Question about understanding the right tense. Bonjour Madame Cécile !
I wrote to you regarding a nuance between the use of tenses in the Past Time a while ago.
You had provided me with this sentence ->
Après qu'il avait vu ce film, il avait été bouleversé .
After reading your answer several times, I understand that you mentioned “avait été” instead of “était” because once he ‘had seen’ the film , then he ‘had completely got shattered’ which happens immediately as the film finishes; making the actions almost simultaneous.
Hence, the use of le plus-que Parfait is recommended.
So in response to a question I had asked earlier ->
What does the use of Le plus-que-Parfait signify about the sequence of events happening in the sentences ? Does it connote an action getting completed or finished prior to another or simultaneous actions occurring in the past ?
It can also be used to signify an action getting completed prior to another however, the time interval between the two actions in the past should be a longer one .
As in the sentence-
Nous étions très surpris de les voir, car ils n'étaient pas venus ici depuis trois ans.-> We were very surprised to see them, for they hadn't come here for three years.
The action of “not coming there” got finished three years ago and the result of this action is that ‘they were surprised to see them when they returned’
J'étais sorti de la voiture quand je les ai entendus.-> I'd got out of the car when I heard them.
The action of “getting out of the car” was finished long back . He was already out when he heard their sound.
Elles étaient allées manger une glace quand le voleur est venu.-> They had gone to eat an ice cream when the thief came.
Here, the sentence emphasises on the point that the girls were not at home (they had already went out) when the thief entered. [LONGER TIME GAP]
If one writes it as - Elles sont allées manger une glace quand le voleur est venu.
This will imply that the action of the girls going to the ice cream parlour happened in close proximity to the action of the thief entering the house. [SHORTER TIME GAP] which makes the case less elegant.
Is my justification correct ? Again, thanks for spending time to respond.
Frankly speaking Madame, I am working really hard to get right with my tenses and your endeavour and support is crucial to hone my skills.
Bonne journée!
It would be helpful to highlight where each audio begins. This makes it easier to coordinate hand eye, particularly the third one due screen and text location on web page.
The first refers to the nature of what you are inquiring about: is it a person or a thing? Qui est-ce… is for people and Qu'est-ce… is for things.The second refers to the grammatical function of the unknown person or thing in your question: is it the subject or the complement of a verb? …est-ce qui is for subjects and …est-ce que is for complements.Examples:
Qui est-ce qui fait X ? → Who is doing X?
The first qui indicates that you're asking about a person ("who"), while the second qui implies that the unknown person performs the action of the verb: this person is doing X.
Short form: Qui fait X ?
Qui est-ce que tu as vu ? → Whom did you see? or commonly Who did you see?
The qui indicates that you're asking about a person ("who" or "whom"), while the que implies that this unknown person is the complement of the verb "to see": the unknown person got seen, and tu is the one who saw them.
Short form: Qui as-tu vu ? (requires inversion)
Note that the English language requires (theoretically, in formal contexts) two different words to ask about people: Who = Qui + qui while Whom = Qui + que.
Qu'est-ce qui fait X ? → What is doing X?
The que (elided to qu') indicates that you're asking about a thing ("what"), while the qui implies that this unknown thing performs the action of the verb: the thing is doing X.
No short form in everyday usage.
Qu'est-ce que tu as vu ? → What did you see?
The first que (elided to qu') indicates that you're asking about a thing ("what"), while the second que implies that the unknown thing is the complement of the verb "to see": tu is the person who saw something, the unknown thing is what got seen.
Short form: Qu'as-tu vu ? (requires inversion)
Which form is correct
A) " Il prend jamais le train"
or B) " Il ne prend jamais le train."?
Hello all,
I've seen several French expressions/phrases where there is no definite or indefinite article, where there would be one in English.
For example. C'est bon signe meaning that's A good sign, j'ai rencard avec lui meaning I have AN appointment with him.
Is there a general rule that explains this ?
Thanks,
Jean
Bonjour Madame Cécile !
I wrote to you regarding a nuance between the use of tenses in the Past Time a while ago.
You had provided me with this sentence ->
Après qu'il avait vu ce film, il avait été bouleversé .
After reading your answer several times, I understand that you mentioned “avait été” instead of “était” because once he ‘had seen’ the film , then he ‘had completely got shattered’ which happens immediately as the film finishes; making the actions almost simultaneous.
Hence, the use of le plus-que Parfait is recommended.
So in response to a question I had asked earlier ->
What does the use of Le plus-que-Parfait signify about the sequence of events happening in the sentences ? Does it connote an action getting completed or finished prior to another or simultaneous actions occurring in the past ?
It can also be used to signify an action getting completed prior to another however, the time interval between the two actions in the past should be a longer one .
As in the sentence-
Nous étions très surpris de les voir, car ils n'étaient pas venus ici depuis trois ans.-> We were very surprised to see them, for they hadn't come here for three years.
The action of “not coming there” got finished three years ago and the result of this action is that ‘they were surprised to see them when they returned’
J'étais sorti de la voiture quand je les ai entendus.-> I'd got out of the car when I heard them.
The action of “getting out of the car” was finished long back . He was already out when he heard their sound.
Elles étaient allées manger une glace quand le voleur est venu.-> They had gone to eat an ice cream when the thief came.
Here, the sentence emphasises on the point that the girls were not at home (they had already went out) when the thief entered. [LONGER TIME GAP]
If one writes it as - Elles sont allées manger une glace quand le voleur est venu.
This will imply that the action of the girls going to the ice cream parlour happened in close proximity to the action of the thief entering the house. [SHORTER TIME GAP] which makes the case less elegant.
Is my justification correct ? Again, thanks for spending time to respond.
Frankly speaking Madame, I am working really hard to get right with my tenses and your endeavour and support is crucial to hone my skills.
Bonne journée!
When to use devoir in the imparfait or the passé composé is very difficult (at least for me). The related lesson in this exercise advises that the imparfait for devoir is used for “supposed to”, and the passé composé is used for “had to” or “must have”. So using that logic, the sentence : “I must have been 3 or 4” should have been translated as “J’ai dû avoir trois ou quatre ans”, but that seems to be incorrect.
Maybe more clarification is needed on that lesson with more examples, because this answer seems to be a contradiction to the lesson .
In several of your test question you have the verb of (had)plus the verb which understood to be plu perfect and not imparfait. Now please explain how you are going to differentiate?
The English given is: I almost got there late. Why isn't it J'ai failli y arriver en retard?
Find your French level for FREE
And get your personalised Study Plan to improve it
Find your French level