Hot answers tagged

33

This sentence is usually a reply to a remark, typically: — Tu es petite ! — Je suis petite, moi ? The remark is repeated to confirm what has been heard or understood, and moi ? is a way to state a strong disagreement and/or surprise. That would correspond to the English: — You are small! — Me? small ? (i.e. Are you sure you are talking ...


26

Regarding your proposal: Langue is feminine, so you have to use une and not un. If you do not repeat langue in the answer you have to replace it with the personal pronoun en. Je n'en parle qu'une qui est l'anglais. is correct and would be a possible. But I find it would be much more idiomatic to say: Je n'en parle qu'une (seule) : l'anglais. And ...


14

From what you have written I expect you know the rule that says that when the direct object is a pronoun, it must be placed before the verb. J'améliore la peinture → Je l'améliore. I suppose you hesitate because there are two verbs in your sentence and you do not know in front of which verb (vouloir or améliorer) to place the pronoun. La peinture is the ...


12

Ce is a determiner, it is an adjective and as such you need a noun to go with it. What you really want in your sentence is a pronoun, le is correct. Je le ferai jamais. Note that it is colloquial French, it is used quite a lot in oral language but if you want to go "by the rule" you really need the other part of the negation: ne, it all depends what use ...


11

The pronoun y replaces a complement representing something inanimate introduced by à. Like your example shows (je crois à ça : j'y crois), it is not limited to locations. Je réponds à la question : j'y réponds


10

Les deux phrases Oui, je vais en goûter un peu" et Oui, je vais y goûter un peu sont correctes. Cependant, une meilleure tournure serait « Oui, j'aimerais y goûter », ou « Oui, j'en veux bien. » En effet le verbe aller indique une action future que tu as décidée toi-même : que la personne le veuille ou non, tu vas manger de la tarte. L'...


9

It is just an outdated usage to place the direct object pronoun in front of the first verb. Nobody does that any more. In 21st French we would write: ... on pourra le distinguer en six parties. According to Grevisse (Le bon usage) this was frequent (but not systematic) until the 17th c. when there were two verbs, the second being in the infinitive (...


8

On works with both meanings here: On can indeed be the impersonal pronoun here. "On s'en fout" should be understood as "nobody cares". "On" can also be understood as "we" in this context, as "you and I": the mother says "we don't care about the purse", which actually expresses the idea "you and I should not be talking about the purse, I want an explanation ...


7

J'ai eu le bénéfice de lire les autres réponses. Moins en ce qui concerne l'abstraction linguistique que la description du phénomène en français, surtout à l'écrit1 : La redondance est le fait que la même fonction est exercée par deux termes non coordonnés et apportant la même information dans la même phrase. Tantôt ces termes sont identiques, tantôt ...


7

En partant du commentaire de Stéphane Gimenez, j'ai pu trouver une origine à la dislocation, nom de la construction syntaxique exposée dans la question. Mr Grevisse l'a définie en 1993 : un terme est mis en évidence au début ou à la fin de la phrase, et un pronom personnel ou démonstratif occupe la place normale de ce terme Cependant une étude sur les ...


7

Both French and English can have ∅ objects when they're indefinite (Ils embauchent/ they're hiring, je mange là/I'm eating right now, etc). French also allows ∅ objects when they're generic, while English doesn't. When the object refers to a specific thing, the weak pronouns le/la/les are heavily favoured: Les pâtes, j'aime beaucoup (ça) (I like pasta a ...


7

« Je le veux » is actually okay to my ears, though not idiomatic according to the native speakers who have weighed in. Arguably this le wouldn't replace the infinitive but whatever substantive is implied by the infinitive (e.g. « un voyage »). A more common solution is to replace the verb by another. The general one is (le) faire : Pourquoi veux-tu ...


7

Other idiomatic variants: "Je ne parle qu'une langue, à savoir l'anglais" "Je ne parle qu'une langue et c'est l'anglais"


7

Nowadays, using il est un / elle est une is typical from non native French speakers. This form is not a grammatical mistake. It sounds archaic but might still be used in formal or literary contexts with the meaning "there is a". It is never required. See this reply to a question very similar to yours and that explains why c'est un(e) took the lead: ...


6

Here, en is a pronoun that replaces the possessive phrase (complément du nom) of a direct object. In your examples: "On comprend la portée généreuse de la loi" becomes "On en comprend la portée généreuse". "On comprend mieux les causes de chaque incident" becomes "On en comprend mieux les causes". For the first example, we don't know what the pronoun ...


6

Je vous demande means “I ask you.” Here, vous is an object of demander, not the subject, which is instead je. Hence, demander must be conjugated in accordance with je, not vous. Because vous is an object pronoun, it is placed between the subject and verb; this may have caused confusion if you are very new to French. However, consider also that one says s’il ...


5

La première question revient malheureusement à prouver un négatif. C'est d'autant plus compliqué que les attestations de je -ons avec un référent singulier sont rares, peuvent être le résultat d'une mauvais imitation de la forme populaire par quelqu'un dont elle ne fait pas partie du dialecte, ou d'une réinterprétation de l'ancien système par un néo-locuteur ...


5

The "lui" is not necessary, but it goes with the "aussi" to give more emphasis on the person, and it is better like this. I know it doesn't translate like this in English, but it would be something like "him too". The meaning is that she was very distant, and her boyfriend was also very distant. If you just say "aussi", there would be some ambiguity about ...


5

En complément à une réponse plus précise, le propos qui suit fait abstraction de la spécificité qu'aurait le verbe pouvoir et de l'emploi du participe présent plutôt que d'un verbe conjugué comme support de l'infinitif. On s'intéresse plutôt directement à la présence de l'infinitif et à son impact. Mesme on a ajousté ce que je pense avoir remarqué en ...


5

In declarative clauses with no inversion, object pronouns, in French, precede the verbs to which they are attached. This may be observed in phrases such as "s'il vous plaît" (if it pleases you). In that example, the verb is plaire, and its subject is clearly il and not vous; otherwise it would be conjugated as plaisez. The object then is vous, and it is ...


5

Sorry if I didn't get your query. What is wrong with the following reply? Pourquoi est-ce que tu veux voyager ? (Juste) pour visiter de nouveaux pays. You avoid repeating voyager. There is indeed the so-called pronom neutre le. This is used to replace among other things infinitive verbs. (See for instance: http://uoh.concordia.ca/pronoms/co/m/co/...


5

Je le veux is not technically wrong but is not idiomatic in this context. It is somewhat too formal and too strong, and only used in occasions where it implies a strong commitment, often religious, especially a wedding (Yes, I will / Yes, I want to), or a "divorce"? Both suggestion in Luke's and Dimitris' answers (Pour visiter de nouveaux pays and je veux ...


5

Short answer: both forms are possible in both sentences. I searched the web a little for inspiration and found a lot of sites with incorrect information, so beware. Some sites say that it's always “à qui” for a person, which is wrong. Some sites allow both but then state that certain example sentences can only use one or the other even though both are ...


5

"Promettre" isn't constructed only with infinitive clauses (promettre de + inf.clause); here are the common constructions. promettre qqc                              Elle lui a promis la lune. promettre de + inf....


5

This is a pronom tonique. It does serve to emphasize or create contrast, and it does go outside the verb phrase. The subject and object pronouns in French do not take emphasis well. They're considered a kind of clitic — a verbal appendage that happens to be separate from it rather than their own word. So you have to add something else if you want to put ...


4

Oui, les deux formes sont possibles et équivalentes mais la tendance est à l'utilisation du pronom le. Son absence est aujourd'hui plus littéraire et très rare en français parlé.


4

s’écroule Is from the pronominal verb s’écrouler, in fact we should say se écrouler, like in se faire, se donner. But because écrouler starts with a vowel, the prononciation is pretty hard, that's why se is shortened to s'. m'importe This is in fact a shorter version of importer à moi, which became me importer, and for the prononciation became m'...


4

Yes, this exists too in French and that would be a case where the natural pronoun used would be on. On has the ability to replace any personal pronoun in a sentence, here nous/vous: What are we having today? Qu'est-ce qu'on prend/choisit aujourd'hui ? and here je/vous So yeah, that’s how we’re doing right now. Ben oui, on est/va comme ça ...


4

You can suppose that "Je suis petite, moi ?" comes as a reply to a personal remark, although it may not always be the case. For example, it would be correct to say "Je suis petite, moi ?" if you hear a politician saying that all women are small. It doesn't necessarily have to be directly directed at you, but using the "moi" is there to show that you ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible