French language Q&A Forum

"J'en ai vu une autre hier qui avait un grenier et un sous-sol, ce qui serait parfait..." I thought of this as BOTH attic and basement being useful for storage and used third person plural, "seraient."  Why wasn't this correct?

Hello!

I tried a different way of writing the final sentence, and it wasn't accepted by the exercise engine:

"que l'on peut aujourd'hui savourer le champage aux fines bulles qui se connaît dans le monde entier."

I tried this because the English text specified "[that is]" and I thought it was prompting use of "qui" -- is this grammatically in correct?

What is the difference between: "nulle part" et "aucune part"?  In answered, "Je ne les trouve aucune part." as the translation for "I don't find them anywhere." I had written "nulle part", but then changed it to "aucune part" because I thought it was more accurate for "anywhere" (as opposed to "nowhere").

I have seen the word "heritage" translated as "patrimoine" in a similar context to this exercise - e.g. patrimoine rural (rural heritage), patrimoine culturel (cultural heritage), etc.  Is there any reason why "medieval heritage" cannot be translated as "patrimoine médiéval"?

I hear « réguliers «   with a soft g sound as in ange , instead of a hard g as in guerre. Is this a particularity of accent?

Je le leur ai donné is I gave it to them and not I gave them to them.  I think it's a typo.

I thought that 'le présent' is used for the present and near future tenses, so why the answer of "Anne et Antoine se promènent avec leur chien." is only makert right to "Anne and Antoine are going for a walk with their dog." ?

Can't "Anne and Antoine are walking their dog." be correct as well?

I know that the question is related to the lesson but I wan't to know if that meaning is correct in the day-to-day use.