Discuss and learn French: French vocabulary, French grammar, French culture etc.
there are a lot of books and movies. out of them, i prefer the movies. that is because the films are well presented,colorful and easy to understand. we only have to wait maximum 3 hours until we finish watching the movies where as for a book it might take days.the books aren't durable, can be torn and destroyed, and misplaced.but the films are durable, can find copies easilywell, the books too have advantages.they are easy to transport, can be used at any place, more descriptions and immotions can be understood, improves language knowledge and they are cheap.but, yet i prefer the movies as they are fun..
I would like to have an translation for this in the simplest french please.
how long will it take me to learn "How to write an article like this in french alone"?
I'll try this, even though I only translate in the other direction professionally.
Il ya beaucoup de livres et beaucoup de films. Entre ces deux, je préfère les films. Un film est généralement bien mit en scène, bien imagé et facile à comprendre. Il suffit 3 heures maxi pour regarder un film tandis que la lecture d'un livre peut durer des jours. Un livre ne dure pas -- il peut être déchiré ou abimé, il peut être perdu. Mais un film dure et on trouve des exemplaires facilement. Un livre aussi a ses avantages -- facile à transporter, il peut être utilisé n'importe ou, et ne coute pas cher. Ses scenes et ses emotions peuvent être compris. En lisant, on améliore son language et sa connaissance. Mais tout compte fait, je préfère les films car ils sont amusants.
I'm sure there are some minor errors. I'd particularly like to see a native French-speaker's opinion about "well presented." The original English expression means generally pleasing, and could cover production values, scripting, and/or cinematography. Actually it could even mean a crappy movie that was well packaged, although I'm sure that's not what Meshaun had in mind. The point is that "presented" refers to the final delivery of a finished article or product and not really to the detailed makeup of the thing presented.
I chose to translate this as bien mit en scène, which technically means well produced. A film's producer is a metteur en scène (the director is the réalisateur.) Would bien présenté be ok? Better or worse? What about bien réalisé?
Some light on the cinema in France :
Le réalisateur is directing the actors, gives directions to the plot, imagine the background and scenery, choose the sequence in which the scenes are shot and presented, etc...
If le réalisateur works for movies broadcasted in theatres, with Hollywood stars etc..., he can be called un cinéaste. When his work is shown on television, he's still réalisateur. And if he's directing actors in a live theatre, in front of an audience, with backstage and Molière comedies, he's un metteur en scène.
As for your translation of well presented, colorful and easy to understand Stu, i'm not convinced. I would have said attrayants, vivants et accessibles.
Some others points :
- il existe beaucoup de livres et de films.
- language (english) = langage (french), but here = langue
- to improve language knowledge = s'améliorer dans la pratique de la langue, or étendre sa connaissance de la langue
- Il suffit de 3h maximum (typo ?) but here i'd say "Trois heures maximum suffisent à..."
(For a reason far above my understanding, I could only continue my post in italic. So i cut it in two, for the sake of reading)
- Un film dure, et on en trouve facilement des exemplaires (we have to know : exemplaires of what ?, hence the "en", making a link to "film").
- il peut être utilisé n'importe où et ne coûte pas cher
- Ses scènes et ses émotions peuvent être comprises (two feminine words, the verb have to be "feminized")
I'm sorry if I wasn't more descriptive on the translation,
I meant "Well presented", on the theme, that it is acted very well.
like to say, Well Presented by Jean Claude
and. guys, how much time will it take me to learn french as a intermiediate?
OK, I think "bien interprété" then.
Re your second question, this really depends on how much work you put in and how much knowledge/aptitude/motivation you have for languages generally. In the UK, a "good student" following good classes of a couple of hours per week for 5 years would maybe be getting towards that ability, but with maybe some gaps in vocabulary/the odd bit of grammar they haven't covered. A better student who had done some reading around the subject in that time would cope more easily. A more dedicated student who had more time to devote to French, good facilities for reading in French, regularly had contact with native French speakers and had work corrected by them etc could get there in 2 or 3 years. But it really depends on your circumstances and the amount of time you're able to put in.
Many students will also follow 5 years of compulsory French classes and never get within a million miles of even dreaming of attempting to translate the above text.
If you're serious and enthusiastic about learning French (or any subject) and you're learning at school, then the thing I wouldn't advise is simply sitting back and relying on general lessons as your only source of knowledge/feedback. Basic school courses (and indeed basic courses generally) are more about getting the average semi-interested person to a level of being able to order a cup of coffee and say that they don't like history homework. The reality is that if you want to specialise in French (or whatever subject), it's more about what extra work you can put in yourself.