#auxve
atomic prairie
tranquil lantern
For the first one, yes, but for the second it’s part of the reflexive infinitive « se dépêcher »
wanton sage
Often, yes.
T'es fatigué(e), toi?
This is for emphasis as the second toi doesn't need to be there.
However:
Dépêche-toi!
This is not for emphases as the verb is se dépêcher, so the pronoun is necessary. It makes no sense to say just dépêche.
tepid folio
Ok so it is like “se commence”?
narrow crest
Also, dépecher exists but it needs a direct object so you can't just use it by itself.
wanton sage
se dépêcher
je me dépêche
tu te dépêches (dépêche-toi)
il / elle / on se dépêche
nous nous dépêchons
vous vous dépêchez (dépêchez-vous)
ils se dépêchent
tepid folio
“Se dépêcher” means what?
narrow crest
Hurry up.
tranquil lantern
When you make a positive imperative, the object has to move in front of the verb and if the object is « me/te » it becomes « moi/toi ». So, if we have a sentence like « Tu le dis », that will become « Dis-le ! » in the positive imperative. Pronominals have the reflexive pronoun so that is reflected in the conversion : « Tu te dépêches –> Dépêche-toi ! »
wanton sage
Se presser, se hâter de faire quelque chose, le faire vite
tepid folio
When you make a positive imperative, the object has to move in front of the verb...
Ah, that makes sense
wanton sage
To rush or hurry, to do something quickly.
tepid folio
Ok
wanton sage
When you make a positive imperative, the object has to move in front of the verb...
Notice also the weird rule that in the second person positive imperative, the verb conjugaison loses its "s"
tu te dépêches
dépêche-toi! (no s)
This happens for all such verbs.
tepid folio
When you make a positive imperative, the object has to move in front of the verb...
From this would “je me réveille” become “reveille-moi”?
tranquil lantern
From this would “je me réveille” become “reveille-moi”?
So no because the imperative only works for singular/plural second and plural first
narrow crest
Also, réveille-moi means wake me up.
tepid folio
Ok so tu le réveille becomes réveille toi?
tranquil lantern
Tu te réveilles -> Réveille-toi
wanton sage
Right.
Tu te réveilles
Réveille-toi.
tranquil lantern
Watch out for the object pronoun there
tepid folio
Ok this makes so much more sense to me now thank you 😁
wanton sage
No worries, our pleasure 🙂
tranquil lantern
Oh yeah do note that the pronoun inversion only happens in positive imperatives; the existence of negative adverbs like « ne … pas » and « ne … jamais » block that from happening
Tu te dépêches -> Dépêche-toi !
Tu ne te dépêches pas -> Ne te dépêche pas !
In case you're curious, this is why French people can shorten « Ne t'inquiète pas (Don't worry) » to just « T'inquiète » and still interpret it as a negative; that deleted « ne … pas » prevents the inversion. The positive version would be « Inquiète-toi (Be worried) » which is hard to confuse with « T'inquiète ».
tepid folio
👍
narrow crest
This phenomenon is limited to this verb, you don't see that with other verbs.
tranquil lantern
So other words would be “ne t’cours pas” for example?
Just « ne cours pas », courir doesn't take an object
tepid folio
Aren’t worry and running both verbs?
tranquil lantern
Tu le dis -> Dis-le !
Tu ne le dis pas -> Ne le dis pas !
Tu parles -> Parle !
Tu ne parles pas -> Ne parle pas !
There's no inversion in the second example because there is no object pronoun to invert anyway
tranquil lantern
Aren’t worry and running both verbs?
Yes but « s'inquiéter » has an object pronoun, the reflexive pronoun « se »
« courir » doesn't
tepid folio
Oh so “don’t” is the reason why it is “t’”
tranquil lantern
don't = ne … pas
tepid folio
Huh
tranquil lantern
« te » is the reflexive agreeing to the subject
tranquil lantern
**__se dépêcher__**
je **me** dépêche
tu **te** dépêches (dépêche-**toi**)
il /...
Like this example
The reflexive pronoun « se » changes according to the subject.
tepid folio
This phenomenon is limited to this verb, you don't see that with other verbs.
Well if it is only this I guess I won’t really have to worry about it
Oh ne t’commence pas would work?
tranquil lantern
Well if it is only this I guess I won’t really have to worry about it
What he's referring to is the deletion of ne … pas. There are other reflexives that do follow this rule like « se réveiller (to wake up) » or « se dépêcher (to hurry up) »
tepid folio
Oh I think I get it
tranquil lantern
Oh ne t’commence pas would work?
No because most versions of « commencer » don't take an object.
tepid folio
I’m thick what does it mean by “taking an object”
tranquil lantern
I’m thick what does it mean by “taking an object”
It requires an object. The verb « prendre (to take) », for example, has an object; you take something. So just saying « Prends ! » doesn't work because you didn't specify an object; it's saying, 'Take!' in English. Take what? The verb « parler (to speak) » on the other hand doesn't have an object; you just speak. So, just saying « Parle ! » does work since an object is not required.
tepid folio
Ohhhh
tepid folio
Oh ne t’commence pas would work?
Also would it be “te commence pas” anyway?
tranquil lantern
Also would it be “te commence pas” anyway?
No because « commencer » doesn't take an object. That being said, « Ne commence pas / Commence pas (Don't start) » works.
tepid folio
Yes
Alrighty
Thank you very much i know I am high maintenance at teaching so well done lol
tepid folio
I understand well now but I’m watching something in French so if I don’t understand something I’ll just put it in salle de classe
wanton sage
Thank you very much i know I am high maintenance at teaching so well done lol
Not at all. These are concepts that don't exist in English so can take a while to wrap your head around. Feel free to ask as many questions as you need, we're always here to help!
tepid folio
thank you 😊
tepid folio
Wait would you say « tu ne comprehend pas » or « ne te comprehend pas »
Ne te comprehend pas, right?
@wanton sage
wanton sage
What are you trying to say?
tepid folio
« You don’t understand? »
wanton sage
tu ne comprends pas
wanton sage
you said the same thing twice im confused sorry
wanton sage
Ah, no they are the same.
Tu ne comprends pas -- statement
Tu ne comprends pas? -- question
tepid folio
It requires an object. The verb « prendre (to take) », for example, has an objec...
To understand it require an object so you would say « ne te comprehend pas »
wanton sage
ahh
no thats prendre
comprendre does not necessarily take an object
so you can just say
je ne comprends pas
tu ne comprends pas
il ne comprend pas
etc
tepid folio
Comprendre means « to understand »
wanton sage
yes
wanton sage
Im lost again, sorry, misspelt what?
tepid folio
I misspelt « comprendre »
wanton sage
ah yes, it is not comprehend
its comprendre
comprendre
je comprends
tu comprends
il / elle / on comprend
nous comprenons
vous comprenez
ils comprennent
tepid folio
If it is a statement it does require an object right because « understand » understand what? Would it change between saying that someone doesn’t understand and asking if they don’t understand?
wanton sage
I'm not sure of all the logical rules but comprendre doesn't need to take an object. It can, but it doesn't have to.
It's the same in English. You can say
I understand it (object), or you can just say
I understand (no object)
In French
je le comprends (object)
je comprends (no object)
wanton sage
Theres probably a name for it but I dont know it sorry haha
Both technically but French is the real answer
that's why my name is blue 🙂
tepid folio
Ah Québec?
wanton sage
yes 🙂
tepid folio
Don’t you speak a slightly different type of French?
wanton sage
The accent here is different and our vocabulary can change a little bit, hence we call it québecois, but the language is French
all the rules and grammar are the same
tepid folio
Oh alright