Question about "De tous les mensonges que tu as dit, aucun n'est crédible"Translated as: "Out of all the lies you told, none is believable."
Is this French example used simply to illustrate French grammar?
Because as a statement of logic, the statement is nonsense. The second half of the statement is superfluous. Lies are ipso facto not credible (that is the nature of a lie). So of course 100% of the time they are not credible.
As an analogy, no one would say: "Out of all the green marbles you gave me, none is orange."
If instead you said: "Out of all the statements you told, none is believable" (or correct in French: "De tous les choses que tu as dit, aucun n'est crédible"?) or "Out of all the marbles you gave me, none is orange", these full sentences have logical meaning.
Carte is feminine, so why the adjective is not étudiante?
Yes, I think soYes, I believe soYes, I believe himYes, I believe <- the given answer
I can't speak for how English is used everywhere in the world, but at least where I'm standing, there is absolutely no difference between "I believe", "I believe so", and "I think so." They mean exactly the same thing. The choice that is the most different (by a tiny margin) is "I believe him."
I'm guessing that the idea you were going for is that if I'm believing "him", I'm not believing "in him", but I'm believing an idea that he has previously presented... but you didn't show any examples of that type of usage in the lesson. So given my choices, it looks like "le" is replacing a person in that choice.
My other questioin, of course, was a very similar question with similarly confusing answers.
«Il ne le croit pas» CANNOT mean...
There are often times on this site when, as far as I'm concerned, two choices are equally correct in English, but I can usually tell from the context which one you WANT me to pick, based on what the topic is. But these particular questions are a bit odd to me because leaving off the word "so" makes no difference at all.
Translated as: "Out of all the lies you told, none is believable."
Is this French example used simply to illustrate French grammar?
Because as a statement of logic, the statement is nonsense. The second half of the statement is superfluous. Lies are ipso facto not credible (that is the nature of a lie). So of course 100% of the time they are not credible.
As an analogy, no one would say: "Out of all the green marbles you gave me, none is orange."
If instead you said: "Out of all the statements you told, none is believable" (or correct in French: "De tous les choses que tu as dit, aucun n'est crédible"?) or "Out of all the marbles you gave me, none is orange", these full sentences have logical meaning.
Bonjour,
I was noticing in the lesson that the contruction in the French is dealing with the past, but many of the English translations are in the present (ex: I was congratulated for coming.). Should the translations also reflect the past? (ex: I was congratulated for having come.) I guess the difference is that it's hard to know what to do with on reverse translation on a quiz. If you see "He was promoted for going to the seminar" it's hard to know whether to write "pour aller au seminaire" or whether to write "pour etre alle au seminaire." Maybe the "was promoted" has to be the key?
Why must I transat 'as if I pas 21 again' as 'si j'avais à nouveau 21 ans' and not 'si j'avais encore 21 ans'?
Find your French level for FREE
Test your French to the CEFR standard
Find your French level