Ambiguous sentenceRex reminds Anna of her dog.
Rex rappelle son chien à Anna.
The English sentence nearly made my head explode :-), it seems really ambiguous to me. In this example it's slightly clearer because Rex and Anna are different sexes, but if you wrote:
Rex reminds Chris of his dog.
Rex rappelle son chien à Chris.
it becomes really ambiguous. I imagine it would be said by someone (say Bob) talking about about three other parties (Rex, Chris and a dog). It would be clearer if there was more context as to who or what Rex, Chris and the dog were, but as it stands it can be interpreted multiple ways. It's unclear to me if the dog belongs to Rex or Chris, and the meaning changes depending on whether Rex is a dog or a person. The sentence needs a bit more context to try and remove the ambiguity e.g.:
Bob said that his dog Rex reminds Chris of his dog.
Bob said that his friend Rex reminds him of Chris' dog.
It seems the French is less ambiguous in this case, and you need to be careful with translating the French into English.
When do you use "que" and when do you use "dont"?
Je ne comprends pas comment la phrase, 'c'est la manière dont les Français cuisent leur viande', soit correcte.
Je pensais que 'dont' s'utilisait pour exprimer les propositions anglaises, 'about, of, etc'. Par exemple, dans la phrase 'la fille dont vous m'avez parlée hier'. Dans cet exemple je comprends l'usage parce que ça signifie la fille 'about whom' you spoke yesterday.
Mais dans le cas de, 'c'est la manière dont les Français cuisent leur viande', je ne vois pas le sens de 'about whom ni of', effectivement je ne vois aucune proposition après le verb 'cuisent', et c'est pour ça que je suis confus.
??
Rex reminds Anna of her dog.
Rex rappelle son chien à Anna.
The English sentence nearly made my head explode :-), it seems really ambiguous to me. In this example it's slightly clearer because Rex and Anna are different sexes, but if you wrote:
Rex reminds Chris of his dog.
Rex rappelle son chien à Chris.
it becomes really ambiguous. I imagine it would be said by someone (say Bob) talking about about three other parties (Rex, Chris and a dog). It would be clearer if there was more context as to who or what Rex, Chris and the dog were, but as it stands it can be interpreted multiple ways. It's unclear to me if the dog belongs to Rex or Chris, and the meaning changes depending on whether Rex is a dog or a person. The sentence needs a bit more context to try and remove the ambiguity e.g.:
Bob said that his dog Rex reminds Chris of his dog.
Bob said that his friend Rex reminds him of Chris' dog.It seems the French is less ambiguous in this case, and you need to be careful with translating the French into English.
Where to use vieux and vielle and naveau and nouvelle
You show the flag mounted with both the blue side and the red side against the flagpole. This is clearly incorrect.
I saw "Il a fait les mêmes choix." in the exercise.
Here mêmes is before the noun and choix is plural. Why we don’t use de in this situation? Thank you.
Claire n’a vendu aucun livre au vide-grenier. Please explain why « aucun » is after the past participial and not after n’a aucun vendu? Merci
Whyis this phrase expressed with negation? il ne peut pas accéder à son argent tant qu'il n'est pas revenu aux États-Unis et n'a pas prouvé son identité.
Why is "les distances de sécurité" plural here?
Samedi matin nous allons faire des cours et l'aprés midi j'aurais un examen de français pendant 2 heures.
Find your French level for FREE
Test your French to the CEFR standard
Find your French level