u/Economy-Gene-1484

For anybody who has finished an Assimil course, how important was the second wave of the course, in which you go back to the first lesson and must translate the translated text into your target language? Is it actually useful and helpful for acquisition? Or did you ignore it, or did you not find it helpful?

I once got to the second wave of an Assimil course, and I lost motivation to finish the course because I found translating the early lessons to be a very boring and tedious extra step in my routine. I am starting to go through another Assimil course, and I am wondering how I should tackle the second wave. Should I skip it or do it? Is it necessary to fully absorb the language? Any advice is appreciated.

Hello everyone. Here is the passage I am looking at:

>C'est icy un livre de bonne foy, lecteur. Il t'advertit dés l'entrée, que je ne m'y suis proposé aucune fin, que domestique et privée. Je n'y ay eu nulle consideration de ton service, ny de ma gloire. Mes forces ne sont pas capables d'un tel dessein. Je l'ay voué à la commodité particuliere de mes parens et amis : à ce que m'ayant perdu (ce qu'ils ont à faire bien tost) ils y puissent retrouver aucuns traits de mes conditions et humeurs, et que par ce moyen ils nourrissent plus entiere et plus vifve, la connoissance qu'ils ont eu de moy.

So I am confused about the phrase "ils nourrissent plus entiere et plus vifve". The feminine adjectives, entiere and vifve, are describing la connoissance, but they seem to be object complements (les attributs du complément d'objet direct) of the verb nourrissent. However, looking at the dictionary entry for nourrir, I was not able to find a definition which would let the verb take adjectival object complements with a direct object. If Montaigne had instead said, "ils fassent plus entiere et plus vifve, la connoissance", then I would not have any issues, but I do not know if nourrir can have this same meaning. What is the exact definition of nourrir here, and what is its relation to the adjectives plus entiere et plus vifve? Does nourrir = faire in this sentence? Any help is appreciated.

Hello everyone. Here is the passage I am looking at:

>C'est icy un livre de bonne foy, lecteur. Il t'advertit dés l'entrée, que je ne m'y suis proposé aucune fin, que domestique et privée. Je n'y ay eu nulle consideration de ton service, ny de ma gloire. Mes forces ne sont pas capables d'un tel dessein. Je l'ay voué à la commodité particuliere de mes parens et amis : à ce que m'ayant perdu (ce qu'ils ont à faire bien tost) ils y puissent retrouver aucuns traits de mes conditions et humeurs, et que par ce moyen ils nourrissent plus entiere et plus vifve, la connoissance qu'ils ont eu de moy.

So I am confused about the phrase "ils nourrissent plus entiere et plus vifve". The feminine adjectives, entiere and vifve, are describing la connoissance, but they seem to be object complements (les attributs du complément d'objet direct) of the verb nourrissent. However, looking at the dictionary entry for nourrir, I was not able to find a definition which would let the verb take adjectival object complements with a direct object. If Montaigne had instead said, "ils fassent plus entiere et plus vifve, la connoissance", then I would not have any issues, but I do not know if nourrir can have this same meaning. What is the exact definition of nourrir here, and what is its relation to the adjectives plus entiere et plus vifve? Does nourrir = faire in this sentence? Any help is appreciated. Edit: Please forgive my mispelling in the title. Can't change it now.