I'm surprised at the pronunciation of "Oui" in this exercise and that nobody has commented on it. I did not even recognize the word!
I reported this, hopefully others have done the same. It sounded like he said oyé!
I heard the man's voice saying this and I too couldn't understand 'oui' from his pronunciation.
The audio is very bad. The word 'oui' is very strangely pronounsed. Can somebody fix it?
No one seems to have actually replied to this so I will :-) This is a very common way of saying 'yes' in France. If you listen to a few YouTube video's or films, or in fact fairly much anything at all, you'll hear it all the time. Officially it's spelt 'Ouais' though, rather than 'Qui' and it's more casual. More like 'Yeah' than 'Yes'.
Except that 'Ouais" sounds more like 'Ouay' whereas this sound more like 'ouyez', which means 'Oh'.
I agree. I think he's a new addition right? maybe that's why there are no old comments here.
Not the first instance of "oyee" or similarly terrible pronunciations I've come across on duolingo. It's why they have no business charging money, and why kid it's impossible to trust and therefore learn, from duolingo... How do i know I'm not leaning to pronounce other things wrong on duo?
I get these wrong and mixed up all the time too. They should accept both singular and plural in these cases because there is no differentiation in the pronunciation.
I answer "ils savaient" in plural they didn't accept it, as you said there is no difference in the pronounciation
I never know when to say "il savait" and when "il a su" because when you have known something it has always been for some time, i.e. I used to know. So what is the difference? Also should I say "Je ne le savait pas" or "Je ne l'ai pas su" if I didn't know something?
«Il savait», by using the Imperfect tense, could be interpreted as "he used to know" given context that allows it. «Il a su» is simply "he knew". There are a number of specific implications about the use of the Imperfect tense. Lawless has some helpful information. Perhaps this is more technical but I found an excellent text, Barron's "501 French Verbs", which explains when to use the Imperfect tense this way:
1) an action was going on in the past at the same time as another action, e.g., Il lisait pendant que j'écrivais, (he was reading while I was writing),
2) an action was going on in the past when another action occurred, e.g., Il lisait quand je suis entré, (he was reading when I came in),
3) an action that a person did habitually in the past, e.g., nous allions à la plage tous les jours (we used to go to the beach every day). [Note: only context will tell you if it was habitual/repeated, e.g. "tous les jours"),
4) a description of a mental or physical condition in the past, e.g., Il était triste quand je l'ai vu (he was sad when I saw him), and
5) an action or state of being that occurred in the past and lasted for a certain length of time prior to another past action, e.g., J'attendais l'autobus depuis dix minutes quand il est arrivé (I had been waiting for the bus for ten minutes when it arrived).
Excellent! Thanks. My equivalent to your Barron's is Macgraw Hill's "Big Blue Book of French Verbs." Also good, with clear tense explanations.
My book adds one criterion (which may be buried in one of Barron's): It's "used in indirect discourse, that is, to report what someone said. It follows the past tense of verbs such as "dire" to say and "écrire" to write." Examples: "Elle m'a dit qu'elle allait au cinema." She told me she was going to the movies."
"Nous leur avons écrit que nous voulions les voir à Londres." We wrote them that we wanted to see them in London.
Thanks also for the explanation in your second post. It's much appreciated!
Interesting. I will make a note of that one! It sounds a bit like the flip-side of #2 and the structure seems identical except that the Passé Composé phrase comes first followed by the Imperfect phrase. In any case, it makes complete sense. Thanks!
Also see Laura Lawless's explanations which are very helpful too: http://french.about.com/od/grammar/a/imperfect.htm
I still can't find any explanations for exceptions to #4) a description of a mental or physical condition in the past. I consider such verbs as:
savoir vouloir être when describing someone/thing croire
Here are some more exceptions from characters' conversations in Philippe Claudels novel on discussing the stranger's visit:
<< Il y avait d'autres témoins ... mais je n'ai pas cru bon d'aller plus loin. >>
<< Quand il est venu me voir ... je n'ai pas su l'entendre ... >> << J'ai cru que c'était un farceur ...>> << Je n'ai pas su quoi lui répondre sur le coup. >>
I'm wondering if sur le coup is the clue here - it may be a mental process but a fleeting one, not one of unspecified duration.
Conversely, here is the imperfect where I would have expected passé composé:
<< Il sortait d'où ... d'un cirque ? >> He wasn't in the process of leaving when this was said - he'd just arrived at his destination.
Duo did not accept my answer "he used to know". Thanks for you explanation above and thereafter.
This is a great explanation and so is Laura Lawless's. Thank you. My confusion specifically with this verb savoir is that it fulfills 4) and usually 5). I had heard French locals say "Tu ne l'as pas su?" when I thought my state of not knowing had lasted for some length of time. Anyway, last night I found some text that might explain it from Le Rapport de Brodeck by Claudel:
<< Quand il est venu me voir ... Je n'ai pas su l'entendre ... Il était si différent ... >>
The speaker didn't understand him at that specific time of the visit.
