French language Q&A Forum

Bon jour.

If indirect speech is in the present tense, is it necessary to replace ce/cette/etc with something?

E.g.

Sophie demande à Oliver: “Explique-moi cette règle !”

Elle lui demande de lui expliquer cette règle-là.

Because in the indirect speech we don't know what is "cette" règle.

If would have + movement verb uses Être, would this apply to should have and could have versions of the same sentence? Or do they continue to use avoir + dû/pu ?  

Hi, 

Not related specifically to the direct subject of this lesson, but I'm interested in the grammar in the sentence "Vous comparaissez devant le tribunal pour conduite..." I would have used "pour conduire...". Is this covered in a lesson somewhere?

Thanks.

The text says "Note that in each case where être is the auxilliary, the verb passer is followed by a preposition (en, sur, dans, à etc.).  "

But then we have the example "Elle est passée chez Laurent hier"

Surely "chez laurent" is a noun?

Does not the 2024 Tour de France end in Nice (because of the Olympics in Paris)?

Hi, if I was to say ‘I have been learning French since I was in school’, would I say: ‘J’apprends français depuis j’étais à l’école’ or ‘j’apprends français depuis je suis à l’école’? I am no longer in school so I’m thinking it may be the former however I’m not sure if the whole sentence needs to be in the present tense. Thanks 

Why is "elle doit partir, ce qu'est triste"  wrong 

Contracting "Ce qui" 

Moi j'ai dit "une petite gorge irritée" comme j'ai vu sur WordReference, mais ce n'était pas correcte. Est-ce que c'est trop familier pour cette situation? Merci d'avance! 

Hello,

Is there is a reason why some words require a 'consolidated' partitive with the definite article (du / de la) and some only require the 'unconsolidated' partitive (de)? Such as "je bois du vin' vs. nous buvons 2 litres d'eau par jour'?

I am trying to come up with a little rule to make things easier to learn / remember, but it doesn't seem that it works like that.

Thanks,

Alex