Translation:I thought he would have become stronger with time.
I think 'il' here could also refer to 'it', as in the flu virus, or the economy. As a native English speaker, I also say 'in time' as opposed to 'with time'
WHY is the subordinate clause in the conditional? His strength is not a condition of my belief one way or the other. I would be very grateful to anyone who could explain!
Croire equals to believe. This DUO excercise kept throwing me off by not accepting it. This needs to be corrected.
Why is not "gotten stronger" acceptable? That is the way most Americans would express that idea.
I agree with @pixlelee "gotten stronger" for American English and "got stronger" for UK English should both be accepted. "Become stronger" makes sense but not as common as "got" or "gotten" IMO.
Is there a difference in audio between these two?
- Je croyais qu'il serait devenu plus fort avec le temps.
- Je croyais qu'ils seraient devenus plus forts avec le temps.
The second one was marked wrong.
Why are the hints for "serait" "would be", "felt" and "had" when "would have" is correct/wanted, and somehow Duo also pushes "more... than..." as a translation for "plus... qu'...", even though it is not only obviously wrong, but also impossible, since "qu'" precedes "plus"!
The English translation given by Duolingo of the French sentence is not correct. It is a literal translation of the elements of a French compound verb. To express a future moment as seen from a past perspective, English uses the present conditional, NOT the conditional perfect. Please fix this, Duo administrators, because it risks misleading language students who (alas) were not educated to develop a critical grammatical faculty in school. The correct English translation of this sentence is, "I thought/believed he would become stronger with time." Other English speakers, please confirm this so that the problem is rectified.
Why is "it" not acceptable? "I thought that it would have become stronger with time?" Like a strong smell, or setting cement, or the economy.....
Can someone remind me why devenir is conjugated with etre and not avoir for the conditional?
I would like to know why il cannot be translated it here.
I thought it would have become stronger with time. This was marked wrong and corrected to he.
"I thought it would have got stronger with time" "I thought he would have got stronger with time" "I thought it would have become stronger with time" all rejected.
I wrote that he would have become heavier with time which was faulted. Without context, one could have been talking about a person who ate a lot and therefore was expected to get heavier with time. Ah well, my thought processes do not always work out.