"Elle embauche des gens."
Translation:She is hiring people.
I think it should also translate to "She is hiring" - in American English, hiring "people" is implied usually.
I thought the same, might be an American/English thing. Since the Americans "let people go" rather than sack them, odd if they do they not "take people on".
The is another sentence in this section, which is "Elle embauche des personnes." They have the same meaning, more or less- what is the actual difference between 'personnes' and 'gens', also the sentence themselves?
I have a question along these lines. I think much more common than "she is hiring people" is "she is hiring." Because people is assumed. Would that also be true in French or does the sentence sound incomplete without the direct object? I think in this sentence in regular American English it would be rare to hear a direct object unless they were being explicit about hiring dogs or robots or a particular kind of person or something like that.
I was thinking the same thing: "people" would sound redundant, n'est-ce pas? Or is that just in AmEnglish?
In a previous translation in this set of questions we were asked to translate into English (hope I get this right from memory!!) "Nous embauchons surtout au printemps" I entered: "We are hiring mainly in the spring". It was marked wrong.....Apparently I should have entered: "We are hiring people mainly in the spring" I was informed that the word "people" is implicit in the verb embaucher. NOW 2 MINUTES LATER I HAVE JUST THE OPPOSITE!! IF THE ABOVE IS TRUE WHY DO WE NEED "DES GENS" HERE AND NOT JUST "ELLE EMBAUCHE" TO SIGNIFY "SHE IS HIRING PEOPLE"
In British English, "hiring" has rather negative overtones, eg "hiring slaves". Our normal expression would be to set people on.
'taking on' - It is common parlance to say - the factory is taking on fifty workers'.