"The dress she put on is green."
Translation:La robe qu'elle a mise est verte.
I thought in passe compose we don't need to apply rules of masculine/feminine/plural. like j'ai mange, tu as mange, elle a mange, etc...., hence why i thought elle a mis was right, but it's not
There's a quirk of French grammar that - and no, I'm not making this up - the past participle of the passé composé (in this case, mis) must agree with the direct object (if it exists) in number and gender if the direct object is located before the verb.
In this case, the direct object is la robe, which comes well before the passé composé construction of a mis. Therefore, mis must agree with la robe, and because la robe is feminine, mis must be too. Thus it becomes mise.
Good to know. I thougt the agreement here had to be with elle although elle is the subject of the dependent clause. Thanks.
Just to make sure - even when the verb is conjugated with avoir? Typically you only agree the past participle if the verb is conjugated with etre, so I'm a little confused
You are thinking indirect objects, and for that you are correct. However, direct objects require the past participle to agree with the direct object.
I'm looking through my text book, and it says nothing about direct objects. The rules being noted in this thread are for Direct Object Pronouns according to my book, so I have no idea how the passe compose works with direct objects. The examples in my book all show direct objects after the verb while the example here has the direct object before the verb.
"Elle l'a mise." = "She put it on." This is what we learned; and "l'" is the direct object pronoun which refers to the dress. We have no instruction for direct objects themselves. I'm not sure where 'green' would fit in.
All direct objects (pronoun or not) that are placed before the verb require agreement in gender and number with the past participle.
So by itself "mise" means setting but follwed by "qu'elle" it means putting on? Is that right?
No, the verb mettre (of which mis is the past participle) has many meanings. Which meaning applies depends on the context. In this case it means "to put on" because we are talking about a dress. The past participle mis gets an added e on the end to agree with the preceding direct object which is feminine. The relative pronoun que provides the link back to la robe that is feminine so the participle becomes mise.
So if you left 'que' out of your answer, could you use 'mis' as the past participle?
The relative pronoun “que” is required in the French sentence here. You cannot leave it out.
In English, "put on" is both present tense and past tense (ambiguous). But it is only accepting past tense for the French. Reported.
If the English were present tense it would be "she putS on" (unless it were subjunctive mood, which is not the case here).
i need a lesson on agreement of subject and past participle. I keep getting it wrong
I just checked at reverso the verb 'mettre' and I've seeen plenty of example using in passe compose without any agreement in gender.
'Quand j'ai mis la main sur vous...' 'J'ai mis une caméra dans sa rue' 'J'ai mis des choses dans ton sac' and etc
Also when I tried to translate with reverso and google translator the phrase 'elle a mise une robe est verte' both translated it as she was gambling a robe, but without -e the translation was correct.
In my opinion if there's a rule about agreement, French don't follow it.
You may be interested to know that the placement of the direct object in the sentence has everything to do with it. None of the examples you wrote have the direct object placed before the verb.
“Qu’elle” here is “that she”. The “that” is optional in English, but the “que” is absolutely required in French.
And “que” + “elle” must always be elided into “qu’elle”.
I missed it also. But qu' refers to robe and that comes before the "a mis" conjugated verb....I will likely miss it again. Mise it again...