Thanks. I agree fully. Yet in 8 months DL hasn't accepted this.
Mighty Larousse seems to avoid it also, for reasons that remain obscure. The best I can deduce is that they seem to want the sense to carry something rather more pushy. For avancer, they first recommend "put forward", which could be a little pushy, though not necessarily so in English. They also seem to indicate "proposer" as a synonym, which sometimes could be pushier, though not necessarily. Then again, they also mention "suggest" as a translation, which seems altogether mild to me, though in some people's hands a "suggestion" can carry the force of a battering ram. Another way we could think of it might be the difference in offering an opinion in a brainstorming session, as opposed to offering it as a potential resolution or decision. (Actually, I'd tend to use "propose" or "put forward" in that case.) The latter is intended to drive a process to a conclusion, so it carries extra weight.
On the reverse translation, Larousse seems to want "offrir" for offer in most cases, although "proposer" appears once again. To offer an opinion, though, is the distinctly different "émettre une opinion". Well, ok. When I offer one, I certainly don't think of myself as "emitting" an opinion. All of which goes to show that we tend to use our words in this area somewhat differently in English than the French use their close cognates. Vive la difference!
Well said sdr51. I regularly challenge the Owl, and I am often told "You used the wrong word". That's OK. I find that making mistakes ends up being a great teaching tool. The lesson remains embedded .Reading through ( some of) the various arguments helps . Thank goodness for George and other moderators. They remind me of some of my teachers . Cheers,
I suppose that that stubborn Owl is insisting that "offrir" would have to be the given French word in order to use that translation. Yeah, ok, chalk it up to another nit for the sake of literal introductory-level exercises. The argument for the literalism would be that it is more precise. The argument against is that this level of precision is rarely quite so straightforward in the real-world practice of translation, because languages have all sorts and ways for implying close-but-not-exact meanings, and the paths are not always straight. I generally favor, even at elementary learning levels, approaches that cue the learner in to various modes of expression that expose a variety of such near-synonymous meanings, and I dislike these rather legalistic limits. It smacks too much of a narrow type of rote-learning that does not pay enough attention to understanding, and to looking at the big picture.
And so I have offered up my own opinion as fodder for those who might disagree, but put it forward as a bit of a challenge to the stricter approaches, which I assert come up short in their own ways. And let that sentence be an illustration of use of the slight differences of meaning, which can indeed be useful. But I would argue that such precision is not always applied, and this degree of it is relatively rare in most contexts. I think your translation would be entirely workable most of the time. And the trick in learning is to master both the strict and the more approximate, recognize the difference, and apply each at the proper time.
I don't think I've ever used "put forward" in this context in my entire life. It's very stiff and formal. While technically correct, it's not idiomatic, at least not in my business experience. I'd use offer or give. So while the only accepted translation is grammatically correct, it's yet another instance of Duo wanting an exact translation instead of an idiomatic one.