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

AnthonyC1Kwiziq 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 11 months ago
ChrisC1 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...

AnthonyC1Kwiziq community member
LOL!  thank you, I will have to be satisfied with that answer :-)  Thanks for prompt response.  I love Kwiziq!

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.

Sign in to submit your answer

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 >>
Let me take a look at that...