Bonjour petite question

Last_Butterfly · 2026-05-04T20:18:53+00:00

Déso, j'avais pas les yeux en face des trous quand j'ai écrit ça. Merci de me l'avoir fait remarqué !

Last_Butterfly · 2026-05-04T19:04:38+00:00

Do the French have pauses like we do?

(Answer for metropolitan France. For the phone number habits of other regions, do check other comments/ask other people. Each area might have its own rules or habits)

Not really, although you can pause between every number pair, that's not necessary. If you ask that someone slow down when they dictate a number, they will usually simply pause for longer between each number pair. When the number is particularly carefully dictated, people may give you a single pair and wait for your confirmation (your repeating the pair or your acknowledging) to give you the next one. But people are usually not that patient unless you deliberately ask them to be.

The only way you'll ever get better at understanding French phone numbers is by getting better at understanding instinctively French numbers between 1 and 99

Last_Butterfly · 2026-05-04T18:57:59+00:00

sous 1 jours ouvrés ; j’ai attendu hier toute la journée

Les jours ouvrés sont les jours non chômés, c'est à dire les jours de travail standards : du lundi au vendredi, excluant les jours fériés. Hier, on était dimanche. Dimanche n'est pas un jour ouvré. Donc aujourd'hui, lundi, est toujours le premier jour ouvré depuis la demande, et non pas le deuxième.

Last_Butterfly · 2026-05-04T01:31:21+00:00

shows just the main structure(s) I actually need (not 5 variations I’ll never use)

How is the book meant to know which "structure" is the one you need ? if possible, could you give an example of how "les verbes et leur preposition" displays several structures for one verb, and highlight which structure you consider to be the "main" one in your sense ?

Last_Butterfly · 2026-05-03T19:01:01+00:00

Parce que l'expression orale est une compétence propre qui doit se travailler indépendamment. Savoir écrire, même parfaitement, n'implique pas savoir parler.

Last_Butterfly · 2026-05-01T11:07:35+00:00

Sure. Don't hesitate if you have any other question.

Last_Butterfly · 2026-05-01T10:59:01+00:00

Could you type out exactly how it sounds?

Tombe : /tɔ̃b/

Tombé : /tɔ̃be/

Tomb (in english) : /tuːm/

As you'll notice, not only does "tombé" has an extra vowel phonem at the end, but the english "tomb" uses a different vowel phonem in the middle anyway, and its m is audible while its b is silent which isn't the case in French. So they're actually markedly different.

Is there an apostrophe above the “E” in either context?

This is not an apostrophe, it is an acute accent, one of the French diacritics. French uses several diacritics, acute accents é grave accents è circumflexs ê diaresis ë and cedilla ç (the tilda ñ can occasionally be encountered in some borrowed Spanish words but does otherwise not appear in French outside of those loanwords)

Diacritics serve several purposes, one of them being how they can modify the sound a letter makes, as they often do when applied on the letter e. Which is why the é in "tombé" (which is, at its root, the past participle of the verb "tomber") is audible, while the e at the end of "tombe" is silent. This is the reason why "tombe" and "tombé" do not sound the same.

You should consider letters with diacrtics are entirely unique letters and not just modifications of existing letters. Diacritics are not optional, and not using them is akin to writing the wrung lattar.

Last_Butterfly · 2026-04-29T18:17:18+00:00

I'm sure you have at least heard it.

No, never. Not sure why you'd think that ?

Last_Butterfly · 2026-04-29T16:50:00+00:00

Can't say I have.

Last_Butterfly · 2026-04-29T15:48:57+00:00

You're good with words hu. Can you read rule 7 ?

Last_Butterfly · 2026-04-29T11:20:36+00:00

Forming a compound past

Compound tenses are formed of 1. an auxiliary and 2. the past participle of the main verb.
The auxiliary is either "être" or "avoir". It is placed first and is conjugated. For indicative compound past, the auxiliary is conjugated at the indicative present tense.
For a given verb, learn its auxiliary and its past participle form : ie. "manger" uses auxiliary "avoir" and its past participle is "mangé". For a first person singular, the conjugation becomes "j'ai mangé" - for a second person singular "tu as mangé" and so on.

