<< Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais || En bas
Fait divers/Correction
Message de elii-se posté le 01-12-2010 à 10:14:53 (S | E | F)
Bonjour, voici une nouvelle histoire, celle d'un policier qui tue un chien, (j'ai ainsi fait les groupes et les évocations de chacun(s)??). Pourriez-vous s'il vous plaît m'aider dans la correction de l'anglais de ce texte.
Policeman: Everybody would have done the same thing as him. He just wanted to protect his daughter because he thinks that she was in danger’s situation. He acted like a good citizen and according to this; people should be more indulgent because although he killed a dog, he did it for the good cause which were to protect his daughter and to avoid an incident. He wanted by his act protect his daughter and evicted another accident. He didn’t want the dog hurt his daughter and he didn’t know what to doing, that’s why he shot out because Animal Control had done nothing although he called them. The dog was dangerous and in the unfenced yard the only solution was to shot out.
The daughter: she is very proud of his father. She knows that he had killed an animal but if he was not here, she could have been died or been hurt by the dog. People should realize that he saved her life. She would have done the same things if she was at her father’s place.
The community: Anyone can kill with impunity, but if community is in danger by a dog that isn’t in an unfecended yard, his act was useful for everyone who has children. Policeman has ensured the security of his family but of the community. It was a citizen’s act.
Dog’s owner: He shouldn’t have shot out. He has to be aware that he killed an animal. Yes he wanted to protect his daughter but he was not compelled to shot out. He could have used another mean. It has been obvious that we couldn’t kill our dog with which we have been living.
Prosecutor: He is guilty and shouldn’t have done it. According to him, he didn’t follow the proper legal channel and he broke the law because his family was in no imminent danger. The prosecution added that sympathy for the man‘s daughter did not mask the fact that he broke the law.
Animal control: We have done nothing when the policeman has called because it’s impossible to care on every dogs that aren’t chain. Moreover policeman gave us hazy information about the situation. It was hard to assess seriousness of the situation.
-------------------
Modifié par bridg le 01-12-2010 10:20
+ titre
Message de elii-se posté le 01-12-2010 à 10:14:53 (S | E | F)
Bonjour, voici une nouvelle histoire, celle d'un policier qui tue un chien, (j'ai ainsi fait les groupes et les évocations de chacun
Policeman: Everybody would have done the same thing as him. He just wanted to protect his daughter because he thinks that she was in danger’s situation. He acted like a good citizen and according to this; people should be more indulgent because although he killed a dog, he did it for the good cause which were to protect his daughter and to avoid an incident. He wanted by his act protect his daughter and evicted another accident. He didn’t want the dog hurt his daughter and he didn’t know what to doing, that’s why he shot out because Animal Control had done nothing although he called them. The dog was dangerous and in the unfenced yard the only solution was to shot out.
The daughter: she is very proud of his father. She knows that he had killed an animal but if he was not here, she could have been died or been hurt by the dog. People should realize that he saved her life. She would have done the same things if she was at her father’s place.
The community: Anyone can kill with impunity, but if community is in danger by a dog that isn’t in an unfecended yard, his act was useful for everyone who has children. Policeman has ensured the security of his family but of the community. It was a citizen’s act.
Dog’s owner: He shouldn’t have shot out. He has to be aware that he killed an animal. Yes he wanted to protect his daughter but he was not compelled to shot out. He could have used another mean. It has been obvious that we couldn’t kill our dog with which we have been living.
Prosecutor: He is guilty and shouldn’t have done it. According to him, he didn’t follow the proper legal channel and he broke the law because his family was in no imminent danger. The prosecution added that sympathy for the man‘s daughter did not mask the fact that he broke the law.
Animal control: We have done nothing when the policeman has called because it’s impossible to care on every dogs that aren’t chain. Moreover policeman gave us hazy information about the situation. It was hard to assess seriousness of the situation.
