"Il est adopté par un couple."
Translation:He is adopted by a couple.
By convention, passive voice is formatted as être + past participle. To say "he was adopted" we would conjugate être in the past tense and write "Il a été adopté par un couple." (or, alternatively, "Il était adopté par un couple"). Since "est" (present tense) is used here, the correct translation is in the present tense.
But the sentence doesn't make sense in English. To put the sentence in the active voice would be "A couple adopted him." Past tense, not present.
Passive voice actually works very similarly in English as well:
He is adopted (present tense)
He was adopted (past tense)
He will be adopted (future tense)
Note that all three use the past participle "adopted", even though "A couple adopted him" is past tense. Now look at the French:
Il est adopté (present tense)
Il a été adopté (past tense, passé composé)
Il était adopté (past tense, imparfait)
Il sera adopté (future tense)
The tense of the sentence depends on the conjugation of être, not on the past participle "adopté".
While that's accurate, in English you would never say "he is adopted by a couple" even if grammatically correct. "He is adopted" describes his family situation, "by a couple" would describe who did the legal act. To combine them confuses the meaning in English. If the legal act is happening now you could say "he is being adopted by a couple".
You could be narrating a story: The boy loses his parents in a tragic accident; he lives with his aunt for a while, but she is too poor to support them; eventually he is adopted by a lovely couple and has a happy life.
It is a bit awkward sounding as it stands but it serves its purpose really well,- grammar lesson.
On dit en Français aussi "il est né à Paris" et en Anglais "He was born in Paris" So I think "he was adopted" is right
"Il est né à Paris" can be translated as "He was born in Paris" because "naître" is one of the so-called verbs of movement that requires être in compound tenses. If you interpret it as Passé compose, it is indeed "He was born in Paris". It can also be interpreted in the present tense as "He is born in Paris". The verb adopter used in a compound past tense would use "avoir", not "être". Since adopter is an active verb, using it with être puts it in the passive voice, i.e., He is adopted (par un couple).
OK, while maybe in the right context "he is adopted by a couple" works in English, if you heard the sentence in isolation it would strike you as very bizarre if not downright ungrammatical.
I had "has been adopted". I believe it depends on how one understands the meaning of adopted. Has been adopted to me refers to the legal process of adoption. He "is" adopted refers to the state of being an adopted child.
In English it seems that "has been adopted" would be the most common usage. Not sure which is the most common use in French.
In English, we would never speak this way. It is either, "He is adopted" period, and omit "by a couple." This describes his state of being now. Or, make it "He is BEING adopted by a couple" which is also in the present.
Otherwise, use the past tense, "He WAS adopted by a couple" which describes the process he WENT through to become an ADOPTEE (adjective).
The reading, hearing and speaking of the response DL put for this excercise is so odd, and off putting, and so wrong, that I could not continue to use it (b4 I could move on to the next excercise), that I had to post this.
Please, please correct this.
PS: Part of the several years in my career in Family and Children's Services in New York, was having oversight of adoption agencies.
I agree with all those native English speaker who say that 'he is adopted by a couple' is bizarre as a stand alone sentence. Does Doulingo not read these comments? Just change it, please!!
I don't think the narration example given above is necessarily the 'right' context. It may be some sort of present historic that is used for dramatic effect nowadays, but a lot of people find it strange or disagreeable. Had that whole story been rendered into the past tense there would have been no grounds for objection. I suppose 'he is adopted by a couple' epitomises the unnatural sense to the English ear, hence the number of queries above.
What is the difference in the usage of 'par' and 'de' in the passive voice context?
De means of... And par means by.. So in this sentence, why is de being used instead of par.... Please explain.!
In no way would that sentence be allowed in any English class by any teacher or professor. it would always be marked wrong. No amount of French argument for that sentence can ever make it correct in English.
I would just let that slide, but one of the options was "took in". The only place I have ever heard those two words together was ,in a movie about people in the hills of the deep south in America, who "ain't had no larnen" and that is how they would say that. It is not English. What makes sense in one language, doesn't necessarily translate and make sense in another language. Can we at least agree on that?
We are not professional translators who would take subtle nuances into context. We are students of French, that is, we are striving to expand our horizons and think differently, to think in a different language. To illustrate exactly what the French sentence means Duolingo translates it as literally as possible.
Standard duolingo non-idiomatic translation that doesn't actually make sense in English. There is practically no situation where it would be correct to say 'He is adopted by...'. Maybe, theoretically, if you were summarising a film for a blind person AS a person 'is adopted' on screen