Comme des milliers de personnes, recevez gratuitement chaque semaine Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais
Tout ce qui a un rapport avec l'apprentissage de l'anglais: grammaire, orthographe, aides aux devoirs, phrases etc.
Pets (correction)
Message de fredos posté le 28-11-2005 à 15:14:19 (S | E | F | I)
Bonjour,
Quelqu'un pourrait-il me corriger ce texte s'il vous plaît?
merci
I think that the fact of bringing as much importance to the animals becomes worrying and abnormal.
On the one hand it may be, if that continuous to evolve that (for example dogs, which is the first pet) are put at the same level as the man. And I find that completely stupid. Indeed, there are people who die of hunger or cold in the world whereas people spend of the considerable sums for their animals with the places to help what are in misery.
On the other hand, the fact that one gives also importance to the animals is likely to bring the couples has to have pets to the places to have children. Because the animals are not whimsical when you a their given punishment, they do not fight between them, do not rebel because they passive and are subjected. Consequently, the average of the rate of birthrate is likely to fall.
To conclude, I find that it would be necessary to carry more importance to misery than to the animals. It is has to say, to deal with the others then animals. However I do not say that one should not have animals, but to remain simple.
-------------------
Edité par bridg le 28-11-2005 15:39
+ titre.
Message de fredos posté le 28-11-2005 à 15:14:19 (S | E | F | I)
Bonjour,
Quelqu'un pourrait-il me corriger ce texte s'il vous plaît?
merci
I think that the fact of bringing as much importance to the animals becomes worrying and abnormal.
On the one hand it may be, if that continuous to evolve that (for example dogs, which is the first pet) are put at the same level as the man. And I find that completely stupid. Indeed, there are people who die of hunger or cold in the world whereas people spend of the considerable sums for their animals with the places to help what are in misery.
On the other hand, the fact that one gives also importance to the animals is likely to bring the couples has to have pets to the places to have children. Because the animals are not whimsical when you a their given punishment, they do not fight between them, do not rebel because they passive and are subjected. Consequently, the average of the rate of birthrate is likely to fall.
To conclude, I find that it would be necessary to carry more importance to misery than to the animals. It is has to say, to deal with the others then animals. However I do not say that one should not have animals, but to remain simple.
-------------------
Edité par bridg le 28-11-2005 15:39
+ titre.
Réponse: Pets (correction) de jean31, postée le 28-11-2005 à 17:01:17 (S | E)
Bonjour,
Ce qui est entre <> est à supprimer. Les autres corrections et/ou suggestions sont en majuscules.
I think that the fact of GIVING SO much importance to
On the one hand, if THINGS SHOULD CONTINUE/EVOLVE THAT WAY, dogs MIGHT WELL BE GIVEN the same STATUS as
On the other hand, the fact that SOME PEOPLE GIVE SUCH AN importance to
when Consequently, the average ...//...
... it would be necessary/BETTER to ATTACH more importance to misery (? attention à l'éventuelle erreur de sens sur ce quasi-faux ami.)/POVERTY/DESTITUTION(= extrême pauvreté, dénuement) Ne vaudrait-il pas mieux parler des misérables plutôt que de la misère , entité plus abstraite ? Ce qui donnerait, en reprenant ta phrase : ... it would be necessary/BETTER to ATTACH more importance to HELPING THE POOR/THE DESTITUTE than
THAT IS TO SAY (= c'est-à dire),
NB : Ta principale erreur, dont il faut vite te guérir, concerne l'emploi abusif de l'article défini "The", faute typiquement française !
I did my best and hope it helps.
Good luck anyway.
-------------------
Edité par jean31 le 28-11-2005 17:02
I find placing so much importance on animals to be worrying and abnormal. It's possible that if this behavior continues, that pets (for example dogs) will be placed on the same level as humans. To me that is completely stupid. There are people who are dieing of hunger and cold in the world while others spend considerable sums on their animals instead of helping those in misery.
On the other hand, the fact that so much importance is given to animals is likely to cause couples to have pets in place of having children. Since animals are not argumentative when you punish them, they do not fight among themselves, they do not rebel because they are passive and submissive. Consequently, the average birthrate is likely to fall.
To conclude, I believe that it's necessary to place more importance on helping the poor, than on animals. However I do not mean that one should not have animals, but just that they should be reasonable about it.
Réponse: Pets (correction) de fredos, postée le 28-11-2005 à 17:10:32 (S | E)
Merci beaucoup.
INDISPENSABLES : 