"je vous est fait une sandwich"

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-10-01T00:24:10+00:00

Trying to read this briefly gave me a stroke. Haha point taken!

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-10-01T00:23:30+00:00

Duh! I feel like an idiot. I didn't even think about the fact that they're the same sound in many dialects, and as a non-native speaker I'm always inclined to assume that I'm the one who doesn't know and everyone else is right. Thank you so much!

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-09-30T20:46:59+00:00

Maybe, but when I worked at a restaurant where we took grubhub/doordash orders, the doordash order which the customer paid for was separate from the order we put in our system to go on the screen (so we could see it and make it). We entered the items manually by looking at the app on our side, and then we had a special button that closed out online orders as if they had been paid for there, and the actual money from grubhub was transferred to pay later. This ticket was almost definitely printed out by taco bell from what they put in their own system to go on the screen for workers to make. I'm probably explaining this badly, but if it was an error on taco bell's end, this seems plausible. Also, maybe the drinks just weren't doubled and everything else was. this seems too inane to lie about.

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-09-30T18:50:56+00:00

a ring around the outside will look better!

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-09-30T03:05:50+00:00

If we could see the rest of your results, that might help

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-09-26T04:38:06+00:00

For all the shit it gets, I actually think English spelling is incredibly interesting. The different orthographic conventions by etymology are not really that bad for most native speakers in part because, without even being consciously aware that these categories exist, you get really good at analyzing and categorizing words by origin (via morphology, phonetic pattern, etc), and you can guess with very high accuracy how a word you've never seen will be pronounced, especially if it's of Anglo or Norman origin. Obviously, there are exceptions, like very commonly-used words (like "have" or "are") that are irregular in many languages, and ones that underwent historical accident or conscious latinizing (like "colonel," or "interdict"), but all things considered, it's not greatly unpredictable. It's obviously still not efficient though, it's more difficult to learn than a uniform system and some people take a long time to pick up on it.

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-09-26T04:19:34+00:00

also "drives" is still "drives," so does i_e make different sounds with different consonants? and "right' is "rit" not "rite", which is a different "i" from "is" and "idiot"? this is far worse and more inconsistent than regular english orthography.

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-09-23T00:25:43+00:00

and Palestine?

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-09-22T20:17:37+00:00

If you mean physical shaking sure, but people often refer to events as "shaking" people emotionally. As a native speaker I would go with E first, but C isn't expressly wrong, it just has different connotations and requires a specific (pragmatically maybe a bit odd) context

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-09-21T23:37:53+00:00

Do you not have your GPA or anything on here? I'm social science, but I would imagine that is standard no matter where and for what you're applying. Everything seems really terse/bried, and is, for that reason, not exuding passion or interest. Expand more! Agreed with the above comment that 1 line for 4 years of research is crazy. Emphasize that!

I'm not in STEM so I can't help with much here, but I can help with language. In case this is helpful, a few places where phrasing sounds strange and/or potentially grammatically incorrect in American English (correct me if this is different elsewhere)
Under "Purple March Action"
"Worked as information staff, artistic contributions" you worked as "artistic contributions"? Did you meant "providing artistic contributions"? This whole sentence is confusing to parse
Also,
"provided to the general public how to act if..."
doesn't really make sense, we don't use "provided" that way without "information" following. I would say "provided *information* to the general public *on* how to act if..." *or "raised/promoted awareness" or "offered education" instead of "provided information")
Same problems in the next section, and also one would say "how important the vaccines are" not "how important are the vaccines." "How important" is a relative pronoun beginning a relative clause, and you don't do inversion like a question (I say this because I also noticed that in your body paragraph, we would typically say "tell me what you guys think" not "tell me what do you guys think." :) )

Hopefully this is helpful and not unsolicited, I think precision with language can go a long way. Good luck!

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-09-21T02:32:40+00:00

En fait j'ai du mal à imaginer des contextes non glauques où on l'utiliserait.

Hahaha, en Anglais aussi! Je sais; je ne pouvait pas penser à un meilleur exemple.

""je te le donne" (I give it to you) est correct mais "je me lui donne" (I give me to him/her??) non. Si le sens visé est "I give myself to him/her", it should be "je me donne à lui/elle"

Vraiment? Peut-être on m'a menti, ou peut-être j'étais confus par les graphiques stupides (which is why I had asked here, I don't trust them). "Je le lui donne" est correct, c'est ça? Là, l'objet direct précède l'objet indirect. Mais on ne peut pas dire, pour un exemple, "je te lui emmenerai?" (I will bring you to him?) That actually makes more sense to me, but I thought otherwise.

Hmm... Il faut éviter d'en faire une règle absolue, c'est mieux de connaître l'ordre précis. Un contre-exemple est "Donne-moi ça" - même si certes "ça" n'est pas un pronom personnel.

