"We can see someone over there; do you see who it is?"

Translation: On aperçoit quelqu'un là-bas, tu vois qui c'est ?

[PKE26318]

"...vois-tu qui c'est ?" is correct and should be accepted.

[--Roody--]

It is accepted now, if the rest of the sentence is the same as duo's default.

[stupefaite]

I wonder about c'est qui instead od qui c'est ... Incorrect here ?

[TimmyKilminster]

C'est qui is "who is it/that"; qui c'est is "who it is".

There are some examples here:
https://french.kwiziq.com/revision/grammar/how-to-ask-who-qui-qui-est-ce-qui-questions
https://context.reverso.net/translation/french-english/qui+c%27est

I'm thinking it's another example of the French treating subject and object pronouns differently to English speakers.

[GScottOliver]

I do, too. I almost put it that way (word bank), then decided I'd better not.

[--Roody--]

You guys have me wondering now. The terminal clause has a subject included (c'). So it doesn't need qui as a subject. It should be que c'est or c'est qui.

I know I'm probably wrong, but I would appreciate a good explanation of the grammar!

[Blair811122]

why On and not Nous please

[angus390025]

It accepted "nous pouvons apercevoir quelqu'un là-bas, tu vois qui c'est ?" when I typed it. I missed it the first time because I wrote it in past tense or something silly, but when I got it again it was accepted.

[HarishAbbe3]

On peut voir quelqu'un là-bas tu vois qui c'est.......easy.......

[sean.mullen]

Pouvoir isn't used with verbs of the five senses unless you are literally saying that someone has the capacity to see, which is clearly not what's stated here. So, "on voit quelqu'un..." means "we can see someone." The difference is that apercevoir means "to glimpse, spot, or catch sight of," so what this sentence is conveying is that we can see or spot someone over there, in a brief and fleeting way.

[Qiset1]

Thank your for the explanation of the use of apercevoir vs peut voir. In this case I'm not sure that the first person is only getting a glimpse. I think they are staring continuously at the someone. Can it mean that they see someone that they can't quite make out?

[Luminous_Moose]

@HarsishAbbe3. It's accepted now but it's better to learn the concept that sean.mullen talks about.

[RichardSus4]

why isn't "tu aperçois" accepted in the second part of the sentence?

[--Roody--]

Apercevoir is catching a glimpse. It doesn't really work with the continuing nature of the second clause, which requires looking long enough to identify the person.

[Porcupine28]

Could one say, "tu vois qui est-ce?"

[Antti546484]

'On aperçoit quelqu'un là-bas vous voyez qui c'est" was accepted.

[effyleven]

What is wrong with, "... vois-tu qui c'est." Please?

[Luminous_Moose]

Nothing. Perhaps it was added after you reported it.

[mungo904286]

Why not nous pouvons voir quelqu'un là-bas pouvez-vous voir qui c'est?