French language Q&A Forum

Please explain why the verb compléter is spelled two different ways in the future tense. Are both versions OK? Thanks.

Est-ce-que tes affaires sont dans la valise?

If want to use y in this sentence, can I say, " ils y sont"?

L'argent ne fait pas le moine. I want to translate it in English, can I say" Money does not make the monk"?

Hi, I was surprised to see that “tous mes amis ont crié” did not use “criés”. Is this because “tous mes amis” is singular (a single group)? And would “mes amis ont criés” be correct (linguistically speaking, not a group, but multiple individuals)?

Why is it "les" (sushi in general) instead of "de" (not any)?  Same question later on in reverse - why is it "si vous avez de la Tiger" (some Tiger) and not "la Tiger" (Tiger beer in general)? Somehow I can understand how to use the subjunctive, but cannot master the French articles and prepositions which seem to pose the biggest challenge. 

Why is this question marked incorrect in my test when the question says specifically to use "devoir." If we are to use "devoir," then the correct response is the one I gave, "devrais  dût manger," not "aurais dû manger." The "J' " is incorrect if devoir is used per the instructions, as the answer should be "Je devrais dût manger." 

Hi! I was translating the sentence "Marie invited Julie to go to a concert. 

And the right answer was "Marie a invité Julie à un concert". 

Can I know the reason for which "à" and "un" are not contracted here please? 

Thank you in advance. 

Not the prime purpose of the lesson - but in the examples, why is 'you have been lying' the English translation of «tu as menti» (passé composé) rather than tu mentais (imparfait)? If the English translation was  'you lied' I would understand, as that implies an episode that is finished, but in English 'you have been lying' leaves open ' for a long time' and 'and you still are' scenarios - that is the sense that it could be ongoing and it is unclear when it started. The translation has me questioning (again) what further I need to understand to grasp the nuances of this past tense distinction.

I think the discussion here indicates that there needs to be more explanation regarding these 3 verbs in the lesson above. As far as I can work out their use depends as much on syntax as semantics.  My notes eventually say Quitter is the only transitive verb and must have a direct object, Partir and Sortir are both intransitive, but Partir is more to get out (i.e. leave/escape) whereas Sortir is to go out and only means leave if it is used with de . Partir can be used without any object at all, I'm still not clear if Sortir requires an indirect object or can be used without.

(edit)... So I thought I had eventually cracked this, then 2 minutes after writing the above I get marked down my answer "Charles sort pour Londres" for How would you say "Charles is leaving for London." ? Apparently the answer is Partir, I am afraid the lesson fails make any clear distinction between Sortir and Partir.

Nous ne nous sommes pas levés tôt.       Ils ne se sont pas brossé les dents .

Are these sentences correct?  Should the past participle still agree with the noun? Could you provide more examples please. Thanks in advance.