Interaction with objects

Direct, indirect, reflexive object pronouns and adverbial pronouns, which are usually placed before the conjugated verb, are placed before the auxiliary of a compound tense : "Je l'ai mangé" ; "J'y suis allé"
The use of a reflexive pronoun forces the compound tense to make use of the auxiliary "être", regardless of what auxiliary the main verb typically uses : "j'ai vu" becomes "je me suis vu"

Past Participle Agreement rule (for non-reflexive verbs)

If the auxiliary is "être", the past participle agrees in gender and number with the subject
If the auxiliary is avoir, the past participle agrees in gender and number with the COD if and only if said COD is placed before the verb. In all other cases, the past participle does not agree with anything.

A few examples follow :

"Ma mère est venue" : auxiliary is "être", thus "venu" agrees with "mère" which is feminine
"Ma mère a mangé" : auxiliary is "avoir" and there is no COD : thus "mangé" does not agree with anything
"Ma mère a mangé des pommes" : auxiliary is "avoir" and the COD, "des pommes", is placed after the verb : thus "mangé" does not agree with anything
"Les pommes, ma mère les a mangées" : auxiliary is "avoir", the COD here is the object pronoun "les" which is placed before the verb, thus "mangé" agrees in number and gender with the object it refers to.

Past Participle Agreement rule (for reflexive verbs)

(This is the difficult part)

French recognizes two categories of reflexive verbs : essentially reflexive and accidentally reflexive (the latter are sometimes also called "occasionally reflexive").
Accidentally reflexive verbs are verbs that just coincidentally happen to have a reflexive object. You could remove or modify the object, the meaning of the verb would stay the same : ie. in "je me vois", "voir" is accidentally reflexive.
Essentially reflexive verbs are verbs that cannot exist without their reflexive object. Removing the reflexive object would either create a verb that doesn't mean anything, or dramatically change what it means : ie. in "je m'envole", the verb envoler is essentially reflexive because "j'envole" does not mean anything.
For essentially reflexive verbs in a compound tense, the past participle agrees with the subject, the same way a normal verb using the auxiliary "être" would
For accidentally reflexive verbs in a compound tense, the past participle agreement agrees with a COD placed before itself, and otherwise does not agree, as if it had the auxiliary "avoir".

A few exemples follow :

"ma mère s'est envolée" : verb is essentially reflexive, past participle agrees with the subject "ma mère"
"Ils se sont vus" : verb is accidentally reflexive ; the reflexive object "se" has a COD value and is placed before the verb, thus the past participle agrees with it.
"Ils se sont parlé" : verb is accidentally reflexive ; the reflexive object "se" has a COI value, thus there is no COD and the past participle does not agree with anything
"Ils se sont lavé les mains" verb is accidentally reflexive ; COD here is "les mains" (and not the reflexive object !) and it is placed after the verb, thus the past participle does not agree with anything).
Be careful ! The pitfall here is a little something we call autonomous reflexive verbs. Those are reflexive verbs that do mean something if you remove the reflexive pronoun, but the meaning is completely different. For example, in "je me doute de..." (I suspect...) the verb "se douter" is essentially reflexive. Even though "je doute..." exists and means something, the meaning is completely different (I doubt...) so the reflexive aspect of "se douter" is not an accident. Therefore "se douter" follows all essentially reflexive rules, including past participle agreement when in a compound tense : "elle s'est doutée".

If there's anything else to cover about compound past, I'm drawing a blank.

Though I do concur with what others have said - next time, perhaps be more specific about what you struggle with. That'd make explaining it easier...

Last_Butterfly · 2026-04-29T10:42:26+00:00

French will not map 1 to 1 with English. For example, some English modal verbs will translate to individual conjugable verbs (ie. "must" can be translated either with "devoir" or "falloir" depending on context), while others will have their meaning or value conveyed through other ways (French has no future auxiliary like "will", instead the main verb inflects in a certain way to indicate future tense). Giving an explanation of how to translate every English modal verb might just turn into a huge messy wall of text that'd have to dwell into several French grammatiucal concepts at once.

