Se connecter / S'enregistrer
Votre question
Résolu

Help Correction Texte Anglais. Merci!

Tags :
  • United
Dernière réponse : dans Etudes - Travail
29 Novembre 2010 14:53:39

Bonjour,
Je me demandais si quelqu'un pouvait jeter un coup d'oeil à mon texte et me corriger les grosses fautes (sans entrer dans les détails).
Vraiment merci d'avance à toutes les bonnes âmes.

First of all, I am sorry not to response your email earlier. I was a bit busy with my exams.
Thanks very much for your advice, I'll keep bear in mind.

I prefer do research on United States, not only I am interested in but also, I already study on this topic (foreign policy on United States and other countries also) along my studies at University.

According the application form, I have to write the detail of the research plan which I wish to pursue at GSAPS, including the theme, approach and methods which I intend to use in only 400 words. It seems be quite short, that's why I think I should find more specific subjet and I must be more synthetic.

For the topic " The special relations" of US foreign policy", I'm thinking to talk about relationship's difference of USA according the country (United Kingdom and Israel).

On one hand, concerning Israel, Washington keeps a relationship that has no parallel in history, the relationship between these countries are really special. Because of this relationship, Washington gives Isreal consistent unconditional diplomatic backing and foreign aid even if the consequences are "fatal" for Washington. I'm also going to evoke the role of the pro-Israel lobby at USA.
But with the Israelo-Palestinian conflict, we can wonder if this relationship is in "danger" because their divergent paths are more apparent these last years (in particular with the election of Obama).

On the other hand, Washington has also a special relation with London since 1945 but this relationship is not comparable. Indeed, London must follow Washington's politic and diplomacy. We can notice an increasing alignment of London on Washington from 2001. But this alliance didn't work in both senses, London had almost nothing in exchange. However with David Cameron, things changed, he's revises his relationship with Washington (less slavish relation). Furthermore, the problem with BP (oil spill) soiled this relation. But globally, London has always a good relationship with Washington, English government prefer get closer of USA instead of Europe.

I don't know if I should evoke Canada as well, but with 400 words, I prefer to take just 2 exemples (Israel and London). I precise that is just an approximate plan, I didn't do deep resarch yet.

I'm also very interested in other subjet still about USA, so I'm wondering if it's a topic of your supervision.
The subject is " The Obama administration and multilateralism : theory and practice". Globally, in theory US diplomacy is now multilateralist but in practise, nothing has really changed (Obama adopt an unilateralism for vital situations of USA and a bilateralism especially with Russia, China and Pakistan). The multilateralism is just residual. For Obama, the interest of USA are more important than others countries' interest.
After some research in this topic, I prefer study on it instead of the first one. I could give you more explanations about this theme if you want.
I hope that's your range of supervision. But if not, it doesn't matter.

Thanks

Autres pages sur : help correction texte anglais merci

Meilleure solution

Anonyme
29 Novembre 2010 15:15:37

First of all, I am sorry not to reply to your email earlier. I was a bit busy with my exams.
Thanks very much for your advice, I'll keep bear in mind.

I prefer do research on United States, not only because I am interested in but also because I already study on this topic (foreign policy on United States and other countries as well) along my studies at University.

According to the application form, I have to write the detail of the research plan which I wish to pursue at GSAPS, including the theme, approach and methods which I intend to use in only 400 words. It seems to be quite short, that's why I think I should find a more specific subject and I must be more synthetic.

For the topic " The special relations of US foreign policy", I'm thinking of talking about relationship's difference of USA according to the country (United Kingdom and Israel).

On one hand, concerning Israel, Washington keeps a relationship that has no parallel in history, the relationship between these countries is really special. Because of this relationship, Washington gives Isreal consistent unconditional diplomatic backing and foreign aid even if the consequences are "fatal" for Washington. I'm also going to evoke the role of the pro-Israel lobby at USA.
But with the Israelo-Palestinian conflict, we can wonder if this relationship is in "danger" because their divergent paths are more apparent these last years (in particular with the election of Obama).

On the other hand, Washington has also a special relation with London since 1945 but this relationship is not comparable. Indeed, London must follow Washington's politic and diplomacy. We can notice an increasing alignment of London on Washington from 2001. But this alliance didn't work in both senses, London had almost nothing in exchange. However with David Cameron, things changed, he's revised his relationship with Washington (less slavish relation). Furthermore, the problem with BP (oil spill) soiled this relation. But globally, London has always a good relationship with Washington, English government prefers get closer to USA instead of Europe.

I don't know if I should evoke Canada as well, but with 400 words, I prefer to take just 2 examples (Israel and London). I precise that is just an approximate plan, I didn't do deep resarch yet.

