1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: French
  4. >
  5. "Tu manques un bon repas !"

"Tu manques un bon repas !"

Translation:You are missing a good meal!

March 6, 2013



Here's a good explanation, paraphrased from the french.about.com page:

Manquer + direct object = "to miss something" (il va manquer le repas = he is going to miss the meal)

Manquer + de + direct object = "to lack something" (la nourriture manque de sel = the food lacks salt)

Manquer + de + verb = "to fail to do something" (j'ai manqué de brosser mes dents = I failed to brush my teeth)

Manquer + à = "to miss a person, place, or thing" (Jenny manque à moi [Jenny me manque] = I miss Jenny) Literal translation "Jenny is missing to me"


Excellent explanations but I'm still confused. I understood "manquer" to mean "to be missed by" which is why "Tu me manques" means 'You are missed by me" or "I miss you." If "Tu manques un bon repas" means "You are missing a good meal," how would you say "You are missing it."? How do you know which is supposed to be the subject and which is the object?


I have the same question. The problem (for me) is that while the explanation of "Tu me manques" as "You are missing to me" is correct, it doesn't clarify the issue entirely. To clarify, in English we say, "I miss you,", where 'you' is the direct object. In French this type of missing is not expressed using a direct object. Instead, they say, "You are missing to me." This could be expressed as "Tu manques à moi," but more commonly as "Tu me manques." Notice that "me" is an indirect object in this case. To us native English speakers just learning the language, we might be inclined (incorrectly) to think "me" is a direct object because that's the way we express the idea. After all, there is no distinction between direct and indirect in first person singular pronoun like there is in third person (le/lui, la/elle).

So the phrase "You are missing a good meal" is the same in English and in French. The idiom is the same. The distinction is that when someone is missing another person (or place or thing) the idiom in French is different from English. It is the sense of the missing that determines the usage.

In short, the indirect object is required by the idiom, but you have to know the idiom in order to infer the indirect object when you hear or read the sentence. If you know the idiom, it makes sense. If not, it doesn't. This is one of the areas where duolingo is lacking: there is no instruction. It's just trial and error.


What is the difference of miss and lack?


I believe that "Tips & Notes" are very helpful. And definitely better than nothing. As I read comments and teach myself French, I don't ever see, "You know, Duolingo has some flaws but it's FREE, still." I appreciate Duolingo staff. Thank you Duolingo.


You are right about Duolingo. They teach by osmosis, hence sparse explanation.

I found that some basic grammar would make it much easier to learn French - in fact, any language, I think - especially when it comes to difficult parts of a language.


Because here the word "me" is an indirect pronoun which is short for "manquer à moi".


The best, most concise explanation. Thank you!


Thank you for your excellent post on a subject that was causing me trouble.

Now if I can just remember all this and apply it in ordinary conversation without hesitation.


Manquer + à = "to miss a person, place, or thing" (Jenny manque à moi [Jenny me manque] = I miss Jenny) Literal translation "Jenny is missing to me"

If the above is correct, how can Duo claim the following to be correct? I'm still totally confused on this issue. Tu manques á tes enfants = You are missed by your children


I guess Duo rephrased that as pasive voice.
Jenny manque à moi = I miss Jenny. Jenny is missed by me.
Tu manques á tes enfants = Your children miss you. You are missed by your children.


This is getting print-screened and saved in the French folder on my desktop, very concisely put


if 'tu me manques' is 'I miss you', shouldn't this one be: 'un bon repas te manque'?


I'm confused, too. Maybe the literal translation is more like "a good meal misses you", which could be interpreted to mean the same thing anyway, so you restructure the sentence when fully translating to English: "You miss a good meal"


Yes, and our choice of tense would be different, depending on the situation. We'd might say, "You're going to miss a good meal," or "You're missing (out on) a good meal," or "You'll miss...


Yeah, this appears to be using "manquer" the way we use "to miss" in English, but so far we've seen that "manquer" is used more like "to be missed by"...


that's the main issue I'm also struggling with this. If we go by the lesson notes, it seems to say that a good meal misses you!


Do you see how the first sentence is constructed? 'Tu' is the subject. Literally, 'you are missing to me.' So along the same lines, 'un bon repas te manque' would be 'a good meal is missing to you.' Hope that helps.