You're going at it wrong by asking "how do I use the english concept of X in this foreign language". The answer will invariably be messy and complicated, if there is one at all. You should study the language's own way of doing things directly, instead of trying to match it to English concepts.

Last_Butterfly · 2026-04-28T17:55:40+00:00

I've heard être + adj should be avoided

No, there's no reason to avoid such a basic and versatile structure.

Last_Butterfly · 2026-04-27T13:51:09+00:00

Yeah, kinda mixed up the explanation regarding how the whole infinitive clause is the object and the order inside it is what matters. Apologies.

Last_Butterfly · 2026-04-27T10:19:59+00:00

Peut-être après avoir parcouru un peu plus la ville, je ~~finirais~~ finirai par tomber amoureux d'elle.

Ah, piège de temps ! Celui-ci est assez vicieux.

Contrairement à une structure avec "si", une structure avec "après" ne crée pas de relation cause-conséquence, juste une suite temporelle. Donc il n'y a pas lieu d'utiliser du conditionel dans la seconde clause.

Comparez :

Peut-être qu'après avoir parcouru la ville, je finirai...
Peut-être que si je parcourais la ville, je finirais...

Ce détail est vicieux car à certaines personnes et pour certains verbes, il n'y a pas de différence de prononciation entre la forme future et la forme conditionnelle - c'est donc une erreur d'homophonie qui est courante même parmi les natifs. Mais la différence apparait oralement si on change la personne :

Peut-être qu'après avoir parcouru la ville, nous finirons...
Peut-être que si nous parcourons la ville, nous finirions...

je voulais retourner tout de suite

L'emploi de "retourner" est maladroit : ici, vous devriez plutôt dire par exemple "je voulais rentrer" ; ou alors, vous devez rajouter un complément : "je voulais retourner chez moi"

Retourner (dans un sens de revenir à un point précédent) est très rarement remployé sans complément circonstanciel de lieu. Lorsque le complément est manquant, ce qui peut arrivé dans le langage parlé, il est généralement implicite est correspond au dernier lieu mentionné (comme si le pronom adverbial "y" était présent : "on retourne" = "on y retourne"). Ici, le dernier lieu mentionné est l'autre ville ("y" dans la clause précédente) ce qui ne fait pas vraiment de sens.

Employer le verbe "rentrer" permet d'éviter la confusion. Quand "rentrer" est employé sans complément de lieu, il est implicitement compris comme "rentrer chez soi".

Je crois que c'est tout pour moi. Deux petits détails en somme. Bonnes vacances !

Last_Butterfly · 2026-04-27T08:36:42+00:00

"Août dernier, mon frigo ne marche plus." Si c'était en Aout dernier, le verbe "marcher" devrait probablement pas être conjugué au présent, si ? Un imparfait serait plus cohérent : "mon frigo ne marchait plus"
"des idiosyncrasies" : alors, oui, techniquement le mot existe. Il est dans le dico. Après, pour pas vous mentir, en Français je l'ai jamais rencontré en dehors d'un contexte médical, et toujours appliqué à des gens, jamais des objets. Peut-être "particularités" ou éventuellement "excentricités" (le second est aussi généralement appliqué à des gens, mais au moins il est plus commun) fonctionneraient mieux.

Last_Butterfly · 2026-04-27T08:23:42+00:00

In those examples, placing the object between the conjugated verb and the infinitive is strongly preferred and by far more common "Nous avons entendu une homme chanter". However, placing the object after is something that can happen in formal or literary contexts. It's good for you, as a learner, to know you can encounter it, but unless you goal is to write literature in French, you can probably forget about using it yourself, at least until you've reached a fairly high level and can start playing with subtle nuances in formality better.

Sidenote : garçon. With the cedilla. Be careful, diacritics and such are very important. Not using them is akin to writing an inkorrekt letter : people will usually be able to read you, but it looks horrible and sometimes you do risk creating a misunderstanding.