I'm also very interested in other subject still about USA, so I'm wondering if it's a topic of your supervision.
The subject is " The Obama administration and multilateralism : theory and practice". Globally, in theory US diplomacy is now multilateralist but in practise, nothing has really changed (Obama adopts an unilateralism for vital situations of USA and a bilateralism especially with Russia, China and Pakistan). The multilateralism is just residual. For Obama, the interest of USA is more important than others countries' interest.
After some research in this topic, I prefer study on it instead of the first one. I could give you more explanations about this theme if you want.
I hope that's your range of supervision. But if not, it doesn't matter.

Thanks
partage
29 Novembre 2010 18:30:54

Merci beaucoup LaPeruvienne! Je vais corriger ces fautes. Sinon globalement, c'est correct, enfin pas de très grosse énormités?
m
0
l
Contenus similaires
Anonyme
29 Novembre 2010 18:35:38

Oui, c'est bon, il y a parfois quelques répétitions mais je ne vois pas trop comment les éviter. Bon courage pour ton sujet !
m
0
l
29 Novembre 2010 20:16:48

Meilleure réponse sélectionnée par shizuka_33.
m
0
l
3 Janvier 2011 09:39:27

Second line - we don't say 'keep bear in mind' but one or the other. Hence (therefore), 'I will bear this in mind'. No-one else pointed this out to you, so I thought I'd better! (I am English , by the way!). Good luck with your studies! Nicole :) 
m
0
l
3 Janvier 2011 15:59:38

Il y a encore des erreurs, je te l'ai corrige en rouge :

First of all, I am sorry not to reply to your email earlier I apologize, I could not reply you earlier. I was a bit busy with my exams.
Thanks very much for your advice, I'll keep bear in mind.

I prefer do a research on United States, not only because I am interested in but also because I have already study studied on this topic (foreign policy on United States and other countries as well) along my studies at University.

According to the application form, I have to write the details of the research plan which I wish to pursue at GSAPS, including the theme, approach and methods which I intend to use in only 400 words. It seems to be quite short, that's why I think I should find a more specific subject and I must be more synthetic.

For the topic " The special relations of US foreign policy", I'm thinking of talking about relationship's difference of USA according to the country (United Kingdom and Israel).

On one hand, concerning Israel, Washington keeps a relationship that has no parallel in history, the relationship between these countries is really special. Because of this Due to this relationship, Washington gives Isreal consistent unconditional diplomatic backing and foreign aid even if the consequences are "fatal" for Washington. I'm also going to evoke the role of the pro-Israel lobby at USA.
But However, with the Israelo-Palestinian conflict, we can wonder if this relationship is in "danger" because their divergent paths are more apparent these last years (in particular with the election of ObamaUS presidential elections).

On the other hand, Washington has also a special relation with London since 1945 but this relationship is not comparable. Indeed, London must have to follow Washington's politic and diplomacy. We can notice an increasing alignment of London on Washington from 2001 but this alliance didn't work in both senses, London had almost nothing in exchange. However with David Cameron, things the situation changed, he's he has revised his relationship with Washington (less slavish relation). Furthermore In spite of these changes, the problem with BP (oil spill) soiled this relation,but globally, London has always have a good relationship with Washington and English British government prefers to get closer to USA instead of Europe.

I don't know if I should evoke Canada as well, but with 400 words, I prefer to take just 2 examples (Israel and London). I precise that is just an approximate plan, I didn't do deep resarch research yet.

I'm also very interested in other subject still about concerning the USA, so I'm wondering if it's a topic of your supervision.
The subject is " The Obama's administration and multilateralism : theory and practice". Globally, in theory US diplomacy is now multilateralist but in practise, nothing has really changed (Obama adopts an unilateralism for vital situations of USA and a bilateralism especially with Russia, China and Pakistan). The multilateralism is just residual. For Obama, the interest of USA is more important than others countries' interest.
After some research in this topic, I prefer study on it instead of the first one. I could give you more explanations about this theme if you want.
I hope that's your range of supervision. But if not, it doesn't matter. cette phrase ne veut rien dire
Thanks

Il y a beaucoup d'autre erreurs de syntaxe mais je comprend le contexte de ces paragraphes donc je ne peux pas corriger plus.
m
0
l
7 Janvier 2011 01:09:31

Thank you very much Nicole, it's really kind of you :) 

m
0
l
7 Janvier 2011 01:16:07

mirage95 a dit :
Il y a encore des erreurs, je te l'ai corrige en rouge :

First of all, I am sorry not to reply to your email earlier I apologize, I could not reply you earlier. I was a bit busy with my exams.
Thanks very much for your advice, I'll keep bear in mind.

I prefer do a research on United States, not only because I am interested in but also because I have already study studied on this topic (foreign policy on United States and other countries as well) along my studies at University.

