I was wondering which conjugation fits best in each of these sentences, some have more than one answer. And no, this is not homework. These were questions that I got wrong on a test, and my teacher couldn’t really explain why they were wrong, so now I turn to the SDMB for answers.
Si je te (donner) de l’argent, (pouvoir)-tu acheter une nouvelle robe demain?
Si vous (avoir) le temps, venez me voir.
L’été dernier quand mes parents étaient en France, ils m’(écrire) chaque dimanche. Si j’(être) à leur place, je n’aurais pas pu faire cela.
Si vous (vouloir) voir la pièce, il faudra acheter des billets en avance.
If you could explain why one uses a certain conjugation in a certain place, ça m’aiderait beaucoup.
Et aussi, comment dit-on “conjugation” en français?
Si je te (donner) de l’argent, (pouvoir)-tu acheter une nouvelle robe demain?
Si vous (avoir) le temps, venez me voir.
L’été dernier quand mes parents étaient en France, ils m’(écrire) chaque dimanche. Si j’(être) à leur place, je n’aurais pas pu faire cela.
Si vous (vouloir) voir la pièce, il faudra acheter des billets en avance.
Si je te donne de l’argent, pourras-tu m’acheter une nouvelle robe demain?
The second verb could have been written as “peux-tu” if the person had not
written “demain”-- clearly requiring the future tense.
Si vous avez le temps, venez me voir.
L’été dernier, quand mes parents étaient en France, ils m’écrivaient chaque dimanche. (écrivaient-- the ‘imparfait’ denotes in this case a repeated or habitual action). Si j’avais été à leur place, je n’aurais pas pu faire cela. (in this case, the plus-que-parfait tense used in the clause containing the condition calls for a conditional anterior tense in the other clause).
Si vous voulez voir la pièce, if faudra acheter des billets…
“Si je te donne de l’argent, pourras-tu acheter une robe demain?” : “strong” hypothetical. You’re enquiring about the good will of the other person, but seriously intend to hand him money if he agrees.
2)“Si je te donne de l’argent, pourrais-tu acheter une robe demain?”. Same as above. Slightly more formal/polite.
2)" Si je te donne de l’argent, peux-tu acheter une robe demain?" Same as above. possibly remotely uncorrect in theory, I wouldn’t know for sure, but extremely common.
“Si je te donnais de l’argent, pourrais-tu acheter une robe demain?” “weak” hypothetical. You’re just enquiring, and do not necessarily intend to give the money. You just want to know.
“Si vous avez le temps, venez me voir”. I wouldn’t know how this is called grammatically, but it’s kind of a “permanent present” : whenever you can (in the future), come.
Two possibilities :
1)“Ils m’ont écrit chaque dimanche”
“ils m’écrivaient chaque dimanche”
There’s only a very slight difference, and difficult to explain. The first one is somewhat more emphatic (I was very pleased. They sent me a letter each sunday), the second one more neutral, descriptive of a regular action occuring in the past. But honestly, you can use either without worrying. Once again, it’s possible that the first one isn’t in theory perfectly correct (since it follows the “imparfait” “étaient”). But if it isn’t, essentially no french speaker would be aware of it, except for grammarians.
In both cases, it’s followed by “si j’avais été à leur place”. Don’t ask me why. It’s just so. A conditionnal sentence in the past is formed with “plus que parfait” ( “si j’avais mangé celà”) + “conditionnel passé” ( “j’aurais été malade”).
“Si vous voulez voir la pièce” : The intent is expressed by the present.
Si je te donnais de l’argent, pourrais-tu acheter une robe demain?
Si vous aurez le temps, venez me voir
L’été dernier quand mes parents étaient en France, ils m’écrivaient chaque dimanche. Si j’etais à leur place, je n’aurais pas pu faire cela.
Si vous voudriez voir la pièce, il faudra acheter des billets en avance.
The one that bothers me the most is number 3, with …ils m’écrivaient chaque… My teacher said that one must use the perfect past (m’ont ecrit) because the imparfait is never used with chaque. Je crois qu’elle devient folle…
Also, thanks for the help with the others. I feel stupid for missing number 2; I should have known to use the present.
Nope. “si j’etais à leur place” is only used for the present. “Si j’etais à leur place, je ne pourrais pas faire celà”.
Nope. “voudriez” is the “conditionnel présent”. For instance : “si vous connaissiez cet acteur, vous voudriez voir la pièce” .
In a conditionnal sentence, the “imparfait” is used for the condition (knowing the actor) and the “conditionnel présent” for the subsequent action (going to the theater). (respectively the “plus-que-parfait” and “conditionnel passé” for a past conditionnal sentence, as in the previous example).
Ok…Waking up early this morning, and remembering reading peeking recently at a a grammar book and discovering there arez zillions of rules which are totally ignored by 99.9 % of the french population, I had second thoughts, concerning “chaque” and the imparfait.
It came to my mind that maybe there could actually exist some obscure rule, stating that the “imparfait” can’t be used after “chaque” (that “tous les dimanches, j’allais a la mese” is correct, while “chaque dimanche j’allais a la messe” is not). So, perhaps your teacher is right, and perhaps she’ll be able to point at the page 347 of her book " 1001 obscure french grammar rules to trick your students", and laugh at you.
I don’t have a complete reference grammar book to check that. But however, I would maintain that in any case, “chaque” followed by the imparfait is used without second thought by eveybody, except possibly the 0.1% of the population who, for some unfathomable reason, would have heard about this obscure rule and would apply it. That’s assuming that your teacher is right and such a rule exist (though I don’t have such a faith in teacher’s knowledge, generally speaking, as to assume they’re always right). If true, then, you’re going to learn something which will allow you to correct essentially all the french population about the proper use of their language. If it’s the point of your french courses, then, that’s great.
