ainsi que(I saw a related question below, but didn't see how to link this question to that one... so I'm starting a new question.)
My question is about how to think about the meaning of "ainsi que." It's translated as "as well as," but in some examples I run into a singular treatment when my brain seems to expect a plural. I think the lesson here for me is that this isn't a translation that works in some cases. I'm wondering if my feeling is true for American English but maybe not for other varieties?
Here's the sentence that tripped me up:
Les Etats-Unis, ________ l'Angleterre, sont un pays anglophone.The United States, as well as England, is an anglophone country.
In English, I actually wouldn't say a sentence like in the translation above - I would say "The United States, like England, is an anglophone country." OR "The United States and England are anglophone countries." I just wouldn't use "as well as" in that way. So my takeaway is that I shouldn't lean in to heavily on using this as a 1-for-1 translation. Does this work better in, say, British English? Thanks.
(I saw a related question below, but didn't see how to link this question to that one... so I'm starting a new question.)
My question is about how to think about the meaning of "ainsi que." It's translated as "as well as," but in some examples I run into a singular treatment when my brain seems to expect a plural. I think the lesson here for me is that this isn't a translation that works in some cases. I'm wondering if my feeling is true for American English but maybe not for other varieties?
Here's the sentence that tripped me up:
Les Etats-Unis, ________ l'Angleterre, sont un pays anglophone.The United States, as well as England, is an anglophone country.
In English, I actually wouldn't say a sentence like in the translation above - I would say "The United States, like England, is an anglophone country." OR "The United States and England are anglophone countries." I just wouldn't use "as well as" in that way. So my takeaway is that I shouldn't lean in to heavily on using this as a 1-for-1 translation. Does this work better in, say, British English? Thanks.
Is this just one of those "that's just the way it is" things? "Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela ?" would be "Qu'est-ce que c'est qui est cela ?" to make grammatical sense. Wouldn't it?
À la dictée Pot Luck, dans la dernière phrase, pourquoi est-ce que permettre à et rendre au futur--qui permetteront au jeune de mûrir et qui rendront, etc?
Salut,
Where can I find lesson for ce dont and ce à quoi, please?
HI The game is to connect the letters, but there are no letters to connect. There is only a circle, but no letters.
I now know that 'comment ca se fait que..' is followed by the subjunctive, but i don't understand the reason for this. could someone please explain?thank you
In English there is a formal difference between "old" and "antique". For a car to be "antique", it must be at least a certain number of years old. Similarly, "veteran" cars must also be at least a certain number of years old, which is less than the definition of "antique". Isn't there a formal distinction between "old" and "antique" and "veteran" in French?
.i want to know why " geler"in le futur simple is "gèlera", rather than "gellera"
The given translation of "It's green" is "C'est vert". But surely usually it would be "Il est vert" because normally "green" applies to a specific thing. If you were talking about a landscape perhaps it could be "C'est vert", but in any case "Il est vert" should not be marked as wrong, should it? If it should, then your advanced lesson on the difference needs clarification.
I have quizzed this question 3 times. The first time I chose 'sa'. I was given 'son' as correct. The next time I chose 'son'. I was given 'sa' as correct. The 3rd time I wrote 'sa' but apparently should have written 'son'. What's going on here?
Find your French level for FREE
Test your French to the CEFR standard
Find your French level