-------------------
Modifié par bridg le 01-12-2010 10:20
+ titre
Réponse: Fait divers/Correction de elii-se, postée le 07-12-2010 à 10:05:52 (S | E)
Bonjour, pourriez-vous s'il vous plait m'aider à corriger juste l'anglais écrit de ces phrases, cela m'aidera beaucoup. Elise!
Réponse: Fait divers/Correction de ramdam, postée le 07-12-2010 à 12:43:31 (S | E)
Bonjour elii-se.
Voici quelques fautes que j'ai relevées de votre texte.
-he thinks that she was in a dangerous situation.
-which was to protect his daughter
-to avoid an accident.
-He wanted by this act to protect.....and to avoid an accident.
-He didn't know what to do
-This is why he shot the dog.
-The only solution was to shoot the dog.
Je m'excuse de ne pouvoir faire plus pour le moment,car je suis un peu pressé.
Have a nice day.
Réponse: Fait divers/Correction de elii-se, postée le 07-12-2010 à 12:58:55 (S | E)
Voici la correction que j'ai déduite de vos remarques, il doit rester des erreurs d'anglais, pourriez-vous s'il vous plait m'aider à les corriger, merci de votre aide, cela m'aide vraiment!
Policeman: Everybody would have done the same thing as him. He just wanted to protect his daughter because he thought that she was in a dangerous situation. He acted like a good citizen and according to this; people should be more indulgent because although he killed a dog, he did it for the good cause which was to protect his daughter and to avoid an accident. He wanted by his act to protect his daughter and to avoid an accident. He didn’t want the dog hurt his daughter and he didn’t know what to do, this is why he shot the dog because Animal Control had done nothing although he called them. The dog was dangerous and in the unfenced yard the only solution was to shoot out.
The daughter: she is very proud of his father. She knows that he had killed an animal but if he was not here, she could have been died or been hurt by the dog. People should realize that he saved her life. She would have done the same things if she was at her father’s place.
The community: Anyone can kill with impunity, but if community is in danger by a dog that isn’t in an unfecended yard, his act was useful for everyone who has children. Policeman has ensured the security of his family but of the community. It was a citizen’s act.
Dog’s owner: He shouldn’t have shot out. He has to be aware that he killed an animal. Yes he wanted to protect his daughter but he was not compelled to shot out. He could have used another mean. It has been obvious that we couldn’t kill our dog with which we have been living.
Prosecutor: He is guilty and shouldn’t have done it. According to him, he didn’t follow the proper legal channel and he broke the law because his family was in no imminent danger. The prosecution added that sympathy for the man‘s daughter did not mask the fact that he broke the law.
Animal control: We have done nothing when the policeman has called because it’s impossible to care on every dogs that aren’t chain. Moreover policeman gave us hazy information about the situation. It was hard to assess seriousness of the situation.
Réponse: Fait divers/Correction de gerondif, postée le 07-12-2010 à 19:12:29 (S | E)
Bonsoir,
Policeman: Everybody would have done the same thing as him. He just wanted to protect his daughter because he thought that she was in a dangerous situation. He acted like a good citizen and according to this(essayez plutôt "à cause de cala" plutôt que selon cela") people should be more indulgent because although he killed a dog, he did it for the good cause which was to protect his daughter and to avoid an accident. He wanted by his act to protect his daughter and to avoid an accident. He didn’t want the dog to hurt his daughter and he didn’t know what to do, this is why he shot the dog because Animal Control had done nothing although he called(bien qu'il les ait appelé, si on respecte la concordance des temps) them. The dog was dangerous and in the unfenced yard the only solution was to shoot out.(pourquoi out ?)
