Springen naar inhoud

Engels essay


  • Log in om te kunnen reageren

#1

kweetvanniks

    kweetvanniks


  • >100 berichten
  • 121 berichten
  • Ervaren gebruiker

Geplaatst op 15 januari 2012 - 12:10

Beste wsf-lid,

Ik heb onlangs een essay geschreven, zouden jullie de fouten die ik over het hoofd heb gezien aan mij vertellen ( vooral interpunctie)

----

Cigarettes.

Cigarettes, we all recognize the disguisting smoke at cafés. The repugnant smell of it, which also sticks to your clothes makes you wonder why you even go to a cafe. Also it is very bad for one’s health. That is why we need to ban the production and consumption of cigarettes.

Cigarettes are unhealthy for humans whetether you have an illness or not cigarettes, mostly the smoke of it, could hurt you. The smoke of cigarettes is bad for people with heart and lung diseases. They could get a heart attack or get more risk at having lung cancer which threatens their life even if you do not have these complaints, you are in risk of getting them later on.

Also the people who do not want to smoke cigarettes are threatened by it in cafés or at special events, like parties and entertainment districts. For most people it is hard to say “stop smoking” to complete strangers, because you do not know that reaction which you will get from them. When they are drunk too, it will mostly start a fight between people in those entertainment districts. While that is in the back of your mind you will not tell people to stop smoking, which makes you a passive smoker.

Furthermore, it has some big economical consequences. Hospitals are stuck with the expensive costs of people who suffer of illnesses and disabilities related to the chemicals which hurts your body whether you are an active or a passive smoker. The costs are also made by people who do not extinguish the cigarettes and throw them on the Floor at forests which could lead to forest fires.

But some will say that if you ban it the government’s tax income will drop.

That is true but if you realize that the costs which are related to cigarettes will also drop. You will see a netto gain which could improve the economy of a country, by investing in usefull services like school.

So we need to ban cigarettes, because it hurts you either physically and economically. You do let people smoke who do not want to smoke, which also harms him and his privacy. Some say that the government’s revenue will drop, but when you compare the costs of smoking and the benefits of it you will see a netto gain.

Dit forum kan gratis blijven vanwege banners als deze. Door te registeren zal de onderstaande banner overigens verdwijnen.

#2

JoostZoekthulp

    JoostZoekthulp


  • 0 - 25 berichten
  • 4 berichten
  • Gebruiker

Geplaatst op 15 januari 2012 - 13:18

heb er ff een paar uitgehaald

Cigarettes, we all recognize the disguisting smoke at cafés. The repugnant smell of it, which also sticks to your clothes. It makes you wonder why you even go to a cafe. Also it is very bad for one’s health. That is why we need to ban the production and consumption of cigarettes.

Cigarettes are unhealthy for humans whether you have an illness or not. Cigarettes, mostly the smoke of it, can hurt you. The smoke of cigarettes is bad for people with heart and lung diseases. They could get a heart attack or get a higher risk at having lung cancer which threatens their life. Even if you do not have these complaints, you are in risk of getting them later in your life.

Also the people who do not want to smoke cigarettes are threatened by it in cafés or at special events, like parties and entertainment districts. For most people it is hard to say “stop smoking” to strangers, because you do not know what reaction you will receive from them. When they are drunk, it will mostly start a fight between people in those entertainment districts. While that is in the back of your mind you will not tell people to stop smoking, which makes you a passive smoker.

Furthermore, it has some big economical consequences. Hospitals are stuck with the expensive costs of people who suffer of illnesses and disabilities related to the chemicals which hurts your body whether you are an active or a passive smoker. The costs are also made by people who do not extinguish the cigarettes and throw them on the floor or at places with a fire risk.

But some people will say that if you ban cigarettes, the government’s tax income will drop.

That is definitely true, but if you realize the costs which are related to cigarettes will also drop. You will see a netto gain which could improve the economy of a country, by investing in usefull services like school.

