New answers tagged

-1

What is wrong with: Paw-Paw is a veteran, which Tex is very proud of.


3

You can use both, as both are correct. Tex can be proud of Paw-Paw or of the fact that Paw-Paw is a veteran in french as well as in english. Now, the comma make me think the probability of the second choice is more likely because it separate "The fact that Paw-Paw is a veteran" from the second part of the sentence. But then one could ask : Why is Tex proud ...


1

Well you are right everywhere, nothing wrong ! Except that the meaning of the sentence is supposed to be Paw-Paw is a veteran, of what Tex is very proud "dont" actually refers to the fact that Paw-Paw is a veteran; but I agree there is an ambiguity.


1

"différent" agrees with the subject. Here, "année" is not the subject. You may say (subject being bold) : Mais tout est différent Mais cette année est différente Mais cette année, tout est différent Adding a comma makes it clearer I guess, but here, the subject is "tout". I don't know where did you find that "tout" can be feminine, but as a ...


4

Arriver can mean to happen. With that meaning, it's a member of a class of verb that always a take a dummy subject pronoun and have their "real" logical subject expressed as a dative indirect object. See also falloir (il nous faut nous dépécher = we must hurry), aller in the sense of suit (ça me va totalement = suits me fine) or the archaic verb chaloir (peu ...


1

As @Laure mentioned, en means some of them and les means them (presumably all of them). Ceci dit, vu la valeur de ces pierres, nous ne pouvons nous permettre de les distribuer à droite et à gauche, chaque fois que quelqu'un nous les demande. Grammatically, this sentence is just as correct as the other one, but the usage of les doesn't make sense. The ...


1

"en" replaces "roses", so you can't use both in the same sentence, except with a comma: Il en a acheté une douzaine, de roses But this will mostly be used in an oral conversation, when you start using "en", and realise the person in front of you is not sure of what you are talking about, or if you simply want to emphase it. The correct way to use "en" ...


3

It's ambiguous and can be interpreted both ways, but if the author had wanted to be clear that it was qualifying the subject they'd have written Tous les humains vous haïssent. So if I needed to take a guess I'd venture that the intent was to qualify the object, purely based on inference, not grammar. If, on the other hand, you wanted to clarify ...


1

Icelui / icelle indiqués par @cl-r dans sa réponse, seront utilisées aujourd'hui seulement pour donner une fausse coloration médiévale à un texte, pour l'humour 1, un peu comme "thou" en anglais aujourd'hui serait utilisé pour donner un faux aspect "dix commandements". Les formes pronominales "nous autres", "vous autres" et "eux autres" subsistent de ...


8

Icelle et ses dérivés sont assez sympathiques : l'ancêtre de celle-ci et ses acolytes peuvent être utilisés de nos jours et seront parfaitement entendus.


3

Dans beaucoup des dialectes espagnols d'Amérique Latine, le tutoiement à été supplanté par vos. De manière plus importante encore, le tutoiement pluriel (vosotros) a été remplacé par le générique ustedes qui, contrairement à l'espagnol européen mais comme en français, est à la fois le pluriel de vos/tu et de usted. En brésilien, un changement similaire est ...


0

Partial negation: Tous ne sont pas de vils flagorneurs. Ils ne sont pas tous des vils flagorneurs. Complete negation: Aucun n'est un vil flagorneur. I think you cannot make a complete negation with 'tous'. You must use 'Aucun' (= 'None (of them)').


3

Are you certain "all of them are not" is a 'complete' negation? Anyway, I would say that a complete negation in french would be "None of them is", translated exactly into "Aucun n'est [un vil flagorneur]" (note the use of singular, like in english).



Top 50 recent answers are included