French language Q&A Forum

The ne explétif is always optional. In everyday speech it is a rarity, for sure, but even in writing it is optional. The omission of a ne explétif never results in incorrect grammar, and Le bon usage is replete with such examples taken from writers of the highest caliber, including a Nobel laureate in literature (Colette) and a member of the Académie française (Montherlant). Nevertheless kwiziq quizzes regard the omission of the ne explétif as an error. This is misleading.

Un jeune homme extrêmement doué or un homme jeune et extrêmement doué?

In the test the correct answer is "I can do it". Based on my current knowledge, it literally means "I know how to do it"

Is this just a case of creative license in translation?

There is no mini quiz coming up with this lesson, 

In the sentence, "C'est également dans ce village qu'aurait été baptisé Jésus," it appears that que + aurait été becomes qu'aurait été. However in the lessons offered at Kwiziq, I don't remember seeing this construction taught. It makes more sense that it would be qu'il + aurait été, or qui + aurait été. 

If I'm incorrect, then what am I missing here??

I got an answer wrong in a quiz because I didn't have the participle agree in the case of listen: I listened to her. Is "listen" a verb with a direct object in French? 

I'm wondering why it's not correct to say "me présenter à d'autres gens"?  I thought that présenter was followed by the preposition à.

Would this be incorrect: "On n'a vingt ans qu'une fois" ?

I have noticed that transparaître and derivatives are seen with both être and avoir as auxiliaries.  I assume it's because of transitive and intransitive verb usage. Is this the reason ? Can you please give me some examples.