My conclusion is that we need to ban cigarettes, because it hurts you either physically and economically. It can endanger people around you, who don't know the consequences. Some say that the government’s revenue will drop, but when you compare the costs of smoking and the benefits of it you will see a netto gain.

aste heb er ff paar fouten uit gehaald en soms wat bullshit vervangen door betere tekst
ltr

#3

Rhiannon

    Rhiannon


  • >1k berichten
  • 2745 berichten
  • Moderator

Geplaatst op 15 januari 2012 - 14:18

Ik heb een aantal fouten rood gemaakt. Kijk eerst even zelf of je kunt ontdekken waarom of iets is rood gemaakt. Mocht je dit niet lukken, vraag dan gerust wat je wilt weten. De toegevoegde interpunctie of een verbeterde constructie is blauw gemaakt.

Cigarettes.

Cigarettes, we all recognize the disguisting smoke at cafés. The repugnant smell of it, which also sticks to your clothes, makes you wonder why you even go to a cafe. Also, it is very bad for one’s health. That is why we need to ban the production and consumption of cigarettes.

Cigarettes are unhealthy for humans whetether you have an illness or not, cigarettes, mostly the smoke of it, could hurt you. The smoke of cigarettes is bad for people with heart and lung diseases. They could get a heart attack or get more risk at run the risk of having lung cancer which threatens their life; even if you do not have these complaints, you are in risk of getting them later on.

Also, the people who do not want to smoke cigarettes are threatened by it in cafés or at special events, like parties and entertainment districts. For most people it is hard to say “stop smoking” to complete strangers, because you do not know that reaction which you will get from them. When they are drunk too, it will mostly start a fight between people in those entertainment districts. While that is in the back of your mind you will not tell people to stop smoking, which makes you a passive smoker.

Furthermore, it has some big economical consequences. Hospitals are stuck with the expensive costs of people who suffer of illnesses and disabilities related to the chemicals which hurts your body whether you are an active or a passive smoker. The costs are also made Risks are also taken by people who do not extinguish the cigarettes and throw them on the floor at forests which could lead to forest fires.

But some will say that if you ban it the government’s tax income will drop.

That is true, but if you realize that the costs which are related to cigarettes will also drop, you will see a netto gain which could improve the economy of a country, by investing in usefull services like school.

So we need to ban cigarettes, because it hurts you either physically and economically. You do let people smoke who do not want to smoke, which also harms him and his privacy. Some say that the government’s revenue will drop, but when you compare the costs of smoking and the benefits of it you will see a netto gain.

Hoe minder kennis, des te onwrikbaarder het oordeel.

#4

kweetvanniks

    kweetvanniks


  • >100 berichten
  • 121 berichten
  • Ervaren gebruiker

Geplaatst op 16 januari 2012 - 09:11

Ik heb hem getracht te verbeteren,

Disguisting- disgusting ( puur vocabulair, doe ik gewoon fout :) )

cafe- met een é? --> café

whetether-->whether

Is het you are at risk?

en suffer from illnesses?

"because you do not know that reaction which you will get from them."
Hier had ik van gemaakt
"because you do not know THE reaction which? you will get from them."

Mostly snapte ik niet, is het fout gespeld of hoort het niet in de context?

"Furthermore, it has some big economical consequences. Hospitals are stuck with the expensive costs of people who suffer of illnesses and disabilities related to the chemicals which HURTS your body whether you are an active or a passive smoker."

Die met 'HURTS' snap ik ook niet, het doet pijn aan je lichaam, toch? of moet het 'harms' zijn? Waarbij je '...the chemicals which harms your body...'

The costs are also made. Risks are also taken, waarom de tweede zin? Het gaat hier om kosten die worden gemaakt, maar hier staat dat er een risk word genomen, wat volgens mij niet goed is, dacht ik.

'at' forests -- 'in' forests

~Waarom is 'you' in de 6e alinea blauw gekleurd?

Netto wordt net, puur Nederlandse vertaling...

De verbeteringen in de laatste alinea snap ik eventjes niet, kunt u het me uitleggen?

