"Êtes-vous prêts ?"
Translation:Are you ready?
51 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
Surely all of the options (pret, prete etc) should have been right here as vous could be singular or plural, masculine or feminine? If they want one specific answer they should give context.
Based on the audio, the sentence above only includes the masculine version (i.e., prêt or prêts). The reason is that the hard "t" sound is not present which would be required for the feminine prête or prêtes.
There is no audio on the multiple choice, so all options are correct.
Otherwise- if it is an audio question- you are correct.
I had the audio and typed Etes-vous pret and it was wrong (oh, and I used the thingie over the e) 10/15/2014
I disabled the form exercise, because yes, "là" is also grammatically correct.
The plural of "you" is "you". "Y'all" is a colloquialism and shouldn't be taught or accepted. "You all" is used when stressing "everybody", but in a simple sentence like this it really is not necessary.
"Although these plurals are used in daily speech, they are generally not considered acceptable in Standard English, nor in formal writing situations." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You
2058
The issue isn't whether y'all is acceptable English. It's a question of whether it is good translation. Vous doesn't mean y'all. It means you (pl) or you (formal singular). If you use y'all for a translation, you are inserting a casualness into the word that the speaker has not intended. If he had intended such informality he would have used different words.
If I write, in English, the phrase: You are required to present yourself immediately or face penalties.
It is not an acceptable rendering to tell someone I said: Y'all come down now, ya hear, or there'll be shit flyin".
It is not what I wrote nor is it the tone I intended to use, even if that is how you would have phrased it. It is so far removed, that if I had actually written that and you said that is what I wrote, no one would believe you. At least, not if they were familiar with my writing.
If I write vous, it is not an acceptable rendering to say I wrote y'all. You included a word I did not have and completely changed the tone, especially if I intended it to be you formal.
Which is why Duo does not accept you all, y'all or any such.
of course, I don't think duolingo should accept "y'all" as a translation on its site. when I wrote my comments above, I was new to duolingo and I was thinking of translation in general. there are situations, I think, although very few I imagine, where "y'all" could be an acceptable translation of "vous", because not all writing, or especially speech, is formal or needs to use standard English.
- 2058
My concern is twofold. First, there are non-native English speaker students who get told every now and then by some other students, that you all is a perfectly reasonable translation of vous. That it is a good use of English to do so and that there is no reason not to do it.
Second some students early in the lessons form the opinion that there are two forms of vous. There is you singular formal which is vous. And then there is you all which is also vous. Having established that mnemonic device they insist that is how Duo should treat it. The only time they ever use you all in their writings that I see posted on this board is when they are translating vous.
That is why I say the issue isn't whether you all can be used in some circumstances if the speaker chooses to speak in that style. What I want to get across is the point that you all is not a translation of vous but an adaptation of vous to a particular dialect of English.
I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with using you all in your conversation as long as you understand that it signifies self identified membership of a particular regional sub group, to the listener.
In the South y'all is part of American dialect, and in fact, a welcome nuance for indicating plurality when using second person, otherwise lacking in the English language. So 'Y'all' is perfectly acceptable to me, y'all!
Not just in the American South Ken, I am a Philly girl and I use y'all all the time. That being said, I'd never use it in any official or business setting.
In German there are both the words "bereit" and "fertig" that are often translated as "ready"; fertig means that you've completed all the prerequisite tasks for an upcoming action, where bereit means that you're more mentally ready. So for preparing to move, you're "fertig" when you're done packing and have your tickets, etc. but you're not bereit until your mind is prepared. Does French make this distinction? If so, which one does "prêt" mean?
I assume that if I wanted to say that I am mentally ready (bereit), I would change the verb to "je me sens prêt(e)".
- 1154
Sorry, not able to answer your question; I just wanted to say that I find this distinction delightful.
I never really gave it much thought (in English or French) until now but, yes, the distinction is interesting.
- 2216
If you're addressing one person formally (vous de politesse!), you'd write "Êtes-vous prêt." http://yhoo.it/WydXRp
Could someone please explain why "prêts" doesn't conjugate to "prêtez", because of the "vous"? Thanks.
- 2058
Prêt is an adjective. It modifies the subject. As such it doesn't conjugate in the way that you describe.
However, it is rendered in the plural in this example so that it agrees with the plural subject/verb form.
So I presume Prêt a Manger (sandwich shop in major UK and US cities, possibly elsewhere) translates to Ready to Eat? Makes sense.
You've got that right. It means ready to eat!.
One thing I find nice about Duolingo is that after learning enough of these languages on offer here, one suddenly finds words and phrases that we formerly discounted suddenly jumping out at us.
Testament to this fact, I suddenly realised I understood the Christmas carol 'Feliz Navidad' by Boney M just last Christmas when I heard it being played in a supermarket. I also stumbled upon a shop called "Sí Podemos" and I instantly recognised it as Spanish for "Yes we can".
I am quite sure that you'll find a few more examples that hitherto did not have any real significance suddenly striking you as familiar.
+1 to Duolingo!
So apparently music concerts in France start with "Êtes vous prêt?" Doesn't sound right.
That'd be "Êtes vous prêts", given that the person is addressing the audience.
There is no "all" there. Despite the regional colloquialism associated with the Americanism "y'all", the "all" is not really carried into any written expression of the second-person plural except perhaps in an intentional (i.e., slangy) literary sense.
The offered translations did not include "ready", and the the voice actually seems to be saying something closer to "est une prêt?" Or is that just me?
The audio isn't the best. I can hear the sentence, but if I was new to the language I'd definitely have a hard time hearing it without seeing the words too.
Vous is always plural in the sense that it always gets conjugated as second person plural, but it doesn't always represent more than one person. When talking to someone you don't know, someone older than you, someone of authority, a customer, etc... you address them as "vous" even though it is only one person you're talking to. The same goes for German, and probably other languages as well.
No, it can describe one or multiple people, and adjectives will reflect that: you (one man) are strong -> vous êtes FORT you (multiple females) are strong -> vous êtes FORTES
Vous-form conjugations are pretty regular except using more advanced grammar such as passé composé with être or with direct objects, in which case the past participle has to agree with either the subject's or the direct object's gender and number: you (one girl) went to the park -> VOUS êtes alléE au parc you (some guys) drank them (multiple beers) -> vous LES (des bières) avez buES That's called agreement, and I had to look it up, so don't worry, I'm guessing a lot of people suck at it.
Does the pronunciation of "êtes" change when it is in inverted form? From what I can hear, it sounds like "ed" here and not "et"
One could say this in a conversation, with an inflection on the ready, to signal the interlocutor that a response is required.
Note though that questions aren't normally posed this way in written English so you are likely to be marked as incorrect if you write this especially if you leave out the question mark.
How is 'pret' used with a masculine singular 'vous', or does it always use the plural 'prets'' irrespective of how 'vous' is interpreted?. Please and thank you.
- Prêt is used if vous is a single individual (masculine or indeterminate).
- Prête is used if vous is a single individual (feminine).
- Prêts is used if vous is a group of individuals (masculine, indeterminate or a mixture of genders).
- Prêtes is used if vous is a group of individuals (feminine only).
Anyone else hearing a d rather than a t in "etre"? It sounds like "ed vous pret" to me..
It's easy to slip between "d" and "t". They represent basically the same sound, except that "d" is voiced and "t" is not.