According to the application form, I have to write the details of the research plan which I wish to pursue at GSAPS, including the theme, approach and methods which I intend to use in only 400 words. It seems to be quite short, that's why I think I should find a more specific subject and I must be more synthetic.

For the topic " The special relations of US foreign policy", I'm thinking of talking about relationship's difference of USA according to the country (United Kingdom and Israel).

On one hand, concerning Israel, Washington keeps a relationship that has no parallel in history, the relationship between these countries is really special. Because of this Due to this relationship, Washington gives Isreal consistent unconditional diplomatic backing and foreign aid even if the consequences are "fatal" for Washington. I'm also going to evoke the role of the pro-Israel lobby at USA.
But However, with the Israelo-Palestinian conflict, we can wonder if this relationship is in "danger" because their divergent paths are more apparent these last years (in particular with the election of ObamaUS presidential elections).

On the other hand, Washington has also a special relation with London since 1945 but this relationship is not comparable. Indeed, London must have to follow Washington's politic and diplomacy. We can notice an increasing alignment of London on Washington from 2001 but this alliance didn't work in both senses, London had almost nothing in exchange. However with David Cameron, things the situation changed, he's he has revised his relationship with Washington (less slavish relation). Furthermore In spite of these changes, the problem with BP (oil spill) soiled this relation,but globally, London has always have a good relationship with Washington and English British government prefers to get closer to USA instead of Europe.

I don't know if I should evoke Canada as well, but with 400 words, I prefer to take just 2 examples (Israel and London). I precise that is just an approximate plan, I didn't do deep resarch research yet.

I'm also very interested in other subject still about concerning the USA, so I'm wondering if it's a topic of your supervision.
The subject is " The Obama's administration and multilateralism : theory and practice". Globally, in theory US diplomacy is now multilateralist but in practise, nothing has really changed (Obama adopts an unilateralism for vital situations of USA and a bilateralism especially with Russia, China and Pakistan). The multilateralism is just residual. For Obama, the interest of USA is more important than others countries' interest.
After some research in this topic, I prefer study on it instead of the first one. I could give you more explanations about this theme if you want.
I hope that's your range of supervision. But if not, it doesn't matter. cette phrase ne veut rien dire
Thanks

Il y a beaucoup d'autre erreurs de syntaxe mais je comprend le contexte de ces paragraphes donc je ne peux pas corriger plus.


Finalement, il y avit pas mal d'erreurs dans mon texte, en tout cas merci beaucoup Mirage 95 d'avoir pris le temps de corriger all my mistake, c'est très gentil de votre part :) 

m
0
l
2 Août 2011 22:45:18

Bonsoir !
J'ai un travail de vacance en anglais pour lequel je dois résumer 4textes en anglais. Pour le réussir au mieux, est il possible que quelqu'un le corrige ? Merci beaucoup !
Voici le premier.

Francais:

Bien que certains américains gardent des appréhensions concernant la peine de mort. celle ci est toujours de mise dans beaucoup d’états..
Cependant suite a plusieurs annulation d’exécution comme celle de Willaim Castiollo. Celui ci fut innocenté juste avant son exécution grâce a un test ADN. la peine capitale crée débat d'un point de vue de la égalité de cette pratique qui consiste a injecter un produit puis un second ainsi qu’un troisième pour masqué les effets des deux premiers. celui ci donnant l’impression que le prisonnier ne souffre pas. C’est pourquoi des procès on été ouverts au Texas et au Kentucky. ceux ci demandent une reforme de la loi concernant l’application de cette peine ainsi qu’un élargissement de celle-ci aux récidivistes et pédophiles. Jusqu'à ce que cette reforme soit prise, toute les peines de mort sont suspendues.
D'autre part Anita Dunn soutenue par le gouverneur républicain de l'Illinois demande l'abolition de cette peine.

Anglais:

Although lots of Americans retain some misgivings about the death penalty. It is still appropriate in many states.
However following more cancellations like William Castillo that he had been cleared just before his excution, creates debate about the legality of this practic, which involves injecting a product and then a second and a third to hide the effects of the first two giving the impression that the prisoner does not suffer.. Therefore Some cases have been opened in Texas and Kentucky. they demand a reform of the law on the application of capital punishment and a elagant of this one torecidivistent and pedophiles. Until this reform, all death penalty is suspended.
Moreover Anita Dunn supported by the Republican governor of Illinois called for the abolition of the death penalty.
m
0
l
Tom's guide dans le monde
  • Allemagne
  • Italie
  • Irlande
  • Royaume Uni
  • Etats Unis
Suivre Tom's Guide
Inscrivez-vous à la Newsletter
  • ajouter à twitter
  • ajouter à facebook
  • ajouter un flux RSS