Translation:When you were little, you used to come here for tea.
i translated "when you were little you used to come for tea here" and correct answer is "...you used to come here fo tea". Why does the placement of "here" matter in English?
The placement of 'here' doesn't matter that much in English. Your sentence looked fine to me although I'm sure someone would love to argue about this (I live in the U.S.). Most importantly, it transmitted the idea perfectly.
I would suppose that the argument could be made on the emphasis in the sentence. If one wanted to emphasize the act of "coming to a location" the 'here would be placed after the word "come." If one wanted to emphasize that you came for tea, then one could put the 'here' where you did. One could argue phrasing that last sentence without the 'here' at all as coming for tea implies that the speaker is acknowledging their location as the understood and unspoken 'here.'
Depends - were you writing from audio? The audio says petite, quite clearly.
To 'take' tea (prendre) is perfectly correct in England. You would be thought rather peculiar to 'have' tea at Claridges, though in a working class community you might 'have tea' at about 6pm, meaning your evening meal; nothing to do with the beverage itself.
Really don't get this:
"Quand tu étais petite, tu venais prendre le thé ici. " is listed as the correct answer.
"Quand tu étais petit, tu venais prendre le thé ici" was my answer, which was marked incorrect.
Petit is an adjective - the only noun I can possible link that to is enfant - it seems to be discussing when you were a child. Enfant can be both masculine or feminine depending on who you are discussing. There is absolutely nothing here to indicate I am speaking about or to a woman, so I cannot see how petit can be rejected. If the person this sentence is aimed at is a man, then surely I should use masculine adjectives to describe him?
Wasn't it a "type what you hear exercise"? If so, you should have heard "petiT" and not "peti", which indicates that the person spoken to (tu) is a woman.
BUT the female voice pronounces "quand" very strangely. L'homme le prononce parfaitement.
The male has clear diction, no mumbling the ends of sentences. The female has poor diction & frequently mumbles the ends of sentences - frustrating!
I really wish I'd made a note of it. I was having a very French day yesterday, I did a lot of exercises. I thought it was a written translation, but it could have been a type what you hear one. If so, your explanation would make perfect sense.
Just for clarity - was I correct? Petit/petite would both be correct depending on the gender of who you are speaking to?
In conversations, you must use the proper masculine or feminine form of words (determiners, nouns, pronouns, adjectives, past participles...) according to the gender and number of your counterpart(s).
Why not: When you were little, you used to come here to drink tea.
Prendre le thé = have tea; drink tea?
Not sure if I'm forgetting a previous lesson, but is "venir" a semi-auxiliary verb in this context?
Not at all. This part of the sentence is in the past imperfect form, it's just using venir in that form. Auxilliary verbs are limited to avoir and etre and only in the compound past form. At least as far as I know.
That might refer to the recent past tense, venir de + infinitive. I guess you could say venir is a quasi-auxiliary in that situation. Il vient de manger une pomme. But in this case it's just a normal verb meaning "to come".
Also, when I make a mistake on this question it says the answer is "when you were little, you used to come to tea here". I have never heard the phrase "to tea" so this was a very frustrating experience.
When you were little, you used to come here for tea. This answer of mine was called wrong a few minutes ago. When i accommodated...i was rejected again. Always those algorithms!!
What you suggest is the Best translation I can read at the top of this page.
I wrote: "when you were small, you would come here to take tea." and was marked wrong. "Would" is used to mean "used to" and small= little. Then where did I go wrong? Any help, please?
After repeated effort I learn that the only problem was with "to take tea"; DL wants instead "for tea". But what's wrong if I write "to take tea" for "prendre le the"? Any clarification, please?
Why is it not, du the, when the previous example was "de la soupe"? I can't see the difference between, take tea and make soup. Why does one use the definite article and the other the partitive article? Thanks.