"Il n'y aura rien à voir."

Translation:There will be nothing to see.

March 10, 2013

This discussion is locked.


for those wondering why it is à voir here is the explanation taken from Michel Thomas's French course::

In English have to does not always mean must. For example, What do you have to drink?

Any form of avoir followed by the infinitive of a verb has the structure:

conjugation of avoir + à + infinitive of verb


Qu’est-ce que vous avez à manger? - What do you have to eat?

Qu’est-ce qu’il y a à boire ? - What is there to drink?

je n‘ai rien à faire. - I have nothing to do

Je n'ai rien à couper le papier - I have nothing to cut the paper

qu'est-ce que vous avez à balayer le plancher ? - what do you have to sweep the floor

Je n'ai rien à ajouter. - I do not have anything to add.


What does the "y" signify in this sentence? I translated as "There will be nothing to see there," which it marked incorrectly. Doesn't the "y" imply a "there," whether it needs to be there in English or not?


AH! It's the future conjugation of the phrase "il y a" (there is). Figured out the answer to my own question.


I agree that "There will not be anything to see" should be accepted too.


They're being pretty pedantic, I agree, but I think technically "not anything" is more "aucun," while "rien" is nothing. The two sentences have the same meaning in this context, but I think that Duolingo is enforcing the difference here, as that is not always the case.

Il n'y aura aucune chose à voir = There will not be anything to see

Il n'y aura rien à voir = There will be nothing to see


"There won't be anything to see" was accepted (11/15)


The standard contraction of "will not" is "won't" so it is always accepted by default.


It has been accepted for over three years.


My translation was: He will have nothing to see there.
How will I know when Il is a person or considered a object?


Because you recognize the expression "il y a" (and its variations in different tenses: il y avait, il y aura) in which "il" is impersonal; it never means "he".

[deactivated user]

    Ok. So, why not "It will be..." ?


    Why is it "aura" and not "sera" beings as the translation is "will be"?


    Because "il y a" means "there is", and not "il y est". It is a different language and some things are said differently. A bit like: il a trente ans = he is thirty (years old).


    How do you say this smoothly?


    A native would probably say it "Y'aura rien à voir" (dropping the "il" and "y")


    Isn't this a double negative. "There will not be nothing to see."


    No, because "ne... rien" brackets a verb similar to "ne... pas".


    I would think one should be able to say: "there will be nothing there to see."


    There is no "there". The basic expression is "il y a" = there is (or) there are, not "there is there".


    Does duolingo accept gonna in english?


    I don't think so. I can't think of a translation of this sentence that would include "gonna". And in general I wouldn't take the risk of using such popular language in Duolingo.


    No, Duo does not use words like gonna, wanna, etc. It is basically the transcription of slurred speech. So when you write it, spell it in standard English, please.


    I played this phrase over several times and could not discern what was being said. It didn't sound anything like 'Il n'y aura' to me.

    [deactivated user]

      Why not IT will be, please ???

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