help with a sentence from english to french - French Language2024-03-28T18:20:14Zhttp://www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk/forum/topics/help-with-a-sentence-from-english-to-french?id=3179028%3ATopic%3A94071&feed=yes&xn_auth=nothanks! I am a little confuse…tag:www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk,2012-11-11:3179028:Comment:972872012-11-11T18:39:18.237ZGeorge Hunthttp://www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk/profile/GEORDIEHOUND
<p>thanks! I am a little confused though.If you can say "il m'a triché" why wouldn't you say "il a triché sa classe" ? Is it just used in restricted circumstances?</p>
<p>thanks! I am a little confused though.If you can say "il m'a triché" why wouldn't you say "il a triché sa classe" ? Is it just used in restricted circumstances?</p> "Il a triché sa classe" is no…tag:www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk,2012-11-11:3179028:Comment:972862012-11-11T16:37:16.388ZGridouhttp://www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk/profile/Gridou
<p>"Il a triché sa classe" is not correct in French, it doesn't mean anything, so use "tromper". As I said, we use "tricher" for a sport or a game. Ex: Il a triché au Monopoly.</p>
<p>"Il a triché sa classe" is not correct in French, it doesn't mean anything, so use "tromper". As I said, we use "tricher" for a sport or a game. Ex: Il a triché au Monopoly.</p> Duper est un verbe transitif,…tag:www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk,2012-11-11:3179028:Comment:975012012-11-11T16:35:51.271ZGridouhttp://www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk/profile/Gridou
<p>Duper est un verbe transitif, donc je ne vois pas en quoi "sa classe" ne pourrait pas en être le COD... Certes, tu me diras, ce n'est pas très idiomatique, mais c'est correct.</p>
<p>Duper est un verbe transitif, donc je ne vois pas en quoi "sa classe" ne pourrait pas en être le COD... Certes, tu me diras, ce n'est pas très idiomatique, mais c'est correct.</p> tricked au passé donc "il a f…tag:www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk,2012-11-08:3179028:Comment:972672012-11-08T17:40:52.902ZSouhttp://www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk/profile/Sou
<p>tricked au passé donc "il a fait croire".</p>
<p></p>
<p>"Il a fait croire ... d'être" n'est pas français.</p>
<p>tricked au passé donc "il a fait croire".</p>
<p></p>
<p>"Il a fait croire ... d'être" n'est pas français.</p> I think that is the best so f…tag:www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk,2012-11-08:3179028:Comment:972652012-11-08T16:45:51.705ZGeorge Hunthttp://www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk/profile/GEORDIEHOUND
<p>I think that is the best so far.</p>
<p>Would it be more stylish to say "<strong>la classe</strong>" to avoid repeating "s<strong>on</strong>" ,"<strong>sa</strong>" ? (or is that far too fussy/wrong ?)</p>
<p>Also it has got to be "<strong>il a fait</strong>"</p>
<p>I think that is the best so far.</p>
<p>Would it be more stylish to say "<strong>la classe</strong>" to avoid repeating "s<strong>on</strong>" ,"<strong>sa</strong>" ? (or is that far too fussy/wrong ?)</p>
<p>Also it has got to be "<strong>il a fait</strong>"</p> Il fait croire à sa classe d'…tag:www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk,2012-11-08:3179028:Comment:971782012-11-08T14:13:02.208ZJan Loosehttp://www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk/profile/JanLoose
<p>Il fait croire à sa classe d'être son meilleur ami, bien au contraire.</p>
<p>Il fait croire à sa classe d'être son meilleur ami, bien au contraire.</p> Are these the 2 versions you…tag:www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk,2012-11-06:3179028:Comment:971582012-11-06T18:05:47.520ZGeorge Hunthttp://www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk/profile/GEORDIEHOUND
<p>Are these the 2 versions you mean?</p>
<p><em>1:Seeing him, you'd think he never washed.</em></p>
<p><em><em>2:To see/look at him, you'd think he never washed.</em></em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>I like the second version better .As to why it is hard to say but it seems a more stylish turn of phrase.I think it gives that phrase a bit of extra emphasis in the sentence than just saying "Seeing him" because ,initially there is a bit of a grammatical disconnect between the two halves of the sentence …</p>
<p>Are these the 2 versions you mean?</p>
<p><em>1:Seeing him, you'd think he never washed.</em></p>
<p><em><em>2:To see/look at him, you'd think he never washed.</em></em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>I like the second version better .As to why it is hard to say but it seems a more stylish turn of phrase.I think it gives that phrase a bit of extra emphasis in the sentence than just saying "Seeing him" because ,initially there is a bit of a grammatical disconnect between the two halves of the sentence until you get the overall meaning.</p>
<p>As to any difference in meaning I think there is more of an element of causation in the second sentence.You draw the conclusion that he never washed as a result of looking at him whereas , in the first example that link is less well drawn (obviously it is implied).</p>
<p>That said ,the meanings are really very close indeed.</p> Thanks.
Is there a difference…tag:www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk,2012-11-06:3179028:Comment:964452012-11-06T15:38:43.702ZSouhttp://www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk/profile/Sou
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>Is there a difference of style or meaning whether you use -ing form or a subordinate (or an infinitive for the last example) ?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>Is there a difference of style or meaning whether you use -ing form or a subordinate (or an infinitive for the last example) ?</p> You can use "ing" forms like…tag:www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk,2012-11-06:3179028:Comment:965002012-11-06T15:22:29.800ZNeil Coffeyhttp://www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk/profile/NeilCoffey
<p>You can use "ing" forms like this:</p>
<p></p>
<p><em>He scares me looking at me like that.</em></p>
<p><em>Seeing him, you'd think he never washed.</em></p>
<p></p>
<p>or alternatively, you could use a "full blown" subordinate like this:</p>
<p></p>
<p><em>He scares me when(ever) he looks at me like that.</em></p>
<p><em>When(ever) you see him, you'd think he never washed. / ...you get the impression he never washes (etc).</em></p>
<p><em>When you look at him, you'd think he never…</em></p>
<p>You can use "ing" forms like this:</p>
<p></p>
<p><em>He scares me looking at me like that.</em></p>
<p><em>Seeing him, you'd think he never washed.</em></p>
<p></p>
<p>or alternatively, you could use a "full blown" subordinate like this:</p>
<p></p>
<p><em>He scares me when(ever) he looks at me like that.</em></p>
<p><em>When(ever) you see him, you'd think he never washed. / ...you get the impression he never washes (etc).</em></p>
<p><em>When you look at him, you'd think he never washed.</em></p>
<p></p>
<p>In the second of the sentences, "to" with the infinitive also actually works:</p>
<p></p>
<p><em>To see/look at him, you'd think he never washed.</em></p>
<p></p> How would you translate these…tag:www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk,2012-11-06:3179028:Comment:962682012-11-06T15:09:41.519ZSouhttp://www.forum.french-linguistics.co.uk/profile/Sou
<p>How would you translate these two sentences in French? With subordinate clauses?</p>
<p>How would you translate these two sentences in French? With subordinate clauses?</p>