Translation:The things that we have thought of and done.
Why does the 'pensées' part include two Es? Does this imply that the objects are/were feminine?
the object of "avons pensées" is "que" representing "les choses" = feminine plural (une chose)
since "que" is placed in front of the verb, past participles "pensées" and "faites" need to agree with the object, ie feminine plural as well.
I am still confused so much, since in other sentences like "nous avons trouvé la voiture", even though "voiture" is obviously feminine nouns, "trouvé" is still a masculine v., according to your explanation, I think we should use "trouvée" instead?
How does one distinguish (in French) between "thinking" and "thinking about"?
think = penser: les choses que nous avons pensées
think about = penser à: les choses auxquelles nous avons pensé
Why in the second case (think about) there is no agreement? Isn't it also the case where a direct object is before the verb?
when you use a preposition (here penser à), the object is indirect, so no agreement.
What might make one prefer "the things that we thought and did" to "the things that we have thought and done" (or vice versa)?
Context, I think, or an addition in the sentence, like:
the things we have thought and done so far / for the past year...
the things we thought and did in the past / last year
I did "The things that we thought and did." and it was rejected. Is 'of' required here? I wouldn't put it there if I were going to say this.
I did a Google fight for my phrase versus the suggested phrase (with 'of') and there were only two resutls for each. So I tried a fight between, "we thought and did," and, "we thought of and did;" the former returns 90.8 million results to 2.6 million results for the latter.
I wondered the same thing.. to be honest I don't see big difference between, to think, to think of, to think about.
Could this be because you translated it with the simple past ''We thought and did'' instead of the past participle ''We have thought and done''? I wrote the last one (without of) and it was correct.
Both "have thought and done" and "thought and did" are accepted, and each with or without "of".
The French compound past here can express either the idea of what we have done "so far" or what we did "in the past, complete now".
I have to say, that this is the most difficult lesson we've had so far in Duolingo. I hope we keep revisiting this as we progress. There is a lot to remember......etre/avoir, agreement , etc. I am doing ok, but even a broken clock is right twice a day :)
This is a bit long, but I hope it helps.
The majority of the time, you use avoir. Only a small selection of verbs use être to form the compound past (more commonly called the passé composé, if you want to look it up).
Avoir is simple. It means "to have," so the sentences literally translate to things like "I have eaten," which is basically the same as "I ate." The French "J'ai mangé" can be translated either way.
Être is more complicated. It's not obvious how something that literally translates to "I was gone" (more or less, with gone as in "I had gone," not as in "the cake is gone") can mean "I went," so it's just something you have to get used to. The words that use être involve either motion--to go, to come, to enter, etc--or being--to be born, to become, to die.
Generally, with avoir, you don't have to worry about agreeing with gender or number. But if there's a direct object (see next paragraph) before the verb, you do. One way to think of it is that if you're moving through the sentence and you know the gender and number when you get to the verb, make it agree. Otherwise, you have nothing to make it agree with. So, "J'ai vu [no e] la vache," because you get to "vu" before you know that what you saw is feminine. But your friend would respond with, "Je l'ai vue [with an e] aussi," because the object (the cow) is already established as feminine when you get to the verb in their sentence.
A direct object answers the questions "what" or "whom." For example, "I opened the box." I opened what? The box. So "the box" is the direct object. "He called me." He called whom? Me. If there's a "to" ("We brought it to him") or a "for" ("I bought a cake for the party") in front, it's an indirect object and is irrelevant to the form of the verb (the direct objects in those sentences are "it", which will show agreement based on whatever "it" is established to be, and "a cake," which won't).
Most of the time, like in those examples, the direct object is after the verb, which is why you don't have to make the participle agree very often when using avoir. That just makes it harder to remember to do so when you do have to, at least for me. An example of a sentence where you would need to make it agree would be "The dress I bought is too small." Since the direct object, "the dress," is feminine, it would be "La robe que j'ai achetée est trop petite."