Perhaps if he hadn't understood him before the meeting but now did he would have said during the meeting:
<< Je ne savais pas vous entendre mais maintenant je le sais ! >> and in this report of the meeting he would have said:
<< Quand il est venu me voir ... Je n'avais pas su l'entendre ... >>
"He was so different" is in the imperfect because it is his habitual description (being usually different to other people). If the speaker said << Il a été si différent >>, perhaps that would mean he was different to how he normally is at that particular time.
If anyone can confirm this or explain if it's wrong, that would be helpful!
The information helped me and I'm glad to share it. Note that conditions 1 and 2 are both concerning actions that occurred (and were completed) in the past, so it's not about one action in the past compared with another in the present. I believe that the use of Imperfect tense is constrained by these conditions (any one of them must be suited to the situation). That is to say, one should not use Imperfect tense (condition 1 or 2) without the reference to a second action which was also completed in the past. Condition 3 requires only a habitual action in the past; it does not require a reference to another past action. Condition 4: a state of being in the past. Condition 5 is very specific as to how it is applied.
We have seen many examples of the Imperfect tense being used (without the 2nd action in the past) leading us to conclude that it must have been applied under a different condition, i.e., it must be a habitual action, leading us to translate it as "We used to...." or "We would..." (referring to the habitual nature of that action, e.g. «Nous allions à la plage...»)...only to be told that was wrong and it should be "We WENT to the beach...." And there is the problem.
If one wanted to say simply "We went to the beach" (without implying a habitual action IN THE PAST), one could use Passé Composé to say «Nous sommes allées à la plage.» But if you translate "we went to the beach" to French using the Imperfect tense («Nous allions à la plage») you have just injected into the sentence a meaning that may not have been present in the original statement. I say it MAY not have been present because, who knows: maybe the family was sitting around reminiscing about how we used to go to the beach and that's what you meant when you said, "We went to the beach". Fine. But if you were not referring to a habitual action in the past, then the use of the Imperfect «Nous allions à la plage» is not a correct translation, even though by itself it is a perfectly fine and grammatically correct sentence in French. This becomes more of a problem when the Imperfect tense is used (incorrectly) as a substitute for simple past tense statements. We start to think, "Oh, I get it. If I want to say 'I went to Disneyland', I can say 'J'allais à Disneyland'." But that statement in French suggests that "I used to go to Disneyland" and not "I went to Disneyland."
«Il était si différent» is not a habitual action. It is not an action at all. It is a state of being. Look again at condition #4. To use Imperfect in this sentence indicates that he was different (in the past....not an on-going thing) and that he's not that way now.
I hope I have not worn you down by this explanation. This is how I understand the 5 conditions for using the Imperfect tense anyway. Good luck!
It's a great explanation! Thank you. I've always considered savoir a #4, e.g., je savais or je ne savais pas is an mental condition in the past. However, I note that the perfect is sometimes used in real life. I want to be sure I'm not saying "je ne le savais pas" when I should be saying "je ne l'ai pas su"!
Il a su does it mean he knew and he forgot. Because of he hasn't forgot we should use il savait. In according to what you say
"Il a su" would be "He has known" or in short "He knew". It does not imply that he forgot anything. Duo's choice of "He used to know" is a little strange for this verb but the use of imperfect past without reference to other conditions implies one of two things: he would repeatedly/often/habitually know (something) such as we might say "Dad (always) knew when we snuck out of the house" -or- at some time in the past, he did know (something), i.e., a momentary state of being regarding an action in the past. The latter use of the imperfect is not one of the five uses I have listed elsewhere; it is referred to as "setting the scene". I.e., it states that something was going on "in the past". It does not carry any implication about what the present state is.
I dislike Duo enabling a "use to" for past condition, state, attitude. You quickly learn to put "use to" in front of every present tense verb, no matter how clumsy the construction, and you get can get through the lesson with a simple rule of thumb. It teaches the word without the meaning. I agree that this sentence could easily be setting a scene, and nothing is implied about knowing or not knowing in the present.
It's interesting that you should mention this. Specifically, the verb "know" is a stative verb. It describes a state, not an action. The issue of stative vs. active verbs can be a real can of worms. Some verbs are always stative; some are always active; and others can be used either way depending on context. Duo has become aware of this issue and recognizes that improvement is needed. The other issue is that without context, the use of the imperfect tense alone is insufficient to warrant the interpretation of a habitual action because there are other (stative) uses which may apply. So to help that along, context will be added where appropriate. The changes may cause gnashing of teeth but they are necessary. Fasten your seat belt and hang on for the ride.
I would consider it to be an acceptable alternative, FWIW. It's interesting how in English, this structure automatically places emphasis on the word "did", i.e., He DID know (considered to be "emphatic"). Is that what you want to do? Consider the sentence, "This is mine", the different ways it may be spoken and the not-so-subtle change in meaning which that emphasis brings:
- THIS is mine
- This IS mine
- This is MINE
"Yes, he used to know" needs to be added, right? Like, He used to know and then he had a brain injury...or forgot.
