Translation help, please

Je mets à la retraite, mais je travaille encore à mi temp payer pour voyages.

J'aime beaucoup voyager, et ma femme et moi avons visité l’Australie, l’Allemagne, l’Italie, le Portugal, l’Espagne, l’Angleterre, et la France.

Suivant, nous voulons aller en la Russie ou l’ Égypte.

Here's what I hope I'm saying:

I am retired, but I still work part time to pay for travelling.

I really like to travel, and my wife and I have visited Australia, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, England and France.

Next, we want to go to Russia or Egypt.

Am I close?

Thanks,
Al

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Frank on October 2, 2009 at 10:10am

Hello Al,

You're so close that your translation is almost perfect :)

Bravo!

Just tiny blunders:

Je suis à la retraite mais je travaille encore à mi-temps pour payer des voyages.
Ensuite, nous voulons aller en Russie ou en Égypte.

Nits: remove the coma before "et la France" since it's an enumeration.
Instead of "pour payer des voyages" you could specify who is traveling: "pour nous payer des voyages" or "pour me payer des voyages". Or you can make the end of the sentence simpler: "pour voyager".

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Al Graham on October 2, 2009 at 8:39pm

Thanks Frank.

I started out using suis in the first sentence but switched to mets when I looked up retraite and the dictionary showed être/mettre à la retraite (“to be retired”). When would the mettre construction be used? Would it be in the sense that someone was made to retire?

Regards,
Al

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank on October 2, 2009 at 9:17pm

Hi Al,

"mettre à la retraite" means that someone (probably your boss) makes your retire.

Un patron met un employé à la retraite. Ensuite, l'employé est à la retraite.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Al Graham on October 3, 2009 at 7:11am

Merci, Frank.

Al

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Neil Fitzgerald on October 4, 2009 at 6:19pm

I'm only a beginner in French, so maybe I've got it wrong, but shouldn't it be "ma femme et moi ont" rather than avons?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank on October 5, 2009 at 10:35pm

Hi Neil,

If "ma femme et moi" were a pronoun, it would be Nous.

(the difference between "We" and "They" is that the former includes yourself. This is the same in French).

So it really should be "avons".

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard Leigh on October 6, 2009 at 3:58pm

C/Wouldn't you say
Ma femme et moi, nous avons...

?

Howard

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank on October 6, 2009 at 4:02pm

Hi Howard,

Yes, you can perfectly say "Ma femme et moi, nous avons..." but "nous" (thus, having two subjects for the same verb) is optional. Having the "nous" makes the sentence more informal.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Al Graham on October 6, 2009 at 6:32pm

Hi Frank,

I've wondered why sometimes I see the two subjects per verb approach and other times don't--is it always optional, or are there any times when it's required? Is the practise more common in spoken French?

Al

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank on October 6, 2009 at 7:11pm

Hi Al,

It's definitely more common in spoken French.

However, it's better to only use the double subject trick with "tu", "vous" and "nous". In this case, it can be said and written, even in a formal context.

Using it with "je" can sound egocentric, and using it with "il" and "ils" can sometimes sound uneducated, especially when written.