There is no notion of future in "quand est-ce que vous vous promenez ?" which is inconsistent with the English translation proposed above.
If you include near future in the French sentence (at the same level as in English): "quand allez-vous vous promener ?" or "quand allez-vous aller vous promener ?".
But since the French near future uses verb "aller", it is not clear in that French question whether it is about "going for a walk" or "going to go for a walk".
The repetition of "aller/go" would be awkward in both languages, I think.
At last, our Académie would not approve of the double interrogative words at the beginning of the sentence (quand + est-ce que).
You have expressed appreciation of English language tips so I will provide one which is very small but something for you to consider.
You wrote At last, our Académie would not approve of. Assuming it was not a typo here are a couple of style elements for you to examine. You can write At least meaning, more or less, that there is the Académie to consider regardless of whatever anyone else says. Sometimes, this is written as At the very least.
Another construction available is And last, where you have made some points and want to finish with the most important one. At last sounds a little bit like ..it's about time the Académie stepped up and gave the ruling which I can now tell you about.
As I said, it was probably just a typo, but I thought I would direct you to some English language style elements derived from rhetoric. Naturally, they are highly subjective and will provide an opportunity for commenters to post that no one ever talks that way. Of course, you should look at what they have to say and form your own opinion.
For those who followed this post this far, France has an academy that is regarded as the guardian of the French language. Their job is to maintain the purity of the language and protect it's integrity as the national language of France. They are considered official in a way that has no comparable counterpart in the English language. Thus, I can say whatever I want about the practice of English and someone can respond with whatever they want. When it comes to style, there is nothing that is considered official. Dictionaries give definitions but style and usage are whatever you claim it is.
Those who disagree with my points should direct them to Sitesurf for her benefit, which she will undoubtedly appreciate, but not to me. Whatever anyone else has to say is just as true as what I have written. Of course, the reverse is also true.
1)I did not mean "at least", nor "and last... but not least". I meant to introduce a last comment (but not that it was the most important one). Should I say "finally"?
2)"La vérité n'est pas de ce monde"
3) (just to annoy you: ... protect its integrity...)
Last but not least: thank you very much for your contributions to my culture!
Finally, gets it across as a wrap up comment.
Ah yes, it's the old its trick. I know the rule well enough to really appreciate when it's pointed out that its use in my sentence contained its own error. It's a much valued comment because of its appropriateness. Thank you
Just remember, I was talking about style which is very much in the eye of the beholder. There are many on this board who think I am the last person to talk to someone else about style in English composition.
Whatever contributions I make to your English are but a straw in the wind compared to your efforts on this site.
Sitesurf, and Northernguy, I disagree, to some extent. I think newspapers use "style guides" for their writers. The New York Times Manuel of Style guide, and AP guide being the most prominent. Also, we use Strunk and White Elements of Style, (as in EB White of Charlotte's Web fame) as the go-to guide for punctuation, grammar, and appropriate syntax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style That being said, in my own writing, I have dangled participles at the end of sentences thither and yon, and tortured syntax beyond all recognition. But I can spell to beat the band. :)
The pronominal verb use of the reflexive pronoun sounds redundant to my native English ears. By this convention then, I suppose we must include the reflexive pronoun with infinitives? Is it correct then, to say, "quand est ce que vous voulez vous soûler?" Answer, "this lesson has already driven me to the bottle!"
There may be some confusion on Duo's part as well. Promener as a transitive verb means "to take (out) for a walk/stroll, e.g., j'ai passé le week-end à promener un ami dans Paris = I spent the weekend showing a friend around Paris" or promener le chien = to take the dog for a walk. When used reflexively, it is more like "to go for a walk/stroll". Perhaps there was some cross-over that brought "going for a walk" and "take a walk" together into "going to take a walk", which is not correct, as Sitesurf has already pointed out. http://www.larousse.com/en/dictionaries/french-english/promener/63556
To be a bit more specific "se promener" is a reflexive pronomial verb so the reflexive pronouns always aligns with the subject. Like the examples Site gives above. Interestingly promener (and I guess many reflexive verbs) can be used non-reflexively targeting someone/something else such as: Elle promène le chien, "She is walking the dog".
I see. I will have to read about pronominal verbs (just did a google search and came up with the about.com page which seems like a good place to start : http://french.about.com/od/grammar/a/pronominalverbs.htm).
Thank you for your helpful response! You also answered my other question :-)
It's an interesting point. I translated as "When are you going for a walk". I think the distinction is a fine one. However, I think in this case it's less to do with "going to", as in the near future, and more to do with "going for a walk" being a translation of se promener. So, je me promener can be "I am going for a walk" in the present, rather than, "je vais marcher" - I am going to walk or "quand est-ce vous allez se promener" which would be "when are you going to take a walk" (perhaps!)
Just to clarify, se promener = to go for a walk (or) to take a walk. It is not the same as "going to" + verb. It is just "to go for a walk". The "go" is not a separate action nor does it imply the "near future". It is part of the whole sense of the pronominal verb se promener in the same way that "take" is part of the whole sense of "take a walk". It does not require any other word to say "go" or "take". I think sometimes people are confused about "take a walk" and "go for a walk" and mingle the terms together into "going to take a walk", which is not correct. If you want to say, "I am going to take a walk", it would be Je vais me promener. http://www.larousse.com/en/dictionaries/french-english/promener/63556
When used reflexively, se promener has the meaning of "to go for a walk". It does not require "aller". http://www.larousse.com/en/dictionaries/french-english/promener/63556
This English-side definition of "promenade" is insightful (formal, humorous). http://www.larousse.com/en/dictionaries/english-french/promenade/604377 It would more likely be used to refer to a dance move or to the action at the end of a play where the actors come on stage to take their bows (also called "promenade"). Wordreference.com aside, the English verb "promenade" is a bit dated, according to the Cambridge Online Dictionary: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/american-english/promenade_2 Could you use it? Certainly. If you don't mind being chuckled at! ;-) Please don't shoot the messenger!
No. You wouldn't say that in English, unless you meant something like "When are you, yourself, going for a walk?" but that would be a different sentence: Quand est-ce que vous, vous-même, vous promenez? Se promener is just how you say "to go for a walk" and you don't translate the se.
It's a pronomial verb, se promener (to go for a walk). http://french.about.com/od/grammar/a/pronominalverbs.htm