French language Q&A Forum
Questions answered by our learning community with help from expert French teachers
14,715 questions • 31,883 answers • 971,076 learners
Questions answered by our learning community with help from expert French teachers
14,715 questions • 31,883 answers • 971,076 learners
Q1) Isn't this correct?
Vous m'y avez parlé. [You spoke to me there.] (Parler à)
Q2) Isn't the scenario of Indirect Object Pronoun/COI with Adverbial Y possible? If not, why??
Q3) And similarly, vice-versa the scenario of Direct Object Pronoun/COD with Adverbial En is also not possible?? Hence, is it a rule that it will always be [COD + y] and [COI + en] in Double Pronouns??
Looking back through the Quick Lesson and the accompanying discussion I still can’t tell the difference between “none arrived” and “no one arrived”. Aren’t they just two ways of saying the same thing? (Albeit, the second being my preference.)
I don’t understand how to know whether this refers to a person (WHOM do you miss) or to a thing (WHAT are you missing).
I listened to that first sentence time and time again and I really cannot hear "Sarah", really sounds like "Ça va".
I thought the following analysis by Google's Gemini was interesting.
Analyse du mot "siècle" ou "siècles" :Le mot correct est "siècle".
Explication :
Le mot "siècle" désigne une période de cent ans.Dans la phrase, il est question d'une période qui s'étend de la fin du XVIIIe siècle au milieu du XIXe siècle.Cette période correspond à un seul siècle, le XIXe siècle.Le mot "siècles" ne serait pas correct car il impliquerait qu'il y a eu plusieurs siècles entre la fin du XVIIIe et le milieu du XIXe siècle.Voici quelques arguments supplémentaires pour justifier le choix du mot "siècle" :
Le contexte de la phrase ne mentionne aucun événement qui se serait déroulé sur plusieurs siècles.L'évolution de l'examen décrite dans la phrase est un processus graduel qui s'est déroulé sur un seul siècle.Le singulier "siècle" est plus précis et plus élégant que le pluriel "siècles" dans ce contexte.Conclusion :
Le mot "siècle" est le choix correct dans cette phrase. Il est plus précis, plus élégant et plus cohérent avec le contexte que le mot "siècles".
I have read most of the discussion about the use of "dont", and I don't understand why it's wrong in this question. Can anyone explain it - simply, if possible. auquelà quoi
I’m done—what else can I say?
In spoken French, do Conditionnel Passé and Le Futur Antérieur sound noticeable different? It seems like it would be confusing.
I understand the lesson as it is taught above.
In the lesson for future antérieur (Conjugate vouloir/pouvoir/devoir in the future perfect in French (Le Futur Antérieur)) there are sentences like "Nous aurons voulu le revoir". Why not Nous le aurons voulu revoir?
Is there another rule applicable when using future antérieur?
Find your French level for FREE
And get your personalised Study Plan to improve it
Find your French level