For verbs that use être, the participle always has to agree with the subject. This should be easy enough to remember because you'd expect that if you're saying "I am," you'd make it feminine if you're a woman, or that "we are" would be plural, even though in this case the "am" and "are" aren't literally translated. So, if a woman is saying she and her sister arrived, she'd say "Nous sommes arrivées," but if she says her brother arrived too, she'd say "Il est arrivé aussi."
The correct solutions are not considered to be sentences in English, as the phrase "que nous avons pensées et faites" is considered subjunctive (at least in English). Don't be so surprised when the answer that you inputted is shown to be erroneous, as the phrase makes little sense in English. As Sitesurf said, this requires more context merely to qualify for ending in a period.
Is it truly a subordinate sentence? "The things that" would be but "we thought of and done" pretty much explains subordinate clause or am I mistaken here?
Despite that, it was horrible to both read and translate.
"que nous avons pensées et faites" is a relative subordinate clause, introduced by the relative pronoun "que" representing "les choses" (antecedent).
This is therefore an incomplete sentence, since "les choses" does not have a function: "les choses" should be the subject of a verb and both would form a main clause:
Les choses [que nous avons pensées et faites] sont importantes.
- main clause: les choses sont importantes
- relative clause: que nous avons pensées et faites
It can be "that we thought" or "that we have thought," but it can't be "that we had thought" because have is past tense there and "nous avons" is present tense.
The difference in meaning isn't terribly obvious in this example, but consider "We have gone to that restaurant" versus "We had gone to that restaurant." The first simply means that we've been there before, while the second sounds incomplete. You might expect to see something like "We had gone to that restaurant a week before it closed." Changing the tense changes the meaning.
I typed this as plural but it could just as easily be singular, and, as the plural and singular sound the same, there is no way to tell in the listening exercise. Perhaps they are pronounced somewhat differently depending upon whether it is plural or singular, but DL does not do it.
LES choses sounds like [le]
LA chose sounds like [lah]
I can hear it clearly with the woman's voice.
My problem with this listening exercise is that I was listening for a liaison between pensées and et, I could hear the 'et' clearly and the 'pensées' clearly with the female voice, but no liaison. Why?
The liaison before "et" is only optional and there is never a liaison after "et".
when listening to this recording and trying to write it, I cant hear the ET between PENSEES AND FAITES......I need help, how do people hear this
It is similar to English speakers turning and into n between some words.
You can do it yourself by saying I'm taking this n that.
The listener doesn't really need to hear and clearly because....... of course it is there, otherwise it wouldn't make sense.
Duo is all about translation exercises. It is not a good platform to develop listening skills. They don't even seriously try to focus on that. Translation skills are an essential step for being able to hear and speak French but they do not, in themselves, produce that result.
There are many free resources online with many radically different approaches to developing verbal communication in a foreign language. But the more translation ability you already have in your target language, the easier it will be to make any of them work for you.
northernguy: can you give some links to online resources to develop listening skills in French? Thanks.
Fluent Forever has a whole section devoted to learning listening skills. The site is very good and very cheap considering everything you get for a small amount of money. Listening skills designed for a number of languages is just a part of it.
The Mimic Method is a radically different approach. Since rap music is all about play on the sounds of words, he built his approach on using music and rhythms to reinforce the slight differences in sounds of words in different languages. Again there is a small charge.
Most of the free resources I have seen simply tell you what something should sound like. Some of them will even give advice on how to make the sounds they provide. But I haven't seen any free resources that actually get at the underlying problem about what you need to do to hear it correctly in the first place.
When I first started with foreign languages I restricted myself to free stuff since there is so much of it available. But then I realized that if I spend twenty bucks to double the rate at which I learn or solve an issue that I thought couldn't be solved, I was crazy not to. But of course, I have twenty bucks to spare.
