affirmative clause...

some exemples:

-Dans les discours les plus indifférents des hommes politiques, les amis ou les ennemis de ces hommes croient toujours y voir reluire [...] un rayon de leur pensée.  (Alexandre Dumas "Tulipe Noire")

-Partout où l'oiseau vole, la chèvre y grimpe (Hugo)

- Hélas ! que j'en ai vu mourir des jeunes filles (Hugo)

- "y" or "en" shouldn't be used with où:

Il recherche des plaisirs où l'âme n'y trouve nulle paix it will thus be more correct to say :

Il recherche des plaisirs oû l'âme ne trouve nulle paix 

But pleonasm was used in  litterature classics:

Ou souvent un rival s'en vient nous y jeter (La Fontaine)

Je m'y connais en âmes (François Mauriac)

C'était un vieux singe qui s'y connaissait en grimaces. (Maurois)

You could find se connaître "en" ou "à" in an old turn of phrase (which is still correct):

Je me connais en physionomies (A. France)

Se connaître aux délices (Valéry)

Il ne s'entendait guère plus en culture qu'en indienne (Flaubert)

[George Hunt]

That's come a long way from a Pesky "y" ! ....and very interesting.

I am in two minds when it comes to pleonasms.

They can seem so uncouth (eg "more ignoranter") and then again  they can give rhythm to speech.