Correction/Aboriginal people
Cours gratuits > Forum > Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais || En basCorrection/Aboriginal people
Message de amanda54 posté le 09-02-2014 à 13:27:54 (S | E | F)
Bonjour,
Je dois rédiger un essai dans lequel je dois me prononcer sur l'utilité du discours du Premier Ministre australien Kevin Rudd.
Je remercie toute personne acceptant de me corriger
On 13th February 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd officially presents national apologies to the Aboriginal People. This speech seems to be an important event of the Australia’s history, and an important step to a new politic of equality between Aborigines and other Australians. Nevertheless we need to keep an objective mindset, and ask us if Kevin Rudd’s speech can help to close the gap between the two cultures.
For me, the answer is no, indeed it is a step for change, but this speech presents a lack of action and doesn’t propose solutions to reduce this gap.
Even if I think this speech cannot close the gap between the Aborigines and the White Community, I must say that it is an important and a courageous event for all Australia. Today, Australia’s government is one of the rare nations which had recognized his faults toward the people which he had mistreated. In add to it, these apologies were not done a lot of time after Stolen Generation, although that is always too much late. Besides, we can remark that he used words which express aptly the horror of the situation and not bury his head in the sand head-on the atrocities committed by White Australians. In conclusion, these official apologies represent a first step of the reconciliation process.
All the same, the utility of this speech need to be nuanced. Indeed, he used some inappropriate expressions. For instance, he affirms that it is time to turn the page whereas he was not concerned by the Aboriginal issue. For me, he cannot and he has not got the right to say when it is time to turn the page. Was he one of the parents private of their children? Was he one of the Aboriginals private of their lands? Furthermore, these apologies do not bring solutions to the catastrophic situation of the Aboriginal people. No specific change is approached in this speech. Of course, he swears that measures were going to be taken, yet Aborigines need action, as jobs’ creations or anti delinquency measures. So, in my opinion, words are certainly useful, and prominent but it is not good enough, without action, the gap between the two cultures will never be closed.
Thus, on the one hand the Kevin Rudd’s initiative is a very good idea, more than that it is a necessary idea. One the other hand I think that if this speech is not followed by an active fight to close the gap it rake water up a hill. Moreover we can notice with the figures give on the Earth Time the 8th July 2009 are worrying and the situation does not seem to be improved.
Merci d'avance.
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 09-02-2014 14:51
Message de amanda54 posté le 09-02-2014 à 13:27:54 (S | E | F)
Bonjour,
Je dois rédiger un essai dans lequel je dois me prononcer sur l'utilité du discours du Premier Ministre australien Kevin Rudd.
Je remercie toute personne acceptant de me corriger
On 13th February 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd officially presents national apologies to the Aboriginal People. This speech seems to be an important event of the Australia’s history, and an important step to a new politic of equality between Aborigines and other Australians. Nevertheless we need to keep an objective mindset, and ask us if Kevin Rudd’s speech can help to close the gap between the two cultures.
For me, the answer is no, indeed it is a step for change, but this speech presents a lack of action and doesn’t propose solutions to reduce this gap.
Even if I think this speech cannot close the gap between the Aborigines and the White Community, I must say that it is an important and a courageous event for all Australia. Today, Australia’s government is one of the rare nations which had recognized his faults toward the people which he had mistreated. In add to it, these apologies were not done a lot of time after Stolen Generation, although that is always too much late. Besides, we can remark that he used words which express aptly the horror of the situation and not bury his head in the sand head-on the atrocities committed by White Australians. In conclusion, these official apologies represent a first step of the reconciliation process.
All the same, the utility of this speech need to be nuanced. Indeed, he used some inappropriate expressions. For instance, he affirms that it is time to turn the page whereas he was not concerned by the Aboriginal issue. For me, he cannot and he has not got the right to say when it is time to turn the page. Was he one of the parents private of their children? Was he one of the Aboriginals private of their lands? Furthermore, these apologies do not bring solutions to the catastrophic situation of the Aboriginal people. No specific change is approached in this speech. Of course, he swears that measures were going to be taken, yet Aborigines need action, as jobs’ creations or anti delinquency measures. So, in my opinion, words are certainly useful, and prominent but it is not good enough, without action, the gap between the two cultures will never be closed.
Thus, on the one hand the Kevin Rudd’s initiative is a very good idea, more than that it is a necessary idea. One the other hand I think that if this speech is not followed by an active fight to close the gap it rake water up a hill. Moreover we can notice with the figures give on the Earth Time the 8th July 2009 are worrying and the situation does not seem to be improved.
Merci d'avance.
