If this were singular formal, one could say "Vous êtes sûr," but I got it wrong!
Yeah, I'm not surprised. I thought of that when giving the answer, and I just "knew" that it would want the masculine plural. Duo doesn't seem to get all the right versions from the start; it seems to require a fair amount of correction to get all possible versions. The 'safest' way to get the answer 'right' by Duo is to give the most common version (most of the time; and sometimes it just has some weird answer it really is insisting on...)
And do please send them a "report a pbm" note, everyone. That's what will make them move quickest. Ta. Here all solutions were correct.
Just answered with "sûres", feminine plural. That wasn't accepted as an answer.either.
Beside the "sur", sures, sure, my question is "vous-êtez" formal vous , I am thinking of "tu êtés inf. ???
Same! A few questions ago I was corrected with "Vous êtes sur" and now it's saying incorrect =S
I don't see the problem with 'Vous etes surs' meaning you are sure, it cannot be a question because there is no question mark and this phrase could easily be part of a larger utterance. For example 'OK, so you are sure, Amy is sure and Tom is sure. We are just waiting on Beth's decision'. RKSMT don't get so defensive it doesn't seem like anyone is attacking you through these comment, they are simply trying to explain when this phrase might realistically be used. You asked the question and they tried to answer.
Is "You are safe." a correct translation? Via Google I've encountered multiple translations to "Vous êtes en sécurité." but as "safe" is among the possible translations of "sûr" I wonder if one could apply the literal translation to "safe" here.
Yes, "Vous êtes sûrs" can be "You are safe." As an adjective, it can mean sure, confident, reliable, trustworthy. http://www.larousse.com/en/dictionaries/french-english/s%C3%BBr/74718
Is there a difference in pronunciation between "sur" and "sûr?" I have a hard time hearing it.
I don't think there is. The distinction between the two would be in how they are used.
I always use the singular informal rather than the singular formal.
My guess is that Duo wants to make sure you don't avoid remembering the difference by just using singular formal ie: vous êtes for both singular and plural.
It seems to me that if you use vous êtes then you have to use sûrs because it has to be consistent throughout the phrase.
It's a safe bet, when using French, to apply the masculine form unless feminine is indicated by the context.
For me the exercise was Select the missig word and the beginning of the sentence was "Vous êtes ....." with the following choises: "sûrs", "sûr" and "sûre". The only accepted answer is "sûrs". Why? We have no context to tell us whether it is formal singular or simply plural. Then why is not both "sûr" and "sûrs" acceptable? And in what situations would "sûre" be correct?
Any of them could be correct - you would use "sûre" if the person you were addressing were female.
What? "Vous êtes sûr", of course it is valid. You, as in polite "vous". My apologies if I speak politely, I'm sure... (as of today 26/04/16). To your marks, DL, if you please... . Clutter, indeed, hah!
Cannot report a problem when radio buttons (select one of the following)--"My answer should be accepted" is not even offered on a miss.
This exact phrase has 2 different correct responses within a few uses of it within this strengthening lesson. I only post this b/c I feel that if enough people speak out, perhaps DuoLingo will fix it. It sure makes one crazy otherwise.
I answered "you all are sure" as in "you" plural because there is an s after sûr. Why is this incorrect?
probably because you all is not standard English for the plural you, it is a regional usage.
Y'all is regional. "You all are...", is no different than "you are all..." or "you(plural) are..."
You all differs from you pl in the sense that there is an extra word in the phrase.(all)
"You all", or "you-all", or "y'all" differs substantially from "you" (pl) in that it is a very distinct regionalism.
I know Southerners are always trying to convince everybody else that we should all use "you-all" because it is convenient to make a distinction between "you" (sing) and "you"(pl), but the fact is nobody does use it except some people in the southern US.
There are quite a number of people doing this DL course whose are not fluent in English (and I remain deeply impressed that anyone would attempt such a thing). I really think it does them a great disservice to suggest that "you all" is exactly equivalent to "you" (pl). because if they actually believed it and tried to use "you all" in conversation, I'm afraid the result would be outright hilarity, which would be rather embarrassing for them.
