"Vous n'avez rien pour me menacer."

Translation: You have nothing to threaten me.

[fionagirl6]

It seems like this English sentence is missing something. Although it's not correct, how about "You have nothing to threaten me with"? or "You have nothing with which to threaten me"?

[snowfed]

"You have nothing to threaten me with" was accepted.

[CateDS]

Maybe for free typing - there was no “with” in the words provided to select from.

[snowfed]

For free typing, indeed. Selecting words is not my thing.

[girlsey]

A better constructed English translation would be "you have nothing with which to threaten me. The translation supplied is incomplete.

[Eclectic1234]

"You have nothing to threaten me" is not English. You can threaten someone or something (like a career or future) directly: "Don't threaten me!" But when you threaten someone with something, there must be a preposition. "You have nothing to threaten me with/about/over." ("You have nothing with/about/over which to threaten me.") You could also say, "You have nothing that threatens me."

[flyings0lo]

"You can't threaten me" would be a more normal English sentence.

[GraemeJeal]

I agree with these comments that "with" is needed here, but one of the hints was "endanger", which I thought would possibly work without a preposition: "you have nothing to endanger me". It wasn't accepted, of course!

[CinnamonTe1]

Your suggestion still requires a preposition, such as "with."

"You have nothing to endanger me with."
"You have nothing that can endanger me."

[Linda4406]

"You haven't anything to threaten me with" is wrong?? Something is happening in this last part of the course where many feasible options are being ignored.

[RQZ.Sash]

This is also true with other sentences but I have very hard time on hearing two M sounds. Seems like "pru-mu-na-se" for me. How can I hear the two M sounds (and one N sound)?