1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: French
  4. >
  5. "Nous l'aurions."

"Nous l'aurions."

Translation:We would have it.

April 8, 2014



As a portuguese speaker, the more I study french from english, the more I realize how easy and pratical english is.


Good heavens, you astonish me. That may be the first time I've heard anyone (anyone not uniligual English) express such a thought. Personally, the more I study other languages, the more grateful I am that my parents birthed me in an English-speaking country.


I speak 3 Languages fluently. Native persian speaker, Urdu and English. And would like to say that English has been the easiest and most logical of the 3 Languages that I have learned. Not comparing to persian as I was born in that language and have completely forgotten how difficult it was.


Yes, indeed, as a Vietnamese, I found English is much easier than French.


We would have him is also correct


For French conditional, notice that the stem is like that of the future tense, but the ending conjugations are those of the imperfect tense:

"serais" is like "SERai" + "étAIS" for "être"

"aurais" is like "AURai + avAIS" for "avoir"

"ferais" is like "FERai" + "faisAIS" for "faire"


The same is true for the other "persons", too, not just first person singular. There are exceptions, naturally, but this is a pretty solid pattern.


Is "we could have it" possible here? I'm not clear on when could and would are acceptable translations, it accepts could some times and not others. Is this just a quirk of duolingo or is there a rule to it?


Could = pourr+ending So, we could = nous pourrions. We could have it = Nous pourrions l'avoir Any verb in conditional translates to "would ___" except pouvoir, which becomes "could", and devoir, which becomes "should". I should do my homework = Je devrais faire mes devoirs


Thank you! I have been looking for this answer!


Is there a 'Tips and Notes' section that explains how to form the conditional tense? I'm not seeing it.


I'm sure there are exceptions, but generally speaking, the conditional tense is very similar to the simple future. The stem is the same ( which most often but not always of course, is the infinitive form of the verb) but the endings, instead of -ai,-as,-a,-ons,-ez, and -ont are -ais, -ais, -ait, -ions, -iez, and -aient.


If you hover on the verb in this sentence, you should see 'conjugation' that you can click.


OK, normally I'm the guy explaining how Duo's sentences make sense and could actually be used in real life, but ... what does this mean?


"What if they'd mailed the cheque instead of giving it to that tortoise to deliver?"
"We would have it."

How's that?


Im confused. My answer was 'we would've had it" and was marked incorrect and told the answer is "we would've it" and so I don't even know what the real answer should be ao I can learn from my error.


Basically, the correct translation to "Nous l'aurions" is "We would have it", and the translation to "We would have had it" is "Nous l'aurions eu".

I guess Duolingo gave you that answer by mistakenly combining would and have in the wrong context. Since "aurions" is in conditional (which generally translates to "would [verb]"), it means "would have" (therefore "Nous l'aurions" is "We would have").

"We would have had it" would be "Nous l'aurions eu"; this is a tense called "passé conditionnel", and it makes phrases like "would have been", "would have done", etc. Since the past participle of avoir is "eu" which means "had", you can just add that into "Nous l'aurions" to make "Nous l'aurions eu".

Hope that's clear enough (please, let me know if it's not)!


And, to be quite clear, DL's answer of "We would've it" is just plain wrong. We would never contract "would have" when it stands alone, only when it is part of the past conditional as NickleThePickle shows above.


Maybe they tried to "correct" it -- it told me the right answer was "we would've her" which is (IMO) even worse. In my lifetime, I've only heard "would've" followed by a verb "would've done it" "would've liked it" never by a noun or pronoun.

  • 1838

Oh, no. It is the dreaded -let's contract "have" everywhere- algorithm. The answer you were given is wrong. You know it; we know it. But unfortunately the person who programmed the computer doesn't know it. So we're stuck with it. All we can do is try to ignore it. In the meantime, the sentence "Nous l'aurions" is in present conditional (we would have it), not past conditional "nous l'aurions eu" (we would have had it).


Is there any demonstration of grammer in duo?


If you are using the website, yes. If you are using the app, no.


I mean there is 'tip and note' but not official grammer isn't it?


The Tips and Notes are written by the course editors, so the grammar is as official as you're likely to get!


hmm, I think 'Tip and note' and the 'Duo course' has a little bit difference. It feels like 'Tip and note' supplements Duo course but not relate directly. anyway thanks for your answering! :)


The Tips and Notes have been written by the same people who have written the sentences in the course. So, lesson by lesson, the Tips and Notes are related to the very content of the course.

"Official grammar" can be found in many places (books or the internet) but none of these sources were written to match the course you get here.


We will have him should also be an acceptable response


You have translated a conditional present to an indicative future:

  • nous l'aurons = we will have him/her/it
  • nous l'aurions = we would have him/her/it


I heard Nous Pleurions


Just to make sure: there's no double meaning here in French as there is in English? Because I believe "We will have it" (indicatif présent, but I see no reason not to apply in conditionel as well) also means "we will allow it" in English. Does the same apply in French?


Not in french (in France at least).


the translation 2we would've it" doesn't sound right in english


Can this be "will have"? Or is there another very similar word I'm thinking of.


It translates "nous l'aurons"

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