#5

Rhiannon

    Rhiannon


  • >1k berichten
  • 2745 berichten
  • Moderator

Geplaatst op 16 januari 2012 - 09:51

De zaken waar je zelf al had gevonden wat er mis was heb ik hieronder niet vermeld. V.w.b. de andere zaken of waar je een vraag hebt, hieronder een antwoord:

[quote name='kweetvanniks' post='713183' date='16 January 2012, 09:11']Is het you are at risk?[/quote]

Precies, je hebt het zelf gevonden!

[quote name='kweetvanniks' post='713183' date='16 January 2012, 09:11']en suffer from illnesses?[/quote]

Ook hier heb je het zelf gevonden.

[quote name='kweetvanniks' post='713183' date='16 January 2012, 09:11']"because you do not know that reaction which you will get from them."
Hier had ik van gemaakt
"because you do not know THE reaction which? you will get from them."[/quote]

moet zijn: "because you do not know which reaction you will get from them."
Ook in het Nederlands zou je eerder zeggen "welke reactie je zou krijgen".

[quote name='kweetvanniks' post='713183' date='16 January 2012, 09:11']Mostly snapte ik niet, is het fout gespeld of hoort het niet in de context?[/quote]

In plaats van 'mostly' moet hier 'often' gebruikt worden. Bericht bekijken
"Furthermore, it has some big economical consequences. Hospitals are stuck with the expensive costs of people who suffer of illnesses and disabilities related to the chemicals which HURTS your body whether you are an active or a passive smoker."[/quote]

Het moet hier zijn "the chemicals which HURTS hurt your body" - hier gaat het niet om derde persoon enkelvoud maar om derde persoon meervoud, omdat 'chemicals' meervoud is.

[quote name='kweetvanniks' post='713183' date='16 January 2012, 09:11']The costs are also made. Risks are also taken, waarom de tweede zin? Het gaat hier om kosten die worden gemaakt, maar hier staat dat er een risk word genomen, wat volgens mij niet goed is, dacht ik.[/quote]

Dan heb ik je hier verkeerd begrepen. Ik dacht dat je het over het risico had. Als je het hebt over de kosten die worden gemaakt, moet het worden: "Costs are also incurred".

[quote name='kweetvanniks' post='713183' date='16 January 2012, 09:11']~Waarom is 'you' in de 6e alinea blauw gekleurd?[/quote]

Omdat ik daar in plaats van een punt, een komma heb gezet, waardoor 'you' met een kleine letter moet worden geschreven.

[quote name='kweetvanniks' post='713183' date='16 January 2012, 09:11']Netto wordt net, puur Nederlandse vertaling...[/quote]
Netto is nett met twee t's in het Engels. Klopt, het ging hier puur om de spelling.

[quote name='kweetvanniks' post='713183' date='16 January 2012, 09:11']De verbeteringen in de laatste alinea snap ik eventjes niet, kunt u het me uitleggen?[/quote]

Jij had geschreven: "...either physically and economically. You do let people smoke who do not want to smoke, which also harms him and his privacy."
Het is óf "either .... or" óf "both .... and". In dit geval, omdat je denk ik bedoel "zowel... als" moet je het tweede gebruiken. "Either... or" betekent immers "of... of".
Voor wat betreft de laatste bijzin, die slaat terug op "people", wat meervoud is, dus moet het worden "harm them and their privacy".

Verder zie ik duidelijk verbetering in je Engels. Je kunt al veel meer zelf vinden en er staat om te beginnen al minder fouten in.
Hoe minder kennis, des te onwrikbaarder het oordeel.

#6

jelis

    jelis


  • 0 - 25 berichten
  • 5 berichten
  • Gebruiker

Geplaatst op 17 januari 2012 - 12:04

Netto is nett met twee t's in het Engels. Klopt, het ging hier puur om de spelling.


Als "netto" als een bijvoeglijk naamwoord wordt gebruikt, dan is de vertaling toch wel "net" met maar 1 t, of is mijn woordenboek fout?





0 gebruiker(s) lezen dit onderwerp

0 leden, 0 bezoekers, 0 anonieme gebruikers

Ook adverteren op onze website? Lees hier meer!

Gesponsorde vacatures

Vacatures