The Student Room Group
Reply 1
Il devrait y avoir.. etc.
Reply 2
they should be a restriction on the number of business who can emit polluting gases

On devrait apporter des restrictions au nombre des entreprises qui peuvent emitter les essences toxiques?? any good
Why do you use 'on' and not il devrait y avoir
Reply 4
I said "One should place restrictions on" rather than "there should be" - just depends on which sland you want, I guess
Reply 5
I concede to my more knowledgeable friend above :smile:
Reply 6
Don't forget that "to emit" is "émettre" in French.
It was a good translation. Another could be:

Il devrait y avoir une restriction dans le nombre des entreprises qui peuvent émettre des gazs polluants.
'on' can be used to represent 'one'. just checked it with a 50 year old french professor
wesetters
On doesn't mean one.
Well although it strictly doesn't mean "one", we sometimes translate it like that to show that it doesn't refer to a specific pronoun/person.

"On ne doit pas faire ça" can be (not should be, but can be) translated as "One musn't do that"

because it shows that it doesn't refer to anyone specific. Even though it sounds a bit stilted translated like that, I wouldn't really say it's an anglicisme.
Can't 'on' also mean 'we' sometimes as well, like a more informal version of 'nous'?
Reply 10
So 'on' can really only be used to mean 'we'? And 'nous' is outdated? I did not know this!
Reply 11
People tend to use on rather than nous, but you need to have a sense of when it's appropriate. Novices stick with nous! :biggrin:

eg "are we going to the pool" would be "va-t-on a la piscine?" rather than "allons-nous a la piscine?"
Reply 12
Okay, I see. It's all about getting used to when it sounds right I guess. I'll need to be more careful from now on about when I use which, or how I translate.
I'll need to be more careful from now on about when I use which, or how I translate.

Ditto :smile:

Latest

Trending

Trending