There is plenty of stuff on Udemy.com that will teach you everything you could possibly imagine about every subject in the world. Their courses regularly come on sale for fifteen dollars. If someone can't take a course that teaches how to cut the time to learn a language from three years to one year because they don't have fifteen dollars, they should probably take up something more time friendly.
For example, a couple of courses showed me how to eliminate the problems connected to remembering the gender of nouns. Now that isn't a problem for me anymore. That alone was worth fifteen or twenty dollars. That was just a tiny little thing done in passing on those two courses that dealt with the issue of remembering vocabulary.
Would you please let us know how to eliminate the problems connected to remembering the gender of nouns?
I came across the system after I had completed the French tree and was then working on German. The problem was that while I had spent a lot of time and effort coping with trying to remember the gender of French nouns, I had to start again with German. Of course, some German nouns have different gender than their French equivalent. German is especially difficult because simply connecting the masculine article with a masculine noun when learning the noun does not equip you deal with the German practice of using both masculine and feminine forms of articles to indicate the case of any noun in a sentence.
To illustrate the problem imagine if if French worked the same way as German. Under the French system, If you want to remember the gender of French noun, you simply learn the correct gender article that connects to its gender. When learning that street = rue, you should learn the street = la rue.
But if French worked like German, then you have many instances where the correct article to use with rue would be le rue. That is because the masculine form article conveys the dative case so even though the noun is feminine. German grammar would require that you use what appears to be the masculine article for wine when it is the indirect object.
German has fifty different variations on the use of the masculine, feminine and neuter articles. There are only three articles but they are they intermixed in sentences so that you practice using seemingly masculine articles with feminine nouns and apparently feminine articles with masculine nouns. With French every time you use rue for street, the article associated with it is feminine. With German the article will look masculine or feminine depending on what you are saying.
Coincidentally, with starting German on Duolingo, I signed up for a free course, then bought the book, then paid fifteen dollars for a lengthy you tube course on using your memory effectively to learn vocabulary. It is called Magnetic Memory.
The first step in the system is the association of images with your target word. You form an image or set of images that carries both the sound and meaning of any particular word. Then you connect those images to particular physical places that you are familiar with or that have meaning for you. Then arrange those physical images in a sort of linear journey. You rehearse and recall by imagining yourself proceeding through the journey.
In the last building I lived in, I used the walls of the elevators, various features of the hallway, etc. a to store images. That way every morning while taking the elevator and walking to my car, I kept my mind slightly busy recalling a hundred German words. Here is this graphic image, there is that graphic image. The goal is to make the images memorable, outstanding with no need to conform to reality as long as the images accomplish their goal. Allenfalls means mostly. So the image on one the doors I pass through is that of a particularly pompous and obnoxious chief petty officer named Allan that I had to deal with when I was in the Navy. Allen falls and gets up, falls again and gets up, repeating because he was mostly clueless. Every time I approach the door, unless my mind is on something else entirely, I practice Allenfalls. If I met him now, rather than when I was seventeen, I would realize he wasn't clueless but was just doing his job, one made more difficult because it was me that was clueless. The point is that the images don't have be to real or true, just something that you keep in your mind. After a while I don't need to flesh out the whole scenario of him falling and getting back up. I just think, oh yeah...chief Allan/mostly. But the path to that door having mostly attached to it is always there lurking in the background if I should suddenly forget. For someone else this image doesn't conjure up mostly but it does for me and that is what counts. .
It occurred to me during this image/association/ journey process that by using tag images attached to the main image that conveyed the appropriate gender I didn't have to worry about the actual article.
The nominative forms of the in German, are der/the = masculine, die/the = feminine, das/the = neuter. Since they change form depending on the case of the noun in a sentence it isn't very efficient to use the actual articles. I constructed an image of a bear to convey masculine, a deer to convey feminine and, for my own reasons, a horse to pair with das.