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 09-02-2014 14:51
Réponse: Correction/Aboriginal people de dino, postée le 10-02-2014 à 23:37:24 (S | E)
C'est un gros travail que tu demande là et c'est pourquoi je suppose que personne ne semble vouloir s'y coller. D'autant plus qu'il me semble que ce texte vient tout droit d'un traducteur automatique. Je vais essayer de t'apporter un peu d'aide, mais je ne peux pas non plus y passer la nuit.
Pour le début j'aurais dit : On THE 13th, vérifie comment il faut écrire les dates
Puis J'aurais écris : THE Prime Minister, vérifie si il faut un article devant les titres de ce genre.
Ton texte est très difficile à comprendre.
Ah! Ca y est j'ai pigé! Donc le premier ministre il a fait un speech ; c'est donc une action terminé. Tu raconte quelque-chose qui a eu lieu et qui est maintenant terminé. Comme si tu racontais à quelqu'un ce que tu as fait pendant les vacances et dans ce cas tu dois utiliser le prétérit. Tu sais c'est ce temps qui ce forme en ajoutant ed à la base verbale, sauf pour les verbes qui font parties de la fameuse liste des verbes irréguliers.
Donc le premier ministre PRESENTED.
Plutôt que seem, j'aurais utilisé SOUND. Il s'agit d'un speech, donc tu ne peux pas le voir, mais tu peux l'entendre. Dans ce cas pour dire IL SEMBLE tu ne dit pas it seems, mais it sounds. Quoi que je ne suis pas sûr, il est possible que les deux puissent être utilisés, mais sound me semble plus correct.
This speech SOUNDS to be an important event IN the Australia’s history : TU dois utiliser IN, IN THE HISTORY.
Tu utilises le mot politique, je me permet de sortir un peu du sujet pour t'expliquer quelque-chose d'important que nous devrions tous savoir : Le mot politique nous vient du grecque poli pour "citoyen" ique pour "qui concerne" Politique est donc un adjectif qui a le sens de : "qui concerne le citoyen" Maintenant quand on dit : Homme politique, par exemple, on dit "homme qui concerne le citoyen", ce qui n'a aucun sens. Je n'utilise jamais ce mot en temps que nom. Par exemple je dis toujours homme de pouvoir plutot que homme politique. Il est par ailleur interressant en étudiant l'anglais de constaster que les anglophones font là même erreur que nous. Je te laisse méditer sur ce sujet s'il t'interesse.
Ask us est une faute d'anglais. Il faut dire ask ourselves.
Voilà je t'aurais aidé sur 1 paragraphe je te souhaite bonne chance et j'espère que d'autres sur le forum t'aideront à compléter le travail
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 11-02-2014 22:57
Trop de fautes pour pouvoir corriger!
Réponse: Correction/Aboriginal people de dino, postée le 11-02-2014 à 22:09:30 (S | E)
Je souhaites revenir sur le sujet car j'ai de nouvelles données a te transmettres à propos de prime minister. Je pense qu'un internaute t'as apporté de l'aide car il m'as contacté. Il as un très bon anglais et peux lui faire confiance.
Je lui ai communiqué les résultats de mes recherches sur internet cet après-midi, mais il s'avère que le resutat de mes recherche était incomplé.j'essayerai de le recontacter plus tard.
Toujours est-il que j'ai demandé à un flatmate anglais à ce sujet et voici la leçon complète qui est très interressante car introuvable dans les bouquins de grammaire ainsi que sur l'internet : Devant un titre il faut utiliser l'article défini,the, aussi nous dirons the Doctor, the Queen etc... Sauf si le titre est suivi du nom de la personne. Aussi il faut dire : Doctor Duncomb, King philip... Mais il faut comprendre que King est un titre, Doctor est un titre et aussi une fonction, Prime Minister pour les anglais n'est seulement qu'une fonction et c'est pourquoi nous dirons : The Prime Miniter, The Prime Minister Gordon Brown. J'espère que tu apprécies.
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 11-02-2014 22:57
Trop de fautes pour pouvoir corriger!
Réponse: Correction/Aboriginal people de gerondif, postée le 11-02-2014 à 22:17:10 (S | E)
Hello,
Dino, j'avais mis une virgule!
The Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that..............
extrait d'internet: Prime Minister David Cameron says that "money is no object" in Britain's flood relief effort. 11 Feb 2014 ...(The Daily Telegraph)
sinon oui, on dit:
The inspector is waiting for you.
* Inspector Colombo is waiting for you.