I'm also wondering why the subject and object aren't reversed here, as before


I understood the literal meaning without looking anything up, but I still put in an incorrect translation - "You need a good meal." I just assumed that it was similar to the Spanish "te falta." Now I am seeing that here it is "tu" (subject) rather than "te" (indirect object). Can one say, "Te manque un bon repas?" (for "you need a good meal")?


I thought of "You are in need of a good meal"


Yes, Diego, that's basically the same. But we were wrong. It means "You're missing a good meal," as if a special meal will be served but that person won't be able to come.


I get it now, thanks! Perhaps "avoir besoin" is the best way to say what we thought of at first.


Tu as absolument raison.


This is a tricky one. But it is all explained in the very first comment of this sentence.

"You miss a good meal (you are dreaming about it)" = « Un bon repas te manque ». But it is quite unnatural in French, although valid.

"You miss a good meal (you couldn't attend)" = « Tu manques un bon repas ».


Why isn't, Tu manques un bon repas, You missED a good meal? I guess I can sustain, missing something, usually a girl, for a while and miss her/it, but no one can tell me I am actively missing something, only that I missed it. Am I right?


You miss a good meal if you don't show up.


Miss - to discover or feel the absence of or fail to obtain - a word in its very nature refers to the past.

Speaking of something in the future you would say, You will miss......, You are going to miss....., You will regret it if you miss.....

Speaking in the present you would say, You miss your girlfriend, You miss home,.......

Speaking in the past you would say, You missed......, He missed.....

You can't miss something in the future, your sentence speaks of something in the future, but refers to missing it in the present.


RKMST - No. I think your problem stems from a confusion over tense.

In English, we use:

  • the simple present tense to describe an action which may occur now or in the future, or which may represent a fact (I eat apples).

  • the present progressive tense to describe an action that is happening now (I am eating an apple).

In French though, while they do have an equivalent to the present progressive (french present participle, with verbs ending in "ant"), they can NEVER be used to talk about what someone is doing.

This is why in French if you want to say "I am eating an apple" you have to use the French present tense, and say "Je mange une pomme" (I eat an apple).

It's the same, therefore, with the meal.

In any event, here's a scenario: You're invited to dinner with friends, but choose not to go. You're friend calls you while he's eating and says "Hey, RKSMT! You should have come. You're missing a good meal !!"


I believe it doesn't mean you are feeling its absence, but that you need one. It seems like an idiom.


I wrote "You need a good meal" and was marked wrong. But I am reluctant to use the verb 'miss' in the present, speaking of a meal. One could say "You could do with a good meal" - that's what the French sentence probably means. So, in my opinion, in this case, the DL is wrong and I am right.


I put 'you are missing out on a good meal', but it wasn't accepted :(


That sounds more natural than DL's translation; I hope you reported it.


This one got me confused too. I think a distinction can be made between missing something in the sense of longing for it, (f.i. missing a loved one), and missing in the sense of being too late, being in the wrong place etc. (f.i. missing the bus)


You got it. WordReference is a good resource: http://www.wordreference.com/fren/manquer


This! Everyone should read this ^. It explains this well with examples, plus I just learned a few additional uses for "manquer". Thanks, DianaM!


So, here in this sentence it is to miss in the second sense, right? No way it could be understood as "you need a good meal", right?


That's correct.


Thanks for clarifying


That was what I thought too! So you miss it like a bus, regularly enough that we use present simple? I still feel like the 'correct answer' makes no sense. Oh well


Ok, here's a scenario: You and some of your friends decide to go out to a restaurant. You are enjoying the evening and you get a phone call from another friend. You invite him to join you, but he says he can't, he has to study for an exam. You say, "Oh, that's too bad. You're missing a good meal."

Duo's version, "You miss a good meal" is a little less likely, but here's one: You're moping around your house in your pajamas. A friend calls and says, "You must come join us at the restaurant down the street." Slightly annoyed, you reply, "I must? What happens if I don't?" Your friend cheerily answers, "You miss a good meal."


In that case the friend may use a different tense -- Conditionnel perhaps.

"You WOULD miss a good meal"

"Tu manquerais un bon repas"

That places the eating of the meal in the future (by using the full infinitive: manquer) and the possibility of it "would" (by using the Imparfait ending "ais").

So, let's stick to the present tense. It's a lot easier for now.


Why "Spoil" is not accepted? This is 3rd time in this lesson that one of the given meanings by duo was marked wrong


Just reported that I think 'You miss out on a good meal' maybe should be accepted.


