New answers tagged

0

La reprise du sujet avec « c'est », qui est l'abréviation du pronom neutre « ce » suivi du verbe être : « ce est », permet de mettre en relief ledit sujet. C'est une construction très courante en français qu'il est même parfois difficile d'éviter: — L'État, c'est moi ! ( L'État est moi ), attribué à Louis XIV. — Un an, c'est long ! ( Un an est long ). ...


1

On peut retrouver "c'est" après un sujet à l'oral effectivement, mais cela n'est pas le cas à l'écrit ; car "c'est" est la contraction de "cela" et "est", et "cela" se réfère ici au sujet donc on a affaire à un pléonasme grammatical, on répète deux fois le sujet en quelque sorte.


0

In this case, « à + infinitif » is acting as a gerund phrase, so it translates to a verb ending in -ing in English.


1

what you are referring to are called « locutions » in French. You see, there is 8 types (or categories) of words in French: Noms -> Nouns (example: Voiture -> car); Déterminants -> Determiners (example: La voiture -> The car); Pronoms -> Pronouns (example: He played in the garden -> Il a joué dans le jardin); Adjectifs -> Adjectives (example: Vert -> ...


1

Given the fact both of your attempts are quite odd, it would have helped if you would have told what you precisely intend to say but assuming you want "I practice swimming during the weekend", I would suggest: Je fais de la natation le week-end. Je pratique la natation le week-end. J'ai mes entraînements de natation le week-end. Je travaille ma natation/ma ...


5

Both are grammatically correct, but the first one should be avoided. "Pendant" clearly indicate a time localization, whereas "dans" indicates usually a spatial localization (there are exceptions). By using "dans" you are still grammatically correct but only because of the vagueness of "dans". Don't do that. Other possibilities are using the synonym ...


2

En fait, ça dépend ! Si tu parles au passé de ce que tu as fait le week end tu vas dire If you talk about something you did this week-end J'ai pratiqué la natation ce week end ou J'ai fait de la natation ce week end Si tu veux dire que tous les week end tu fais de la natation, tu dis alors If you used to swim every week end Je pratique ...


-4

"Je pratique la natation durant le week-end". "Je pratique la natation pendant le week-end" is good also, but usage for this kind of sentence is beter with "durant" ;-)


4

As a subject, rien ne is the opposite of tout. You cannot arbitrarily add pas to the end of a sentence starting with rien ne because pas is an auxiliary requiring a matching ne but the existing ne is not usable, being already part of the rien ne expression. — Everything works - Tout marche — Nothing works - Rien ne marche — It works - Ça marche — It ...


1

I don't think there is a rule. It's all about confusion. If you have multiple negations, you may be misunderstood. So it's at your own risk. Then, it seems that "pas" should be avoided to make it smoother: For (a), it would mean "Tout marche" (because of the double negation). If it is not what you meant, you should say "Rien ne marche". For (b), you should ...


0

This is probably just an unimportant nuance better suited for a comment, but according to my interpretation of my copy of “Le Robert-Micro” (granted, a fairly old edition [1998]): Ce, as a demonstrative pronoun, is written as ç’ (with a cedilla) in front of the forms of the verbs etre and avoir beginning with the letter “a”; and as c’ (sans cedille) in ...


6

C'est can stand for both ce+est and ça+est. If you change the tense to future or make it negative, you can observe the difference: Future Ce sera dans le journal demain. Ça sera dans le journal demain. Negative form Ce n'est pas compliqué. Ça n'est pas compliqué. While ça is a neutral pronoun which can be used with lots of verbs, ce can only attach ...


2

Dans une phrase complète, comme pronom indéfini en objet direct, ce peut être l'un ou l'autre au choix : « soit avant l'infinitif ou entre l'auxiliaire et le participe, — soit [...] après l'infinitif et le participe. » (LBU14, §300, d, 2°). Par exemple : [...] faut-il [...] tout miser sur un avenir neuf [...] ? (Merleau-Ponty) Des hommes voulaient ...


6

Afficher tout is short for Afficher tout (le contenu) and isn't technically wrong. Though I'll agree with you, as a native speaker, Tout afficher sounds better to me.


1

Am I wrong or can't: Tu le fais lire à Alex. mean both I have Alex read it. and I have it read to Alex/I have someone unnamed read it to Alex ? I have always thought a sentence like this to be ambiguous, requiring a context for its meaning to be clear. Also, while I'm at it, may I ask whether you could use the preposition "par" here to ...


0

“Comment a-t-il pu” is used when you talk about an action that lies in the past and which actually happened. “Comment aurait-il pu” is used to describe an action that could have been the case but never happened. For example: If you studied harder you would have passed the exam.


