separation of dont and the possessionThe lesson seems to indicate that this separation is 'allowed' but 'irregular'.
However it seems frequent and intrinsic enough in some translations to deserve identifying and defining as a rule of syntax.
If the 'possession' is the 'object' of the verb in the following clause then it is separated from dont and put after the verb in that clause. 'Dont' here is like a relative pronoun joining two clauses. All the examples support this observation.
Tu as jeté la chaussure dont le talon est cassé.You threw away the shoe with the broken heel [lit. whose heel is broken]
BUT???Tu as jeté la chaussure chère dont j'ai cassé le talon.
Les enfants, dont je connais la maman, sont bien élevés.
François, dont j'ai rencontré la femme le mois dernier
il est parti avant qu'elle arrive= why this is correct and don't we are supposed to say:
il est parti avant qu'elle sois arrivée?
ı wish your helps thank you
The lesson seems to indicate that this separation is 'allowed' but 'irregular'.
However it seems frequent and intrinsic enough in some translations to deserve identifying and defining as a rule of syntax.
If the 'possession' is the 'object' of the verb in the following clause then it is separated from dont and put after the verb in that clause. 'Dont' here is like a relative pronoun joining two clauses. All the examples support this observation.
Tu as jeté la chaussure dont le talon est cassé.You threw away the shoe with the broken heel [lit. whose heel is broken]
BUT???Tu as jeté la chaussure chère dont j'ai cassé le talon.
Les enfants, dont je connais la maman, sont bien élevés.
François, dont j'ai rencontré la femme le mois dernier
Hi, in the first section, why is it “que j’ai réunis” instead of “que j’aie réunis”? I thought that the verb following “que” needed to be in the subjunctive.
Thanks, Brian
''Tom et Paula se sont embrassés devant le miroir.'' can mean:Tom and Paula kissed each other in front of the mirror.Tom and Paula kissed him in front of the mirror.Tom and Paula kissed themselves in front of the mirror.
An old castle is still an old castle. If it was an old castle, that implies it is something else now but formerly it was an old castle. It was an old castle that we just saw OR what we are looking at not was an old castle but no longer is'
Serious ambiguity in the question. Either answer could be correct depending on context
How would you say: ''It was an ancient castle.''C'était un château ancien.C'était un ancien château.Hi,
In the quiz, there were 4 choices given. I think I can translate them all, except one is puzzling me.
Paul aurait dû partir plus tôt. MEANS Paul should have left earlier
Paul aurait pu partir plus tôt MEANS Paul could have left earlier
Paul devrait partir plus tôt MEANS Paul should leave earlier.
If those are right, then that leave this one: What's the right translation for "'Paul had had to leave earlier?"
I wondered a similar thing and my old dictionary gave "Un demi" presumable for 1/2 litre, more or less?
Also, how do I get to take the quiz again after looking over the material again?
give me some examples of pronominal verbs in imperative negative
Find your French level for FREE
Test your French to the CEFR standard
Find your French level