"Vous aidez les hommes seuls."
Translation:You help single men.
"Vous aidez les hommes, seul." Could that not be used to mean: "You help the men alone."? As in, by yourself.
It's technically possible, but due to the ambiguity a native would interpret "Vous aidez les hommes seuls" as "single men", with "seuls" modifying "les hommes". To convey the meaning of "You alone help the men" with "seuls" modifying "vous" would say "Vous seuls aidez les hommes" or "Seuls vous aidez les hommes".
Anakrousis, that is exactly what I did think Duo was saying,- the men (who are) alone. Without context, this sentence seems very ambiguous. Perhaps the ambiguity could be removed.
It's not really ambiguous, because if that were meant a different sentence would be used (see my earlier comment).
Generalities in French use the definite article. That said, it could also be the specific men, so "the" is also correct. It will be fixed soon.
In other lessons, we've learned "seul" means alone. In this context, "seul" has a different meaning (single). I'm absolutely in favor of teaching exceptions and alternate meanings, but this expression doesn't seem so fundamental that early learners need to be exposed to it. With so many other fundamental exceptions to keep track of (the contractions aux and du, the spelling-changing verbs, the pre-noun adjectives), this kind of exception is a distraction. Surely this construction could have been postponed to later lessons.
I wish it was as easy as it sounds, but it unfortunately isn't. Due to how the current system works, this sentence is here where it is and can't be moved no matter how much we wish it could be.
It's technically possible, but due to the ambiguity a native would interpret "Vous aidez les hommes seuls" as "single men", with "seuls" modifying "les hommes". To convey the meaning of "You alone help the men", with "seuls" modifying "vous", would say "Vous seuls aidez les hommes" or "Seuls vous aidez les hommes".
I know this was not the lesson that I did, initially understand. I am not sure, but I think Mike mis-spoke by throwing in the word "then" at the end of his hypothetical sentence. You wrote: "tu n'aides que les hommes" does this actually translate to: "you only help men"? Now that's a whole other lesson that I do not understand.
Yes, "Tu n'aides que les hommes" means "You only help men". "You only help men then" would be "Tu n'aides que les hommes, alors." (or "vous n'aidez que", of course).
Why isn't it "vous aidez DES hommes seuls"? I was thinking that if English used no article, so here no men in particular but men in general (though obviously not ALL the single men in the world, then French would require a partitive article to convey the idea of SOME; whilst if English had the definite article then French would too. I had this problem at school (many years ago) and I'm still having it.
"des hommes seuls" would be "an undefined number greater than one". The definite article here indicates either generality (you help single men in general), or specificity (you help the single men, the ones who live in that city).
"seul" means "solitary" only in the sense of "a single one". It could work in a sentence like "Vous aidez un homme seul", which could be interpreted as "You are helping just one man", but the sense of "a single one" doesn't really work with a plural.
The answer it gave me is "You help the lonely men", and at the top of this discussion, you say the answer is "You help single men". As a single man, I am a little bothered that you are equating single with lonely, which is not usually the case.
No, it's just that seul can be translated into many different words depending on the sentence and scenario.
La sens de "seuls" vraiment "single"? Pour moi c'est étrange, je préférerais utiliser le mot "célibateries.