0

The first sentence is in passé composé, it means you are talking about events that happened relatively close in the past. Here you are confronted to the vanishing of the island and wonder how it happened. The second sentence is in conditionnel, it means you are talking about hypothetical events. Here someone told you the island vanished but as you can't ...


2

The two sentences indeed have different meanings, the first one implies that you know for a fact that the island has disapeared. You would use it for example navigating your boat at the exact place the island should be, and it isn't ; when the second one only implies that you don't understand the process, you would use it for example if one of your marine ...


6

May be a translation could help you figure it out, if you're a native English speaker ? I'll give this a shot : We're still in the front line, risking our lives. We're seated at a table, drinking wine. Here, "à" is just used to convey a sense of simultaneity to both actions, whereas "pour" would mean that we're seated at a table in order to drink ...


0

The first sentance is equivalent to : Et si il avait déjà quitté l'île, et que son bateau ait coulé quelque part au milieu de l'océan ? But it implies the speaker made an hypothesis and ended his sentence. Then, he thought of something else (something even worse!) and added it. The sentence is imperfect, but it shows the train of thought of the ...


0

Your first sentence is implying a single possibility : he already left the island and his boat sunk in the ocean. Your second formulation would imply 2 exclusive possibilities using an enumeration of "Et si ... ?", which is kinda illogical and would sound weird. You would also use "avait" instead of "a" in the second formulation. Concerning the punctuation ...


0

Since you are writing a vowel after "que", your have to do the elision. i.e. you should write "qu'americans". However, your sentence seems to be not correct. I don't know how you are using it in a complete sentence but we say "pour réfléchir que les américains en moyenne dorment moins que ce qu'ils ont fait dans le passé".


3

Tu fais lire ce livre à Alex ? Is correct. When you want to say "make him/her do something", you need to use the indirect pronoun "lui" instead of "le/la", correct? Yes, in French "lui" is equivalent to both him and her as indirect object pronouns.


2

According to Ortolang, que is the second element of a conjunction (locution conjonctive in French), used to express anteriority, simultaneity or posteriority: α) [Que est le 2e élém. d'une loc. conj. exprimant l'antériorité, la simultanéité ou la postériorité] On songera à ce musicien invisible qui joue derrière la scène pendant que l'acteur touche un ...


3

The use of dont is not correct here. Dont is the genitive case of the subordinate conjunction. With the correct case, your sentence becomes : Une pensée pour ceux que je n’ai que très rarement pris l’occasion de remercier This sentence is correct, but might be a bit disturbing to hear (because of the que redundancy). If you want something more ...


2

Une pensée pour ceux que j'ai très rarement pris l’occasion de remercier Is enough. "Dont" is used only if "ceux" is not who is "remercié", for example in: Une pensée pour ceux dont j'ai très rarement pris l'occasion de remercier la contribution à ce projet. As here you thanks their contribution and not the people. Note by the way that I removed ...


6

In this context, en, just like the English "one" you used, is a nicer way to repeat "the book". You could totally say "elle a déjà un livre, mais elle veut un nouveau livre", which is correct grammatically and very understandable. However, the repetition is something one would like to avoid, for it is clearly not subtle. That is why, just like other ...


4

If you look up the definition of sucre, you'll see it is a noun meaning sugar. Sucré however, according to the dictionary is an adjective equivalent to sweetened / sweet. Example: This juice is very sweet! (Ce jus est très sucré) Sweetened milk (Du lait sucré) Sucré can have other meanings: Act as an adverb: 'Manger sucré' (ie: 'mettre du sucre sur ...


3

Le mot « si » a deux fonctions en français. Il peut être conjonction, introduisant une condition ou une hypothèse, ou pronom interrogatif indirect pour une question oui/non. La règle énoncée à propos des temps ne s'applique qu'au premier cas. Dans l'exemple donné, il peut s'agir d'une question indirecte. Le futur est donc possible, mais il n'y a aucune ...


0

For the “grammatical correctness” of the expression, the accepted answer is perfect. I could just add that, as a native educated speaker, I was really surprised recently to discover the expression to be incorrect. If one slightly generalizes the question to “why do almost all native speakers feel this is correct ?”, I think the answer is in Rodney Ball’s ...


3

The two options you have are: Tu me diras vendredi si tu as besoin de mon aide samedi. You can tell me on Friday if you need my help Saturday Tu me diras vendredi si tu auras besoin de mon aide samedi. You can tell me on Friday if you will need my help Saturday The first option you suggested is expressing the "future in past", as in "you can ...


0

Il faut utiliser le futur : Tu me diras vendredi si tu auras besoin de mon aide samedi.


0

Another possible way to try to add the notion of “could” by using “pouvoir” in the first clause might be: “Comment peut-on s’attendre à ce qu'une langue internationale existe?" However, please note that none of the translations for this construction found in the above Reverso Context link actually include could, it being translated instead as “How do we ...