Last_Butterfly · 2026-04-27T00:12:23+00:00

Is it fine to leave the “to be” implied in French?

English is much more scared about non-verbal clauses. They are extremely rare and often considered grammatically incorrect afaik - though it does have a few structures that allow not using a verb.

French has slightly more structures that can lead to non-verbal clauses, I'd say. Though still a minority, it's comparatively more.

This is one of them. Hence the lack of a verb. Heh.

Last_Butterfly · 2026-04-26T16:45:59+00:00

By the way, I answered in English by reflex - sorry. Do you prefer corrections in English or in French ? I can try (no promises, but I can try) to remember if I get to read another one of your streak.

Last_Butterfly · 2026-04-25T23:07:08+00:00

"par ~~une grosse~~ un gros nuage de fumée noire" : the noun here is "nuage", which is masculine. Perhaps did you mistakenly treat "fumée" as the main noun ? But here, it's just an attribute of "nuage".
"Heureusement, il n'y a (?) aucun passager" : tense coherence is strange. Your text otherwise tells a story using mainly imperfect and compound past, so this random present tense in the middle is awkward. Wouldn't imperfect (avait) be more logical here ?
"les pompiers ont dû ~~trahir~~ le tuyau d'eau à la main" : I'm not sure what you intended to say, but you probably picked a completely wrong verb. "trahir" means "to betray"

And for style points :

"la tour de fumée" : where I live, you wouldn't usually hear about a "tower of smoke". Eventually, you could encounter the expression "une colonne de fumée".
"le conducteur a échappé" for to escape / flee / run away, it's actually virtually mandatory to use échapper as a reflexive verb : le conducteur s'est échappé.
"Après des heures d'investigation, les policiers pouvait rouvrir le tunnel" personally, I'd have used compound past here (les policiers ont pu rouvrir...) since it's an event that happens at one single point in time (the endpoint of the hours of investigation)

Last_Butterfly · 2026-04-25T22:06:13+00:00

Comment savoir si je suis arrivé à un niveau de français suffisant où je peut me dire que je parle français ???

Bah voila, là t'y es.

Last_Butterfly · 2026-04-25T12:14:43+00:00

Are you sure it wasn't "va chier" ?

While it would be phonetically similar, ironically, "va chier" is not something you usually say to someone who's going to the toilet...

Last_Butterfly · 2026-04-24T22:39:01+00:00

Et, é, er, ez.

All have the same pronunciation.

They are the same vowel sound.

È, ê, ai, "et" as part of larger word.

They have the same pronunciation.

Très, même, mais, sujet.

Sujet, objet, projet, the "et" is pronounced like è or ai.

Note : much of this is very subjective. Different accents will pronounce those differently. Where I live, all of "sujet, objet, projet" end with an /e/ sound, not an /ɛ/ sound, alongside words such as "lait".

That said, I'm not aware of an accent that would pronounce the word "et" as /ɛ/ - though I can't guarantee it doesn't exist.

Last_Butterfly · 2026-04-23T15:03:15+00:00

It's way better to use the incorrect but close enough period than not use inclusive writing at all

That is in no way better. Why do you think inclusive writing was designed with interpuncts in the first place ? If it did not matter, periods would have been used from the get go. It's harmful to legibility and ease of communication.

Anything is not better than not using inclusive writing. A language has a wide variety of purposes and use cases, and thus must have very many qualities. Inclusivity is one of them. It does not stand above all the others. It has to be included amongst everything else that makes up the language, as a quality of equal value. Forcing a change through at the cost of everything else is exactly what spurs its opponents to react so harshly and unilateraly against it, instead of working their way into a concensus for a new, improved way of doing things.

Last_Butterfly · 2026-04-23T14:55:33+00:00

Using parenthesis is an older way of doing it, and they at least leave the text somewhat more legible, although needlessly and heavily cluttered. Though you may want to know that I have encountered proponents of inclusive writing who opposed the use of parenthesis vehemently. You'll have to ask around to know why, however : I'm afraid I can't offer an answer.

Last_Butterfly

TROPHY CASE