Réponse: Correction/Aboriginal people de gerondif, postée le 11-02-2014 à 22:41:16 (S | E)
Bonsoir,
bleu ou rose: erreurs
vert: corrections offertes
On February 13th 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd officially presents(prétérit) national apologies to the Aboriginal People. This speech seems(prétérit) to be an important event in ** Australia’s history, and an important step towards a new politic of equality between Aborigines and other Australians. Nevertheless we need to keep an objective mindset(me semble maladroit), and ask us(ourselves*) if Kevin Rudd’s speech can help to close the gap between the two cultures. (*vérifiez aussi le verbe to wonder)
For me, the answer is no, indeed it is a step for change, but this speech presents a lack of action and doesn’t propose solutions to reduce this gap.
Even if I think this speech cannot close the gap between the Aborigines and the White Community, I must say that it is an important and a courageous event for all Australia. Today, Australia’s government is one of the rare nations(un gouvernement n'est pas une nation) which had recognized his faults toward the people which he had mistreated. In add to it, these apologies were not done a lot of time after (were expressed soon after)Stolen Generation, although that is always too
All the same,(nevertheless) the utility of this speech "needs to be nuanced" (français traduit, maladroit). Indeed, he used some inappropriate expressions. For instance, he affirms that it is time to turn the page whereas he was not concerned by the Aboriginal issue. For me, he cannot and he has not got the right to say when it is time to turn the page. Was he one of the parents private of their children? Was he one of the Aboriginals private of their lands? Furthermore, these apologies do not bring solutions to the catastrophic situation of the Aboriginal people. No specific change is approached in this speech. Of course, he swears that measures were going to be taken, yet Aborigines need action, as jobs’ creations or anti delinquency measures. So, in my opinion, words are certainly useful, and prominent but it is not good enough, without action, the gap between the two cultures will never be closed.
Thus, on the one hand
Réponse: Correction/Aboriginal people de chantal91, postée le 12-02-2014 à 14:21:38 (S | E)
On 13 February 2008/on February 13th 2008.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd officially presented.
A new policy of equality.
Ask ourselves.
For all of Australia.
Recognised (le "z" est américain")
fault towards.
In addition (je préfère "moreover").
were expressed not long after.
Although it's still too late.
And did not bury his head in the sand regarding the atrocities.
The first step of the reconciliation process/a first step to reconciliation.
The usefulness of this speech.
"One of the parents private" - je ne comprends pas...
"One of the aboriginals private" - je ne comprends pas.
Job-creation or anti-delinquency
And prominent - c'est-à-dire?
Kevin Rudd's initiative (pas the Kevin Rudd).
more so than a necessary one.
It rake water up a hill - je ne connais pas l'expression pour la corriger.
On the 8th of July.
The situation does not seem improved/the situation does not seem to be improving.
Réponse: Correction/Aboriginal people de lemagemasque, postée le 12-02-2014 à 15:18:44 (S | E)
Hello!
Stop ! Arrêtez de croire que "recognize" ou autre mot semblable est
!Pas du tout ! Il est aussi bien utilisé en
!Merci !
See you!
Réponse: Correction/Aboriginal people de chantal91, postée le 12-02-2014 à 15:39:28 (S | E)
C'est le z qui est américain.
Réponse: Correction/Aboriginal people de chantal91, postée le 12-02-2014 à 15:42:08 (S | E)
Je ne suis pas la seule
Lien internet
Réponse: Correction/Aboriginal people de lemagemasque, postée le 12-02-2014 à 15:57:40 (S | E)
Je suis d'accord pour dire qu'on trouvera rarement "recognise" aux Etats-Unis, mais dire que le "z" est américain, dans un contexte actuel, est faux pour moi.
Lien internet
Lien internet
-------------------
Modifié par lemagemasque le 12-02-2014 18:44
Oui, je voulais dire de façon un peu détourné que "recognise" est
...Réponse: Correction/Aboriginal people de gerondif, postée le 12-02-2014 à 18:34:12 (S | E)
Hello,
le double click donne:
recognize [sb] or [sth], UK: recognise vtr , donc c'est une différenciation classique.
idem pour: realize, UK: realise En général, je montre la différence en acceptant les deux orthographes.
Réponse: Correction/Aboriginal people de amanda54, postée le 12-02-2014 à 20:52:24 (S | E)
Merci à tous pour votre aide :D
Je tiens juste à préciser que je ne me suis pas servie d'un traducteur :/
Enfin bref
J'ai utiliser le mot speech car ma professeur l'a employé dans la problématique.
Pour head-on je voulais dire en face de.
The Earth Time est magazine dont un extrait nous a été fourni ;)
J'ai utilisé prominent pour dire marquant.
Claudia 91 : Je ne vois pas où mettre For all of Australia.
