Ambiguous sentenceRex reminds Anna of her dog.
Rex rappelle son chien à Anna.
The English sentence nearly made my head explode :-), it seems really ambiguous to me. In this example it's slightly clearer because Rex and Anna are different sexes, but if you wrote:
Rex reminds Chris of his dog.
Rex rappelle son chien à Chris.
it becomes really ambiguous. I imagine it would be said by someone (say Bob) talking about about three other parties (Rex, Chris and a dog). It would be clearer if there was more context as to who or what Rex, Chris and the dog were, but as it stands it can be interpreted multiple ways. It's unclear to me if the dog belongs to Rex or Chris, and the meaning changes depending on whether Rex is a dog or a person. The sentence needs a bit more context to try and remove the ambiguity e.g.:
Bob said that his dog Rex reminds Chris of his dog.
Bob said that his friend Rex reminds him of Chris' dog.
It seems the French is less ambiguous in this case, and you need to be careful with translating the French into English.
It was in another new year exercise but not this one. Why not?
I thought if vouloir was used as negative phrase, you didn't use the subjonctif tense...am I wrong?
À propos de la dernière phrase, est-ce qu'il serait possible d'employer "leur entreprise" au lieu de "leur commerce"?
Rex reminds Anna of her dog.
Rex rappelle son chien à Anna.
The English sentence nearly made my head explode :-), it seems really ambiguous to me. In this example it's slightly clearer because Rex and Anna are different sexes, but if you wrote:
Rex reminds Chris of his dog.
Rex rappelle son chien à Chris.
it becomes really ambiguous. I imagine it would be said by someone (say Bob) talking about about three other parties (Rex, Chris and a dog). It would be clearer if there was more context as to who or what Rex, Chris and the dog were, but as it stands it can be interpreted multiple ways. It's unclear to me if the dog belongs to Rex or Chris, and the meaning changes depending on whether Rex is a dog or a person. The sentence needs a bit more context to try and remove the ambiguity e.g.:
Bob said that his dog Rex reminds Chris of his dog.
Bob said that his friend Rex reminds him of Chris' dog.It seems the French is less ambiguous in this case, and you need to be careful with translating the French into English.
Can someone please clarify why the tenses jump from imperfect to present in the final sentence? Thanks!
On peut aussi exprimer la même chose ("...was released last week") avec la voix passive ?: "Le nouveau James Bond a été sorti semaine dernière"
I was marked wrong for typing the latter response. Is this because the subject (nous) does not change? Therefore the second part of the sentence must remain in the infinitive?
Why the conditional, auraient, here? Why not the pluperfect similar to pouvaient?
"Bonjour! Je m'appelle Trefia. Je suis une fille. J'habite à Malang, en Indonésie. Je travaille ici aussi. J'aime lire les livres et j'aime écoute de la musique. Enchanté." How was it? Merci beaucoup.
Sarah ne faisait pas confiance à Thomas.
Sarah didn't use to trust Thomas. In French can you really express the idea of “used to” (do something) just by using the past imperfect tense (as here)? Or does it need “avoir l’habitude de …” ? Is there a difference in meaning in French? Merci
Find your French level for FREE
Test your French to the CEFR standard
Find your French level