FlagOnce

Firstly, it's good and fully readable by a Frenchie, good job. Here's few notes below for helping yourself to improve: For the first sentence, few corrections: "Pour moi aussi, Paris et la Tour Eiffel sont en quelques sortes les symboles principaux de la France.". For principal/principaux, it's the -al termination rule that applies sometimes. Example: "un cheval/des chevaux", "un canal/des canaux". Take care: some words look like the -al applies, but it doesn't (example: "un portail/des portails"). Also, Tour is feminine hence the "la". As well, âge is best written with a "â" instead of "a". Stéréotypique may exists, we would rather prefer (if you want a native-like translate): "C'est peut-être cliché", or "Cela ressemble peut-être à des stéréotypes" (former is more native-like than the latter). It's "personellement", not "personallement".

It's an issue I often get on and where I don't know much about what I can do, leading me to more improvisation: how to help others learning a language when yourself you're not a teacher? Take an example. I know English & French. I speak them both. I meet an English speaker who wants to learn French. How can I help this person to learn French efficiently? I don't especially have resources, I don't have strategies in mind. Sure, I know how to write French sentences (luckily!), but about communicating that to someone else, that's another affair that suddenly becomes more challenging. I think anyway we already defy this challenge with every single post in this forum, anyway.

Non, je ne vais pas vous apprendre à utiliser un ordinateur. Heureusement. Ça me prendrait trop de temps de vous expliquer tout. Mais par contre, la technologie est des fois facile à utiliser, mais il y a d'autres fois où vous ne comprenez plus rien à la technologie. Et souvent, ça arrive quand vous en avez le plus besoin. Vous réservez un vol sur le site Internet de votre compagnie aérienne, et c'est à ce moment là que vous allez avoir plein d'erreurs. Par contre, quand vous postez des photos stupides dans la soirée, bien évidemment, tout se passe bien. Juste histoire de vous énerver. Donc, que pensez-vous des ordinateurs aujourd'hui ? Ils sont simple à utiliser, ou ils ne sont pas assez facile d'utilisation ?

Okay, hm, so I would add some details here: Anna above is right about her statement on sûrement. It is written with the û and not simply u, because in French, "sur" means "over" or "on" in English, like "Je m'assois sur la table" = "I sit on the table", meanwhile "sûr" is more like "confident". I think, as well, it sounds more correct to say "je m'achèterai du maquillage [...]", since you use "nous irons", instead of "je vais m'acheter". But that's not mandatory, I just feel it more correct the way I stated. Even some Frenchies does worst than that.

Honestly, I think you mix up grammar and pronunciation, and that's not the same story. It should be considered as something different, because it's more related to pronunciation rules (whether you say the t or not, etc.). For example, devient, it maybe terminate by "ent", but there's also an "i", changing the whole story. After all, you say "viens" as you say "devient", as you say "préviens", even if it ends with "ens". Meanwhile, peuvent, veulent, etc. are all separated, from a pronunciation perspective, of other syllables. There's not a letter interfering with the -ent at the end. That's my explanation, at least, of the issue. I'm not authoritative, but that's what I would say.

When it comes to vocabulary, you have two efficient way to learn it: you read, and you write. I'm not against flash cards, but I always learnt with practice so I think it's the way to go to learn a language. After all, you'll read all the idioms and the used words by native speakers just by reading text, watching content or listening speeches. Same goes for vocabulary, and you would get a nice bonus: you will get the vocabulary relevant and idiomatic to the environment or the community. Example, in technology, you will hear about hashtag and not only "sharp tag", even if both could be valid theoretically.

I must admit the first time I heard about that, I was like "why?". Yes, sign language depends of the main language you are talking to. For example, the English's sign language isn't the same as the French's sign language. I don't understand, honestly. If there could be one benefit for those who have to speak that language, it would be to not have to cope with all the mess of multiple languages depending of the country. But no, it feels like communications barriers are more enjoyable than I thought. Or maybe it's just stupid. In your opinion, why it happens? Why is there is multiple sign languages? Do you think it's a true benefit?

Oh, yeah. If you, English speakers, you often dance in nightclubs, in French we would rather dance in a "night's box", or "boîte de nuit". Don't get me wrong, it means nightclub, and not night's box. Otherwise, a gift's box would be a giftclub, and I don't know how a giftclub should look like (it could gift dancing on a dancefloor, or gifts inside a box themselves, I don't know!) While it feels weird, it's the real translation, and you should know that dance floor is used in French, but if you look for the French equivalent, it could be "piste de dance". Yes, it's long. But if you ever want to dance in French, now, you're a little closer.

