Answer to a test question not adequately explained in lessonI know this question has already been somewhat addressed earlier (I'll quote the comments here), but I didn't find the answer very clarifying. So I'll repeat the issue, quote the explanations that were given, and attempt to explain why I'm still confused.
In a test question, we are asked:
How would you say ''I haven't been in France for long.'' ?
The only tenable-seeming answers are:
-Je ne suis pas arrivé en France depuis longtemps (marked correct)
-Je n'arrive pas en France depuis longtemps (marked incorrect)
In spite of the questionable use of the verb "arriver", I actually chose the latter option on the basis that, in the lesson, we are told:
– Ne ... pas + Passé composé + depuis longtemps = not for a long time / not in ages -> It's over and done in the past
– Ne ... pas + Présent indicatif + depuis longtemps = not long / not for long -> It started a short while ago, and is still ongoing
Commenting on the issue, Cécile's gives this transition:
– I haven't been in France for long = Je ne suis pas en France depuis longtemps.
Like the instructions in the lesson, and the second answer in the quiz (which was marked incorrect), this translation conforms with the use of the Présent indicatif + depuis longtemps to describe something that "is still ongoing."
Chris, however, gives two translations:
Je ne suis pas en France depuis longtemps.
Je ne suis pas arrivé en France depuis longtemps.
He then explains "The former sentence talks about a period which started in the past and continues up until the present time. The second one focuses on the event of the arrival, which has no connection to the present."
For me personally, this explanation is too terse and opaque to clarify anything. It fails to explain what focusing on "the event of the arrival" changes in terms of grammar rules. Further, it doesn't acknowledge, in this instance at least, the fact that the lesson's instructions are seemingly contravened, or explain why this is so.
Either there is a mistake in the quiz (which is doubtful), or another section needs to be added to the lesson to explain this exception.
I understand that the present indicative is preferred over the near future and future tenses where feasible. What yanks my chain a bit is that this rule (or usage) is not made explicit until you answer the question wrong. As I think about, I use the present indicative in French wherever possible and observe that French speakers avoid the future tense like the La Peste. Tout est bien qui finit bien....
If 'Allons-y' is 'Let's go', what is the French for 'Let's go there'?
I know this question has already been somewhat addressed earlier (I'll quote the comments here), but I didn't find the answer very clarifying. So I'll repeat the issue, quote the explanations that were given, and attempt to explain why I'm still confused.
In a test question, we are asked:
How would you say ''I haven't been in France for long.'' ?
The only tenable-seeming answers are:
-Je ne suis pas arrivé en France depuis longtemps (marked correct)
-Je n'arrive pas en France depuis longtemps (marked incorrect)
In spite of the questionable use of the verb "arriver", I actually chose the latter option on the basis that, in the lesson, we are told:
– Ne ... pas + Passé composé + depuis longtemps = not for a long time / not in ages -> It's over and done in the past
– Ne ... pas + Présent indicatif + depuis longtemps = not long / not for long -> It started a short while ago, and is still ongoing
Commenting on the issue, Cécile's gives this transition:
– I haven't been in France for long = Je ne suis pas en France depuis longtemps.
Like the instructions in the lesson, and the second answer in the quiz (which was marked incorrect), this translation conforms with the use of the Présent indicatif + depuis longtemps to describe something that "is still ongoing."
Chris, however, gives two translations:
Je ne suis pas en France depuis longtemps.
Je ne suis pas arrivé en France depuis longtemps.
He then explains "The former sentence talks about a period which started in the past and continues up until the present time. The second one focuses on the event of the arrival, which has no connection to the present."
For me personally, this explanation is too terse and opaque to clarify anything. It fails to explain what focusing on "the event of the arrival" changes in terms of grammar rules. Further, it doesn't acknowledge, in this instance at least, the fact that the lesson's instructions are seemingly contravened, or explain why this is so.
Either there is a mistake in the quiz (which is doubtful), or another section needs to be added to the lesson to explain this exception.
Are both correct?
I'm a little confused here because I understand quitter to mean to leave something for good and sortir is merely to leave a place. in the question to translate: They leave their work at 7 o'clock - It seems the correct answer should be - Ils sortent leur travail à 19h, but the correct answer is giving me: Ils quittent leur travail à 19h. Why then is this correct?
Bonjour,
In one of the questions, ""Il a huit amis, dont cinq sont anglais", I see "sont" being used. But in all the examples in this lesson, no verbs are used in the "dont" clause.
Can I then also say, ""Il a huit amis, dont cinq anglais" ? Could someone clairfy?
Merci.
I'm a little confused as to why 'impressionnés' is in the plural. Is this because it is a passive voice?
Merci, Steve
I know that the translation is often literal, but would the following be a correct ways of writing "without me being made aware of it!" - sans avoir m'avertir (in place of sans que j'en sois informé. The latter seems cumbersome.
Also can one use "Encore une fois" in place of "Une fois de plus"?
Thanks
Find your French level for FREE
Test your French to the CEFR standard
Find your French level