Quand je disais private of, que j'ai remplacé par who lost, je faisais référence à mon cours
On the February 13th 2008,The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd officially presented
national apologies to the Aboriginal People. This speech seemed to be an important event in the Australia’s history, and an important step towards a new policy of equality between Aborigines and other Australians. Nevertheless we need to keep an objective point of vue, and ask ourselves if Kevin Rudd’s speech can help to close the gap between the two cultures.
For me, the answer is no, indeed it is a step for change, but this speech presents a lack of action and doesn’t propose solutions to reduce this gap.
Even if I think this speech cannot close the gap between the Aborigines and the White Community, I must say that it is an important and a courageous event for all Australia. Today, Australia is one of the rare country which had recognized his fault towards the people which it had mistreated. Moreover, these apologies were expressed soon after Stolen Generation, although it is still too late. Besides, we can note that he used words which express aptly the horror of the situation and did not bury his head in the sand regarding the atrocities committed by White Australians. In conclusion, these official apologies represent a first step towards a reconciliation process.
Nevertheless the utility of this speech needs to be qualified Indeed, he used some inappropriate expressions. For instance, he affirms that it is time to turn the page whereas he was not concerned by the Aboriginal issue. For me, he cannot and he has not got the right to say when it is time to turn the page. Was he one of the parents who lost their children? Was he one of the Aboriginals who lost their lands? Furthermore, these apologies do not bring solutions to the catastrophic situation of the Aboriginal people. No specific change is approached in this speech. Of course, he swears that measures were going to be taken, yet Aborigines need action, as job creation or or anti-delinquency measures. So, in my opinion, words are certainly useful, and prominent but it is not good enough, without action, the gap between the two cultures will never be closed.
Thus, on the one hand Kevin Rudd’s initiative is a very good idea, more so than a necessary one . One the other hand I think that if this speech is not followed by an active fight to close the gap it rakes water up a hill. Moreover we can notice that with the figures given on the Earth Time on the 8th July 2009 are worrying and the situation does not seem to improve.
Merci encore pour votre travail et votre aide :D
Réponse: Correction/Aboriginal people de gerondif, postée le 12-02-2014 à 22:08:49 (S | E)
Hello,
privé de se dit "deprived of", private of me paraîtrait très étonnant dans un cours.
Pourquoi n'utilisez-vous pas les corrections que je vous avais données ?
On the February 13th 2008,The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd officially presented
national apologies to the Aboriginal People. This speech seemed to be an important event in the Australia’s history, and an important step towards a new policy of equality between Aborigines and other Australians. Nevertheless we need to keep an objective point of vue, and ask ourselves if Kevin Rudd’s speech can help to close the gap between the two cultures.
For me, the answer is no, indeed it is a step for change, but this speech presents a lack of action and doesn’t propose solutions to reduce this gap.
Even if I think this speech cannot close the gap between the Aborigines and the White Community, I must say that it is an important and a courageous event for all Australia. Today, Australia is one of the rare country(pluriel) which had recognized his fault towards the people which it had mistreated. Moreover, these apologies were expressed soon after Stolen Generation, although it is(prétérit) still too late. Besides, we can note that he used words which express aptly the horror of the situation and did not bury his head in the sand regarding the atrocities committed by White Australians. In conclusion, these official apologies represent a first step towards a reconciliation process.
Nevertheless the utility (on vous avait fourni "usefulness") of this speech needs to be qualified Indeed, he used some inappropriate expressions. For instance, he affirms that it is time to turn the page whereas he was not concerned by the Aboriginal issue. For me, he cannot and he has not got the right to say when it is time to turn the page. Was he one of the parents who lost their children? Was he one of the Aboriginals who lost their lands? Furthermore, these apologies do not bring solutions to the catastrophic situation of the Aboriginal people. No specific change is approached in this speech. Of course, he (soit les deux verbes sont au présent, soit ils sont au passé)swears that measures were going to be taken, yet Aborigines need action, such as job creation or or anti-delinquency measures. So, in my opinion, words are certainly useful, and prominent (ne me parait pas convenir) but it is not good enough, without action, the gap between the two cultures will never be closed.
Thus, on the one hand, Kevin Rudd’s initiative is a very good idea, more so than a necessary one . One the other hand I think that if this speech is not followed by an active fight to close the gap it rakes water up a hill. Moreover we can notice that
Réponse: Correction/Aboriginal people de amanda54, postée le 16-02-2014 à 16:34:49 (S | E)
Pardon si j'ai oublié certaines corrections :/
J'ai essayé de toutes les prendre.
Je re corrige ces dernières fautes. :P
Et merci encore pour toute votre aide ;)
Cours gratuits > Forum > Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais
