Hi! Aww, there is no trouble at all Anon, thanks for reading, and I definitely agree with you: having a great teacher (in any subject) is generally very helpful and enjoyable for learning! ^_^
Then again, I’m pretty sure that kiddos like you who grow up naturally learning different languages from their familial environment are generally skilled at learning new languages 😀 Still, I think it’s great that you’re enjoying our language. People keep saying it sounds beautiful (I wouldn’t know) but frankly all I can see is all the many mistakes when writing it down, mainly when it’s coming from native speakers of course (because people who are learning are always commendable).
As for your little question, it was just an example for the accordance part because, depending on the gender the pronoun is referring to, “they came dressed” in English can go like this in French:
Ils sont venus habillés (”ils” => plural form + masculine gender)
Elles sont venues habillées (”elles” => plural form + feminine gender)
Now if I had to give you (and other people reading this) the full explanation, we’re indeed in “passé composé” tense which is formed through:
the use of two auxiliaries, the verbs “avoir” (to have) or “être” (to be) put in present tense
+ the past participle of the main verb of the sentence.
Back to my example, the main verb is the irregular verb “aller” (to go) but a construction between the auxiliary “avoir” and verb “aller” doesn’t exist in French, which means that the only auxiliary you can use for this verb in “passé composé” tense is “être”.
And, as you said, accordance is mandatory with “être”, be it when it’s used as a verb or auxiliary, when it depends with “avoir” (this is all about the COD/COI I mentioned in my other post and whether it is before/after the verb). So:
“They came dressed”
“Ils sont venus habillés” or “Elles sont venues habillées” (depending on the pronoun)
=> accordance because the auxiliary is “être”.
“They sang songs”
“Ils ont chanté des chansons” or “Elles ont chanté des chansons”
=> no accordance no matter the pronoun because the auxiliary is “avoir” + mostly because what they sang (the COD/direct object) is placed after the verb in the sentence.
So back to the example you were wondering about:
“The songs I sang” = “Les chansons que j’ai chantées”
I sang what? Songs. But where is that COD in the sentence? Before the verb.
=> there is accordance of the verb in regard to the COD (chansons: plural form + feminine gender = “-ées”), even if the auxiliary for “passé composé” tense is “avoir”.
Were you faced with “chants” and not “chansons” for the same sentence (same meaning, both plural, but masculine gender), it would have turned out to be “Les chants que j’ai chantés”.
I hope I covered the full thing with my silly examples. xD As for the “imparfait” tense, here’s a lil trick for you 😀 => “s” in the alphabet always comes before “t”, so it can’t be a “t” for “Je” if it’s a “s” for “Tu”:
j’avais
tu avais
il avait.
I hope it helped :333 (btw, I feel for your friend 200%, now that you’re mentioning it, I think Spanish subjonctive is totally worse than past tenses for me too xDDD)
Have an amazing day as well! ❤
No worries, I’m sure you’re doing amazing ❤ It’s one of these rules I totally need to double check all my sentences for, as I explained yesterday, so the least I can do is to be able to explain it. :))
Honestly, had you asked about some French rules that aren’t a big deal to me, I would have probably had to quickly refresh my memory before I could explain it (and its possible exceptions) to you or anyone else. x) And besides, it’s always easier to explain to someone who already has a good basis than to someone who’s just starting (since I’m not exactly a teacher).
Anyway, I definitely agree, I think learning with a teacher or books involves understanding a language before remembering and practicing it and, in general, learning another language makes looking back on your mother tongue more interesting. It’s because practicing English made me write some mistakes in French that I started paying more attention to rules that used to be automatic to me for years.
Also, I had the opportunity to help a few non-native speakers with French through correcting a few documents for them and it also was useful, because most mistakes for non-native speakers with a good level are for the same rules (subjunctive tense, à vs de, avant/arrière vs devant/derrière, tu vs vous, etc).
I’m glad it helped you tho! Especially considering how long it was xD I think it’s a good thing I was born French, yeah the grammar, spelling and conjugation rules fit with me rambling all the time. xDDD
OMG Anon, I’m so sorry, I didn’t mean to scare you (and actually, if you have any question about the French language, always feel free to ask, I don’t mind!)! :3
Actually, what I said was just because I feel there is this strange effect that you’re always going to be lazier or “meh” about your mother tongue than about the other languages you learn. x)
Like, to give you an example, you know the “You’re” vs “Your” mistake in English? I seriously don’t understand how it’s possible to mix the two and actually (I may be wrong but) I was under the impression that native English speakers make this mistake more often that non-native English speakers with a good level?
