Hi
I’m still not sure why I hear and see a lot of imparfait (habitual) being used in situations I would have used passé composé in (one-time events)
Oh I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to interrupt you.
Je suis vraiment désolé. Je ne voulais pas vous couper.
We didn’t see anything unusual, nothing to suggest pickpockets in the area.
Nous n’avons rien vu d’inhabituel, rien n’indiquant des pickpockets aux alentours.
I look forward to your feedback.
I’m certainly no French expert. I can barely understand the difference in usages (e…g “the”) between British and American English. And I hope someone translates my comments, right or wrong, into linguisticese.
But it occurs to me that
Je ne voulais pas vous couper isn’t so different from the imperfect I wasn’t meaning to interrupt you.
rien n’indiquant des pickpockets isn’t an imperfect usage per se, it’s a gerund.
Drop this. (Or change it to “Regards, Asking4Feedback” 
)
This is a politeness phrasing, saying that it’s not just a one-time event; I know that as general rule I should not interrupt another person, and I did not mean to do so here. It’s a continuous intention to comply with politeness, expressed in relation to the one time event, which has already occurred.
“Indiquant” is a gerund here, not imparfait, which would be “rien n’indiquait des pickpockets”
Ignore him. 
I don’t now the “linguistic-ese” either, but agree with Northern Piper.
It’s a "context"usage, more or less analogous to a continuous tense in English.
Je ne voulais (imparfait) pas te couper, du coup je n’ai rien dit (passé composé).
Je cherchais (imparfait) mes lunettes, je les ai (passé composé) trouvées.
Thank you all. Very helpful
Huh. All this time, I thought you were French. I kept thinking your name was something like David Michel.
Vouloir is in the imparfait here because the feeling of wanting is presumed to last beyond the time that the utterance considers. This sort of thing, called an imperfective, is a common use for the imparfait (and it’s where it gets its name). If the feeling had ended at or near the moment that the utterance considers, then the verb would go in the passé composé. With vouloir, this tends to give a change in translation. J’ai voulu means something more like “I tried (but it wasn’t possible).”
Also, couper by itself means “to cut.” Your sentence should be something like, “Je ne voulais pas vous couper la parole,” or “Je ne voulais pas vous interrompre.”
As others have stated, here indiquant is a gerund. Its use in this way, though, is rare in French. I would suggest putting it into the imparfait. Something like: "Nous n’avons rien vu d’inattendu. Rien qui n’indiquait de pickpockets à proximité.*
Perhaps it’s not proper usage but in everyday speech, couper meaning interrompre doesn’t really require la parole if the context is clear. Désolé, je vous ai coupé. is ok with me.
Yes, I also think that the original sentence with indiquant sounds a bit weird. Not really wrong but a bit unnatural.
Thanks Les Espaces Du Sommeil. Is there a rule when to use and not use the gerund. I’ve had one native speaker tell me it’s fine. But I’ve come across many French who have trouble with French grammar themselves. One person told me the gerund is OK under certain circumstances. Perhaps you can elaborate on that point. Thanks.
First, it’s not a gérondif here. The form for the latter is en + participe présent which is not what’s in the sentence. What you have here is a plain participe présent.
Then, I didn’t say that the sentence was wrong, just that it doesn’t “flow” naturally. I don’t think I’d ever say it like that, I’m not even sure I’d write it. You see, the participe présent is often replaced by another form, at least in spoken French. Consider these sentences (which I lifted from a French grammar site :o):
**- Les résultats concernant le concours sont publiés.
Les résultats qui concernent le concours sont publiés.
Les lots sont remis aux participants ayant gagné le jeu.
Les lots sont remis aux participants qui ont gagné le jeu.
L’agence recrute une stagiaire parlant le chinois.
L’agence recrute une stagiaire qui parle le chinois.**
The first instances have the participe présent and are not something that I’d say spontaneously. I’m much more likely to use the second possibility. The first examples would be fine in writing.
Now to nitpick, repeating your sentence in my head, there might be a slight difference in meaning.
- Nous n’avons rien vu d’inhabituel, rien n’indiquait des pickpockets aux alentours.
Could perhaps imply that although you didn’t see pickpockets, there were some in the vicinity. You came to a conclusion that turned out to be wrong. The imparfait, although implying duration, is a past tense after all.
- Nous n’avons rien vu d’inhabituel, rien n’indiquant des pickpockets aux alentours.
Could imply that, too but less decisively. The participe présent expresses a somewhat more permanent state.
Put it this way: sentence 1 would be ok as a conclusion but there could be more to the situation than initially thought. Sentence 2 might have a more “final” aspect to it (there were absolutely no pickpockets around).
I may be overthinking it, though.
[quote=“Les_Espaces_Du_Sommeil, post:11, topic:749724”]
First, it’s not a gérondif here. The form for the latter is en + participe présent which is not what’s in the sentence. What you have here is a plain participe présent.
. Thanks Les Espaces Du SommeilSo I used “participe présent” and not the “gerondif” in my example. -
“Nous n’avons rien vu d’inhabituel, rien n’indiquant des pickpockets aux alentours.” But the sentence was meant to preface that the latter turns out to be a wrong assumption.
What I wanted to imply was that it seemed like there were no pickpockets at first. But then there were pickpockets in the neighborhood after all. So how should my example have been written.
I think both work… if you make it clear that it was a wrong assumption by following that sentence with another one that would start with “Puis soudain, …”, “Malheureusement, …” or “Mais en fait, …” or something like that.
As far as I’m concerned, I prefer Nous n’avons rien vu d’inhabituel, rien n’indiquait (que) des pickpockets (se trouvaient) aux alentours but the other sentence is correct, too - just a bit less idiomatic for my taste. Note that if you add the words between brackets, you immediately reveal that the assumption was wrong.
Thanks. Les Espaces Du Sommeil. Your explanation helps immensely. Thank you all.