Why isn't "on" (essentially meaning "one") not treated as singular even though meaning implies plural

Anthony

Kwiziq community member

28 November 2018

2 replies

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.

Chris

Kwiziq community member

29 November 2018

29/11/18

Hi Anthony,

as with many questions, there is no logic reason. A language is not math. It's just the way it is...

Anthony

Kwiziq community member

29 November 2018

29/11/18

LOL!  thank you, I will have to be satisfied with that answer :-)  Thanks for prompt response.  I love Kwiziq!

Your answer

Login to submit your answer

Don't have an account yet? Join today

Think you've got all the answers?

Test your French to the CEFR standard

find your French level »
3390questions7096answers134,804users
Thinking...