It’s the same with French from my point of view. The other day, I was at a party, discussing with my best friend’s sister-in-law who is Russian and who came to France for her studies (so she had to learn French) and she was complaining about her trainee (as a lawyer) who made a lot of spelling/grammar mistakes.
In her opinion, since she, as a Russian, is able to write an almost flawless French, a native French speaker should be on a similar level, especially as a lawyer trainee. And, well, she’s not wrong at all, but the example of a mistake she gave had me thinking about it for at least a few seconds.
[…The thing is, a few years back there was this project of a law supposed to make the French spelling, grammar and conjugation “simpler” because too many French native speakers can’t seem to write properly (those examples below only being a few). A lot of people (including me) found that outrageous though and thankfully the project was abandoned but, it’s just to say, I’ve seen non native French speakers write almost flawlessly 100% of the time when too many native speakers can’t, so it doesn’t have to be scary as long as you’re not giving up!]
My own example is different though, because as I explained, I feel I questioned my French from the moment I started practicing English daily. As for Spanish, it does have similarities with French (which is why I can understand half of it when reading), but maaan, I hate the past tenses the most and never could get used to them.
Anyway, speaking French is not the real problem here (although some oral mistakes are common for some irregular verbs and pronunciation has its share of exceptions as well), rather it’s writing/spelling it that can be tricky, especially for native speakers. That’s why sometimes I have to pause and recheck my sentence while remembering the rules to avoid a few mistakes.
Haha Anon, no offense, maybe it’s your example that’s not well chosen but, as far as present tense go (which is what you wrote for the verb “to eat”), Spanish and French are the same, so even someone like me who hasn’t practiced in seven years can remember how to use it xDDD
And we also have the same amount of verb tenses, I checked 😉
Not to say that you can’t find French difficult or confusing, I know I have my history with Spanish as I was explaining & I confused a lot of things with Latin at first, but in my opinion they’re still very similar, which is partially why it’s hard to tackle one when your mother tongue is the other (because you have to differentiate how the rules & exceptions work in the two languages). :3
Still, while I can’t exactly write Spanish (and I’m too self conscious to speak it, because it’s been too long since I last practiced), my seven years of classes give me a good (in my opinion) reading comprehension precisely because the two languages have similarities. It’s the advantage. x)
Thanks for sharing, have a nice weekend Anon!
Haha, not from my point of view, but obviously I’m biased. x)
I know it’s definitely not as logical as English though, I’ll give you that, but I’m afraid that can’t be helped. Ever (but boy, writing down numbers with letters is hard for native speakers too lmao). xD
Ahhh, I definitely can’t blame you for the accents, it’s yet another thing even native speakers fail at sometimes when writing. I remember correcting a non native speaker who had a few difficulties on the matter and I had given them this link, maybe it can be helpful?
You know actually, that law project intended for one accent to disappear too, since it leads to frequent spelling mistakes, ex:
jeune vs jeûne
jeune: young, a youngster
jeûne: fasting
tache vs tâche
tache: a mark, a stain
tâche: a task
mur vs mûr
mur: a wall
mûr/mûre: mature
buuuut people had fun finding a lot of examples as to why they were important, so they had to drop the idea. x)
Nah, frankly, I’m glad they didn’t go through with it as complex as French seems to be, because the way some people speak
sometimes
(in familiar/colloquial dialogue) is wayyyy too weird nowadays, so at least we should keep the writing as it is supposed to be. x))
OMG Anon, I’m so sorry, I didn’t mean to scare you (and actually, if you have any question about the French language, always feel free to ask, I don’t mind!)! :3
Actually, what I said was just because I feel there is this strange effect that you’re always going to be lazier or “meh” about your mother tongue than about the other languages you learn. x)
Like, to give you an example, you know the “You’re” vs “Your” mistake in English? I seriously don’t understand how it’s possible to mix the two and actually (I may be wrong but) I was under the impression that native English speakers make this mistake more often that non-native English speakers with a good level?
It’s the same with French from my point of view. The other day, I was at a party, discussing with my best friend’s sister-in-law who is Russian and who came to France for her studies (so she had to learn French) and she was complaining about her trainee (as a lawyer) who made a lot of spelling/grammar mistakes.
