5,235 questions • 10,738 answers • 196,985 users
Hi can you pls explain how to use " on ose à peine dire/ énoncer"
Before anyone answers I think I can see it now. Is it the use of 'pouvoir' that makes the translation 'could' while 'avoir' gives more the sense of 'should'?
Paul should have left earlier is given as 'Paul aurait du partir plus tot'.
I could have learnt to swim is given as 'J'aurais pu apprendre a nager'
These are exactly the same constructions, therefore they can not both be correct.
(Apologies for the absence of diacritic marks)
Why isn’t there an infinite in the above phrase ?
In 1969, we went to conquer the moon. I wrote on est allés but was marked wrong for not using parti when another lesson used on est allés for “we went” so I’m confused and the lesson is about agreement with on. Doesn’t explain why parti is right and allés is wrong. Also, I don’t get email notifications so don’t see any answers to questions unless I happen to run across it elsewhere. Help! Thanks.
When comparing my answer with Kwizbot's (around Question 9):
Kwizbot: Ajoutez-y quelques CUILLERS de crème
Me: Ajoutez y quelques CUILLÈRES de crème
Kwizbot spells cuillères correctly in the answer box but incorrectly in the comparison box.
Hope this makes sense
Les tomates... ce sont les dernières.
I am trying to understand why we are using ce sont les...
Is it because of the rule that says "c'est/ce sont" before "un, le, les, and possessive pronouns"?
Bonjour Madame Cécile !
Though, Kwiziq doesn’t have any lessons on this particular grammar topic but I would like to ask a few queries pertaining to this concept -
1. Ma mère me dit, < Lève-toi tôt tous les matins.>
I answered - Ma mère me dit de se lever tôt tous les matins.
Here, the question is whether we have to use “ se lever” or “me lever” ? I had gone through the rules in my grammar book which states to use the infinitive form of the verb after de when the sentence is in L’Impèratif . So, why is “se lever” wrong here ?
2. Il demande, < Aimez-vous les chiens ? >
Now, I wrote - Il demande si nous aimons les chiens.
However, the right answer was- Il demande s’ils aiment les chiens.
I request you to please explain the reasons behind the above two queries.
A small request, as a student, to take a glimpse of my previous question posted few days back. I know it’s quite a tedious question but I hope it’ll be done.
By the way, to take a glance is “ coup d’œil” - an expression I learnt just now !
Merci encore Madame !
Je vous souhaite une bonne journée!
A discrepancy has arisen with one of my other language learning tools: when requesting answers in translating freestanding nouns, the app sometimes requires that an article be present, ie, "la banque" but other times that the article be omitted, "suite" (for "sequel"). My understanding is that in French the article may be omitted when talking about the general idea of a noun (and a few other exceptions, such as with professions and in certain constructions using "de" but also that its omission would never be required in that context.
In other words, my instinct is that, when prompted to provide the word for "sequel" one could say "suite" (freestanding only, of course) but saying "la suite" would also be correct. The corrections of the learning app seems to suggest that some nouns require omission of the article, which I felt I should report as inaccurate correction.
Is my understanding correct? Just to avoid any confusion, I am aware that nouns used in a complete sentence need the article; I am only concerned with the inclusion/omission for standalone nouns.
Thanks in advance!
Hello, I m trying to understand this sentence:
J'utilise ces tomates. Ce sont les dernières.
Are we using ce sont here before the article les? My first reaction was to say elles sont...