Ambiguous sentenceRex reminds Anna of her dog.
Rex rappelle son chien à Anna.
The English sentence nearly made my head explode :-), it seems really ambiguous to me. In this example it's slightly clearer because Rex and Anna are different sexes, but if you wrote:
Rex reminds Chris of his dog.
Rex rappelle son chien à Chris.
it becomes really ambiguous. I imagine it would be said by someone (say Bob) talking about about three other parties (Rex, Chris and a dog). It would be clearer if there was more context as to who or what Rex, Chris and the dog were, but as it stands it can be interpreted multiple ways. It's unclear to me if the dog belongs to Rex or Chris, and the meaning changes depending on whether Rex is a dog or a person. The sentence needs a bit more context to try and remove the ambiguity e.g.:
Bob said that his dog Rex reminds Chris of his dog.
Bob said that his friend Rex reminds him of Chris' dog.
It seems the French is less ambiguous in this case, and you need to be careful with translating the French into English.
Would "un petit mot" work as a translation here? I feel like I've come across this much more often than "note", or maybe there's some nuance I'm missing?
Rex reminds Anna of her dog.
Rex rappelle son chien à Anna.
The English sentence nearly made my head explode :-), it seems really ambiguous to me. In this example it's slightly clearer because Rex and Anna are different sexes, but if you wrote:
Rex reminds Chris of his dog.
Rex rappelle son chien à Chris.
it becomes really ambiguous. I imagine it would be said by someone (say Bob) talking about about three other parties (Rex, Chris and a dog). It would be clearer if there was more context as to who or what Rex, Chris and the dog were, but as it stands it can be interpreted multiple ways. It's unclear to me if the dog belongs to Rex or Chris, and the meaning changes depending on whether Rex is a dog or a person. The sentence needs a bit more context to try and remove the ambiguity e.g.:
Bob said that his dog Rex reminds Chris of his dog.
Bob said that his friend Rex reminds him of Chris' dog.It seems the French is less ambiguous in this case, and you need to be careful with translating the French into English.
Le de voir en cinq phrases exprimer ce qu'il faut faire
In the third sentence of both the English & French text, after the second phrase (I stay at home & je reste chez moi) there is no comma. The way it is written it would sound like a run-on sentence.
This lesson is in my notebook so I'm in an endless loop here. I would like to do the kwiz for just this lesson. Seems like a coding problem. Apologies if this is the wrong place to report it.
What is meant by ..."qui a su conquérir les petits comme les grands" ?
Bonjour. Je voudrais savoir pourquoi, spécialmente dans le journaux, de temps en temps il y a en la troisieme personne singuliere ce construction (existe-t-il, a-t-il...).
«Faire de qqn» proved to be a difficult expression to track down anywhere. It was suggested by deepL - but without any explanation, of course. Looking at questions below, it seems others have pondered over this as well.
A hint here that it is literally 'make of me' would be very useful. Of course, in English we usually leave 'of' out, and just say 'make me', or move the words around to 'make (something) of me'.
Can you also say 'tu as emporté ton doudou?' I thought if you are taking an object and it is staying with you, then you use emporter.
Hello,
I am having trouble understanding why "Ils se sont parlé hier soir au téléphone." is the correct orthography.
Bescherelle explains that there are three cases (https://www.bescherelle.com/faq/comment-accorder-le-participe-passe-dun-verbe-pronominal/):
1. Lorsque le verbe est essentiellement pronominal (c’est-à-dire qu’il se construit toujours avec un pronom réfléchi), le participe passé s’accorde avec le sujet.
2. Lorsque le verbe est occasionnellement pronominal, le participe passé s’accorde avec le COD si celui-ci est placé avant le verbe.
3. Il ne s’accorde pas s’il n’y a pas de COD ou si celui-ci est placé après le verbe.
Obviously case 1 does not apply because parler normally takes a direct object. But everyone seems to put "Ils se sont parlé" into case three. How is "se" not the direct object? They're talking to each other. Why is it "Ils se sont brûlés." but "Ils se sont parlé."? These two seem like they should be in the same category to me. Is it just that "se parler" is a special case, or am I completely misunderstanding?
Sorry if this was already answered somewhere but I haven't found it in my searches if so.
Thank you for your help.
Find your French level for FREE
And get your personalised Study Plan to improve it
Find your French level