Every year, it's the same old story: we make resolutions. Quitting alcohol, getting back into sports, reading at least one book a week, saving more... But after a while, we can't keep them up. The reason? They are sometimes too ambitious and their standards are high. If you want to take one, how about learning how to recognize ten spelling mistakes? This way, you will no longer be trapped by these pitfalls of the French language. Le Figaro takes a look at these ten syntax, grammar and conjugation errors on which you will now be irreproachable. Anthology.
To discover
- Crossword, Sudoku, 7 Letters... Keep your mind sharp with Le Figaro Jeux
Read alsoIs French spelling really (too) complicated?
'Amaze' to 'surprise'
We tend to think of them as synonyms. Yet, these two verbs are significantly different. What should we say between "this news surprised me" or "this news surprised me"? "To be amazed" means "to be shaken like thunder." Derived from the popular Latin "extonare", this verb etymologically means "to strike with lightning, to strike with amazement". While the definition of "surprise", given by the TLFi, is as follows: "To discover, to find someone in a situation where someone would have preferred not to be seen" or "to seize unexpectedly". To illustrate the difference between the two words, the section "Dire, ne pas dire" of the Académie française relates this anecdote from a great lexicographer: "To his wife who, having discovered him in gallant company, had exclaimed: 'My friend, I am surprised!', he replied: 'No, Madame, you are astonished, it is we who are surprised.'
»"Believe in" or "believe in"?
«
I believe in this story" or "I believe in this story"? Not sure which preposition to choose? All you have to do is change one and the sentence no longer has the same meaning. Indeed, "to believe in" means "to be persuaded of the truthfulness, efficacy or existence of someone or something". So we'll say, "Children still believe in Santa Claus" or "I believe in astrology." Whereas, "believe in" means "trusting someone or something." It is used in relation to people or things on which we base our hopes, or in which we place our trust. For example: "I've always believed in him." For the former, it is an intellectual adhesion, while for the latter, it is a surrender and an adhesion of the heart.
"Matthew's Idea"
What should be written between "Matthew's idea" or "Matthew's idea"? Here, the feminine noun 'idea' is the antecedent of the relative pronoun 'that', itself COD of the pronominal verb 'to do'. However, this COD is placed before the auxiliary. Pronominal verbs (or reflexive verbs) follow the same rule of agreement of the past participle, i.e. when a direct transitive verb is used with the auxiliary "to have" and a COD precedes it. So we will say, "Matthew's idea." Be careful, if the COD is after the verb, the past participle remains invariable: "You have given yourself useless frightens".
'She got scolded'
Unlike the previous example, adding an "e" on top of the verb "do" is a mistake. It's easy to get confused with pronominal verbs. But the difference here is the presence of an infinitive verb. The verb 'faire' when it appears before an infinitive, in this case 'scold', is very often wrongly provided with an 'e' or an 's'. Now, remember that whenever you see the past participle of the verb "to do" followed by an infinitive, it is always invariable, regardless of the gender of the noun. So we will say, "She was scolded." Ditto when the COD precedes the verb "to make": "The dresses that Marion had made." But, in the absence of an infinitive verb, the past participle agrees, as mentioned in the previous point: "The dress she made.
»To "the intention of" or "the attention of"?
«
Am I writing to the mayor" or "I am writing to the mayor"? It's hard to tell these similar terms apart... From the Latin "attentio", the term "attention" is the act of reaching out one's mind to someone or something. In administrative language, therefore, the phrase "for the attention of" is used, followed by the name of the addressee: "for the attention of the mayor", precisely to attract the attention of the person to whom the letter is sent. "Intention" marks a tension towards someone or something, it is a movement of will that can be negative or positive. We raise funds "for" the poorest or we can make a trial of "intent" against someone.
Read alsoDo "Covid babies" have a harder time talking than other children?
"It's the most beautiful thing he's ever done"
Here, the fault is not at the level of the past participle: the construction, as seen above, is indeed correct. However, there is one more mistake in the sentence... It has to do with the use - here incorrect - of the adverb of time 'never'. The latter is used mainly today with the negative particle "ne" and means "at no time": "We have never seen anything like it", "I had never heard of it". But, there is also a small nuance. The adverb also means, in a positive sense, "at any time," in the past or future: "If you ever come, I will show you my house." When it has this meaning, it should not be used with the negation "ne," but should be written, "It is the most beautiful thing he ever made," since the thing in question was realized.
"Pay by card" or "pay by card"?
There is a subtlety depending on the preposition you use. We say 'pay in cash', 'pay in cash' or 'in euros'. There is a reason for this: the verb phrase 'payer en' implies that one pays what is meant by the noun introduced by the preposition 'en'. In this case, cash, currency, etc. Whereas "pay by" indicates the means by which one pays or its frequency: "pay in monthly instalments", "pay by bank transfer". Thus, we will say "pay by (bank) card" and not "pay by card". Note that for the word cheque, we can use both verb phrases because we give a cheque to the person we are paying.
"We have a problem with his decision-making"
As everyone knows, the devil is in the details. So it is with prepositions. If in the Middle Ages, many expressions were made up of a verb followed by a noun without a determiner, in particular with avoir or faire, as for "to have a job", "to have joy", "to give time", which have now disappeared, only a few expressions without a determinant such as "to be hungry, to seek a quarrel, to lose patience", and so on, are still accepted today. However, "making a problem", which has been attested since the nineteenth century, is not advisable. On his model were built the faulty turns of phrase "to pose a problem" and "to ask a question" which are to be avoided in a neat language. So we will say, "We have a problem with his decision-making."
"Far from it" or "far from it"?
Appearing in the mid-nineteenth century, a phrase is all the rage today: "Far from it". Have you ever used it? If so, you should know that this is a gross error resulting from a mixture between two existing phrases: "far from it" and "so far from it". "Tant s'en loin" means "so much is missing", i.e. "so much is missing". She says that there is "a big difference", that we are "far from it" and that it is "a long way off" to get there. Thus, one will not say "I did not understand everything about this book, far from it!", but "I did not understand everything about this book, far from it".
"Real" or "real"?
"I don't really have much to say to him." We're so used to hearing it that we almost notice it anymore. However, one of the roles of prepositions, such as 'to', 'of', 'for', 'on', 'in', 'with', 'in', is to introduce nouns. While they sometimes introduce adverbs, such as "come from afar", or certain adjectives such as "to be false", this cannot be applied to all adjectives, including "true". Therefore, although it is not grammatically incorrect, it is better to avoid the expression "in reality" and to prefer the phrases "in reality" or "in truth", or "to tell the truth".