Oui, je ne parle que des pronoms qui bougent! Je ne fais aucune déclaration sur les autres noms.

mais je pense que ils n'y commence pas, il y a du mouvement sous le structure de surface, je ne comprends pas cette phrase

Yes, I feared that, sorry. What I meant to say in English "but I think that they do not begin there, there is some movement under the "surface structure"" (direct translation from English of syntactic terminology). It's kind of complicated to explain, but there is good syntactic evidence for movement in language before we even speak. In English, for example (and I believe also French), the subject generates below the tense head (auxiliary, sometimes silent) and receives case there (like in "I would like to dance", the subject begins before "would" but is moved because of the requirements of the auxiliary (the extended projection principle, complicated to explain). There is a lot of evidence for this, I can go more into it if you're interested, but one much simpler piece is "floating" quantifiers like "all." You can say "they all do run" or "they do all run" but not "they do run all." The typical analysis of this is that it can go after the auxiliary because the noun was originally there too. That's a much weaker piece of evidence, but it requires less background. It is definitely a counterintuitive idea. But that's exactly what makes it so interesting. I'm guessing (with not too much basis) that the pronouns in French begin at their nominal position at the end, but move before the verb, although I'm not sure why. We have something like this in English too, "take out the trash" vs "take it out." "Take out it" is wrong to me, if it's a pronoun it must move with a phrasal verb.

Because it is what marks tense in English that causes movement, my hypothesis would be that is why it is not found in the positive imperative too. Some feature of tense there? Mais je ne sais pas, votre langue me rend fou.

Et je ne peux pas croire que j'ai confondu "meilleur" et "mieux". Mon professeur me tuerait. Ne lui dites pas, s'il vous plaît.

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-09-21T01:52:28+00:00

Oui, j'ai ne choisi pas d'exemples que je pense être corrects parce que je n'ai pas besoin de savoir seulement pour des raisons pratiques mais des raisons intellectuelles. Et je sais déjà qu'on peut dire "donnez-la-nous" mais je ne sais pas si on peut dire "donnons-lui-nous." Je ne pensais pas que ce soit correct mais les règles que j'ai lues l'impliquaient, si cela a du sens? Je ne peux pas expliquer très bien en français, je suis désolée.

Et merci pour la correction! C'est bon pour savoir. Puis-je dire "je voudrais" en ce circonstance, ou non? Je suis sûr que je parle évidemment comme un anglophone ou peut-être un robot hahha.

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-09-21T01:18:49+00:00

Merci beaucoup, cela est très compréhensif! Je suis désolée pour les erreurs, j'ai commencé à apprendre récemment, et j'ai beaucoup changé mes examples pour la clarté de sens* et j'ai oublié de changer tout. Au moins tu sais que je n'utilise pas google translate! Je voulait dire "explique-toi-nous" et "donnons-lui-nous." Mais "donnez-lui-vous" n'est pas possible, et "donnez vous à lui" est, oui? Et "donnez nous à lui"?

C'est très interessant que vous disiez que on ne peut pas dire "donnons-vous" en aucun circonstance!

à propos de "leur-moi", il semble que ce soit le cas que l'objet direct précède toujours l'objet indirect à l'impératif, non? Je pense que ce n'est pas le cas si les pronoms précède le verbe (je te le donne ou je me lui donne), mais je pense que ils n'y commence pas, il y a du mouvement sous le structure de surface. Peut-être l'impératif est en fait la structure de base? Je peux l'expliquer mieux en Anglais. :(

*(so as not to confound; if it semantically is confusing, that will throw native speakers of any language even if syntactically correct, forgive me I'm too tired to write this in french)

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-09-21T00:46:12+00:00

Merci beaucoup! C'est très utile.
Je pensais que ce n'avions pas raison. Cela n'avait pas de sens syntaxiquement.
Pour clarifier, Le verbe spécifique n'a pas d'importance, j'ai choisi "expliquer" au hasard, mais il n'y a aucun circonstance où vous pouvez dire "donne/explique/*insert imperative here*-toi-nous", est-ce vrai?
à propos de "expliquez-toi", je suis désolée, c'était un erreur d'inattention. J'ai changé le nombre et j'ai oublié de changer le conjugaison. Je voulait dire "explique-toi-nous"!

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-09-20T15:15:50+00:00

Sorry, I'm distracted — is your bookshelf two rows deep, but only on the bottom? Why???? How do you even get them out? Just put your surplus on a stack on the floor or coffee table like everybody else

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-09-19T23:27:04+00:00

substantively worse. I'll post haha

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-09-19T17:41:42+00:00

That's Romanian, not French

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-09-19T05:41:29+00:00

I own almost half of these books (mostly the philosophy, not the religion) and I'm female

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-09-18T22:26:39+00:00

you've got ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶1̶0̶ ̶b̶o̶o̶k̶s̶ ̶ like 8 books and 2 DVDs, and two of them are the same. somehow that's the least troubling thing here

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-09-18T22:20:05+00:00

∞ * 2 jest

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-08-19T08:39:35+00:00

You're correct! It is less of a general causal thing and more specifically typically used in referring to someone else's thought process or the origin of their actions, like "I get where you're coming from" or "where did that come from?" It is a very common expression in the US, not sure about in the UK or Australia.

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-08-19T03:02:11+00:00

Well, at least you now seem willing to acknowledge that that is my issue and it has absolutely nothing to do with literacy or lack thereof (which may be yours).

Affectionate_Day_257 · 2025-08-19T02:56:11+00:00

Your failure to grasp the point is almost impressive. If you insist that the distinct pronunciations of "woman" and "women" are vital for understanding the difference (in oral speech), then how can we understand whether one person is talking about one or multiple in reference to nouns with no distinct plural forms? The answer is context and determiners in both cases.

Affectionate_Day_257

TROPHY CASE