French language Q&A Forum

It is very disappointing that this lesson does not appear to have been modified to deal with the poor distinction over when to use le/la/l'/le with ne. ni. ni. The lesson clearly states "When using ni, you omit the article after ni, unless you're talking about general things and using le, la, l', les."  

Yet much of the discussion here has suggested the article should be used for the specific rather than the general. Better and more examples of when and how to use articles are needed - yet this has clearly been an issue for years. 

I echo the comments below regarding this lesson lacking clarity. 

The explanation of when it IS appropriate to use 'devoir' is missing and I find it easier to just memorise the correct answers rather than try to answer them using knowledge of the grammar rules.

"De" and "des" has puzzled me for years.  I interpret this as "dolphin show" or "show of dolphins" which would be the grammatical equivalent of "la mère de Paul."  But, the right answer is "des."  That would seem to be "I would like to see the show some dolphins" in my mind.  Can somebody help me with the grammar that applies here?

Can I use "la fillette" instead of "la petite fille"?

 Is there a difference between

"Je me réveille à sept heures du matin tous les jours"

and

"Je me réveille tous les jours à sept heures du matin" ?

In a quiz I just took, 'brilliant ' becomes 'brillamment'. Is this an irregular adverb? I note that 'patient' becomes "patiemment". I would appreciate your insight. 

Bonjour Madame Cécile !

A sentence came up while I was reviewing the lesson-

Il a déjà acheté un nouvel appartement.             

To form the negative, I think it should be-

Il n’a pas encore acheté de nouvel appartement. 

I had read the rule in the following lesson that “un” changes to “de” in negative sentences-

Un/une become de/d' in negative sentences in French (French Indefinite Articles)

But, will “un” change to “de” in this negation ? Because, there is an adjective after “un” ?

Is this an exceptional case where the above mentioned rule does not apply as it happens for “Verbs of State” ?

Merci en avance ! Je vous souhaite une bonne journée! 

À bientôt !

Oh la la! In the last phrase of this dictée, "Ils ont eu le droit de manger," it's hard to understand "ont eu." 

Was the speaker's mouth full of chocolate eggs? ;) 

But seriously, a liaison between "ont_eu" would've made it clearer. Nonetheless, it does seem rather "frenchy" that liaison's aren't necessarily obligatory, but rather subjective, yeah???

In the example,  why is 'you would have been in trouble given as vous auriez eu des problems'? I would have expected 'vous auriez été .....'  What am I missing?

Why is this not translated as "she was wearing . . ." which would be consistent with the description of imparfait from the specific grammar lessons on Imperfect being equivalent to English use of 'was . . ' or 'was ..ing'.  It seems to me that 'she wore . . ' would be more consistent with passé compose (Elle a porté . . .)?  Noting further that for 'I bought . . . ' the origin of the translation was passé composé - 'J'ai acheté ...' in the same set of examples above.