I agree. For me, it is a more natural translation to English. Also, consider "You are missing out on a good meal."


Why not spoiling a good meal


Because DL is off its rocker - manquer doesn't mean to spoil. I searched and could find no slang or colloquial meanings either that encompassed that. (I am not, however, a native speaker, and I must concede the possibility that I'm just not aware.) (But I don't think so. ;)


I take it there's a difference in the French structure depending on whether the "miss" means "yearn, long for" or "want, need". Still, there's a sentence "il manque un couteau" translated as "a knife is missing" and somebody explained there that "he misses a knife" would be "il LUI manque un couteau" - so shouldn't this be "tu TE manques un bon repas"?


No, both because manquer is not reflexive (or pronominal) and because this sentence is not trying to say that you lack a good meal, but that you are missing out on a good meal.


I think this could use an explanation!


especially since a previous answer had the subject as the english object and here the subject is the english subject. which is it?


Yes. I lost a heart for using the correct translation ...you are missed by me because Duo wanted me to use the more appropriate English ...I miss you. The reason I used the awkward direct translation of the French was I wanted it clear in my mind when the comparable English phrase wasn't so apparent.

So now comes another use of manque and it is presented as a conventional use of miss rather than missed by.


Hi. I have seen that everyone has been asking about the rules regarding "manquer" and here I am, an abnormality... I want to ask if it is wrong to translate "un bon repas" as "a delicious meal" instead of "a good meal" since that's what I input and Duo said I got it wrong... Thanks in advance!


Well, I'd say "bon", like "good", is just a lot more general than "delicious" ("délicieux" en français), which means your translation is not right. It might be a good meal because the food is delicious, or maybe just because you are surrounded by good friends, or they're serving terrific wine, or it's just barely edible but plentiful and you've been starving on a desert island for a month....


Thank you, Diana! You've always been helpful! :D


You are most welcome.


Ok, I've run into this before, in Italian. In english, I might jokingly say, "I missed you...but don't worry, I'll aim better next time." In French, this joke wouldn't work, because missing my shot is "je te manque", but feeling the absence of a loved one is "tu me manques." If someone says "you missed a meal", your friend could be saying that you are feeling the absence of that meal. However it is more likely that your friend is noting that you did not successfully show up at the meal.


surely "you are missing a good meal" would be the correct way to say in english!? DLs translation is bad english


That is the translation DUO gives. "You are missing a good meal " is correct.


i would say "MISSED'


it is my opinion that "manquer" could be translated two folds: 1. miss someone and 2. Need (in case I want to dare to guess what you need). in this case, "need" is more propriate than "miss". my opinion, though


How would you translate "You are missing out on a good meal"?


That would still be the same in a formal language: «Tu manques un bon repas». «Tu rates un bon repas» would be more common but also more informal.


Oops. It can't be "lacking" since the "de" is missing.


why is "you are missing out on a good meal", not correct?


"Out on" may seem like a superfluous addition of words but, I agree, the translation is valid. Did you report it as "My answer should be accepted" ?


"You are missing a good meal." and "You are missing out on a good meal." are synonymous and Duo is wrong to reject it.

But this could also be "Tu rates un bon repas." (like missing a plane or a train).

"Missing out on" could also be passer à côté, in the sense that you miss out because it passes you by, like missing out on your children growing up, for example.


Obviously, the following is absurd. But if we wanted to playfully say a meal misses (in the emotional sense) you, would this exact phrase express this?


it is better English to say that you are lacking a good meal


“you are lacking” doesn’t sound natural. “You could do with a good meal” does.


Except that neither conveys the intended meaning. "You are missing a good meal" means there is a good meal happening and you aren't here. "You are lacking a good meal", and "You could do with a good meal" both imply that the person being addressed is apparently in need of food. Not the same.


good distinction, very clear re: different meanings. I wonder how the French do both of those?


I am also not a native speaker but I suspect that Tu manques d'un bon repas → "You are lacking a good meal" and Tu as besoin d'un bon repas. → " You need a good meal" might be appropriate.

BTW Please note the use of de after manquer → this changes its meaning from to miss to to lack. There is a very good explanation and link in the top post of this thread.


Not a native French speaker, but I suspect it would be rephrased a bit, perhaps something like: "Tu peux profiter d'un bon repas".

Learn French in just 5 minutes a day. For free.