The daughter: she is very proud of his(son père à elle) father. She knows that he had (elle sait qu'il a tué, pas qu'il avait tué)killed an animal but if he was(s'il n'avait pas été là) not here, she could have been(à supprimer, vous confondez to die et dead, she would have died signifie, elle aurait trépassé, elle serait morte en français courant, d'où votre been superflu) died or been hurt by the dog. People should realize that he saved her life. She would have done the same things if she was(si elle avait été) at her father’s place.(je crois q'on dit "in his shoes")
The community: Anyone can kill with impunity, but if (déterminant)community is in danger by a dog that isn’t in an unfecended yard, his act was useful for everyone who has children. (déterminant)Policeman has ensured the security of his family but (manque quelque chose comme "aussi") of the community. It was a citizen’s act.
Dog’s owner: He shouldn’t have shot out. He has to be aware that he killed an animal. Yes he wanted to protect his daughter but he was not compelled to shot out. He could have used another mean. It has been (ce temps est trop loin dans le passé)obvious that we couldn’t kill our dog with which we have been living (si vous mettez ce temps, allez jusqu'au bout et mettez une durée).
Prosecutor: He is guilty and shouldn’t have done it. According to him, he didn’t follow the proper legal channel and he broke the law because his family was in no imminent danger. The prosecution added that sympathy for the man‘s daughter did not mask the fact that he broke the law.
Animal control: We have done(prétérit serait mieux) nothing when the policeman has called (idem)because it’s impossible to care on every dogs that aren’t(singulier) chain(participe passé). Moreover (déterminant) policeman gave us hazy information about the situation. It was hard to assess (déterminant)seriousness of the situation.
Réponse: Fait divers/Correction de elii-se, postée le 07-12-2010 à 21:13:12 (S | E)
Merci pour votre aide, voici la correction
Policeman: Everybody would have done the same thing as him. He just wanted to protect his daughter because he thought that she was in a dangerous situation. He acted like a good citizen and owing to this people should be more indulgent because although he killed a dog, he did it for good cause which was to protect his daughter and to avoid an accident. He wanted by his act to protect his daughter and to avoid an accident. He didn’t want the dog to hurt his daughter and he didn’t know what to do, this is why he shot the dog because Animal Control had done nothing although he had called them. The dog was dangerous and in the unfenced yard the only solution was to shoot out.
The daughter: she is very proud of her father. She knows that he has killed an animal but if he wasn’t been here, she could have died or been hurt by the dog. People should realize that he saved her life. She would have done the same thing if she was been at her father’s shoes.
The community: Anyone can kill with impunity, but if the community is in danger by a dog that isn’t in an unfended yard, his act was useful for everyone who has Children. The policeman has ensured the security of his family but of the community too. It was a citizen’s act.
Dog’s owner: He shouldn’t have shot out. He has to be aware that he killed an animal. Yes he wanted to protect his daughter but he was not compelled to shot out. He could have used another mean. It had obvious that we couldn’t kill our dog with which we have been living.
Prosecutor: He is guilty and shouldn’t have done it. According to him, he didn’t follow the proper legal channel and he broke the law because his family was in no imminent danger. The prosecution added that sympathy for the man‘s daughter did not mask the fact that he broke the law.
Animal control: We did nothing when the policeman called because it’s impossible to care on every dog that didn’t chain. Moreover a policeman gave us hazy information about the situation. It was hard to assess the seriousness of the situation.
Merci, Elise :D
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 07-12-2010 21:25
Réponse: Fait divers/Correction de gerondif, postée le 07-12-2010 à 22:51:27 (S | E)
Bonsoir,
Policeman: Everybody would have done the same thing as him. He just wanted to protect his daughter because he thought that she was in a dangerous situation. He acted like a good citizen and owing to this (à cause de serait plus léger)people should be more indulgent because although he killed a dog, he did it for *** good cause which was to protect his daughter and to avoid an accident. He wanted by his act to protect his daughter and to avoid an accident. He didn’t want the dog to hurt his daughter and he didn’t know what to do, this is why he shot the dog because Animal Control had done nothing although he had called them. The dog was dangerous and in the unfenced yard the only solution was to shoot out.