Die Strasse doesn't help me remember if it is feminine because it isn't always die Strasse. Sometimes it is der Strasse.. So if I select an image of a particular downtown street I know but instead of human pedestrians, it is deer waiting for traffic lights, driving by, hailing taxis. The femininity is built into my image of the street. Not only does it make it simple to remember the gender but it also helps with remembering the word itself.
By the time I moved onto Russian, where bear, deer and horse don't have any obvious connection to the gender of the noun, (nor do articles for that matter) I had come across Fluent Forever by Gabriel Wyner. Amongst the many things he has on his site and in his book, is the suggestion, that seems obvious now, is to use universal images. Ones that work in any language. He suggests exploding for masculine, on fire for feminine and shattered glass for neuter.
So whenever I construct images to convey the sound and meaning of a word, if it has gender associated with it, I include an element that is exploding, burning or shattering. If I know the word, then I know the gender. It is built into my perception of the word. Instead of using deer, I could have the bank on that image of a street where my safe deposit box with a few thousand dollars in it is located, on fire.
Of course, you can choose your own main and tag images that work for you as long as they can easily be worked into any image and that you will find easy to remember. The more graphic the tag, the more easily retrieved. Once you do it for a while it gets not only easy but sort of fun.
That doesn't mean I never make mistakes. But the issue, the problem of gender assignment has been solved.
Sorry for the long post, but you did ask.
"pensées" is feminine and plural, because it agrees with "les choses", feminine plural, the direct object preceding the verb.
Northernguy enjoyed reading about your journey to understanding gender Feeling a bit sad as I unfortunately don't think in pictures
Thinking in pictures is a skill easily developed. Mark Channon has free stuff to help you develop image train construction. Professor Metivier has free stuff on how to sort them into a journey for memorization with his magnetic memory approach. The free stuff is just an introduction but all of the mind/memory development guys offer more advanced stuff for a few dollars. They all also offer master class level stuff for a considerable amount of money but that is up to individuals how far they want to pursue a a particular strategy in all its advanced techniques.
I don't use Duo style translation exercises or Memrise brute force vocab building for language acquisition anymore. I use targeted short stories instead.
What I consider appropriate short story forms will have short but interesting stories designed for your language level. They should have the relevant vocab at the end of each story. Ideally, they have an audio track connected to the story.
Read the story, read the vocab, read the story, read the vocab and repeat until it is simple to read and completely understand the story. Then start again with the audio track.
Takes me about a week at a half hour a day to go from great difficulty understanding what I am reading and no comprehension of the spoken material to complete and easy understanding of the written and spoken material.
I use chunking and the Pomidoro learning concept which is why it is only a half hour session. Personally, I find mind mapping also really helps.
It is hard to make a comparison with Duo translation exercises because of the difference in goals. By using reading short stories to learn the language I completely ignore grammar. The whole thing about tense, case, direct/indirect object etc. is just something that is contained in my understanding of what I am reading. Is that verb form the simple past or the imperfect? I don't know because I don't care. I know what fits in the context of the story.
It's an amazing amount of progress in a very short period. But, of course, it completely ignores paying attention to grammar and style or even accuracy.
On the other hand I have made more progress in using German in a month than I made in years on Duo. Of course, without the Duo work, I wouldn't have enough vocabulary and understanding of the language to even start with the short stories.
Next up is French which I found to be a more difficult tree than German.
Is is wrong to say "thought up"? It somehow makes more sense to me than to just say "thought"
I submitted the same answer without the "The" at the beginning. Why is that wrong?
I made the same mistake, but I believe it's because these hypothetical things are still a limited number of specific things, rather than all things/things in general/the concept of "things", so it would be "des".
No, generalizations take the definite article in French, but these are specific since we thought and did them. On the other hand, the French use “nous” and “on” for generalizations much as we use “you” and “one”, so you could try reporting it as it could also be possibly correct as a generalization for which English would not use the definite article.
That was marked correct for me for the exercise with word tiles to choose from. Which exercise did you have?