Yes, you can find them in the most official and formal letters. Example, if you get something from your notary, then you will see these kind of formal sentences. As well for some administrations (I could say easily all but I think some aren't even that polite and formal). So it is not much used, you're right, and you shouldn't spend much time to learn that. You can try, if you really want to, but then it won't be much useful. Anyway, you use the "langage courant" when communicating to everyday coworkers, and not the formal language, that's why you can hear as much as "tu" (but it's not the most recommended, it can hurt some people if you call them "tu" straight away).

Oh well, firstly, welcome and I would be happy to help! If I could dress up a list, with various different meanings, to use ONLY in familiar language, it could be: C'est cool (cool doesn't mean "cold", cool in French is used as "it's something good and in the trend") C'est pas mal (means it's not so bad, not to use if it's better than that) C'est sympa C'est amusant/joli (I put this in example to incitate to use another positive and appropriate adjective, it works) C'est bien fait (means: well made, well produced, well manufactured, etc.) J'aime bien (I like it) When you dislike: C'est bof (really familiar language, means you find it not too bad, but not good) C'est pas terrible C'est passable (less familiar, maybe too oldish) J'aime pas (I dislike it) C'est pas génial (It's bad but not tooooo bad) C'est pas super Ça pourrait être mieux (it could have been better) Hope it is enough and it helps!

C'est pas mal du tout. Je vais faire une petite correction au début, mais ce n'est rien de sérieux. Je pense que "je vais bien essayer" n'est pas ce que vous vouliez dire, mais que vous vouliez plutôt dire "je veux bien essayer" (I accept to try/I give it a try, in English). Si je me trompe, dites moi la phrase que vous vouliez dire en Anglais, et j'essayerais de la traduire. Un petit commentaire sur la musique, aussi : il y a plein de chanteurs français, ne vous arrêtez pas à cela. Je pense que vous pouvez trouver plein d'autres chansons à votre goût en Français.

I feel like putting subtitle is a language affair. Why? Well, because subtitles are subject to translation and often, subtitles are translated to make the video accessible to more countries not understanding the spoken language of the movie or of the audio file. But also, it is about doing a what Frenchies would call "dictée". It's a dictation to understand what the person is saying and to transcript it on a "paper", then to synchronize it to the movie. Synchronization is bound to the way you pronounce words, and that is once again defined by language. So in fact, you need true knowledge about your language to do it right. So I would like to know if some are passionate about subtitles, and how much they find this skill and hobby/work is related to languages?

Conditional and future are often associated in French. Why? Because Future means it is certain, meanwhile Conditional is often used for uncertain Future. See, let me explain. You are sure the person will sing dressed in red, so, in French, you would say : "Elle (She) chantera (will sing) avec une robe rouge (with a red dress)". After all, you are certain about that! And a red dress is a good choice, eh? Well, but you aren't sure the song the singer will sing. So, you could say : "Elle (She) chanterait (may sing) du rock (rock)". See the difference? Firstly, the former is sure, the latter is conditional. As well, you have more letters in the conditional form (-ait for conditional, -a for future).

And me, I think you start to be insulting regarding my spelling: meanwhile feels appropriate here. Maybe while would be more appropriate, but if/while/meanwhile are close and so I think I can use them as needed. Not much deal here. But in fact, I appreciate corrections in general, but not from you. When you say my English looks like "Google Translate", it's not something I can't accept and in fact, you're pedantic here. For a community of language learners, your open mindness is as thin as a lonely strand of hair. So next time, either you do help appropriately and do not criticize randomly someone without knowledge, or you just say nothing.

Question that may feel stupid, but are not that stupid: should units be converted while translating? Or appended as a note? Let's take some countries using the pounds, and some other countries using the grams. And it happens you are converting a text with pounds to a language mainly read by people understanding only grams? What is the appropriate behavior? After all, the purpose of the translation is only to translate the meaning, and if some understand the meaning of 5 nautical miles, it wouldn't mean so much to many. But also it may be felt as a way to denature the content, especially if it is intended (a story about someone being in US shouldn't pay suddenly in € in the Spanish version).

Oh, "c'est ça". Yes, it's not always what you think, especially when you hear a ironical tone. Well, in general, sarcasm or irony means that the current sentence you hear shouldn't be taken literally. The problem for the language learner is: what does it mean, in a "ironical" way? First, let's focus on what the "c'est ça" idiom means. Firstly, there's "C'est ça qui fait que les trains roulent.". Here, "c'est ça", simply means "It's that which makes trains running.". Now, "c'est ça", is also used as "you're right" or "that's this". Now, the ironical way means more "You're right" in a ironical way. See?

Nice if you know the word, but that's not the case of everyone and using synonyms explaining clearly what it means (especially in a forum of language learners, remember) is rather a good idea. Outside of the name to use for that, the ways to get into it, when it's not as popular as "Chinatowns" in popular cities, isn't as easy. I think it is more based on associations or something you have to subscribe in to know the activities, or you have to know well a cities full of building and that's as hard. Much like the needle in the haystack ;p

If there's a that huge French community, then there's probably something. Not exactly a city, but an association, a community, a bar (there's sometimes "Canadian" bars I think, so for other countries it might exist as well), I don't know. Proper language learning is driven by the fact (some) people may talk Chinese here better than you. And if it happens that the retailers and restaurants at Chinatown doesn't, the consumer will probably, since some will meet this town to not forget their home culture. It depends of the local population. What's your local population? Is there is Portuguese-speaking people here? How much? And then you can know if it's likely or not. Search for demographics on Internet, you will know.

You should more find out if they find it is a problem for them or not, rather than thinking about anything cultural or I don't know. If they're interested to know the Filipino culture, they would go ahead, learn the language and the culture as well. Same if they want Filipino friends. But, if, when they was born, you wasn't living there, I do find it's normal you didn't strive to make them learn Filipino language. If you were, however, it's a bit weird but not a problem if they can communicate with the whole family. That's the point I say here: you don't forget something you use, and if your whole family use it, I am against forgetting the native language, hey, family matters. But having the foreign superseding the native one wouldn't be a problem. That's nice for you and happy you succeeded in English! It brings hope to everyone I'm sure You didn't wrote this. I did, and you quoted me but without the quote tag. That's my sentence. Look just above.

Computing was designed mainly with Latin alphabet in mind. No accents, no acutes even for the Spanish or French, nothing, just plain latin letters. That's the base of the computing. After, with the expansion of computers and the horrible non-standard codes that started to come out, engineers found a way to support more alphabets and language without making it an headache. Well, making it a little bit less complex, since it is still a bit complex, honestly, but then. But for everyday computing, how it's going for you? Is usage of computers easy? How do you manage the presence of Latin alphabet meanwhile it's not your native alphabet at all? Did you learn that alphabet?

There's often two competing ways of learning grammar, that comes both in the context of learning the grammar of your native language to write better, and of the target language you're trying to learn. The first one is based on the rules. You try to learn as much rules as possibles and choose the right way to write the word depending of the rules. Sure, they may get complex and you may need to learn them multiple times. The other way around is to read, read, read, and try to know the basic rules (because these ones are too much essentials) but then base yourself under your read text in the past: you write the word as you saw others writing it earlier. What approach would you choose, and why?

Given how much conflicts starts from an incomprehension, and given the probability of a conflict to happen is raising with the number of barriers increasing, I wouldn't say it is as beneficial for the culture than said. Since (commercial) exchanges happens more in the world, with the transportation and the globalized markets, there's still conflicts, yes, but less conflicts. It's obvious. You can't have an open market and fight with all the countries at the same time. Now, people will feel less different from people from other countries if they speak the same language. They would be able to understand the culture of all countries, instead of being centered on ours, and the more you communicate, the more you empathize and less you want to fight.

I think it's obvious you can't translate what you can't understand, since the translation process is the following: you read the English text, you get the meaning and intent, you write it in another language. There's an intermediate "language" not for nothing here: it's for focusing not on the words so much, but rather on what it means. Now, I think that if you can understand the meaning without understanding all the implications, I think you can go ahead and translate it. Much like when you know correctly the "law language" but you don't especially know what it implies behind a law.I think it's obvious you can't translate what you can't understand, since the translation process is the following: you read the English text, you get the meaning and intent, you write it in another language. There's an intermediate "language" not for nothing here: it's for focusing not on the words so much, but rather on what it means. Now, I think that if you can understand the meaning without understanding all the implications, I think you can go ahead and translate it. Much like when you know correctly the "law language" but you don't especially know what it implies behind a law.

No, I don't talk about professional transcription since if you are proficient in transcription you don't need anymore to learn the language. But the transcription can be used as a way of teaching. It combines active behavior (writing what you hear) and passive behavior (hearing is a "passive" task, often) where you can't ask for details and so on. Example. Catch a conversation, go in a street speaking your target language, check a TV show or any movie or theater doing something in your target language. Then, try, as you can, to hear the words and write the result of what you heard. Usually, as you won't try much to interpret the meaning, you will be focused on hearing the right word, yielding better performance.

Okay, I will be honest with you here: some of the native speakers struggle here to say and write down the correct grammar. But then, yes, there's two ways of "voir" in French. But in fact, they have no link between the two. And obviously, you can't really identify them in spoken French since the "e" would be probably inaudible. Sorry for you. But you have the opportunity to understand. "Voir", well, it's like "see". Not "sea" (even if it sounds the same in English), "see", like "I see you" (this is often said in hide and seek games). So to that extent, it is simple to understand, nothing to add. Now, "voire", a bit more complicated. It's close to a conditional "even". Example: "I will go home at 7 PM, or even later " could translate to "J'irais à la maison à 19 heures, voire plus tard".