French language Q&A Forum

This exercise used the imperfect tense of pouvoir to translate the English word, could.  The French also use the conditional tense to translate could.  I am sometimes confused as to the correct choice when trying to translate could.  I searched the library for pouvoir and found lots of lessons regarding various tenses for pouvoir; however, I found none for the imperfect.  I am surmising that the use of the imperfect for pouvoir is appropriate in what I call "if I could-then I would" constructions. The if part would take the imperfect of pouvoir.  This is distinctive from a simple condition as in "Could you pass me the salt?", which I believe would use the conditional form of pouvoir.  I hope you understand my question.  I am simply trying to figure out when to use the imperfect form for pouvoir when trying to translate could.  Thanks in advance.

Elle ne le fait pas, bien qu'elle le puisse.

Why is it "bien qu'elle le puisse" and not "bien qu'elle puisse"?

Why is pouvoir in the phrase, "...but my parents told me that we can only keep one..." translated as "nous pouvions" rather than "nous pouvons" ? ie. The use of the l'imparfait rather than the present tense.

I know that we used "voulais" earlier in the sentence, but that was expressed as the past, "I wanted to keep...".  Does the use of the l'imparfait earlier in the sentences necessitate the use of the l'imparfait with "pouvoir" also?

Merci !

why does it have to be faire with aikido? why is joue a l'aikido wrong?

I was a little confused, as it suggested using the simple past tense, but also uses the past historic...something I need to make sure I understand in terms of the context!

In the first sentence, "...if you ended up alone on a desert island, and (that) you could only take one thing with you..." the french verb prendre is not accepted for take.  Yet in the third sentence,  "OK, if I had to take one thing I can't do without...", prendre is in fact usedfor take.  The context seems the same in both sentences.  Should not prendre be acceptable in the first sentence as well ?

Hi, in “si bien que nous avons foncé à l'hôpital.” why did “bien que” not trigger a subjunctive? E.g.  “si bien que nous ayons foncé à l'hôpital.”   UPDATE: I see that “si bien que” means “so much so that” and doesn’t trigger a subjunctive. I was incorrectly parsing this as “bien que” meaning “although”. 

After trying this exercise several times in the past few weeks, I'm still trying to figure out 

1) why "They stayed there to watch..."  is "Elles sont restées..." instead of "Elles y sont restées.."  Is "there" implied and therefore the "y" is unnecessary?

2) why s'approcher is used in the instance of the people approaching the fence while approcher is used in the horses timid approach. Both connote gradually moving closer, don't they?

I can't find a lesson that explains why, for instance, there is no need for a preposition following the conjugated verb espérer in a sentence such as: "J'espère ne pas faire d'erreurs," whereas a sentence such as "il m'a appris à ne pas avoir faire" requires the "à" after the conjugated verb apprendre, just as "le professeur dit de ne pas parler" requries the "de" after dire. 

I feel stuck with this problem and would appreciate someone's help.

Thanks so much! Kalpana 

The English sentence, "...know that nearly 150 nudist beaches are dotted along the French coastline." uses dotted.  The translation uses 'jalonner'.  I was wondering if 'parsemer' could be used in this context.