Why do I need to know déshabiller Pierre pour habiller Paul?
Because you're likely to come across this phrase as a warning.
What does it mean?
Déshabiller Pierre pour habiller Paul - pronounced des-hab-ee-ay pee-ayre por hab-ee-ay powl - literally translates as 'to undress Peter to dress Paul'.
The verb habiller means to get dressed, with its opposite déshabiller meaning to get undressed. En déshabillé(e) means that a person is in a state of undress - usually in underwear, nightwear or partially dressed rather than completely naked.
The phrase déshabiller Pierre pour habiller Paul is an example of one of those phrases that has a similar, but slightly different, English equivalent; 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.
In both cases it means the same thing - resolving one problem by making another problem worse.
It's often used in a financial context, for example taking out a credit card in order to pay off a debt - you're not solving the problem, you're simply making it a slightly different problem.
Many languages have versions of this expression, but while in English, Spanish, Italian and German Peter is robbed, only in French is he undressed.
It's thought to originate in the Middle Ages and refer to the apostles Peter and Paul, although there is no Bible story of them robbing (or even undressing) each other - the coupling probably comes simply because the two are often depicted together in Medieval art.
Sometimes the French use the variation déshabiller Paul pour habiller Jacques (undress Paul to dress Jacques), which means the same thing. This version is more common in Canadian French.
Use it like this
Ne prends pas d'autres cartes de crédit, ça revient à déshabiller Pierre pour habiller Paul - Don't take out more credit cards, it's just robbing Peter to pay Paul
Le Gouvernement renonça à redéposer ce projet de loi à l’Assemblée nationale, car rien n’est plus difficile que de modifier la répartition des sièges, à effectif inchangé, sauf à prendre le risque « de déshabiller Pierre pour habiller Paul ». - The government decided against resubmitting the bill to parliament, because nothing is more difficult than modifying the allocation of seats while keeping the total number the same, unless one is willing to take the risk of 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'.
Comments