CE QUI/QUE VS QUI/QUE.This question is not re the use of qui(subject) vs que(object) in relative clauses.
It is the concept as the lesson stated of "If it refers to the whole part of the sentence, the whole idea, then it will be ce que/ce qui."
The examples in the lesson are pretty straightforward.
But does the grammar rule "If it refers to a noun (expressed before), then you will use que/qui...TRUMP the 'concept' guidance.
In the sentence,"the oil,which was supposed to burn for a day, burned for eight days. ** Note the commas please **. The 'which' clause is not really further describing the oil. It is not similar to "the oil which(that) I used". It is pertinent to the entire miraculous situation/idea . What was incredible was that the oil burned for eight days.. nothing about the OIL itself was incredible.
Even in writing this question, the thought process gets tangled up between grammar rules and context. And here the context seem to defy the grammar rules.
This question is not re the use of qui(subject) vs que(object) in relative clauses.
It is the concept as the lesson stated of "If it refers to the whole part of the sentence, the whole idea, then it will be ce que/ce qui."
The examples in the lesson are pretty straightforward.
But does the grammar rule "If it refers to a noun (expressed before), then you will use que/qui...TRUMP the 'concept' guidance.
In the sentence,"the oil,which was supposed to burn for a day, burned for eight days. ** Note the commas please **. The 'which' clause is not really further describing the oil. It is not similar to "the oil which(that) I used". It is pertinent to the entire miraculous situation/idea . What was incredible was that the oil burned for eight days.. nothing about the OIL itself was incredible.
Even in writing this question, the thought process gets tangled up between grammar rules and context. And here the context seem to defy the grammar rules.
In the lesson it explicitly states "Note that in French, if you're using après + [verbe], we consider that this action always takes place in the past of when you're speaking. "
However the following was a question for the tests on the lesson.
"After going food shopping, I'll help you with your homework." This is neither 'said in the past' NOR actually already happed(ie 'in the past'). While inelegant, it means "After i go shopping I will help you ..." The stipulated correct answer was "Après avoir fait les courses, je t'aiderai avec tes devoirs.'
Seems to fit the following translation "Apres je aurai fait les courses, je t'aiderai avec tes devoirs. Since both aactions are scheduled for the future with the homework help being predicated on the shopping being done.
Why we mix the "tu" and "vous" in one sentence?
In the first exercise of the day I answered ‘y’ instead of the correct ‘le’. In answering a question in the following exercise I entered ‘le’ instead of the correct ‘y’. Very frustrating! This, after reading both lesson explanations several times over the last few months. This is an observation, not a question. Not your problem, it’s mine. But may I suggest preparing a quick lesson that includes both pronouns. If it already exists please point me to it. Merci !
Est-ce que les arts de la cuisine est aussi une possibilité ?
Somehow it was hard to understand the verbes after »elle » but of course it’s my fault, I need to study
Hi,
tout le monde a les yeux fermés can somebody please help what form of fermer was using in this sentence?
To à qui and à laquelle mean the same thing and are interchangeable?
Find your French level for FREE
And get your personalised Study Plan to improve it
Find your French level