The daughter: she is very proud of her father. She knows that he has killed an animal but if he wasn’t(s'il n'avait pas été là, auxiliaire avoir) been here, she could have died or been hurt by the dog. People should realize that he saved her life. She would have done the same thing if she was(idem auxiliaire avoir s'il avait été) been at her father’s shoes.
The community: Anyone can kill with impunity, but if the community is in danger by(à cause de serait mieux) a dog that isn’t in an unfended yard, his act was useful for everyone who has Children. The policeman has ensured (manque ici "non seulement" ce qui me rappelle le "non solum ... sed etiam ... de mes versions latines d'antan: non seulement .... mais encore dans un argumentaire)the security of his family but of the community too. It was a citizen’s act.
Dog’s owner: He shouldn’t have shot out. He has to be aware that he killed an animal. Yes he wanted to protect his daughter but he was not compelled to shot out. He could have used another means. It had(verbe être, pas avoir) obvious that we couldn’t kill our dog with which we have been living.
Prosecutor: He is guilty and shouldn’t have done it. According to him, he didn’t follow the proper legal channel and he broke the law because his family was in no imminent danger. The prosecution added that sympathy for the man‘s daughter did not mask the fact that he broke the law.
Animal control: We did nothing when the policeman called because it’s impossible to care on every dog that didn’t chain. Moreover a policeman gave us hazy information about the situation. It was hard to assess the seriousness of the situation.
Réponse: Fait divers/Correction de elii-se, postée le 08-12-2010 à 11:15:40 (S | E)
Merci, une nouvelle fois pour votre aide, je vous laisse regarder cela à nouveau. Bonne journée. Elise.
Policeman: Everybody would have done the same thing as him. He just wanted to protect his daughter because he thought that she was in a dangerous situation. He acted like a good citizen and because of this people should be more indulgent because although he killed a dog, he did it for the good cause which was to protect his daughter and to avoid an accident. He wanted by his act to protect his daughter and to avoid an accident. He didn’t want the dog to hurt his daughter and he didn’t know what to do, this is why he shot the dog because Animal Control had done nothing although he had called them. The dog was dangerous and in the unfenced yard the only solution was to shoot out.
The daughter: she is very proud of her father. She knows that he has killed an animal but if he hasn’t been here, she could have died or been hurt by the dog. People should realize that he saved her life. She would have done the same thing if she has been in her father’s shoes.
The community: Anyone can kill with impunity, but if the community is in danger because of a dog that isn’t in an unfunded yard, his act was useful for everyone who has Children. The policeman has ensured not only the security of his family but of the community too. It was a citizen’s act.
Dog’s owner: He shouldn’t have shot out. He has to be aware that he killed an animal. Yes he wanted to protect his daughter but he was not compelled to shoot out. He could have used another means. It was obvious that we couldn’t kill our dog with which we have been living.
Prosecutor: He is guilty and shouldn’t have done it. According to him, he didn’t follow the proper legal channel and he broke the law because his family was in no imminent danger. The prosecution added that sympathy for the man‘s daughter did not mask the fact that he broke the law.
Animal control: We did nothing when the policeman called because it’s impossible to care about every dog that not chained. Moreover a policeman gave us hazy information about the situation. It was hard to assess the seriousness of the situation.
Réponse: Fait divers/Correction de gerondif, postée le 08-12-2010 à 14:33:43 (S | E)
Bonjour,
Policeman: Everybody would have done the same thing as him. He just wanted to protect his daughter because he thought that she was in a dangerous situation. He acted like a good citizen and because of this people should be more indulgent because although he killed a dog, he did it for the good cause which was to protect his daughter and to avoid an accident. He wanted by his act to protect his daughter and to avoid an accident. He didn’t want the dog to hurt his daughter and he didn’t know what to do, this is why he shot the dog because Animal Control had done nothing although he had called them. The dog was dangerous and in the unfenced yard the only solution was to shoot out.
(pourquoi "out" ? )
The daughter: she is very proud of her father. She knows that he has killed an animal but if he hasn’t been here, she could have died or been hurt by the dog. People should realize that he saved her life. She would have done the same thing if she has been in her father’s shoes.
