allanb

Thank you, Norman: "bosom" is perfect.  Breasts and cleavage together in one word.

[quote user="Lou"]I might be making this up/dreaming, but aren't the tolerances different depending on the speed limit? (I'm wondering if you get a bit more allowed for higher limits?)[/quote] I believe it's 5 kph or 5%, whichever is greater.  Unfortunately I can't remember the source of this information (but I believe it, so it must be true.)

As a long-time observer of these things, I have to say that I agree with ericd.  It's the breasts that exert pressure on the dress; the cleavage is merely the space between them.

Thanks.  I'm reassured.

I've lived in France long enough to know what a soutien-gorge is, but I have always believed that that was an exceptional meaning and that la gorge normally means the throat. However, I recently found a description of a woman with une gorge énorme qui saillit sous sa robe.  Obviously this doesn't refer to her throat, but it was written in the 1870s (Maupassant), so the meaning may have changed.  My dictionary mentions both meanings but doesn't really clarify anything. This is not a trivial question; I've been talking to people learning French – some of whom are female – about things you might need to say to a doctor, and I've told them among other things that j'ai mal à la gorge simply means that you have a sore throat, just as you might say j'ai mal à l'épaule or j'ai mal au genou.  Was this safe advice?

[quote user="Rabbie"]Yes but we are the UK and I can see no great advantage for us if we loose our say in drafting the rules but perhaps you have some fresh insight you can share with us on this.[/quote] That seems to me a strangely one-sided way of looking at it.  As I see it, we wouldn't make rules for them and they wouldn't make rules for us; that's not necessarily a bad exchange, unless you have great faith in the Brussels rule-making process. A couple of things to bear in mind: one, other countries need the UK as a customer, just as the UK needs them; two, rules that are good for both sides can still be made by treaty, as they were long before the EU was invented.  

[quote user="Rabbie"]If you read some of the previous posts you will see that countries like Norway and Switzerland have signed up to follow EU rules without having any say in what those rules are. Doesn't seem to be the ideal situation to me. [/quote] If you are Norway or Switzerland you can sign up for what you're happy with, and do without the rest – what's not ideal about that?

[quote user="Quillan"]…the benefit to business which exports 40% to the EU of not having to pay import tax in those countries…[/quote] Yes.  But you can have that benefit by means of a free trade area, without submitting to federal government or a common currency. There was a time when that was the general objective, under the name of EFTA.  I wish it still was.

[quote user="Chancer"]…in a brasserie I wanted another beer with my meal "plus de biére S.V.P" said I, the response was 'Deja fait!" as she took away my glass never for it to be returned…[/quote] I don't know any good solution to the "plus" problem in written French, but there is sometimes a clue in pronunciation.  If the 's' is pronounced, I think it usually has a positive meaning, i.e. "some more" rather than "no more." Maybe one of our French friends can confirm this, but I believe that if you had sounded the 's' – especially if you made it more like a 'z' – you would have got your second beer (or third, or fifth, or whatever it was.)  Pluz de bière, s'il vous plaît.  Try it next time and see what happens. PS: on further thought, I don't think this would work before a vowel, when you would have to pronounce the 's' anyway.  E.g. you would pronounce the 's' in "plus un mot, s.v.p." but I think it could mean either "let's have another word" or "not another word!"  Again, can anyone confirm this?

Not an entirely serious suggestion: Le petit Richard avec son éruption de boutons If that doesn't get the senses racing, I don't know what will.

I should have made it clear that with Fortuneo I can add a new beneficiary on line, and it's effective almost immediately.  I remember that a few years ago, when I had an account with the Banque Postale and they were just introducing virements, I had to fill in a paper form for the beneficiary and send it to the bank for approval, and it was a week or ten days before I could use it.  So things are getting better. As far as international payments are concerned, I would guess that if you have an on-line virement facility you can use it for any transfer subject to the SEPA rules, i.e. if the receiving account is in euros, and you can provide the IBAN, it should cost you no more than a transfer within France.   

I think Cendrillon is right about the Belgians: they are logical enough to say septante and nonante, but they just can't bring themselves to abandon quatre-vingts.  My dictionary, FWIW, says that huitante is Swiss, but it describes octante as just "dialect," without being more specific.

[quote user="NormanH"]Debra, is that a bank virement you are talking about or a post office one? There is nothing in my CA on-line account that would let me send a virement from my on-line account to another person, only  to my other personal  accounts.  Certainly no way of sending to a third person. For that I have to go into the branch in person. [/quote] The personal virement seems to be catching on in France, but slowly.  I have an account with an on-line-only bank (Fortuneo) from which I can make an immediate virement on line as long as I have previously registered the recipient's account details – but there is no significant delay between registering the account and making the first transfer to it.  I don't think this procedure existed when I opened the account, about three years ago. I know nothing about CA, but maybe it would be worth your while to ask whether they have any plans to introduce this service.

[quote user="Frecossais"]Has anybody else any milestones they have reached or are aiming to reach in using french? [/quote] I can tell you about a milestone which I have definitely not reached, in spite of being fairly competent in French: understanding the phone numbers in recorded messages, at least when they include one or more pairs between 70 and 99.  Especially the 90s.  I find it terminally confusing when the first word you hear is "quatre" and the first digit turns out to be 9.  What is particularly irritating is that, even if you accept the option "réécouter le message", all you get is the message content (if any) – the number, which may be the most important thing you need, is not repeated.

