I think that French verb conjugation is as simple as, if not simpler than, that of English (no kidding!) - see www.sixpourcent.com

#1

Dear friends,

This is a message which some people may consider "a spam". But this
is not my original idea. My intention is to share with you that French
verb conjugation is as simple as that of English, suggesting to you an
idea for French mastering - "The 6%" (www.sixpourcent.com). If I
offense you or cause you any inconvenience by sending this message to
this bbs, please accept my deepest apologies, and please just simply
neglect it. But if you are learning or teaching French, I do suggest
you have a look - you won't be disappointed.

Have a nice day,

jmp

···

-------
According to "The 6%":

- There are no irregular French verbs; all French verbs are regular (no
kidding);
- For all the forms of a French verb, we only need to learn 6 among
them;
- For all the French verbs, we only need to learn 72 among them;
- For the moods, the tenses, or the subject persons of French, there is
a logical relation between them, and this kind of relations tells us
that French corresponds vividly with the world through the French verb
conjugation.

With the helps of the above discoveries, we can see easily that French
verb conjugation is as simple as English.

You can visit the website of "The 6%", www.sixpourcent.com, to
learn about details. Once again, I beg your pardon if I cause you any
inconvenience.

(Julian Leviston) #2

Firstly, English verb conjugation isn't very simple.

Secondly, French verb conjugation - while being much easier in some respects than English - isn't particularly easy either.

There are three groups... each less regular than the last.

The first (-er) is totally regular. (rester - je reste, tu restes, on/il/elle reste, ils/elles restent, nous restons, vous restez)
The second (-re) is somewhat regular, but there are quite a few exceptions.
The third (-ir) is even less regular - having two subsections, and very many exceptions.

And then there are the irregulars (such as être, avoir, and a bunch of others), which are totally irregular... although so frequently used easy to learn when one is learning French.

So that's total rubbish.

Julian.

···

On 29/08/2005, at 5:01 PM, pan6pourcent@163.com wrote:

Dear friends,

This is a message which some people may consider "a spam". But this
is not my original idea. My intention is to share with you that French
verb conjugation is as simple as that of English, suggesting to you an
idea for French mastering - "The 6%" (www.sixpourcent.com). If I
offense you or cause you any inconvenience by sending this message to
this bbs, please accept my deepest apologies, and please just simply
neglect it. But if you are learning or teaching French, I do suggest
you have a look - you won't be disappointed.

Have a nice day,

jmp

-------
According to "The 6%":

- There are no irregular French verbs; all French verbs are regular (no
kidding);
- For all the forms of a French verb, we only need to learn 6 among
them;
- For all the French verbs, we only need to learn 72 among them;
- For the moods, the tenses, or the subject persons of French, there is
a logical relation between them, and this kind of relations tells us
that French corresponds vividly with the world through the French verb
conjugation.

With the helps of the above discoveries, we can see easily that French
verb conjugation is as simple as English.

You can visit the website of "The 6%", www.sixpourcent.com, to
learn about details. Once again, I beg your pardon if I cause you any
inconvenience.

(Paul) #3

pan6pourcent@163.com wrote:

This is a message which some people may consider "a spam".

Non, pas certaines personnes, ici tout le monde te considere comme
jamboniste - va te faire foutre et met tes pubs a la con dans des
groupes ou elles sont bienvenues.

Paul...

p.s. ton site internet, c'est de la merde.

···

--

plinehan __at__ yahoo __dot__ __com__

XP Pro, SP 2,

Oracle, 9.2.0.1.0 (Enterprise Ed.)
Interbase 6.0.1.0;

When asking database related questions, please give other posters
some clues, like operating system, version of db being used and DDL.
The exact text and/or number of error messages is useful (!= "it didn't work!").
Thanks.

Furthermore, as a courtesy to those who spend
time analysing and attempting to help, please
do not top post.

(12th Galactic Justice Brigade) #4

pan6pourcent@163.com wrote:
(blah, blah, blah)

My intention is to share with you that French
verb conjugation is as simple as that of English, suggesting to you an
idea for French mastering - "The 6%" (www.sixpourcent.com).

(blah, blah, blah)

If I offense you or cause you any inconvenience by sending this message to
this bbs...

(blah, blah, blah)

Yeah, vous "m'offense." Vous etes une grande douche bag. Nous avons un
nom pour vous -- "Tête de Richardot" -- en Anglais, that means
dickhead.

(12th Galactic Justice Brigade) #5

(blah, blah, blah)

My intention is to share with you that French
verb conjugation is as simple as that of English, suggesting to you an
idea for French mastering - "The 6%" (www.sixpourcent.com).

(blah, blah, blah)

If I offense you or cause you any inconvenience by sending this message to
this bbs...

(blah, blah, blah)

Yeah, vous "m'offense." Vous etes une grande douche bag. Nous avons un
nom pour vous -- "Tête de Richardot" -- en Anglais, that means
dickhead.

···

pan6pourc...@163.com wrote:

(Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT) #6

Hi!

This is a message which some people may consider "a spam". But this
is not my original idea. My intention is to share with you that
French verb conjugation is as simple as that of English, suggesting
to you an idea for French mastering

Ils sont fous ces Français >;->

The simplicity of grammar was never the reason for using a specific
language. The European Union could save an awful lot of money if they
would not write official translations of their documents in all
languages but only use *one* official text in a constructed language
with a simple but clear grammar. Not only would that save much money
it would also help to use preciser formulations than it is possible in
all natural languages.

German is said to be a language with an enormous power of writing very
precise formulations but I came across Esperanto formulations that are
much more precise than anything possible in German that is about as
short.

Using French in a computer-related discussion forum has one major
drawback: Many computer-related terms are very similar in most
languages. Either the word itself is very similar ("komputer" for
example) or it is just a word-to-word translation. The German
equivalent of "to download" for example is "herunterladen". "herunter"
means "down", "laden" means "to load". This is not true for
"télécharger" which rather means "to load from a remote ressource".
And that is only a harmless example.

The statement on German is only of limited validity. Many Germans use
the term "downloaden" for "to download". I do not use that term
because it results in very ugly words like "downgeloadet" where the
German prefix "ge-" which indicates an action that has already been
finished looks higly misplaced :expressionless: Not to mention the neverending
dispute wether one should write "gedownloadet" or "downgeloadet" 8-|

The reason why English is so simple is limited kowledge. English has a
huge vocabulary and a rather complex grammar but few understand (leave
alone make use of) any of the more advanced features.

In German this is a bit different. Few people who say they understand
German have problems in understanding "du wolltest bereits vor einer
Stunde gegangen sein" - "you wanted to have been going an hour ago"
(which means "It is 20:30 UTC. You are still here although you told me
that you need to go by 19:30 UTC." - "Get lost" for short :slight_smile: Not only
that. Even people who are not very well educated are known to use that
formulation - which is a quite involved case of grammar abuse.

Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT

···

At Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:01:23 +0900, pan6pourcent@163.com wrote:
--
Receiving this message does not necessarily imply that you are
expected to understand it. If you do not understand it the best
current practice (BCP) is ignoring it. If you only understand parts
of it the BCP is ignoring the rest.

(Jeremy Henty) #7

English! The Perl of natural language!

(Didn't someone say that the easiest language in the world is Broken
English?)

Jeremy Henty

···

In article <m3oe7frwn3.wl%jupp@gmx.de>, Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT wrote:

English has a huge vocabulary and a rather complex grammar but few
understand (leave alone make use of) any of the more advanced
features.

(James Britt) #8

Jeremy Henty wrote:

···

In article <m3oe7frwn3.wl%jupp@gmx.de>, Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT wrote:

English has a huge vocabulary and a rather complex grammar but few
understand (leave alone make use of) any of the more advanced
features.

English! The Perl of natural language!

(Didn't someone say that the easiest language in the world is Broken
English?)

I recall an interview of John Irving by Gunter Grass, where Grass asserts that Bad English is the international language of the future.

James

--

http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys

(Mitch) #9

Bruce Willis said it best in the Fifth Element.

Look lady, I only speak two languages, English and Bad English.

I will try to not stray too much further from being on topic. But I couldn't pass up a Fifth Element quote. :slight_smile:

Mitch

···

On Aug 30, 2005, at 6:28 PM, James Britt wrote:

Jeremy Henty wrote:

In article <m3oe7frwn3.wl%jupp@gmx.de>, Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT wrote:

English has a huge vocabulary and a rather complex grammar but few
understand (leave alone make use of) any of the more advanced
features.

English! The Perl of natural language!
(Didn't someone say that the easiest language in the world is Broken
English?)

I recall an interview of John Irving by Gunter Grass, where Grass asserts that Bad English is the international language of the future.

James

--

http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys

(Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT) #10

Hi!

···

At Wed, 31 Aug 2005 08:28:04 +0900, James Britt wrote:

I recall an interview of John Irving by Gunter Grass, where Grass
asserts that Bad English is the international language of the
future.

Wrong. Bad English IS the international lanugage of TODAY. >;->

Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT
--
Receiving this message does not necessarily imply that you are
expected to understand it. If you do not understand it the best
current practice (BCP) is ignoring it. If you only understand parts
of it the BCP is ignoring the rest.

(James Britt) #11

Josef 'Jupp' SCHUGT wrote:

Hi!

I recall an interview of John Irving by Gunter Grass, where Grass
asserts that Bad English is the international language of the
future.

Wrong. Bad English IS the international lanugage of TODAY. >;->

Well, there you go. I read that interview about 10 years ago.

James

···

At Wed, 31 Aug 2005 08:28:04 +0900, James Britt wrote:

--

http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys