French language Q&A Forum

Cheers

Matt

=============

I walk along the canals,

Je me promène à coté dle long de ses canaux, 

je me balade le long de ses canaux, 

je marche le long de ses canaux, 

Just a quick question. Is qu’est-ce que + noun always more formal? I found it a bit confusing that 

a. the last two examples of it in Section 3 have no further mention of register and 

b. in Sections 1 and 3 the examples go from less to more elegant, whereas in 2 it’s the other way round.

Do realise this is an A0 lesson, but the concepts behind it are quite challenging.

Why is the phrase "notre prof de science nous demandait de préparer ..." in imparfait not passé composé? Since the requests occurred at specific points in time I thought it would be passé composé. Is it because the requests were repeated each year?

The question was: they wanted to see them which I think is the imperfect tense. The order would then be: they them wanted to see.

However your answer is they wanted them to see.

what's the difference between "emménager" and "déménager"?

Tu dois rester a la maison 

I read in the site somewhere that with body parts its always the definite article and not possessive adjective. But here its says ses joues and i think son coeur. 

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