I wrote "Bien que Rousseau etait apparemement..." And my teacher underlined bien que and drew an arrow to etait...what could he be referring to?
And I wrote "Mais Rousseau pensait aussi que la nouvelle connaissance parce qu'il permettait..." My teacher circled il. Why is this not necessary? I thought it would be because I'm referring to Rousseau.
IF you required the imperfect, the verb form would require an accent mark = était BUT "bien que" which means "although" requires the Subjunctive.
l'imparfait du subjunctif = fût
plus-que-parfait du subjonctif = eût été
passé du subjonctif = ait été
What tense were y ou searching for?
The 2nd sententence is not a complete sentence as it stands.
Sra (aka Mme)
In the first sentence, your teacher underlined "bien que" and drew an arrow to "était." It seems that your teacher may be suggesting that there is an issue with the usage or context of "bien que" in this sentence.
"Bien que" is a conjunction that means "although" or "even though" in French. It is typically used to introduce a subordinate clause that expresses a contrast or contradiction to the main clause.
It is possible that your teacher wants you to reconsider the use of "bien que" in this sentence. They might suggest using a different conjunction or rephrasing the sentence to clarify the intended meaning.
As for the second sentence, your teacher circled "il." The reason it is not necessary is because "il" refers back to "Rousseau," which is already established as the subject of the sentence. In French, it is often optional to use a pronoun to refer to a subject that has already been mentioned.
In this case, "Rousseau" is the subject of the previous clause, and it is clear that the subsequent verb "permettait" refers to him. Therefore, the pronoun "il" can be omitted without changing the meaning of the sentence.
However, if you prefer to include the pronoun "il" for clarity or emphasis, it would still be grammatically correct to do so. It comes down to personal preference and style.