Bon, voici la règle.

LewisC1Kwiziq community member

Bon, voici la règle.

I've read all the comments here and in the related links, several times.

It seems the rule be stated as, there's NO gender/number agreement of the participle when there is a direct object following the verb.

Ça vous dit ?

Asked 9 months ago
CélineKwiziq team memberCorrect answer

Bonjour Lewis,

Yes, that's correct! We have not published a lesson on this specific grammar point. It is on our to-do list though!

@Maarten, how interesting and random! I found out about this very particular TED talk only about 2 weeks ago (and yet, these two teachers started this show at least three years ago)! Just like Chris, it made myself (as well as the rest of the language team) laugh a lot ;-). It's very interesting grammatically speaking and so funny at the same time!

Bonne journée !

MaartenC1 Kwiziq Q&A super contributor

Not a direct answer but you might enjoy this TED talk on French - from about 6 min 30 sec, or a bit after,  is a fantastic demonstration of a very plausible reason that there is no past participle agreement unless the direct object precedes the compound verb. The whole video and this section in particular is very entertaining ! 

https://www.ted.com/talks/arnaud_hoedt_jerome_piron_la_faute_de_l_orthographe?language=fr

ChrisC1 Kwiziq Q&A super contributor

Je me suis bien amusé! :)))

Bon, voici la règle.

I've read all the comments here and in the related links, several times.

It seems the rule be stated as, there's NO gender/number agreement of the participle when there is a direct object following the verb.

Ça vous dit ?

Sign in to submit your answer

Don't have an account yet? Join today

Ask a question

Find your French level for FREE

Test your French to the CEFR standard

Find your French level
I'll be right with you...