The community: Any(faux au sens de personne, zéro personne)one can kill with impunity, but if the community is in danger because of a dog that isn’t in an unfunded
yard, his act was(présent) useful for everyone who has children. The policeman has ensured not only the security of his family but of the community too. It was a citizen’s act.Dog’s owner: He shouldn’t have shot out. He has to be aware that he killed an animal. Yes he wanted to protect his daughter but he was not compelled to shoot out. He could have used another means. It was obvious that we couldn’t kill our dog with which we have been living.
Prosecutor: He is guilty and shouldn’t have done it. According to him, he didn’t follow the proper legal channel and he broke the law because his family was in no imminent danger. The prosecution added that sympathy for the man‘s daughter did not mask the fact that he broke the law.
Animal control: We did nothing when the policeman called because it’s impossible to care about every dog that (verbe être) not chained. Moreover a (le policier ou un policier ?) policeman gave us hazy information about the situation. It was hard to assess the seriousness of the situation.
Réponse: Fait divers/Correction de elii-se, postée le 09-12-2010 à 08:36:28 (S | E)
Merci vraiment de votre aide, reste-t-il encore des erreurs?
Elise.
Policeman: Everybody would have done the same thing as him. He just wanted to protect his daughter because he thought that she was in a dangerous situation. He acted like a good citizen and because of this people should be more indulgent because although he killed a dog, he did it for the good cause which was to protect his daughter and to avoid an accident. He wanted by his act to protect his daughter and to avoid an accident. He didn’t want the dog to hurt his daughter and he didn’t know what to do, this is why he shot the dog because Animal Control had done nothing although he had called them. The dog was dangerous and in the unfenced yard the only solution was to shoot.
The daughter: she is very proud of her father. She knows that he has killed an animal but if he hasn’t been here, she could have died or been hurt by the dog. People should realize that he saved her life. She would have done the same thing if she has been in her father’s shoes.
The community: No one can kill with impunity, but if the community is in danger because of a dog that isn’t in an unfenced yard, his act is useful for everyone who has children. The policeman has ensured not only the security of his family but of the community too. It was a citizen’s act.
Dog’s owner: He shouldn’t have shot out. He has to be aware that he killed an animal. Yes he wanted to protect his daughter but he was not compelled to shoot out. He could have used another means. It was obvious that we couldn’t kill our dog with which we have been living.
Prosecutor: He is guilty and shouldn’t have done it. According to him, he didn’t follow the proper legal channel and he broke the law because his family was in no imminent danger. The prosecution added that sympathy for the man‘s daughter did not mask the fact that he broke the law.
Animal control: We did nothing when the policeman called because it’s impossible to care about every dog that is not chained. Moreover the policeman gave us hazy information about the situation. It was hard to assess the seriousness of the situation.
Réponse: Fait divers/Correction de gerondif, postée le 09-12-2010 à 18:06:26 (S | E)
Bonsoir,
Policeman: Everybody would have done the same thing as him. He just wanted to protect his daughter because he thought that she was in a dangerous situation. He acted like a good citizen and because of this,(virgule) people should be more indulgent because,(virgule) although he killed a dog, he did it for the(plutôt une) good cause which was to protect his daughter and to avoid an accident. He wanted by his act to protect his daughter and to avoid an accident. He didn’t want the dog to hurt his daughter and he didn’t know what to do, this is why he shot the dog because Animal Control had done nothing although he had called them. The dog was dangerous and in the unfenced yard the only solution was to shoot.
The daughter: she is very proud of her father. She knows that he has killed an animal but if he hasn’t been here(concordance), she could have died or been hurt by the dog. People should realize that he saved her life. She would have done the same thing if she has been in her father’s shoes.(concordance)
The community: No one can kill with impunity, but if the community is in danger because of a dog that isn’t in an unfenced yard, his act is useful for everyone who has children. The policeman has ensured not only the security of his family but of the community too. It was a citizen’s act.
