>
correction/essay
Cours gratuits > Forum > Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais || En bas correction/essay
Message de pestounette posté le 05-05-2013 à 15:01:57 (S | E | F)
Hello tout le monde!
J'ai un essai à rendre dans peu de temps et j'aurais besoin de votre aide par rapport à sa correction; j'ai lu et relu mon texte, mais il reste sûrement encore plein de fautes que je n'arrive pas à trouver. Si vous pouviez m'aider, ce serait vraiment gentil.
I don't agree with the criticism of some people against the speech of xxx, called « British jobs for British workers ». I find this polemic unfounded and unfair. As it happens, the fact that the prime minister of Grand Britain could exclude practically seven billiards of immigrants per year from his country and a thriving economy is totally absurd. My point of view is different, and I will explain why.
First, I think we must highlight some terms that could be wrong interpreted; for example, “British workers”. Who is British and who is not? In my opinion, it could include every person who lives in England, even foreigners.
xxx used this adjective “british” to make a parallel between England and the rest of the world. Currently, 11,6 percent of the English’s workers come from all the world; Africa, America, India, China...it represent more than 2 millions of people. Put aside this important part of these inhabitants will be mortal for England (increasing the unemployment rate and decreasing the economy). Do you really think it was xxx's intentions when he said “British workers”?
Secondly, be the world leader may be attractive for all of the immigrants; it means a lot of jobs and a place for everyone. I suppose that Brown known this danger and wanted to prevent his country from a massive immigration (for example, in nineteen fifty and sixty, when millions of refugees came from Caribbean and Asia).
On the other hand, an economic leader needs a lots of workers, like immigrants. Also, be the leader and haven't got any foreigners is, to my mind, an absolute non-sens.
To conclude, his slogan isn't racist or anti-immigrant; it's an understood and preventive slogan. Grand Britain is a multicultural nation since the nineteen century, and have one of the highest rate of immigration (2.6 per thousand) for a long time to come.
Merci d'avance!
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 05-05-2013 15:41
Message de pestounette posté le 05-05-2013 à 15:01:57 (S | E | F)
Hello tout le monde!
J'ai un essai à rendre dans peu de temps et j'aurais besoin de votre aide par rapport à sa correction; j'ai lu et relu mon texte, mais il reste sûrement encore plein de fautes que je n'arrive pas à trouver. Si vous pouviez m'aider, ce serait vraiment gentil.
I don't agree with the criticism of some people against the speech of xxx, called « British jobs for British workers ». I find this polemic unfounded and unfair. As it happens, the fact that the prime minister of Grand Britain could exclude practically seven billiards of immigrants per year from his country and a thriving economy is totally absurd. My point of view is different, and I will explain why.
First, I think we must highlight some terms that could be wrong interpreted; for example, “British workers”. Who is British and who is not? In my opinion, it could include every person who lives in England, even foreigners.
xxx used this adjective “british” to make a parallel between England and the rest of the world. Currently, 11,6 percent of the English’s workers come from all the world; Africa, America, India, China...it represent more than 2 millions of people. Put aside this important part of these inhabitants will be mortal for England (increasing the unemployment rate and decreasing the economy). Do you really think it was xxx's intentions when he said “British workers”?
Secondly, be the world leader may be attractive for all of the immigrants; it means a lot of jobs and a place for everyone. I suppose that Brown known this danger and wanted to prevent his country from a massive immigration (for example, in nineteen fifty and sixty, when millions of refugees came from Caribbean and Asia).
On the other hand, an economic leader needs a lots of workers, like immigrants. Also, be the leader and haven't got any foreigners is, to my mind, an absolute non-sens.
To conclude, his slogan isn't racist or anti-immigrant; it's an understood and preventive slogan. Grand Britain is a multicultural nation since the nineteen century, and have one of the highest rate of immigration (2.6 per thousand) for a long time to come.
Merci d'avance!
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 05-05-2013 15:41
Réponse: correction/essay de gerondif, postée le 05-05-2013 à 15:40:54 (S | E)
Bonjour,
Attention! Apprenez le nom du pays !! Great Britain!
Million et billion (milliard) existent, mais billiards, c'est du billard !!
7 milliards d'immigrants en GB, c'est peu probable !
les adjectifs cardinaux ne prennent pas le pluriel et pas de of:
two hundred people, three thousand victims, 7 million immigrants.
Si vous mettez un s et un of, alors, c'est un nom commun à valeur vague:
There were dozens of/hundreds of/ thousands of/millions of/ victims.
erreurs en bleu. En vert, correction offerte!
I don't agree with the criticism of(by) some people against the speech of xxx, called « British jobs for British workers ». I find this polemic unfounded and unfair. As it happens, the fact that the prime minister(majuscules) of Grand Britain could exclude practically seven billiards of immigrants per year from his country and a thriving economy is totally absurd. My point of view is different, and I will explain why.
First, I think we must highlight some terms that could be wrong (il faut l'adverbe, pas l'adjectif)interpreted; for example, “British workers”. Who is British and who is not? In my opinion, it could include every person who lives in England, even foreigners.
xxx used this adjective “british”(majuscule) to make a parallel between England and the rest of the world. Currently, 11,6 percent of the English’s workers come from all the world; Africa, America, India, China...it represents more than 2 millions of people. Put aside ( (1) à mettre en ing, 2) mauvais choix de verbe pour "exclure")this important part of these inhabitants will be(le conditionnel irait aussi) mortal for England (increasing the unemployment rate and decreasing the economy). Do you really think it was Gordon Brown's intentions when he said “British workers”?
Secondly, be(à mettre en ing) the world leader may be attractive for all of the immigrants; it means a lot of jobs and a place(au sens "d'endroit" ou de "travail"?) for everyone. I suppose that xxx known this danger and wanted to prevent his country from(+ verbe) a massive immigration (for example, in nineteen fifty and sixty, when millions of refugees came from the Caribbean and Asia).
On the other hand, an economic leader needs a lots of workers, like immigrants. Also, be(ing!) the leader and haven't got (not having, ou having no ) any foreigners is, to my mind, an absolute non-sens(le mot est resté en français : traduction automatique ?).
To conclude, his slogan isn't racist or anti-immigrant; it's an understood(sens?) and preventive slogan. Grand Britain is(present perfect avec since) a multicultural nation since the nineteenth century, and have(present perfect 3ème personne singulier) one of the highest rates of immigration (2.6 per thousand) for a long time
(si vous gardez to come, c'est une projection future)
Réponse: correction/essay de pestounette, postée le 06-05-2013 à 15:30:03 (S | E)
Oki merci beaucoup!!!
Cours gratuits > Forum > Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais
