French language Q&A Forum

This page would be much more useful if it listed the conjugations.

Thank you

Not sure if I am missing an easy way to do this but when a search in QandA is done, I can't see an easy way to link to the full discussion. For example, a common question on avoir besoin de and avoir peur de has been raised again. This was subject to a very detailed discussion just recently and short of scrolling through many pages, I cannot find it to link for the questioner. I can see Cécile's answer, but the rest of the discussion is not linked from there. If there isn't a way presently, is it possible to look at doing this? There are many discussions dating back years now that have lots of good information, and also discussions arising from the other exercises that are worth referring to. 

George's question is interesting! Very often, in English, you may hear the following. "The front door, was it locked?".  Also similarly, "Cécile, isn't she exceptional?". The screeching-brakes urgency of the first and the wonderment accolade of the second is relayed in the format. And yet the corresponding translation is rejected in the answers. How can you repeat the effect in French if not as follows.  La porte d'entrée, etait-elle verouillée?/Cécile, n'est-elle pas exceptionnelle?

If, as mentioned, most people use the subjonctif after "après que", wouldn't it be odd to a francophone to hear the passé composé?

Après que je SUIS allé????

Even school teachers would say " Après que je SOIS allé"

The son WAS born in the past?  Why then use "est né" rather that "était né"? 

Can these be used interchangeably for 'because', or is there a difference?

It’s some consolation to me, having read all the submissions, that I’m not the only one having difficulty with this concept. Has the reconstruction, promised a year ago, been implemented yet? If not, may I make a suggestion? How about, instead of asking "If she could fly, she would go to the moon.", ask instead "If she was able to fly, she would go to the moon.”?

Were they under-cooked? Is this referring literally to nuts/walnuts as part of the meal - or is it a part of the scallop, or a reference to the scallop?

This is given as a version of 'we are only waiting for Mum to join us'.

But couldn't it also mean 'we are no longer waiting for Mum to join us'?