#passe compose with etre
green island
pure moss
.tr
restive pelican
Yes it's an error
Not making the past participle agree only makes sense if « on » is describing a generality or a passive
pure moss
ok thank you
kind vine
Both are accepted for this usage of "on", using the plural agreement or singular. It's a matter of preference, though generally people will make the plural agreement when it's a replacement for "nous", and it is always singular when it is not a replacement for "nous"
The explanation text is a bit off there, especially for the response it gives, though
restive pelican
I said it was an error considering that the answer had 'we' and the question itself marked out usage of « on » as a plural pronoun
There are situations where you probably wouldn't make that accord
Though those situations escape me since every sentence in my head right now has « avoir » verbs like « on parle français ici »
kind vine
You can always choose to make it singular, as it's grammatically singular, it will never be wrong and many people do this or teach this
The explanation text hints that as an informal "nous" it MUST be plural which is not the case, and additionally conflicts with the "correct" response being singular when the sentence more than likely is using it as an informal "nous"
I'd say overall you're probably more likely to see it agree in the plural, and that is what I was taught, but will depend on who you're talking to
restive pelican
« On est content de vous voir sain et sauf »
kind vine
On est allé(s) au parc ce soir, on est descendu(s) du train, etc
Can even throw an "e" in there if you want, though only in the plural (unless you're messing with the rules intentionally)
So tl;dr your answer is the correct one according to the explanation text, but both answers are correct grammatically (either way, yours shouldn't be marked wrong)
keen cargo
I don't get why the past participle would be plural with on if verbs aren't
Like it's on parle and not on parlent
Why not on sommes descendus
Or on sont descendus
It just makes sense that it's singular grammatically
restive pelican
It just makes sense that it's singular grammatically
Sure, but that’s not what the pronoun is representing, and that’s the crux of the issue. French repurposed Latin’s second person plural vos as a second person formal singular and its conjugation did not change even though its past participle has evolved from only accepting plural accords to accepting singular ones as well.
Grammatically, « vos estis conténtus » wouldn’t have made any sense given its history yet French evolved that into « vous êtes content » for a new informal/formal paradigm that Latin never had
keen cargo
Après c'est un problème qui concerne vraiment que l'écrit
À l'écrit on réfléchit à ce qu'on fait bcp plus qu'à l'oral donc pk pas i guess
Perso j'ai toujours appris que on était toujours singulier
restive pelican
Oui mais même beaucoup de grammairiens ont accepté que le « on » au pluriel était acceptable, du moins ceux qui travaillent pour Projet Voltaire
keen cargo
Ce que je comprends pas dans le message original du thread (c'est trop chiant qu'on puisse pas y répondre) c'est qu'on lui dit d'écrire descendu alors que dans l'explication ils disent que c'est pluriel
restive pelican
Oui c’est la raison pour laquelle j’ai dit que c’était une erreur
keen cargo
C'est quel site ça ?