Dog’s owner: He shouldn’t have shot out. He has to be aware that he killed an animal. Yes he wanted to protect his daughter but he was not compelled to shoot out. He could have used another means. It was obvious that we couldn’t kill our dog with which we have been living.
Prosecutor: He is guilty and shouldn’t have done it. According to him, he didn’t follow the proper legal channel and he broke the law because his family was in no imminent danger. The prosecution added that sympathy for the man‘s daughter did not mask the fact that he broke(la concordance voudrait: qu'il avait violé la loi) the law.
Animal control: We did nothing when the policeman called because it’s impossible to care about every dog that is not chained. Moreover the policeman gave us hazy information about the situation. It was hard to assess the seriousness of the situation.
Réponse: Fait divers/Correction de elii-se, postée le 10-12-2010 à 08:49:09 (S | E)
En vous remerciant, Elise.
Policeman: Everybody would have done the same thing as him. He just wanted to protect his daughter because he thought that she was in a dangerous situation. He acted like a good citizen and because of this, people should be more indulgent because, although he killed a dog, he did it for a good cause which was to protect his daughter and to avoid an accident. He wanted by his act to protect his daughter and to avoid an accident. He didn’t want the dog to hurt his daughter and he didn’t know what to do, this is why he shot the dog because Animal Control had done nothing although he had called them. The dog was dangerous and in the unfenced yard the only solution was to shoot.
The daughter: she is very proud of her father. She knows that he has killed an animal but if he hadn’t been here, she could have died or been hurt by the dog. People should realize that he saved her life. She would have done the same thing if she had been in her father’s shoes.
The community: No one can kill with impunity, but if the community is in danger because of a dog that isn’t in an unfenced yard, his act is useful for everyone who has children. The policeman has ensured not only the security of his family but of the community too. It was a citizen’s act.
Dog’s owner: He shouldn’t have shot. He has to be aware that he killed an animal. Yes he wanted to protect his daughter but he was not compelled to shoot. He could have used another means. It was obvious that we couldn’t kill our dog with which we have been living.
Prosecutor: He is guilty and shouldn’t have done it. According to him, he didn’t follow the proper legal channel and he broke the law because his family was in no imminent danger. The prosecution added that sympathy for the man‘s daughter did not mask the fact that he had broken the law.
Animal control: We did nothing when the policeman called because it’s impossible to care about every dog that is not chained. Moreover the policeman gave us hazy information about the situation. It was hard to assess the seriousness of the situation.
Réponse: Fait divers/Correction de gerondif, postée le 10-12-2010 à 14:45:56 (S | E)
Bonjour,
je ne vois rien de plus à corriger à mon humble niveau. Cela ne veut pas dire qu'un oeil différent ne trouvera pas des maladresses ou des erreurs qui m'auraient échappé.
Réponse: Fait divers/Correction de may, postée le 11-12-2010 à 19:32:11 (S | E)
Bonjour
Voici un oeil différent 
Policeman: Everybody would have done the same thing way (as him). He just wanted to protect his daughter because he thought that she was in a dangerous situation. He acted like a good citizen and because of this, people should be more indulgent because (trouver un autre conjonction ou commencer une autre phrase (, although) Truth is he killed a dog, (he did it) for a good cause which was to protect his daughter and to avoid an accident. He wanted by his act to protect his daughter (and to avoid an accident). He didn’t want the dog to hurt his daughter (and)but he didn’t know what else to do, (this) that is why he shot the dog because Animal Control had done nothing although he had called them. The dog was dangerous and in the unfenced yard besoin ponctuation ou un conjonction the only solution was to shoot.
The daughter: she is very proud of her father. She knows that he (has) killed an animal but if he hadn’t been (here) there, she could have died or been hurt by the dog. People should realize that he saved her life. She would have done the same thing if she had been in her father’s shoes.
Bon samedi
<< Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais
