yep...love it. Hey Jacques...what should we call zis train, eh? Dunno...what about "really fast train?" I love eet...let's abbreviate eet so eet sounds more impressive...hon hon hon...
To be fair the British were hardly more inspired. Our (comparatively rubbish) equivalent was called the HST... er, High Speed Train. And they made a fancy one with advanced technology which they called the... Advanced Passenger Train. Clearly no-one had any sense of poetry in the early '70s
As a child he broke both legs, and they did not heal properly. As a result, his legs ceased to grow, so that as an adult he was extremely short (1.42 m or 4 ft 8 in). He developed an adult-sized torso, while retaining his child-sized legs
Fun facts: He was about 4'11'', but he was particularly well-endowed. So, he was known as 'Le trépied' (the tripod) and such was his priapism, he was also known as 'La Théière' (the teapot) by many of the working girls. He was permanently 'ready', shall we say!
He never conquered Northern Europe, the European part of the Ottoman Empire, most of European Russia, Portugal and of course the British Isles. I think it's fair to say Napoleon didn't conquer more than half of Europe. Nonetheless, all the places he did conquer (or held indirect power over) made up an empire comparable to the Roman Empire.
Chef d'état is said as often as coup d'état in french and should be accepted, although I understand that english speaking persons most likely never heard of it.
Oh... And I really though, this quiz would be about French, not English?! But now I understand, why I had no idea, what this last question was about.....
It is mentioned in the comments of nearly all these chainquizes (all the 40+ I ve done so far anyway) so after the first one, you will know it for the others. If you read the comments that is.
The didnt start to speak french in canada just for the fun of it. Like "Hey I'm bored. I know what we can do, what if we all started speaking another language. Ok how about russian? Nah something more fancy sounding. Ok what about French? Mangifique!!"
Just a minor niggle, Napoleon wasn't French, he was Italian, he was born in Corsica which was part of one of the Italian states at the time - his birth surname was Buonaparte...
From what I read off the all-knowing and inerrant Wikipedia, Corsica didn't actually become part of France until 1789, 20 years after Napoleon was born. Until that point it was simply an occupied territory. So saying he was born in France sounds a bit like saying that someone born in Paris in 1941 was German.
Presumably I'm wrong but maybe someone can explain why
To Markasol: And your point is? Hitler was born in Austria, yet he ruled Germany. Stalin was born in Georgia, yet he ruled the USSR. Corsica became part of France; Austria (during Hitler's reign) became part of Germany and Georgia became part of the USSR.
the "followed by d'état" clue is a bit strange as many other words can be followed by d'état altough they don't meet the letter requirement. (ministre, chef, visite, ennemi, etc.). It's quite commun in French.
at least you should write that the answer is used in english as well.
Why is there a specific question on Hijab being band, like only muslim clothes are ban?
When ALL religious clothes and items are forbidden in French school, since we considered that school is a place to learn not a place to exposed your opignion. So religious and political items are not allowed.
This is technically true, but it seems that the current law was ushered in specifically around a controversy about Islamic headscarves. As written, it bans "ostentatious" symbols of any religion but no one felt the need to ban crosses over a certain size before the headscarf controversy.
I think it's a little disingenuous to say that the controversy around headscarves in schools or veils in public is about something other than Muslim women wearing hijab.
That said, I think there's an ongoing good-faith effort to resolve religious freedom in France and try to preserve la laicité at the same time, with no easy answers. There is a lot of nuance to this subject that is not well-captured in English-language media and references, so I have to say I also don't really love the question and the way in lends itself to stereotypes about France.
Wearing a religious symbol just because is very different from wearing religious clothing that actually covers the body.
Imagine some religion is found and somehow gains massive popularity, where shirts are considered a religious clothing, and so a new rule is instated saying you can't wear shirts of any kind to school.
Obviously there's numerous differences between my example and the hijab situation, but the emotional effect on the kids is similar. It's a disgusting invasion of personal privacy and you're essentially forcing children to dress down and expose more of their bodies than they're comfortable with, just because the country is secular.
French accents are hard to type...
"Coup" is ...
Presumably I'm wrong but maybe someone can explain why
I'ts better if you say that it ends with "de grâce"
at least you should write that the answer is used in english as well.
For example the LGV Est is the line going from Paris to Strasbourg, but there are TGV trains rolling on it.
L for "ligne" (line)
Ok I'm French so I suppose it helped me a little...
When ALL religious clothes and items are forbidden in French school, since we considered that school is a place to learn not a place to exposed your opignion. So religious and political items are not allowed.
I think it's a little disingenuous to say that the controversy around headscarves in schools or veils in public is about something other than Muslim women wearing hijab.
That said, I think there's an ongoing good-faith effort to resolve religious freedom in France and try to preserve la laicité at the same time, with no easy answers. There is a lot of nuance to this subject that is not well-captured in English-language media and references, so I have to say I also don't really love the question and the way in lends itself to stereotypes about France.
Imagine some religion is found and somehow gains massive popularity, where shirts are considered a religious clothing, and so a new rule is instated saying you can't wear shirts of any kind to school.
Obviously there's numerous differences between my example and the hijab situation, but the emotional effect on the kids is similar. It's a disgusting invasion of personal privacy and you're essentially forcing children to dress down and expose more of their bodies than they're comfortable with, just because the country is secular.