Le policier explique le danger aux enfants pour éviter les accidents.

Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching French grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning French now

Questions & Answers about Le policier explique le danger aux enfants pour éviter les accidents.

Why is it le policier and not just policier without an article?

In French, singular countable nouns almost always need an article (definite, indefinite, or partitive).

  • Le policier = the police officer (a specific one, or “the” police officer in general in this situation).
  • Just policier without an article would be wrong here in standard French.

You could also say un policier (a police officer) if you wanted to introduce an unspecified officer. But leaving out the article entirely isn’t normal French grammar in this kind of sentence.

Why is explique used and not a different tense like “is explaining” or “explained”?

French uses the present tense (explique) more broadly than English.

  • Le policier explique… can mean:
    • “The police officer explains…” (simple present), or
    • “The police officer is explaining…” (present continuous in meaning).

French doesn’t have a separate -ing form for ongoing actions, so le policier explique covers both “explains” and “is explaining” depending on context.
If you specifically wanted past, you would use expliquait (was explaining/used to explain) or a expliqué (explained/has explained).

Why is it explique le danger aux enfants and not something like explique le danger les enfants?

The verb expliquer has a fixed structure in French:

expliquer quelque chose à quelqu’un
explain something to someone

So you must use à before the person you are explaining to:

  • explique le danger = explains the danger (direct object)
  • aux enfants = to the children (indirect object, introduced by à)

Saying explique le danger les enfants would sound like you’re trying to make les enfants a second direct object, which isn’t allowed with expliquer. You need à: expliquer le danger aux enfants.

What does aux mean in aux enfants, and how is it formed?

Aux is a contraction of:

à + les = aux

You use aux before a plural noun that needs à:

  • à + les enfants → aux enfants = to the children

Other examples:

  • Je parle aux professeurs. = I speak to the teachers.
  • Donne ce livre aux élèves. = Give this book to the students.
Why is it le danger (singular) and not les dangers (plural)?

Here le danger refers to danger as a general concept: the idea that something is dangerous.

  • le danger = the danger (in general / the dangerousness of something)
  • les dangers = the various specific dangers (several kinds or sources of danger)

So:

  • Il explique le danger aux enfants.
    He explains the (general) danger to the children.

If you said les dangers, you’d be emphasizing multiple distinct dangers (for example, the dangers of crossing the road, talking to strangers, etc.), which is possible, but slightly different in nuance.

Could you say un danger instead of le danger?

Yes, but it changes the meaning a bit:

  • Le danger = the danger (the general danger involved in a situation)
  • Un danger = a danger (one particular danger among others)

Le policier explique un danger aux enfants would mean he explains one specific danger to them, not danger in general.
The original sentence with le danger suggests a more general notion: he is explaining what is dangerous about something, or the concept of danger related to that situation.

Why is it les accidents and not des accidents or just d’accidents?

Les accidents here is used in a general sense: accidents in general, not specific ones.

  • pour éviter les accidents = to avoid (the) accidents in general
    → effectively “to avoid accidents”

In French, when speaking about things in a general category, you often use le / la / les:

  • J’aime les chiens. = I like dogs (in general).
  • Pour éviter les erreurs… = To avoid mistakes…

Des accidents would mean “some accidents” and sound a bit more particular.
Just d’accidents can appear in other structures (e.g. éviter d’avoir des accidents), but in this exact pattern éviter les accidents is the natural choice.

What is the role of pour in pour éviter les accidents?

Here pour introduces a purpose or goal:

pour + infinitive = in order to + verb / to + verb (with idea of purpose)

So:

  • pour éviter les accidents = in order to avoid accidents / to avoid accidents

Other examples:

  • Je cours pour rester en forme. = I run to stay in shape.
  • Il étudie pour réussir l’examen. = He studies to pass the exam.
Why is it éviter (infinitive) and not a conjugated form like évite?

After pour when you express a purpose, French uses the infinitive form of the verb:

  • pour + infinitif
    • pour éviter = to avoid
    • pour comprendre = to understand
    • pour apprendre = to learn

If you said pour évite, it would be ungrammatical. After pour in this usage, you do not conjugate the verb.

Can the word order change? For example, can you say Pour éviter les accidents, le policier explique le danger aux enfants?

Yes, that word order is perfectly correct and quite natural:

  • Le policier explique le danger aux enfants pour éviter les accidents.
  • Pour éviter les accidents, le policier explique le danger aux enfants.

Both mean the same thing.
In the second version, the purpose (“to avoid accidents”) is emphasized by putting it at the beginning of the sentence.

What’s the difference between expliquer and dire in sentences like this?

Both have to do with communicating, but they behave differently:

  • dire = to say / to tell

    • structure: dire quelque chose à quelqu’un
    • focuses on the words themselves (what is said).
  • expliquer = to explain

    • structure: expliquer quelque chose à quelqu’un
    • emphasizes making something clear, giving reasons, details.

In this sentence, expliquer le danger suggests he is clarifying what the danger is, maybe giving examples, explanations, and reasons—not just mentioning that there is a danger.

How would this sentence look if we replaced nouns with pronouns?

The base pattern is:

Le policier explique le danger aux enfants.

Objects:

  • Direct object: le danger
  • Indirect object: aux enfants

Pronoun replacements:

  • le dangerle (direct object pronoun, masculine singular)
  • aux enfantsleur (indirect object pronoun, “to them”)

Full replacement:

  • Le policier le leur explique.
    = The police officer explains it to them.

Note the order of pronouns: le (direct) comes before leur (indirect) in front of the verb.

Why isn’t there anything like “to them” in the French version; how do we know aux enfants means “to the children”?

French typically uses prepositions (like à) instead of a separate word like “to”:

  • à often corresponds to English to (with indirect objects).
  • aux enfants = à + les enfants = to the children.

So aux already includes the idea of “to”, and enfants is “children”. You don’t add an extra word; aux enfants alone does the job of “to the children”.

In short:

  • English: “to the children”
  • French: aux enfants (à + les enfants)