2

Voici is a contraction of vois ici, literally see here. You would use voici when showing something to somebody.


3

The verb is s'attendre à and not attendre. Construction with s'attendre à is : "s'attendre à ce que* + verb in the subjunctive". You are right, pour cannot be used here. "Exist" is exister in French. We can't use être in this case. Your sentence expresses regret. French uses the infinitive of the verb (and not a conjugated verb) in interrogative ...


1

Pris(e) en photo par... Photographié(e) par...


2

En utilisant le passé composé, on parle d'un évènement court, ici l'évènement qui leur a permis de le savoir (on est donc étonné qu'ils ne l'aient su qu'hier). En utilisant l'imparfait, on parle d'un évènement sur la durée, donc toute la période où ils ont ignoré l'information (on est donc étonné qu'ils l'aient ignoré si longtemps). La nuance est donc ...


1

Something earns you something else cannot be translated with gagner directly. The subject of gagner is necessarily the “recipient” for this action in French. Quelqu'un gagne quelque chose (grace à autre chose). Therefore only the first construction is correct. Only a very limitted set of verbs could produce two valid sentences that match your scheme. It's ...


0

"C'est de moi dont il s'agit" should not be used. It's a common mistake, as many people get mixed up between the two correct sentences "c'est moi dont" and "c'est de moi que".


1

There are two grammatically correct possibilities that do not mean the same thing: (1) Seule une poignée d'individus connaît. (2) Seuls, une poignée d'individus connaissent. In (1) you consider that the unit composed of the ones who know is alone, so the ones who know probably know each other. Among themselves they probably know each other knows. In (2) ...


1

Like with all mass nouns (poignée, plupart, majorité, moitié, partie, quantité...), it can be interpreted as referring to one handful, hence singular, or as referring to several people, hence plural. Both options are correct ; there is no rule forbidding one or the other, beyond personal preference and style. This question has a more detailed answer on the ...


2

Seule une poignée d'individus .... Seul a ici le sens de seulement, et non pas de séparation. C'est donc une poignée de ... qui connaît. Les individus sont inclus dans la poignée, et lui 'transmettent' la capacité de connaître. Sinon on aurait écrit : Très peu d'individus connaissent... Les individus qui connaissent ... sont une poignée. Et là ...


2

You have to differenciate the 2 possible usages of "on": Indefinite On est souvent étonné du prix des choses. You don't know who "on" stands for. In this form you're supposed to do as it was a masculine singular. Replacing a personal pronoun (usually "nous") Je suis parti en vacances avec ma femme mais maintenant on est revenus. In this case, "on" is ...


1

On has value of third person singular in French conjugations, but here barrés is the past participle of the sentence and is always in agreement with the subject, which is "On" in this case, which is plural. So « Quand on s'est barrés de cette ville ... » is right.


0

The long (and correct) version is: Nous sommes allés au cinéma et nous avons pris le diner. A shorter (but still correct and more smooth) version is obtained by not repeating "nous": Nous sommes allés au cinéma et avons pris le diner. You can't shorten the sentence anymore whithout changing the structure. "sommes allés" and "avons pris" are here ...


2

To keep a maximal parallelism with your structure you could use this structure: Ce n'est qu'en arrivant à ... que je me suis rendu compte de/que ...


5

En effet cette remarque est tout à fait pertinente. Pour parler du film précédemment évoqué, il n'est pas possible d'utiliser le pronom ce, il faut nécessairement utiliser il : Tu as vu ce film ? Il est/était intéressant. Mais dans ce cas il est aussi possible d'utiliser ce pour parler de l'expérience (voir le film) ou de ce qui se passe dans le film. ...


4

In fact, this is the question you must ask yourself : Do the 2 expressions share the same verb or not ? For example, We went to the cinema, then (we went) to the restaurant. Would be translated as : Nous sommes allés au cinéma, puis (nous sommes allés) au restaurant Because they share the same entire verbal form. The 'we went' part is ...


0

none of your formulations are used. Usual ones would be: "Nous sommes allés au cinéma, puis nous sommes allés manger." "Nous sommes allés au cinéma, puis au restaurant." "Nous sommes allés au cinéma, puis nous sommes allés dîner." (plus rare) "Nous sommes allés au cinéma, puis nous avons dîné [en ville, à la maison]."


5

(a) and (c) are very broken and incorrect French. "The reason why..." doesn't translate to La raison pourquoi... but La raison pour laquelle... La raison pour laquelle il n'est pas venu à la fête est qu'il a plu. To stay closer to "The reason that...", you might have said the ponderous: La raison qui l'a conduit à ne pas venir à la fête est qu'il ...



Top 50 recent answers are included