ainsi que(I saw a related question below, but didn't see how to link this question to that one... so I'm starting a new question.)
My question is about how to think about the meaning of "ainsi que." It's translated as "as well as," but in some examples I run into a singular treatment when my brain seems to expect a plural. I think the lesson here for me is that this isn't a translation that works in some cases. I'm wondering if my feeling is true for American English but maybe not for other varieties?
Here's the sentence that tripped me up:
Les Etats-Unis, ________ l'Angleterre, sont un pays anglophone.The United States, as well as England, is an anglophone country.
In English, I actually wouldn't say a sentence like in the translation above - I would say "The United States, like England, is an anglophone country." OR "The United States and England are anglophone countries." I just wouldn't use "as well as" in that way. So my takeaway is that I shouldn't lean in to heavily on using this as a 1-for-1 translation. Does this work better in, say, British English? Thanks.
Where the lesson says "Both mille and un millier de are followed by a plural verb (sont venus)", am I correct in saying that this only occurs when these adjectives are modifying the subject? The rule is listed after a number of examples, some of which have the adjectives as part of the object/ with no verb following). Let me know if I'm missing something. Thanks!
In the line: "je vais y aller maintenant" why is the "y" included? I thought near future was just aller + infinitive. This also does not seem to be following the rules for "y"as an adverbial pronoun. Thanks!
(I saw a related question below, but didn't see how to link this question to that one... so I'm starting a new question.)
My question is about how to think about the meaning of "ainsi que." It's translated as "as well as," but in some examples I run into a singular treatment when my brain seems to expect a plural. I think the lesson here for me is that this isn't a translation that works in some cases. I'm wondering if my feeling is true for American English but maybe not for other varieties?
Here's the sentence that tripped me up:
Les Etats-Unis, ________ l'Angleterre, sont un pays anglophone.The United States, as well as England, is an anglophone country.
In English, I actually wouldn't say a sentence like in the translation above - I would say "The United States, like England, is an anglophone country." OR "The United States and England are anglophone countries." I just wouldn't use "as well as" in that way. So my takeaway is that I shouldn't lean in to heavily on using this as a 1-for-1 translation. Does this work better in, say, British English? Thanks.
I just read that the definite article MUST contract if followed by a masculine article, but see that "la boulangerie est près DE l'hôtel" is correct. Shouldn't it be "la boulangerie est prés DU l'hôtel"?
In the sentence "Au final, ce que je préfère avec la Saint-Valentin, c'est trouver les chocolats à prix réduit que l'on peut acheter en général le 15 février dans les magasins !" what is the purpose of the "l'" before on? Merci !
I'm currently teaching my high school French students the different uses of "Bon" and "Bien". We've already studied Bien as an adverb and are now focusing on its use as an adjective. One website that I am using for example phrases gave me this sentence: "Il est bon de se reposer après une longue journée)." Another one was: "Il est bon de vérifier votre travail avant de le soumettre." Based on my understanding and recent study of this concept, it seems that both phrases should use Bien in the place of Bon.
Any thoughts or explanations are appreciated.
Find your French level for FREE
Test your French to the CEFR standard
Find your French level