Grammatical errorThe english grammar in these lessons, is often so informal it sounds crass. French is a beautiful language, but so is English. So please do better and utilize their elegance and use what is appropriate because even in English "put" is not.
rentrer = to return/go back in general, but when it's used transitively (with a direct object, like la voiture), it means to bring something back inside.
So here, “Mathilde a rentré la voiture” literally means “Mathilde brought the car back in” (like into the garage or driveway).
Technically, “put the car back” isn't grammatically incorrect, but it sounds a bit off in real-world usage.
We don't usually “put” cars back like they're groceries or a coffee mug ☕️.
We say:
“She parked the car back in the garage.”
“She brought the car back.”
“She pulled the car in before Paul arrived.”
At the end of the exercise, I would find it helpful to view my full (botched) transcript of the exercise alongside Kwizbot's. It could be toggled on or off from viewing.
I like to try to expand my vocabulary and came across the verb répartir and used it in my translation. AI Overview quotes : répartir implies a more active process of distributing or sharing out, while "diviser" is more about the act of dividing itself. What’s your opinion ? I acknowledge that this is an A2 exercise and perhaps répartir is a little bit highfalutin but is it acceptable ? Also, the hints at A2 are definitely useful.
I keep getting marked incorrect in my A0 quiz when asked to fill in the blank. Every time I will use one of these and it will say I should use the opposite. I don't understand why/when to use one variant over the other, especially when there is no indication of formality in the question. At this point I feel like I'm taking the quiz over and over due to this one mistake and just switching between the two but always incorrect.
Take "le Sacré Coeur" as an example, which variant should I use and why?
Qu'est-ce que c'est le Sacré Coeur?
Qu'est-ce que le Sacré Coeur?
so would Tu la joues be wrong or just another way to say the same thing?
Hello!
Just a question regarding the usage of venir vs. être when saying where one is from:
This lesson notes " To say which city you are from in French, you will use the following expression: Je viens de + [city]". One example given is "Je viens de Londres / I am from London". (And no alternative to "venir de" is mentioned in the lesson).
However, a related lesson (À = To/in and De = From/of with cities in French (French Prepositions of Location)) gives an example using "être" to say where one is from: Je suis de La Rochelle / I'm from La Rochelle.
It seems there is a subtle difference in meaning (I am from vs. I come from), however in both of the above cases the translation given is "I am from".
Could someone clarify if venir and être are interchangeable in this context, or if there are specific uses for each?
The final segment of this exercise to translate is, "my choice was long made!" . I don't understand this phrase, does it mean "my choice was long ago made" or "my choice was made long ago?"
Pourquoi la phrase"Et puis, aujourd'hui...." commence avec "Et". En anglais on ne commence jamais un phrase avec "And", on utilise "and" pour la continuation d'une phrase.
In the question...
________ retarde le train, c'est la grève.What delays the train is the strike.... I wrote "Cela qui". Why is "cela" not acceptable?
The english grammar in these lessons, is often so informal it sounds crass. French is a beautiful language, but so is English. So please do better and utilize their elegance and use what is appropriate because even in English "put" is not.
rentrer = to return/go back in general, but when it's used transitively (with a direct object, like la voiture), it means to bring something back inside.
So here, “Mathilde a rentré la voiture” literally means “Mathilde brought the car back in” (like into the garage or driveway).
Technically, “put the car back” isn't grammatically incorrect, but it sounds a bit off in real-world usage.
We don't usually “put” cars back like they're groceries or a coffee mug ☕️.
We say:
“She parked the car back in the garage.”
“She brought the car back.”
“She pulled the car in before Paul arrived.”
Elles auraient eu un chien si elles avaient pu
They would have had a dog if they could have.
If I'm not mistaken:
auraient eu -> Conditional past "would have"
avaient pu -> Pluperfect "had been able to"
1. What happens to the rule about "Si" + imperfect in this case? Does it only apply to Imperfect + Conditional present?
2. Shouldn't "avaient pu" be something like "auraient eu"?
I can see why you could use the pluperfect for "They would have had a dog if they had been able to". But "... could have" seems to call for the conditional past (although I agree that the meaning is the same).
What am I missing here?
Thanks
Find your French level for FREE
And get your personalised Study Plan to improve it
Find your French level