The sound is wrong ! No liaison in French here !!!
GOOD TO KNOW:
- You will never have a liaison with the word "Chacun"
I'm sure I replied to this. I assume it's been moderated for tone but I think it was a valid point.
As far as I know, the comments are not moderated, there are upvoted or downvoted by the community.
Your other comment is below, on this page.
That is a good question. The short answer is:
the construct for to be free to do something is être libre de faire quelque chose
vous êtes libre de partir - you are free to leave
However, this short answer doesn't shed any light on when to choose between the prepositions à and de when you have structures such as:
adjective + infinitive or noun + infinitive
My way of deciding on whether its de or à is as follows: You use
adjective / noun + à + infinitive for something concrete
adjective / noun + de + infinitive for something that either conveys an abstract concept or for impersonal expressions of the form il est ... where il acts as a dummy statement (Il est important d'étudier, il est bon d'exercer, etc.)
Abstract nouns refer to intangible things, like emotions, feelings, ideals, concepts and qualities. Nouns like freedom, justice, love, beauty are abstract nouns.
Elle est prête à partir - She is ready to leave
Je suis triste de partir. - I am sad to leave (sadness is an abstract concept)
maybe a more literal translation is "everyone is free of choice"?, which just sounds more natural as "everyone is free to choose"
"Everyone is free of choice" really doesn't make sense in English. I see that you want to make "de" come out as "of" but that's not how it works. If by "literal", you mean a word-for-word translation, that will often lead you astray. When followed by an infinitive, you would say for example, "Vous êtes libre de commencer" (You are free to begin) or "Tu es libre de choisir" (You are free to choose).
It is a challenge to first understand the meaning of the French sentence (without translating it into English). Because you can't effectively translate it if you don't have a very clear grasp of the meaning first. Only then can you produce a translation in English which 1) means the same thing, and 2) is idiomatic in English, i.e. it is both grammatically correct and natural (not awkward) to say in English. Ideally, when you read a French sentence or hear someone speak in French, you will understand it (in French). You do not have to translate it in order to figure out what it means. This is where we often get tripped up. We try to produce a translation by any means possible and then produce an explanation for how it could mean what it is that we have conjured up. Such an approach will most likely produce a bad result.
You'd better do online lessons or a class or something! You are excellent at explaining meaning, which I personally require in order to learn anything! Being told "it's just how it is" is perfectly fine, but if there is an explanation to be had...I want it!
"Everyone is free of choice" isn't senseless, even though in Duo's contextual-less environment it truly doesn't make sense. I got the answer right because the context in which "free of choice" makes sense is so highly stylized and limited it truly does not make sense here, meaning that "freedom to choose" was the only viable answer.
It could be that someone would use "free of choice" as a way of expressing a lack of any choice: "The prison in solitary confinement at a maximum-security prison is free of choice." The prison has no options, as every day, 24/7, is so highly regimented. It's much more clear to say "the prisoner lacked any choice" rather than being free of choice.
So wrote 'everybody' instead of 'everyone' and apparently that's wrong? I'm not a native speaker, so can somebody help me and explain?
The idea behind "chacun(e)" is "each (one)". In context, it can be translated as everyone (or everybody). Starting with "everyone" in English, we would likely translate back to French as "tout le monde". In doing so, we have lost the idea originally included in the French that there is the notion of "each" that has now been lost in translation. When meaning is lost, the translation suffers a bit. The farther we wander from the meaning of the word, the more the meaning may change.
This is the first I'm hearing of everyone and everybody not being one hundred percent interchangeable in English so I must have misunderstood your post.
"Everyone" and "everybody" are one hundred percent interchangeable. The issue is "chacun(e)" translated to English as "everyone" and back again to French when it will probably end up as "tout le monde". "Chacun(e)" has a sense of "each (of us)", referring to the members of the group, like saying "every single one of us". Indeed, "chacun(e)" can be translated as "everyone" but it is in the sense of "every one of us". The sentence at hand is therefore saying that the freedom to choose belongs to each one of us and it is not attributed to the group as a whole. Does that make sense?
But Le Tinchen's difficulty was that it didn't accept his translation of Everybody, but Everyone was accepted. If they are interchangeable, both or neither should be accepted.
Actually, this is a really interesting point. It is a 'wobbly' part of English now because there are regional differences, and personal preferences. And language use changes. For me, everyone is less physical. 'Everybody was there', literally has them there in their bodies, so to speak ! 'Everyone agreed', could be more about mental or spiritual agreement. Everyone tends to be a little more subtle in use. However, context will always help and modern French and English both seem to interchange them now much more.
anyone is free to choose
because we don't lose any meaning in the translation - humans speak the language, not computers. So : when I want to translate ANYONE is free to choose, I will say naturally CHACUN est libre de choisir and not N'IMPORTE QUI est libre de choisir -> ça ne voudrait rien dire (it wouldn't mean anything)
- native speaker
How would one differentiate between, "free from choosing" and "free to choose"?
I don't know whether this is right, but I have seen "free from" sometimes translated as "libéré de", so literally "freed from". Perhaps that is how these two meanings are distinguished? But I'm guessing here.
I share the same opinion.
- "Free from ..." = "Libéré de ..." emphasizes a contrast with the past and now: you were not free due to something and now you are freed.
"I have to choose between saving her or him. I wish I can be free from choosing."
- "Free to" = "Libre de": emphasizes the freedom you have to do the following action (there is no information about the past here)
"I feel free to choose what I want."
What do you mean by the expression "free from choosing"? Are you focused on seeing "de" as "from"? If so, it is not correct. The expression using "libre" when followed by an infinitive is "être libre de" + infinitive = to be free to + verb.
I tried "to each his own" as a kind of colloquialism but it doesn't work :( in my mind they have pretty much the same meaning. Am I wrong here?
Why not "at liberty to choose"? This is a valid (although perhaps somewhat old fashioned) phrase in English and seems to me like the literal translation...
Apparently not!! I chose > Everyone's free to choose < it was not accepted..
I speak Brit english and I quite agree with this sentence... Each (one/person) is free to choose...very correct!!