In her opinion, since she, as a Russian, is able to write an almost flawless French, a native French speaker should be on a similar level, especially as a lawyer trainee. And, well, she’s not wrong at all, but the example of a mistake she gave had me thinking about it for at least a few seconds.
[…The thing is, a few years back there was this project of a law supposed to make the French spelling, grammar and conjugation “simpler” because too many French native speakers can’t seem to write properly (those examples below only being a few). A lot of people (including me) found that outrageous though and thankfully the project was abandoned but, it’s just to say, I’ve seen non native French speakers write almost flawlessly 100% of the time when too many native speakers can’t, so it doesn’t have to be scary as long as you’re not giving up!]
My own example is different though, because as I explained, I feel I questioned my French from the moment I started practicing English daily. As for Spanish, it does have similarities with French (which is why I can understand half of it when reading), but maaan, I hate the past tenses the most and never could get used to them.
Anyway, speaking French is not the real problem here (although some oral mistakes are common for some irregular verbs and pronunciation has its share of exceptions as well), rather it’s writing/spelling it that can be tricky, especially for native speakers. That’s why sometimes I have to pause and recheck my sentence while remembering the rules to avoid a few mistakes.
Soooo, to give you a few examples:
some verbs: ending in -er or in -é? => “chanter” or “chanté” (or “chantée, chantés, chantées”) ?
Typical example of a group of verbs that can be written in different ways but with the same pronunciation when speaking (-é and -er sound the same), which means that how it’s written depends on the context + other words of your sentence.
It’s a situation that concerns all the verbs of (what’s called) the “first group” for conjugation. They all end in “-er” for the infinitive form (except the verb “aller”, which means ‘to go’ and belongs to the “third group” because it’s an irregular), but that doesn’t mean they’ll be written as such in every sentence:
I’m going to sing => Je vais chanter? Je vais chanté?
I sang => J’ai chanté? J’ai chanter?
He went to sing on a stage =>
“ll a été chanter sur scène? Il a été chanté sur scène?
That’s why teachers give a trick to little kids so they can remember how they’re supposed to write it properly, depending on the rest of the sentence.
The trick is to take a verb from the third group and to replace “chanter/chanté” with it to see what form it takes in the sentence and thus how you should write your verb from the first group.
Example with the verb “vendre” (to sell) which is the one I always use xDD
Je vais vendre => infinitive form so:I’m going to sing = Je vais chanter
J’ai vendu => past participle so: I sang = J’ai chanté
Il a été vendre => infinitive form so: He went to sing on a stage = Il a été chanter sur scène
Sounds easy, maybe you already knew that even, but I can assure that it’s one of the most common mistakes French
native
speakers do when writing or spelling (”is it “er” or is it “é” (or -ée, -ées, -és), how should I even know???”).
French direct or indirect objects (COD/COI), a.k.a partially the reason French native speakers wonder about “é”, “ée”, “ées”, “és”, etc.
Trying to give you a simple example and explain why almost every native French speakers hate those, because how you’re going to write your verb (especially for the past participle form) depends on where the COD/COI is in the sentence
sounds hard, so I’m just… going to leave it there as the reason for yet other common mistakes made when writing. x)
Les chansons que j’ai chantées (the songs I sang)
J’ai chanté des chansons (I sang songs)
For #1, the COD (direct object) is “les chansons” (word in plural form and feminine gender) and it’s before the verb, so you’re going to make sure that your verb is going to include that plural form and feminine gender => -é (past participle) e (feminine gender) s (plural form).
For #2, same verb and basically same sentence but the COD (”les chansons”) is after the verb, so your verb stays in simple past participle form (”-é”).
EDIT: ended giving the full explanation here, if you need it.
“Accordance”, a.k.a the other reason
French native speakers wonder about “é”/“ée”/“ées”/“és”, “u”/”ue”/”us”/”ues”, “i”/”ie/“is”/“ies”
Accordance is the correspondence
of gender, number, and/or person when it comes to properly write adjectives, pronouns or verbs in sentences.
Example: Elles sont venues habillées (they came dressed). “Elles” is a pronoun that shows a plural form and feminine gender, so you gotta make sure that your verb and adjective will show the same :
-u (past participle), e (feminine), s (plural)
-ée (feminine), s (plural)
It’s not necessarily where I’ll mess up, but a lot of French native speakers make too many mistakes sometimes, by simply not paying attention.
French subjunctive tense
The tense native speakers use without problem when speaking but who can more often than not not get it right when writing it down for some verbs.
In fact, it’s incredibly hard to explain why and when subjunctive tense is used in the first place and, having helped a few non native French speakers for some documents, I noticed that most of their biggest mistakes would usually come down to this in particular.
It’s a weird tense and I know a few irregular verbs are sometimes giving me some trouble with how they’re supposed to be written for some pronouns.
I only gave you the aspects I know I have to double-check when writing, but I hope this didn’t seem too scary Anon. :3
These rules are all about “how to properly write in French”, it’s not about reading or speaking, that’s why (for you who are learning) I’m sure that going with your own pace and focusing on what your books or teacher say first is important. A good teacher should have lots of lil tricks to help you remember all the rules and exceptions of the French language and, as I told you, I don’t mind helping and sharing my tricks if you need them!
I hope it answered your question, have a nice day :))
Hi Anon, I’m sorry for the delay, I wanted to gather my thoughts about the newest chapter before answering you! :3
So, about this scene:
if Furuta was thinking of Rize only when talking about “Dragon” (and not about Dragon’s different nuclei, one of them being Kaneki), then this may not have been foreshadowing about the Qs playing an important role into rescuing Kaneki as we could see in ch161.
So I’m going back to my initial thought about this scene, which was that the first generation of Qs have two main roles in the story:
And the interesting thing is that they did stop Kaneki with ch161, just like their group saved first Urie and then Mutsuki from losing themselves too, which means that the ones left to possibly stop/help at some point are Saiko…
and possibly Shirazu (which makes sense if you consider @mawjaw’s theory about who the different nuclei Kimi mentioned in the new chapter could be [x][x]).
Remember, Kanou was very impressed by the Qs surgery Chigyou performed on Shirazu and besides, I think Shirazu is still plot relevant considering that…
He still wasn’t buried properly (+ that little part above “I don’t wanna die at the end of my friends” kinda sounds ominous if zombie!Shirazu is really coming back as one of Dragon’s nuclei).
So that’s how I see things for now about this scene:
so maybe Saiko + Urie + Mutsuki, after saving Kaneki, will have to stop/save zombie!Shirazu too.
Considering that Furuta’s plan still wasn’t explained so clearly, I’m sorry that I can’t be certain of what exactly he meant to say in ch128. Nonetheless, the Qs have always been about stopping/saving Kaneki or each other, so after this turning out to be relevant for Urie, Mutsuki and Kaneki, it may as well become relevant for Saiko and zombie!Shirazu in the future.
Just some thoughts, nothing certain as always. :3 I hope it answers your question, have a nice day Anon!
Hello Anon! Sorry, I’m never on youtube, but I kinda have to admit that, presented like that, a reader calling out Sensei for “making a mistake” about his own story on something that wasn’t completely explained yet feels like a joke?
So, I don’t know maybe watch out for things they say in general there, ‘cause Sensei is definitely the only one who knows how things work in TG.
Anyway, this is ROS disease…
…in other words, they’re humans with a too elevated Rc cells rate (similar to ghouls’) but who don’t have a kakuhou to regulate that high rate (unlike ghouls) which leads to something that resembles a kagune bursting out of their body.
So if doctors in TG qualify the following as symptoms of something similar to ROS disease…
…I’d say they know better than all of us.
In my opinion, if those patients turn out to have developed a kakuhou (like the humans-turned-ghouls we saw in the last chapter), then they’ll most likely be able to regulate their elevating rate of Rc cells and they’ll become ghouls. If not, then they’ll end up like Haru, Shirazu’s sister.
ROS is a disease in which basically a human is almost turning into a ghoul, except that they’re most likely missing the kakuhou organ, which is why they end up suffering because they can’t regulate their elevated rates of Rc cells.
Anyway, I don’t know what that person over on youtube said, but I doubt Sensei “made a mistake” lmao. xD
In fact, it doesn’t even matter if he’s Cedric or not, because it’s selfish of him anyway to bring some members of our!Ciel’ and Frances’ family back from the dead, when it’s for sure going to make them feel horrible if he succeeds.
Look at the twin, we don’t even know yet if UT holds any responsibility for the current arc, although it’s very possible he does, but Lizzie felt constantly miserable for at least two months already…
and it’s probably going to be our!Ciel’s turn very soon.
Let’s just say that it’s UT’s duality as a character, his devotion and selfishness completely clash, so I sure wouldn’t want to be in our!Ciel’s and Frances’ shoes either if he ever manages to bring back more than just the twin (which I hope he won’t, really).
so I’m sure she’ll manage if she’s to ever confront UT about what he’s doing.
Thanks for passing by Anon and have a nice day. 🙂
“his devotion and his selfishness completely clash” ooooh
This is about seem cracky but bear with me
It’s interesting, if we are taking the GrandpaUT theory as correct, that his “love” for his dead family is actually making things completely worse for the living AND dead. Like, if he truly loved them he’d leave them alone and let them Rest In Peace. So, it definitely seems like he’s more obsessed with having them close to him/alive, moreso than being happy.
Which, if you think, is kinda what RCiel is doing? “I’m never going to leave your side again”
I definitely think that UT’s devotion to the P family (whatever the reasons are) is making things worse in most aspects (that’s why sometimes I compare him to Kelvin), except maybe when it comes to possibly being a major help towards the contract binding our!Ciel with Seb. x)
As for real!Ciel, if you’re speaking of his current behavior (ch129, ch130) it’s most likely the way he was brought back (with the “episode” method?) that emphasized his obsessive side from childhood for me.
However I do agree that his obsessive side that we saw already in the flashback might be a family trait, I mean Ed is also rather… attached to his sister (although it’s not expressed in a similar grim way as real!Ciel with our!Ciel, at least for now) so who knows. 🙂 Real!Ciel definitely was an obsessive type of person, that much we could see from early on, so it might be something he inherited from someone in the family indeed (be it from UT if he’s the grandfather or even from his mom’s side, I mean, look at Ann -_-).
I also agree that if UT loved the people he wants to bring back, the best would be for him to let them rest in peace, without mentioning not bothering those people’s family either. That’s his problem though, he’s just… clinging because he’s selfish and desperate (and I say that as a big fan of his).
Thanks for reading!
@kajuned Sorry, I’m not sure who you meant by Anna (Ann/Red?), but yes obviously there is no guarantee at all. 🙂 (and @my-lady-no-further: it might interest you!)
All I’m saying is that the “obsessive sibling” pattern may be random or something that Yana wrote on purpose, since it seems there is one in almost every sibling pair of the family (though it’s not for the same reason/expressed the same way):
Unfortunately, we don’t know enough about Vincent & Frances’ sibling dynamic to know if Vincent was as protective of his younger sibling as his son and nephew are (it is a headcanon of mine though), but generally they seem to have managed much better so… eh. xD
Anyway, I’m definitely one to see real!Ciel’s behavior as being… possibly pathological (even from childhood, I mean), but I can understand not everyone considering the same idea and I do agree that his behavior isn’t completely similar to UT’s.
For UT, it is mainly based on probably living a complicated/tragic existence and on desperation for me (what you said)…
whereas for real!Ciel, it seems to have been latent from very early on…
…and this is why I see it as closer to the behavior Ann showed (because she didn’t simply become mad after losing her family; in the first place she could never move on from her obsession over Vincent, in my opinion).
Anyway, I guess we’ll see, but thanks for your input! 🙂
Hi Anon! And OMG, you make a great point, although I do have to say that I disagree about Vincent since personally I can’t blame him for being murdered.
In fact, he seems to have been a good dad in my opinion…
it’s just that his character remains rather mysterious and hard to read in general, but he certainly wasn’t on the same scale as the others, since he at least made sure his sons wouldn’t be left alone should something happen to him.
Frankly, one thing that always baffled me in the fandom is how some readers consider that Berserk is about Guts vs Griffith and like…
I just don’t get it?
I mean, sure, since Casca had a few years of absence, she certainly can’t have become as good as Guts did or as powerful as Femto became, when they were more evenly matched in the past, but nonetheless, Berserk always has been and will be about their trio and my proof…
is right here, because that baby is the biggest link (aside Casca and Guts surviving the Eclipse) between the three of them right now. Besides, would Miura have spent 17 volumes reaching Skellig if Casca’s character wasn’t of the utmost significance to the story?
So I’m sorry that I can’t explain it in a different way xD but for me, Casca is one of the three main characters of Berserk and as such, her role is the same as Guts’ and Griffith’s: she’s partially the reason the story exists, thus she’ll drive the story forward until its end. 🙂
That’s my opinion and I’m afraid I’ll never agree with anyone who considers that Casca is secondary or not relevant anymore, same for the Gutsca dynamic.
I hope it answers your question, have a nice day Anon! :))
midnight-in-town 