French language Q&A Forum

Je voudrais savoir pourquoi ‘flag bearer’ n’est pas porteur-drapeau

Bonjour,

Can you break down this sentence for me please? I can't quite understand the last 3 parts why it formed forever :)

Merci!

When I look up burgond/e in wordreference or anywhere else, nothing appears. But, Bourgogne does show for the Burgundy region. Is a burdgond/e someone form the region? Why is it not bourgogne/bourgogné or something else more similar?

can impersonal expressions like il est possible que, il est certain que etc become c'est possible , c'est certain que etc. C'est seems more logical here than il.

Surely étonner works for surprising Maman?  I would have thought it would, if anything, be a better choice?  Merci!

Is the best way to understand this construction in the context of this lesson to think of the sentence in English as "If Joseph could come, it would be great"? An example of this reversed structure would be good in the lesson.

There is a lesson named "Le nôtre, le vôtre, le leur, etc = Ours, yours, theirs (possessive pronouns)", in which there is a sentence as "J'aime bien ta voiture, elle est mieux que la leur" which now seems perfectly convincing as "mieux" is used ingeneral statements with être. However, when we think of "pire", it seems partly as the correspondant of "mieux" since it is used when we are talking about general statements with être and to this respect, I anticipated that "mieux" should be used in the sentence "Ces voitures sont les pires du monde/Ces voitures sont les plus mauvaises du monde.". This sentence is given as an example of the rule "qualifying something as bad/worse/the worst at what it does", but it seems to me that this sentence is comparing "these" cars with the other ones in the world in a general context.