Merriam-Webster has "you-all": <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/you-all>
I recognize that the words "you all" can occur in an ordinary English sentence, with the specific meaning, "all of you", similar to your example. "You all need to go...." It would be used when the speaker wanted to emphasize the inclusive nature of "all", i.e., each and every one of you, without exception.
This still does not in any way make the term equivalent to the simple plural "you". For one obvious reason, it could not apply in the case of only two people, when it would have to be "you both".
In the original query that all of this has descended from, the questioner wanted to know why "you all" was not accepted as a translation of "vous". And the answer remains, that "you all" is only regarded as an expression of the 2nd person plural in certain regions of the English-speaking world.
To me that's not an obvious reason, simply because the count would need to be three or more. "You(pl)" can be conveyed with greater clarity by the use of "all" or a numeric count, etc. Therefore I refuse to be held hostage to saying only "you". Thankfully the English language is extremely rich and flexible.
Well said, much more concise than the way I put it. I will try to remember that in the future.
Not just a question of concise because if I see English all I start looking for French tout/tous, toute/toutes.
Yes, but in English the only difference is the addition of the one word. The meaning is the same, no matter.
I would say that you are right in French. I don't think one can say, "Tous vous, etc". I guess in some cases you could say, "tout le monde o chacun", non?
@chris_naim - I have no idea what "tout le monde o chacun" could mean. It doesn't look like French to me.
You say that one cannot say "Tous vous, etc.", but you can say "vous tous", ex: Merci à vous tous = thanks to you all
Note that the "you all" is a perfectly fine translation, since the "tous" is in the French sentence. It is no longer a variant form of plural "you", but another way of saying "all of you".
If it is singular and formal, does the adjective still have to follow the plural verb form? i.e." Vous êtes sûr." would be correct or incorrect?
Does this mean Etes-vous surs means Are you sure? Or do I need another word?
There are a couple of other ways to ask, as well: You can just say, "Vous êtes sûrs?" with a rising inflection, just as you might do in English, i.e., "You are sure?"
Another very common way of constructing a question is to put "Est-ce que" on the front, so: "Est-ce que vous êtes sûrs?" (literally, "Is it that you are sure?")
I once joined an online French-learning discussion group, and one of the other parties expressed enormous skepticism that "anyone would actually use all those words to ask a simple question". In fact, she was pretty sure somebody was pulling her leg - us, or perhaps the French in general. Ha - so I must assure you that this format is extremely common and heard every day.
Just as an general enquiry, many years ago I was taught to go with the 'Est-ce que' construction just about every time. We did just a little inversion but I cannot recall any simply "Est-ce" being used. Is this likely to be a change in teaching/my memory, or does it reflect a particular mode of use or more relaxed style. Hope you do not mind the question.
Perhaps it would be too laborious but it would great if the discussion page heading said sûr, sûrs, sûre, (and sûres?).
Why does everyone think that "Sûr" should be correct? It does not matter if you are talking to only one person or more people, when you use vous, then shouldn't the verbs and adjectives be used accordingly? To elaborate, in my native language we have the exact same thing, ti (which is tu) and vi (which is vous). Vi ste sigurni (You are sure) it does not matter if you are talking to one person respectively or to more people, you will pretty much always say it that way.
While vous takes êtes when it is the formal singular or the plural, the adjective takes the singular form if one person is being spoken to and the plural form if more than one.
alisonfields is quite correct. That's just how it's done in French.
"Vous êtes sûr." - addressing a single person whom you don't know well (or who is older or outranks you socially or whatever)
"Vous êtes sûrs." - addressing more than one person
I have entered the correct French, exactly as above , with accents, and I keep getting an x so cannot continue
since there is no defined "vous", shouldn't all 4 forms of sure "sur, sure, surs, sures" be correct?
Yes, this multiple choice question badly needs removing from the course. All we can do is report it over and over (even though there is no longer an appropriate option when you select 'report')