Why isn't "on" (essentially meaning "one") not treated as singular even though meaning implies plural
- « Back to Q&A Forum
- « Previous questionNext question »
Anthony F.Kwiziq community member
Why isn't "on" (essentially meaning "one") not treated as singular even though meaning implies plural
These are good mind searching and expanding exercises! I am impressed by the work that goes into their development. If "on" really means "one" why is it not treated as singular even though meaning implies plural. I know it's not good French but "Qu'es-ce qu'on va faire?" implies plural but is treated as singular ie not "vont faire". (I remember my teacher getting really irritated with me when at the age of 9 I insisted that "on" was another way of saying "nous"! Thank you in advance for your help and for curating such a good set of lessons.
Asked 6 years ago
Chris W. Kwiziq Q&A super contributor
Hi Anthony,
as with many questions, there is no logic reason. A language is not math. It's just the way it is...
Anthony F.Kwiziq community member
LOL! thank you, I will have to be satisfied with that answer :-) Thanks for prompt response. I love Kwiziq!
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