What this is
vendre, attendre, répondre — the regular -re family — all behave the same way: drop -re, add -s/-s/nothing/-ons/-ez/-ent. prendre and mettre end in -re too, which makes it tempting to assume they follow the same pattern. They don’t. Both are irregular, and both break the same way: something changes in the plural that the regular family never does.
The good news is the singular of both verbs looks completely ordinary, so there’s only one new thing to learn per verb, not six.
The rule
prendre (to take):
| singular | plural | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| je | prends | nous | prenons |
| tu | prends | vous | prenez |
| il/elle/on | prend | ils/elles | prennent |
mettre (to put / to place / to put on):
| singular | plural | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| je | mets | nous | mettons |
| tu | mets | vous | mettez |
| il/elle/on | met | ils/elles | mettent |
Compare that to the regular family already taught:
| vendre (regular) | prendre | mettre | |
|---|---|---|---|
| il/elle | vend | prend | met |
| ils/elles | vendent | prennent | mettent |
The singular rows are nearly identical in shape — drop the ending, you’re left with a bare stem. The plural is where prendre and mettre reveal themselves: vendent just adds -ent onto “vend-”, but prennent and mettent double a consonant that isn’t there in the singular at all. That doubled consonant is the entire irregularity in both verbs — everything else follows the pattern you already know.
Why it works this way
Historically, both verbs had a consonant in their Latin ancestor that dropped out of the spoken singular but survived in the plural, where an extra vowel sound protected it. French spelling froze that split: prend- lost its second n in the singular but kept it where the plural’s ending gave it somewhere to land, and mettre did the same with its second t. You don’t need the Latin to use the verbs correctly — just the pattern: singular is the short stem, plural doubles a consonant that the singular doesn’t show.
Edge cases
The -re ending doesn’t guarantee regular behavior
prendre and mettre look, on paper, exactly like vendre or attendre — same infinitive ending, same singular endings. But regular -re verbs never double a consonant in the plural (vendons, vendez, vendent — always one d), while prendre and mettre both do (prenons is fine, but prennent isn’t “prenent”; mettons is fine, but mettent isn’t “metent”). The lesson: an infinitive’s shape tells you the starting point for guessing a conjugation, not a guarantee.
mettre vs porter
mettre describes the action of putting something on — the moment your coat goes from off to on. porter (already known) describes the state of wearing or carrying something, with no particular moment attached. Elle met son chapeau is about the act of putting it on; Elle porte son chapeau souvent is about how often she has it on. English collapses both into “wear” or “put on” fairly loosely; French keeps them apart, and mixing them up is one of the most common mistakes at this level.
What English speakers get wrong here
The most common mistake is assuming that because prendre and mettre end in -re, they must conjugate like vendre — producing “ils prendent” or “ils mettent” is actually right by accident, but “ils prendent” (instead of prennent) is the error this concept exists to prevent. Check the plural form specifically; don’t extrapolate it from the singular.
The second mistake is reaching for mettre when porter is meant, or vice versa — saying Je porte mon manteau to mean “I’m putting my coat on right now” when mettre is the verb for that specific action. If you can replace the English verb with “wear” and it still sounds natural over a stretch of time, porter is probably right; if it’s a one-time action of putting something on, reach for mettre.
The third is missing prendre’s idiomatic reach: prendre une décision (to make a decision), prendre le bus/le métro/un taxi (to take transport), prendre un repas (to have a meal) — English uses three different verbs (make, take, have) for what French handles with one.