[quote user="idun"]I was told that to send a letter to another country had to have an actual monetary value on the stamp.[/quote] Not true.  There are "permanent value" stamps in the "Marianne" series for standard letters, with no numbers on the stamp except the maximum weight (20g).  The colours are blue for the EU plus Switzerland, and violet for the rest of the world. If your local clerk doesn't believe this, tell him to look at the Banque Postale website (la boutique du timbre).  These stamps are in the catalogue, although the prices (77¢ and 89¢ respectively) don't seem to have been updated for the latest increase. I suppose it's possible that they are available only on line and not in the BP branches, although it seems unlikely.

[quote user="Russethouse"]Worth doing a search on this Wooly as there was a VERY long thread about Kindles, but I think it may depend on where the kindle is registered to some extent…[/quote]Also because Amazon changes its policy from time to time. I have a Kindle bought in the US, and I have accounts with both Amazon.com and Amazon.fr, both showing my French address.  When I first got it there were some restrictions about buying, depending on residence, but now I can buy and download from either of them.  In fact when I log onto Amazon.com, the system obviously detects my French e-mail address, and once in a while it says "Are you buying from France?  Would you rather get prices in euros and pay in euros? If so…" and then it tells me how to do it. Technically I think what I'm doing is re-registering the Kindle each time.  But the system makes it very quick and easy.

[quote user="parsnips"]Nobody receiving a UK state retirement pension should be paying social charges on any pensions (except privately purchased annuities declared as" rentes viageres") as they are all entitled to S1 which exempts them under EU reg..1408/71.[/quote] Parsnips, with respect, are you sure about that?  As NormanH wrote in another thread – "The carte vitale won't show that it is the UK who pay for your health care, so you need to show the S1" This was my understanding also – not that that proves anything – but it's also the view of my local tax inspector, who wants to see the S1 (or perhaps some other acceptable evidence) before he will cancel the CSG assessment on my UK old-age pension.  Incidentally, if the CSG is defined in the treaty as a tax, that would suggest that the UK old-age pension is subject to CSG, just as it is subject to French income tax.  Obviously this isn't a conclusion I like, but what's the answer to it?  Is the treaty overridden by the EU regulation you quoted?  I hope it is.

I understand that a UK state retirement pension is subject to the CSG, unless you can produce an E121 or equivalent.  Is a UK public-service pension treated the same way? (I'm talking only about social charges – not income tax.)

This topic has been just about worked to death and I'm sorry to bring it up again, but one thing still doesn't seem to be clear.  For a French resident receiving UK pensions, my reading of the tax forms is that: – the state retirement pension should be declared on the pink form (2047) in section I, under "pensions, retraites, rentes", and also on the blue form (2042) on page 3, in boxes 1AS and/or 1BS; and – since the recent change in the DTT, a public-sector pension (civil service, local authority, police, etc), which will normally have been taxed in the UK, should be reported (gross) on the pink form in section VI ("revenus imposables de source étrangère ouvrant droit à un crédit ...") and also on the blue form on page 4, in box 8TK. In other words, it seems to me that sections I and VI of the pink form are mutually exclusive; any given pension belongs in one or the other, not both.  But the forms and instructions are not crystal clear, to say the least, and opinions on the forum seem to differ.  Does anyone feel confident enough to make a firm statement on this, or is it really still uncertain?

Sid: it's a French one, issued in exchange for a Luxembourg one, and it's the old paper type (falling apart and repaired with sellotape, in the usual style.)   Under "restrictions" it shows "70 L" on two of the lines: once for A and once for B; apparently I'm not authorized for anything beyond B. The back page, where you have 7 lines, only has two: "70 ECH." with a number and a date, and "L LUXEMBOURG".  I presume that ECH means échangé. So it looks as though my eyesight isn't mentioned on the licence, which is consistent with what Rob Roy wrote, since the preceding licence was issued a very long time ago.   I won't lose any sleep over it.

According to the link given by Sid, it used to be a requirement for contact lens wearers to have a pair of glasses available as well, but the requirement was removed in 1997.  Seems strange to me; I think it's quite a sensible rule and I'm surprised that it was relaxed. Incidentally, I've needed corrective lenses for many decades, but I can't find any mention of it on my licence; how is it normally shown?  I'm just curious – I normally wear contacts and the photograph shows me without glasses, so there would be nothing for a policeman to get excited about.

It seems that I have a choice: a quick solution, and a backup solution in case the quick one doesn't work.  Perfect.  Thanks to you both.

I've received an assessment notice for prélèvements sociaux in which the CSG at 6.6% has been applied to my UK state retirement pension.  I think this is wrong, and I understand that I'm not the only one with this problem. I'm mentally prepared to go and argue with the tax office, but it has been suggested that a form S1 may be needed in this situation as evidence of my UK entitlement.  I don't think I've ever received form S1.  I can remember receiving some copies of form E121, which I believe was the predecessor of S1, but I can't find them now.  If I can't produce the form, does anyone know whether the possession of a carte vitale is likely to be good enough?  

Hoddy, I answered your question to the best of my ability (see my post yesterday). Admittedly what I wrote was a bit vague, but employers' health coverage varies quite widely, and I think you'd need to gather a lot of data to answer the question completely.

C de L wrote: "the system [in the USA] is often second to none" and "the US is the best in the world for getting to see a specialist within 4 weeks…" No doubt, but that's only for people who have access to it, i.e. those who are either employed or rich. Here are typical "fair costs" in the US for a couple of procedures, taken from the Healthcare Blue Book: Hip replacement: surgeon's fee $2,500, hospital $19,000 (assuming 4 days in hospital) Coronary bypass: surgeon & anaesthetist $6,200, hospital $57,000 (assuming 10 days) In each case, additional time in hospital is quoted as $1,800 per day. Do Romney & co understand what these numbers imply for someone who doesn't have insurance? Or who has insurance because of his job, but is worried about the plant closing down?