"pour les ordonnances" - another trap!Well, I did it again, and my frustration is really mounting.
I went with "des ordannances" thinking that 1) "some" is implied here (one goes to the pharmacy for some/any prescriptions) and 2) prescriptions are countable.
Since the answer is "les", I have to ask: does the use of "on" (instead of "nous") automatically imply the statement is general and thus the use of le/la/l'/les?
Would these then be correct? Nous servons du café. -and- On serve le café. That does not seem right to me.
Or, is it just because I translated just the part of the sentence ("or for prescriptions at the pharmacy") and not that part of the sentence as part of the whole sentence...?
Maybe I need clarification on how to distinguish "general" statements from "some/any" statements or learn if there is some additional concept that I need to consider when deciding between les and des.
Hi
I came across these three sentences and I was wondering why I got them wrong?
The president is reportedly in Brazil today
Le président serait au Brasil aujourd'hui is the answer I'm confused as to why is reportedly is using serait?
The director will reportedly sign the contract le director signerait let contrat is the answer again why is will reportedly using signerait?
It would be prettier if there were more flowers
Ce serait s'il y avait plus de fleurs is the answer again here they used serait as would be prettier. Why is that?
Thanks for the help in advance
Nicole
Now in another lesson, that would be marked incorrect as you would be looking for neuf and neuve
The final transcript and the bottom 'correct answer line' in the exercise still have '...qui émanaient de ce coin de m'ont accompagnéeS .....' instead of just "....m'ont accompagnée" - agreement with the speaker's gender. The upper line 'best answer' indicated in the exercise is correct however. Cécile has answered a query on this previously. (I think I remember correctly what was presented in the exercise, but can't go back to recheck)
I must admit I often ignore 'agreement' like this when a text is in first person singular, and instead just use the 'agreement' that applies to me.
In the example At that time, she lived with Julien.
A cette epoch means to me a specific action completed in the past, so I used the passe' compose. It was marked wrong in place of using the imparfait, which is supposed to be continuing action. So I am confused or is it a matter of interpretation?
Well, I did it again, and my frustration is really mounting.
I went with "des ordannances" thinking that 1) "some" is implied here (one goes to the pharmacy for some/any prescriptions) and 2) prescriptions are countable.
Since the answer is "les", I have to ask: does the use of "on" (instead of "nous") automatically imply the statement is general and thus the use of le/la/l'/les?
Would these then be correct? Nous servons du café. -and- On serve le café. That does not seem right to me.
Or, is it just because I translated just the part of the sentence ("or for prescriptions at the pharmacy") and not that part of the sentence as part of the whole sentence...?
Maybe I need clarification on how to distinguish "general" statements from "some/any" statements or learn if there is some additional concept that I need to consider when deciding between les and des.
Earlier in the sentence, I understand why it's "de délicates pâquerettes blanches" instead of "des" (because the adj precedes the noun and that causes the plural partitive/indefinite article to change from des to de) but I don't understand why that's been done to the tulips too.
From the lesson «When talking about two actions that happen simultaneously, you will use :
en + Participe présent / Gérondif»; can you not also use imparfait and passé composé eg Je courait quand j'ai rencontré Mathilde ? I am not suggesting the same meaning or English translation, but the sentence still describes the simultaneous occurrence of events, that could also be described using le gérondif. If that is correct, the quote from the lesson should replace 'will use' with 'can use' (and preferably reference the lesson on passé composé and imparfait being used together as another). If there are reasons to choose one over the other, worth noting as well.
Je suis Nic et je viens de Calgary!
Hello - I am confused about the construction with etre and en retard. Are both the constructions below correct? From my understanding of the video and Chris' reply to another question, only the 2nd one is correct. However, the first is used throughout the lesson.
1. Je suis arrivé dix minutes en retard. [construction in lesson]2. Je suis arrivé en retard de dix minutes. [construction in video]
Find your French level for FREE
And get your personalised Study Plan to improve it
Find your French level