Question about understanding the right tense. Bonjour Madame Cécile !
I wrote to you regarding a nuance between the use of tenses in the Past Time a while ago.
You had provided me with this sentence ->
Après qu'il avait vu ce film, il avait été bouleversé .
After reading your answer several times, I understand that you mentioned “avait été” instead of “était” because once he ‘had seen’ the film , then he ‘had completely got shattered’ which happens immediately as the film finishes; making the actions almost simultaneous.
Hence, the use of le plus-que Parfait is recommended.
So in response to a question I had asked earlier ->
What does the use of Le plus-que-Parfait signify about the sequence of events happening in the sentences ? Does it connote an action getting completed or finished prior to another or simultaneous actions occurring in the past ?
It can also be used to signify an action getting completed prior to another however, the time interval between the two actions in the past should be a longer one .
As in the sentence-
Nous étions très surpris de les voir, car ils n'étaient pas venus ici depuis trois ans.-> We were very surprised to see them, for they hadn't come here for three years.
The action of “not coming there” got finished three years ago and the result of this action is that ‘they were surprised to see them when they returned’
J'étais sorti de la voiture quand je les ai entendus.-> I'd got out of the car when I heard them.
The action of “getting out of the car” was finished long back . He was already out when he heard their sound.
Elles étaient allées manger une glace quand le voleur est venu.-> They had gone to eat an ice cream when the thief came.
Here, the sentence emphasises on the point that the girls were not at home (they had already went out) when the thief entered. [LONGER TIME GAP]
If one writes it as - Elles sont allées manger une glace quand le voleur est venu.
This will imply that the action of the girls going to the ice cream parlour happened in close proximity to the action of the thief entering the house. [SHORTER TIME GAP] which makes the case less elegant.
Is my justification correct ? Again, thanks for spending time to respond.
Frankly speaking Madame, I am working really hard to get right with my tenses and your endeavour and support is crucial to hone my skills.
Bonne journée!
The lesson appears to focus on making a distinction between use of trouver (to find something) and trouver que (to think something). Yet in the examples the previously mentioned translation (post about a year ago) of the above remains 'he finds' not 'he thinks' and in a dashboard test today "Ils me trouvent charmant"and "Ils me trouvent que ...." were both given as being "they find me charming". Either there is a clear distinction between the 2 forms or there is not. At present the lesson quite clearly makes the case there is but the discordant examples and test answers are confusing. Edit required.
Why is it 'Elle aurait eu froid sans son manteau' and not 'aurait été froid'?
Thank you.
Bonjour Madame Cécile !
I wrote to you regarding a nuance between the use of tenses in the Past Time a while ago.
You had provided me with this sentence ->
Après qu'il avait vu ce film, il avait été bouleversé .
After reading your answer several times, I understand that you mentioned “avait été” instead of “était” because once he ‘had seen’ the film , then he ‘had completely got shattered’ which happens immediately as the film finishes; making the actions almost simultaneous.
Hence, the use of le plus-que Parfait is recommended.
So in response to a question I had asked earlier ->
What does the use of Le plus-que-Parfait signify about the sequence of events happening in the sentences ? Does it connote an action getting completed or finished prior to another or simultaneous actions occurring in the past ?
It can also be used to signify an action getting completed prior to another however, the time interval between the two actions in the past should be a longer one .
As in the sentence-
Nous étions très surpris de les voir, car ils n'étaient pas venus ici depuis trois ans.-> We were very surprised to see them, for they hadn't come here for three years.
The action of “not coming there” got finished three years ago and the result of this action is that ‘they were surprised to see them when they returned’
J'étais sorti de la voiture quand je les ai entendus.-> I'd got out of the car when I heard them.
The action of “getting out of the car” was finished long back . He was already out when he heard their sound.
Elles étaient allées manger une glace quand le voleur est venu.-> They had gone to eat an ice cream when the thief came.
Here, the sentence emphasises on the point that the girls were not at home (they had already went out) when the thief entered. [LONGER TIME GAP]
If one writes it as - Elles sont allées manger une glace quand le voleur est venu.
This will imply that the action of the girls going to the ice cream parlour happened in close proximity to the action of the thief entering the house. [SHORTER TIME GAP] which makes the case less elegant.
Is my justification correct ? Again, thanks for spending time to respond.
Frankly speaking Madame, I am working really hard to get right with my tenses and your endeavour and support is crucial to hone my skills.
Bonne journée!
Does the word intensivement not exist in French? I used it in a test and it was marked incorrect and intensément given as the correct version.
so does pronouncing the s work like dix and six?
Bonjour
Why is anime not correct? What is the difference in use of anime with respect to vivant?
Merci
Should this be "il l'a oublié"? It sounds weird without a direct object for oublier.
Find your French level for FREE
Test your French to the CEFR standard
Find your French level