I would like to note that examples #2 & #5 are identical, an action interrupted by another.
Since my previous post, I've found an interesting bit of information on french.about.com under "all about savoir". You should always use the imparfait as the passé composé has a different meaning. It means "to find out". The example given is: J'ai su qu'il avait menti. (I found out that he'd lied). In other words, it's about the moment of knowing, which is sort of logical.
My French tutor told me something similar about voulait in the negative construction. She said that "il ne voulait pas partir" is translated and means "he didn't want to leave". The passé composé "il n’a pas voulu partir" means "he refused to leave"! She said something like this applied to pouvoir, but could not recall ...
Why not: "Yes, he was knowing." "He knew" should be past tense, I thought. Il a su.
True, but that may be changing. For example, the McDonald's slogan is "I'm loving it!" and the progressive aspect of stative verbs seems well entrenched in the English of India;
Why is this translated as "knew" for the imparfait? From what I know, imparfait is normally translated as "did know" or "used to know" or even "was knowing", while things like "knew" are passé composé.
Look at n6zs' comments above. You can't always translate "he knew" by the perfect and in English we don't always say "he was knowing" or "he used to know" when the French use imperfect. The imparfait isn't interchangable with the progressive and the passé composé isn't always used to translate the simple past. You have to learn the rules for language rather than try to translate word for word.
Yes, he would know is the conditional, which would be: Oui il saurait. There is often confusion between the imperfect and the conditional because of incorrect use of the latter in English. For example, people say: When I was young I would go to the park every Sunday, which should be I used to go to the park every Sunday or I went to the park every Sunday. There is no such confusion in French.
Since there is no difference in sound, it should be accepted as an answer.
The solution should allow for "Oui, ils savaient", which sounds exactly the same.
Savoir isn't reflexive. So "il le sait" means "he knows it", "il le connaît" means "he knows him" and "ils se connaissent" means "they know each other".
Some French verbs are reflexive - "il se rappelle de moi" - he remembers (i.e. reminds himself of) me, "il se lave" - he washes (himself) - "il se couche" - he lies down (i.e. lays himself down).
Here is a great tutorial on pronomial and reflexive verbs: http://french.about.com/od/grammar/a/pronominalverbs.htm
I'm not sure if this point has been covered by the lengthy explanations, but if you know something, it would be very unusual to un-know it. You go on knowing it, which is imperfect. If you do not know something, then you find out, the not knowing is finished with. Unless you are setting a scene in which other things happen, it's perfect.
Don't think that's quite right because ... if I did not know something for a long time and now I do ... je ne le savait pas mais maintenant je le sais or I could know how to do something in the past but have lost the skill je savais tricoter quand j'étais jeune mais je ne sais plus le faire. My negative statements in the perfect are momentary not knowing - lors de son arrivée je n'ai pas su lui dire - whereas normally when we talk about mental states like knowing/believing/being we use the imperfect.
On a similar sentence using savais, I was marked wrong for not including "how" & now this sentence does not have it. Is it necessary or not?
type what you hear. I wrote "Oui, ils savaient." as it was the first possibility that came to my mind. Duolingo says it's wrong and the correct answer is "Oui, il savait.". But there is no difference in pronunciation of the two!
I was given "Yes he did know" which is not a correct translation - that would be passe compose. The imperfect tense is expressed by knew or used to know.
The usage of tenses in French is not exactly parallel to the usage of tenses in English -- you can't always use French tense X where English uses English tense Y and vice versa.
(Also, "he did know" is the same tense in English as "he knew", simple past; it's just more emphatic. The present perfect would be "he has known".)
If you mean if it were "Yes, they knew", that would be "Oui, ils savaient".
"Yes, he'd know" is the answer given as correct on the question page. This means "he would know" NOT "he DID know." This confuses the issue further and doesn't seem, to me, to be correct translation of "il savait"
He doesn't say oui, it sounds much more like "ou ils savaient" (or they knew). This is not the correct pronounciation.
I didn't put the comma, and it was marked wrong. It is strange that I can type a wrong letter, and it's just called a "typo". I can miss out a space between two words, and just get a note saying I missed a space. I can miss the full stop at the end of the sentence, and it is accepted as correct. So it seems strange that missing out the comma here is counted as wrong.
I never use punctuation, and I have done this sentence many times and never been marked wrong. I'm guessing you had a typo in there that you didn't notice.
Could this not also be 'Yes, he used to know'?
I had it corrected thus: You used the wrong word. Yes, he did know.
hmmm it's pretty shocking that even two years later they still haven't corrected the pronunciation issue.
oui, ils savaient not accepted 18 Mar 2018. Reported. Duo wants only oui, il savait
If savoir can mean to know how, as it does in other questions, then shouldn't my answer of 'Yes, he knew how' be accepted?
Franchement, je sais pas pourquoi duolingo ne vérifie pas ce qu'on essaie de corriger. Tout le monde dit que la façon dont il dit "oui" n'est pas correct mais ils ne font rien pendant 3 ans du coup