Articles OR no articles depending on the context?In this Weekend Workout (5-10-2018) in the 'Californian Dream' level C1 quiz we are asked to translate:
'But what fascinated her the most remained this image of a land both arid and lush, which comprised desert, forests, ocean and mountains,'
Two possible anwers were given (see below) one with articles and the other without articles.
Is this perhaps because the one with articles relates to general things BUT the one without articles relates to specific things (a specific forest, say, rather than forests in general)? Could you please advise/explain.
Answer 1. qui comprenait le désert, les forêts, l'océan et les montagnes,
Answer 2. qui comprenait désert, forêts, océan et montagnes,
Hello, i'm probably getting ahead of myself (only been studying French for 2 months) but wanted to see if anyone would be willing to let me know if I'm correct or not on below conjugations.
I ate = j'ai mangé
I was eating / used to eat = je mangaisI should eat = je devrais mangerI will eat = je mangeraiI should not eat = je ne devrais pas mangerI will have eaten = j'aurai mangéI will not have eaten yet = je n'aurai pas mangé encoreI had eaten = j'avais mangéI had not eaten yet = je n'avais mangé encoreI have to eat = je doit mangerI can't eat right now = je ne peux pas manger maintenant/tout de suite?I should have eaten = j'aurais pas dû mangerIt seems in general that "should" future uses conditional present and "should" future uses conditional past.I apologize in advance if this is too much for a single post :(En été, je mange beaucoup de glaces!
In summer, I eat a lot of ice cream!
L'été, on bronze sur la plage.
In summer, we tan on the beach.
(i don't understand why it is not "En été, on bronze sur la plage"
In the writing challenge "My post-university plans" the sentence "I've heard that Isabelle is also going to try her luck in Paris." is translated as "J'ai entendu dire qu'Isabelle allait aussi tenter sa chance à Paris."
Why is "allait" used rather than "ira" or "va"?
"allait" seems to be translation for "was going", not "will be going" or "is going", yet the most likely meaning of the sentence is that Isabelle's action will occur in the future.
It seems that the explantion has to do with the fact that the sentence describes something already heard and therefore belongs to the past but the result is not intuitive.
I shouldn't have eaten so much...
Je n'ai devrais pas trop mangé
I know this is incorrect, but would like some guidance on how to correctly state this.
Thank you
In this Weekend Workout (5-10-2018) in the 'Californian Dream' level C1 quiz we are asked to translate:
'But what fascinated her the most remained this image of a land both arid and lush, which comprised desert, forests, ocean and mountains,'
Two possible anwers were given (see below) one with articles and the other without articles.
Is this perhaps because the one with articles relates to general things BUT the one without articles relates to specific things (a specific forest, say, rather than forests in general)? Could you please advise/explain.
Answer 1. qui comprenait le désert, les forêts, l'océan et les montagnes,
Answer 2. qui comprenait désert, forêts, océan et montagnes,
Hi!
Love to learn French on Kwiziq, so I wonder if you already plan other languages based on the poll results? German language in particular))
The test at the end of the lesson marked the choice: Jack took the giant down (killed him) as wrong. It accepted only the choice: Jack took the giant downstairs as correct. Why? The lesson suggests that the first choice to be one of the correct meanings. What am I missing?
Thanks, Sunya
Find your French level for FREE
And get your personalised Study Plan to improve it
Find your French level