French language Q&A Forum

Can 'parcourir' be used interchangeably with 'couvrir' in the context of this exercise? 

I translated "famous sculpteur" as "sculpteur connu" but all the suggested answers used "célèbre" instead. Is there a difference? I thought they meant the same thing.

Also, my dictionary translates "versatility" as "polyvalence" in French, and it says that "versatilité" in French actually means fickleness/changeability. Just wanted to clarify.

Si seulement c'était si facile de rendormir les enfants :-)

Hi! Thanks for the exercise! The audio for ¨traverse le village¨ sounds very much like ¨traverse sur le village¨ - or maybe it just sounds like that to me.

Also, the ¨le maire¨ hint, I think, belongs on the audio section before where it is currently located.

I am not sure why the subjunctive is used here.  I understand that trouver takes indicative in the affirmative, but subjunctive if negative.  Here it is affirmative, so presumably the word étrange is causing the change in tense.  Perhaps because étrange has a negative connotation, or perhaps simply because it is an adjective, as in être étrange que ..

I must admit I often find the 'short lessons' on here a little confusing because of the coloured lines. This one is particularly bad. I cannot see if the text with green lines is supposed to relate to the text with orange lines above it or below it. Essentially, why are the coloured lines there? They only confuse. Marking explanations with one colour and examples with another is pointless; we can see what is what. What we cannot see is what pertains to what. It would be fine if you gave some examples with red lines then an explanation also with a red line, so we know it refers to the 'red lined' examples. Then, further examples with a different colour together with an explanation with the same colour. This way we know what refers to what.

often find the 'short lessons' on here a little confusing because of the coloured lines. This one is particularly bad. I cannot see if the text with green lines is supposed to relate to the text with orange lines above it or below it. Essentially, why are the coloured lines there? They only confuse. Marking explanations with one colour and examples with another is pointless; we can see what is what. What we cannot see is what pertains to what. It would be fine if you gave some examples with red lines then an explanation also with a red line, so we know it refers to the 'red lined' examples. Then, further examples with a different colour together with an explanation with the same colour. This way we know what refers to what