"les puissants lobbies" ou "les lobbies puissants"A general question rather than a specific one, though this is an example. The lessons, as I understand them, teach that short, and some common adjectives go before the nouns, but otherwise (unless for particular stress) most adjectives go after the noun.
However, I have noticed that often these rules don't seem to apply. Puissant is neither short (in my mind one syllable), or common. However the text above places it before, but after is acceptable as well when the exercise is marked.
I have noticed this many times in doing the exercises. As a consequence, I am confused.
If the simple answer is that "short" means 2 syllables, I will be content.
I really need to focus on THIS topic, not just answer two easy questions and then be forced back into the standard quiz mode where I will forget what I am trying to learn. Why can’t I just focus on this topic? Help!
J'aime le fait que certains des Européens peuvent se moquer de ce problème.
A general question rather than a specific one, though this is an example. The lessons, as I understand them, teach that short, and some common adjectives go before the nouns, but otherwise (unless for particular stress) most adjectives go after the noun.
However, I have noticed that often these rules don't seem to apply. Puissant is neither short (in my mind one syllable), or common. However the text above places it before, but after is acceptable as well when the exercise is marked.
I have noticed this many times in doing the exercises. As a consequence, I am confused.
If the simple answer is that "short" means 2 syllables, I will be content.
The following quoted material appears at: https://www.lawlessfrench.com/grammar/passe-compose-vs-imparfait/
All in the past vs Relevance to presentImparfait describes something that is entirely in the past.
Il voulait toujours être médecin. He always wanted (used to want) to be a doctor.J’y mangeais souvent. I often ate there / I used to eat there often (but never again).Passé composé explains something that started in the past and continues today.
Il a toujours voulu être médecin. He has always wanted to be a doctor.J’y ai souvent mangé. I have often eaten there (and might again).Are you sure you don't have this in reverse? It seems like the passé composé would be used for the finished actions in the quote above.
I understand that you are trying to be politically correct by using "they/their" when speaking of Ankou in your English translation even though it's a singular noun. If this were a non-binary French person, I could understand your effort. But in English we would say "it" for this strange, unknown figure. Why not use that? It gets very confusing.
I am doing B1 French and reading Camus La Peste( hard going sometimes) On page 173 he says"elles suffirent" which I take to mean they were enough,and I struggled with the conjugation but I found it as passive simple on the Lawless website. I interrogated Gemini AI and it suggested that passive simple is a compound tense requiring auxiliary from etre...despite its name. It also suggested Camus often used passe simple in a stylistic for without the auxiliary. So,is the Lawless conjugation right,and is elles suffirent passe simple, and please,what is going on?
I thought that se rappeler does not require a de preposition unless it comes before a verb. Why does she say "Je m'en rappelle ..." in the last sentence and not "je me le rappelle ....?" Merci !
I see above that bleu canard ´ is translated as ´peacock blue’ Should this not be duck blué´Paon is peacock I thought. Am I wrong?
Could you also say “Ma mère devrait arriver bientôt” instead of “ma mère…d’ici peu”
Find your French level for FREE
Test your French to the CEFR standard
Find your French level