weekend writing challenge: question about past participle agreement
Answered! Jump to accepted answer.
Ron
Kwiziq community member
17/08/17
Bonjour Cheryl,
I believe that the answer lies in the fact that the husband made the purchase, hence no second -e. Is it possible that you are confusing the agreement in subordinate clauses with this lesson?
Bonne chance,
Cheryl
Kwiziq community member
18/08/17
- bien sûr, c'est ça! .. merci
Aurélie
Kwiziq language super star
23/08/17
Bonjour Cheryl !
The reason why the agreement doesn't take place here is that in French you say acheter [quelque chose] à [quelqu'un] (lit. to buy [something] to [someone]), so here m' is an indirect object pronoun and not a direct object pronoun, hence the rule doesn't apply :)
I hope that's helpful!
À bientôt !
The reason why the agreement doesn't take place here is that in French you say acheter [quelque chose] à [quelqu'un] (lit. to buy [something] to [someone]), so here m' is an indirect object pronoun and not a direct object pronoun, hence the rule doesn't apply :)
I hope that's helpful!
À bientôt !
Your answer
Don't have an account yet? Join today
Think you've got all the answers?
Test your French to the CEFR standard
find your French level »3405questions7140answers135,107users
Cheryl
Kwiziq community member
15 August 2017
3 replies
weekend writing challenge: question about past participle agreement
Bonjour!, Why didn't the correct answer have an extra "e" on the past participle in the following sentence please, when there is a direct pronoun "me" before the auxillary verb: "mon mari m’avait acheté une belle édition de la pièce d’Oscar Wilde “Salomé”, (mon mari m'avait achetée...?) (assumed that the writer is a woman as she speaks of her husband, & in fact we're later told that the writer is a woman). Cheryl