past participle or adjective?Note that the past participle agrees with the subject of the auxiliary être.
The above is quoted from the lesson. I wonder if the "past participle" now serves as an adjective and that is the reason for the agreement, not the use of the verb être per se. If that is the case it seems to me to be a much easier way to understand the construction of the passive voice.
The explanation seems to focus on the verb être with the use of bold for être rather than the subject agreement, so it's easy to get confused. (I tried to use "bold" here but it didn't work, so pls. see statement as it appears in the lesson.)
Going back to an earlier lesson which had this sentence in a quiz question:
Je vais être dévoré par les morts vivants
I went round and round trying to figure out what part of speech dévoré was. I finally decided it was being used as an adjective (but I admit I am not !00% sure). Hence my question above.
see that question below (not from me)
Conjugate verbs in the near future in French using aller + infinitive (Le Futur Proche)
See below. The use of être plus the past participle should be discussed/explained...just say'n :))Non ! Je ________ dévoré par les morts vivants !No! I'm going to be devoured by the living dead!HINT: Conjugate être (to be) in Le Futur Proche
Hello
Could you please explain why the pronoun 'en' is used in this phrase? I am having difficulty recognising when to use en and what it means in this context. Thanks.
....et en acceptèrent la langue
This was the sentence: Vous veniez me voir chaque semaine.
Two of the options for the answer are "You used to come and see me every week." and "You had come to see me every week."
Same idea with this sentence: Nous allions en Espagne tous les etes. (Sorry, don't know how to get the accents on my keyboard).
Two of the options for the answer are "We used to go to Spain every summer." and "We were going to Spain every summer."
For me, in both situations the two answers mean the same thing and were both correct but I had to pick one. l don't understand how they are different and why one is correct and the other isn't. I'm guessing it's a subtle nuance I'm missing. Can you please explain? Thanks!
Pourquoi utilise-t-on le singulier pour traduire "in the mountains" mais le pluriel pour traduire "in the Alpes" alors que les deux sont pluriels en anglais?
Why is "...pour que je puisse comprendre..." not acceptable?
I want to know all possible answers for that question
The above is quoted from the lesson. I wonder if the "past participle" now serves as an adjective and that is the reason for the agreement, not the use of the verb être per se. If that is the case it seems to me to be a much easier way to understand the construction of the passive voice.
The explanation seems to focus on the verb être with the use of bold for être rather than the subject agreement, so it's easy to get confused. (I tried to use "bold" here but it didn't work, so pls. see statement as it appears in the lesson.)
Going back to an earlier lesson which had this sentence in a quiz question:
Je vais être dévoré par les morts vivants
I went round and round trying to figure out what part of speech dévoré was. I finally decided it was being used as an adjective (but I admit I am not !00% sure). Hence my question above.
see that question below (not from me)
Conjugate verbs in the near future in French using aller + infinitive (Le Futur Proche)
See below. The use of être plus the past participle should be discussed/explained...just say'n :))Non ! Je ________ dévoré par les morts vivants !No! I'm going to be devoured by the living dead!HINT: Conjugate être (to be) in Le Futur Proche
Hello,
Does kwiziq by chance have a list of verbs that typically go with à? I would find this really helpful. Thanks!
Amber
After all this time learning French l decide today to develop an English/French go-to chart for translation purposes.
All of a sudden, the conditional tense sitting in the indicative mood in my little Bescherelle conjugaison book looks out of place. Why is it there, in a mood that expresses facts and certainties, things that definitely happened?
A little research in Bescherelle, on the web and here surface the fact that the Conditional in French is often classified as a mood unto itself (as in Lawless French) due to it's hypothetical expressions; and that more often, today, "pour des raisons de forme et de sens"(Bescherelle p.140), as a tense under the imperative. An example given for the latter is that "aurait" , conditional present, equates the future present transposed into the past. So interesting! I had not seen this before.
I wonder, what went into Lawless French's decision to classify the Conditional as a mood apart instead of as under the Indicative mood? Either works , l am just curious.
In the explannation above, it says:
"To express lacking [something], you will use manquer de or d' + [thing].
You do not need to use the partitive articles (du, de l', de la, des) here, just as you wouldn't say I lack thesugar but simply I lack sugar:"
It's a bit confusing because then all the examples use "de". You really have to your know your grammatical terms! I wonder if it would be clearer to say:
"You do not need to use the definite articles (le, l', la, les) here".
Just a thought.
feelings at the time....why am I wrong?
Find your French level for FREE
And get your personalised Study Plan to improve it
Find your French level