Guys a little culture info in hinduism, there is actually a god who has a third eye, he is 'Shiv'. He is the god of many things mostly death. But people pray to him with love. So in a way, a lovable version of Hades. In India, lord shiv comes to mind whenever any mention of third eye is talked about. And when that opens, bad things could happen. It is also associated with him seeing everything.
A tiny correction, 'Shiv' (शिव) is the God of destruction, not death. Yes, there is a difference.
It's more natural in English to say "in his forehead." Your eyes are in your head, not on your head.
My eyes are on my face and not in my head. My brain is in my head. The part of my eyes that you can see are on my face.
This sentence uses “forehead” which is a part of the “face”, not “head.” My eyes are part of my head, but they are not completely in my head. Much of my eyes are visible on my face. Be careful with the word “never”, and define the word “we” whenever you can. Yes, “eyes in the back of his head” is an established expression. Now, think about “forehead” which is already not in your head, but on the front of it.
I have heard “on the forehead”, but the most common thing to say about a third eye is that it is “in the center of the forehead.” You should try reporting it.
I've only heard he has an eye on the back of his head. And also I've only heard your eyes are on your head, never in.
The creators of this course are a bit headstrong unfortunately, they also refuse to make 'kids' an acceptable option to translate 'enfants' because they believe English speakers still speak as they did two hundred years ago.
They don’t accept “kids” for “enfants” because it is casually used and translates to “gamins” or “gamines”.
Actually, I have to agree with them on that one. 'Enfants' is the French equivalent of 'children' and 'gamins' is the equivalent of 'kids'. There is a difference between insisting on direct translation between directly translatable words, which should be acceptable, and insisting on translation to an incorrect structure.
I know they are each other's textbook equivalents. However, a French speaker is far more likely to say 'enfants', whereas an English speaker is far more likely to say 'kids'. As such, the insistence on direct translation actually teaches the opposite of what it sets out to. It doesn't teach "there is a difference in formality between 'enfants' and 'gamins'", instead it teaches "you should say 'gamins' in virtually all circumstances", which a French speaker most definitely doesn't do.
A lot of English people also don't use 'kids' as a general rule. I certainly don't.
I don't believe DL is trying to force you to speak formally when you wish to be informal. It is trying to tell you that, if someone is speaking formally, you should respect that that is what they are doing. If someone says 'enfants' and you translate it as 'kids', you are detracting from the respect he/she was giving in their speech.
Perhaps if they were to change the French sentence, “dans” = “in”, but I think they say “dans le tête” but “sur le front”.
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. The problem is not that the course tries to teach a difference between formal/informal speech, it's that it tries to apply the French formal/informal difference to modern English, which has nearly no such difference at all anymore. In French, you don't speak informally unless you're close friends or otherwise of the same young age. In English, with the near total lack of formality markers, these restrictions are a lot more lax.
Formality in itself is a pretty stupid concept (which is probably why it has a tendency to disappear over time), but if you want to teach it, you shouldn't apply it 1:1 on a language which, for all intents and purposes, got rid of its formal/informal distinction a long time ago.
chriswalli8 (the reply buttons have disappeared below), you should look into the usage of 'youse' again. The spelling differs (yous, you's, you'se, ...) as it isn't standardised and non-standard words often get self-censored when written down, but it's used not only in Liverpool, but in the rest of the northern part of England, Scotland, Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and even the US. I did mention that it isn't considered to be 'correct', though, and it certainly isn't used by a majority of English speakers. Regardless, I was simply trying to draw a parallel by aggressively making a distinction that many native speakers would rarely do.
Nngpi Re youse. I lived in liverpool for ten years and it was common. I've lived in Manchester for 25 years and never heard it. I was born in Scotland and whilst it may be common in Glasgow, which has a lot in common with Liverpool - Irish immigration, Cathoilc and Protestant football teams etc - I've not heard it in Edinburgh.
I assure you it isn't anywhere near as severe as the distinction in Romance languages, let alone that in Slavic languages. I have nothing against being taught the rules of formality, so long as those rules aren't retroactively applied to another language. It's like if the course taught that the difference between 'tu' and 'vous' is like the difference between 'you' and 'youse/y'all', which is technically correct (if we forget that 'you' used to be exclusively plural) and correct for a significant amount of native English speakers, but then it would only accept 'youse' or 'y'all' as a correct translation for 'vous'. Not a perfect example because 'youse' and 'y'all' aren't considered to be "correct" and it doesn't take capital 'Vous' into account, but I hope it's clear enough. You're right that I'm making blanket statements, but so is the course.
Just to say, youse in English English is a Liverpudlian dialect word for you, plural, but not heard anywhere else in the UK. Y'all is strictly US English. never heard in UK.
Is this idiomatic? I was thinking it might be comparable to a saying in English like "he has eyes in the back of his head."
This is an irregular plural. We might understand how the plural of one hair “cheveu” can become “des cheveux” and a coat “un manteau” can become “des manteaux”, but in French nouns ending in ‘l’ can get a plural ending with an ‘x’ also, “un cheval” becomes “des chevaux” and “un travail” becomes “des travaux”.
There is a y sound in the pronunciation of œil, so although the shape of the words are very different, I could see how with time the vowel sound might have disappeared from the beginning of the plural.
In English when we use the possessive, which is commonly used for body parts, the French use the definite article for body parts instead.
"He has a third eye on his forehead." This is not a good English translation. This, to me, implies that he has two other eyes externally "on" him somewhere as opposed to the eyes in his head (unless this is the intent of the French phrase). If this means there is a third eye embedded in his forehead then it should be: "He has a third eye in his forehead."