TegisTARDIS

TegisTARDIS OP t1_j9w3am5 wrote

Mon probleme avec le langue c'est car j'ai pas du practi en mon vie cotidienne, et j'y vien d'oublir les chose spécifique ou obscures. Je peux comprendre plus que je peux m'expresser en conversation, et mon vocabulaire se fait lentir jour par jours. Mon écriture c'est le pire de tous, et je pense que lire plus est le premier solution pour ça.

J'ai déjà lu presque 3 chapitre en anglais et français déjà, et je peux dire sûrement que j'utilise un dictionnaire pour les mots antique ou rare, et j'suis plus lent a comprendre, mais ça c'est un des raison pour faire ça. S'améliore.

Seeing as your reading the "end goal" and are a native speaker, how would you rank classics like Notre dame, fantôme, and les mis to it, if you're also familiar with the originals.

Where would you start? given youve seen how i spell and form thoughts in* french?

Edit: Would have looked up cramponner and hachish. Its fair to say I understood the passage through context, but it was slower than everyday French

2

TegisTARDIS OP t1_j9w1gc5 wrote

For reference: half of my school credits were in French and that's about the level of reading I've been at in French for a decade, most of "les romans français" ive read are <300 pages, and not anything mindblowingly difficult or antiquated, usually analized in literature-class format (essays, presentations, quizes on vocab/grammar/etc). Im looking to progress from there, hence the question. (My education is a Canadian "French emersion" one from a border-province.)

moreso wondering how something like fantôme de l'Opera compares to Monté Cristo in vocabulary, or if someone has experiences with originals v translation (in non-mastery / ECL C1 level) second languages, for advice or insight

ie: discussing the nuance lost vs ease of comprehension in translations. Which of the classics would be a good entry into 1800s French vocab, specifically. That sort of thing.

2