Subject: Проверьте меня, плиzzz Пожалуйста посмотрите и подскажите, какие ошибки при составлении этой темы я допустил:One of the most widly discussed probles is the following, if zoos should exist at all and if it’s goot to keep animals in captivity. This problem is being discussed in Europe and in USA than in Russia. Заранее спасибо! |
че, издеваетесь? Марш в институт! |
Извините, если кого обидел, просто я составил эту тему для экзамена, а он уже завтра, и прошу помощи. |
One of the most wildy discussed problems is: if zoos should exist at all and if it’s goot to keep animals in captivity. This problem is being discussed in Europe and in USA than (pri chem tut than?) in Russia. Nowadays, there are a lot of debates in mass-media. On one hand, critics say that zoos shouldn’t exist at all because they imprison animals. Also because animals in zoos are deprived of the natural environment than if they are in the wild. Protesters say that it’s cruel to keep poor animals in captivity, in those tiny cages and in squalid conditions. On the other hand, there are some opinions in defence of zoos. First, because it’s a good entertaiment. In zoos we can experious (it's not clear what you mean, so, I would suggest: In zoos we can see and experience ability to be close to animal world) to animals at close quartiers. Zoos have educational and scientifical value as well. They help to protect rare species from disappearing. Many rare species are bred in zoos and then releesed to the wild. In defence of zoos we can say that they are different (? different from what?). On (no need for definite article here) one hand, there are roadside menageries crammed with tiny cage where animals are kept in squalid conditions. On the other hand, there are such establishments like London or Berlin zoos with some-million-dollar (some-million don't say try to find another word) a year budget, big stuff and conservation projects all over the world. While critising zoos protesters make usually mistakes. Very often their perception is based on ignorance. Nature films often show peaceful settings of animals and hardly ever the darker side of life in the wild. For example, the lingering deaths from deseases, starvation or inept predators. One more common mistake made by critics is that they believe that there are large areas where animals can live naturally, are defected by human. But the reality is far from it. Rain forests, being a natural environment for many species are disappearing very fast. In most areas species just have nowhere to live. That’s why they are at the stage of extinction. Safary parks could be good alternative to zoos. For it another way round, it’s people who are in cages while animals move freely about, but the freedom is quite deceptive. Because the animals are often rounded up and forced back into the open. So, the visitors could get their moneys worth. Many safary-parks are commercialized a lot. And the get-rich-quick philosophy dominates there. In my opinion, zoos should exist for the reason of having educational value not only for us but for our children in the first place. They able to see animals that in other case they would have seen only on TV or encyclopedies. Это перевод? Если да то не очень хороший ИМХО, я не стала делать больших исправлений потомучто не знаю откуда взят текст. Если это сочинение в школу то не плохо. В любом случае я сделала некоторые поправки. |
While critising zoos protesters make usually mistakes. Very often their perception is based on ignorance. IMHO usually protesters are not right when critising zoos because of the lack of information they have about lifes of animals in zoos. |
widEly.у Вас пропущена буква "е" |
я так понимаю good, что, а не goot |
Ой, да, точно СПАСИБО!!! |
я так понимаю, что good, а не goot |
Jeneva, ДА |
Cutie, это для экзамена по ин. яз-у на 3-м курсе |
Вот я исправил кое-что: One of the most wildly discussed problems is: if zoos should exist at all and if it’s good to keep animals in captivity. This problem is being discussed in Europe and in USA than (pri chem tut than?) in Russia. Nowadays, there are a lot of debates in mass-media. On one hand, critics say that zoos shouldn’t exist at all because they imprison animals. Also because animals in zoos are deprived of the natural environment than if they are in the wild. Protesters say that it’s cruel to keep poor animals in captivity, in those tiny cages and in squalid conditions. On the other hand, there are some opinions in defense of zoos. First, because it’s a good entertainment. In zoos we can experious (it's not clear what you mean, so, I would suggest: In zoos we can see and experience ability to be close to animal world) to animals at close quarters. Zoos have educational and scientifical value as well. They help to protect rare species from disappearing. Many rare species are bred in zoos and then released to the wild. In defense of zoos we can say that they are different (? different from what?). On (no need for definite article here) one hand, there are roadside menageries crammed with tiny cage where animals are kept in squalid conditions. On the other hand, there are such establishments like London or Berlin zoos with some-million-dollar (some-million don't say try to find another word) a year budget, big stuff and conservation projects all over the world. While critising zoos protesters make usually mistakes. Very often their perception is based on ignorance. Nature films often show peaceful settings of animals and hardly ever the darker side of life in the wild. For example, the lingering deaths from diseases, starvation or inept predators. One more common mistake made by critics is that they believe that there are large areas where animals can live naturally, are defected by human. But the reality is far from it. Rain forests, being a natural environment for many species are disappearing very fast. In most areas species just have nowhere to live. That’s why they are at the stage of extinction. Safari parks could be good alternative to zoos. For it another way round, it’s people who are in cages while animals move freely about, but the freedom is quite deceptive. Because the animals are often rounded up and forced back into the open. So, the visitors could get their moneys worth. Many safari-parks are commercialized a lot. And the get-rich-quick philosophy dominates there. In my opinion, zoos should exist for the reason of having educational value not only for us but for our children in the first place. They able to see animals that in other case they would have seen only on TV or encyclopedies. |
почитай поисправляй еще, тебе ведь это нужней могу сказать есть орфографические ошибки тоже, кроме остальных которые исправили. Удачи, |
Ээх, спасибо! |
лучше один раз выпороть публично. Желаю хорошего профессора и "неуд". |
Redni, лучше бы помогли, а не критиковали. |
"Вы что, и конфеты за меня тоже есть будете?" - "А-а-га" (с) Такое отношение к делу заслуживает не просто критики, оно заслуживает "пинков" - например, "неуда". |
Всё нет времени смотреть, но к примеру. One of the most wildly discussed problems is: if zoos. Так не пишут. Надо One of the ...problems is as follows. If zones..... Nowadays there are a lot of debates in mass-media. лучше не nowadays, а now, currently, at present, at the present time In critic’s opinion - Вы бы дали русский текст. Сомневаюсь, что слово critic выбрано правильно. Даже, если всё-таки critic, то здесь лучше сказать Critics believe that... to keep animals in captivity a special in tiny cages and squalid conditions - вообще не понятно. Zoos have educationally and scientifically value - Zoos are of educational and scientific value. the re are some opinions in defence of zoos - К примеру, some people come out for zoos. И т.д. Redni, тут дело не в аскере, а в тех, кто составляет такие программы обучения. Одно дело изучать язык профессионально, другое - постольку поскольку. |
Сutie, с вашими поправками аскеру точно неуд поставят On (no need for definite article here) one hand!!? experience ability to be close - это бред THE animal world ну и т.д. |
segu, а можно по подробнее о моих ошибках, очень прошу. Спасибо. |
пришла ..ужаснулась ....ушла мое мнение.. оставьте свой вариант. |
Juliza, Вы имеете ввиду, что у меня ошибок меньше? |
Нет, Пельмень, я не это имею в виду. |
One of the On THE one hand, critics say that zoos shouldn’t exist at all because they imprison animals AND On the other hand, there are some opinions in defense of zoos. First, because AT THE SAME TIME, nature DOCUMENTARIES Safari parks could be A good alternative to zoos. IN SAFARI PARKS, HUMANS AND ANIMALS CHANGE ROLES, In my opinion, zoos should exist for the reason of having educational value not only for us but for our children in the first place, SO THAT they CAN |
Тогда, может подскажете ссылку в инете, где есть хороший топик на эту тему "Зоопарки (их преимущества и недостатки)" |
sledopyt, Вы мой спаситель, всегда выручаете меня, что бы я без Вас делал! Огромнейшее преогромнейшее Вам спасибо!!! |
должны будете, Пельмень! |
sledopyt, а как же, договорились! |
Я здесь немножко "украшательством" позанимался, и вот Ваше творение: One of the wildly discussed topics is whether zoos should exist and if it’s good to keep animals in captivity. This issue is being more discussed in Europe and in the USA than it is in Russia. Mass-media leads the way in these discussions. Ещё раз огромное спасибо! |
IT HAS BEEN ARGUED whether OR NOT zoos should exist and if it’s RIGHT to keep animals in captivity. This issue is being discussed in Europe and NORTH AMERICA AND LESS SO in Russia. Mass-media leads the way in these discussions. On the one hand, critics ARGUE that zoos shouldn’t exist at all because they imprison animals and DEPRIVE THEM of their natural habitat. Protesters say that it is cruel to keep animals in captivity, in those tiny cages and in squalid conditions. On the other hand, there are some opinions in FAVOUR of zoos. First, because they have entertainment value. In zoos we can live the experience of THE PROXIMITY to animals. BESIDES, zoos have educational and scientific value. They help to protect rare species from disappearing. Many rare species are bred in zoos and then released to the wild. In other words, there are different sides to zoos. On the one hand, there are roadside menageries crammed with tiny cages where animals are kept in squalid conditions. On the other hand, there are such establishments like London or Berlin Zoos with multi-million-dollar budgets, numerous stuff, and conservation projects all over the world. THEREFORE, WHEN criticising zoos, ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS are not always right. Very often their perception is not based on facts. At the same time, nature documentaries often show animals in peaceful settings and hardly ever THEY DEAL WITH the darker side of the life of ANIMALS in the wild, THE LIFE, WHICH IS OFTEN FILLED WITH the lingering death from diseases, starvation, predators, or human expansion into their habitat. Another common mistake made by the critics of the zoos is that they believe that there are large areas where animals can live naturally, with no human intervention. But the reality is far from it. Rain forests, the natural habitat for many species are disappearing very fast. In most areas MANY species have nowhere to live. That’s why they are at the verge of extinction. Safari parks could be a good alternative to zoos. In safari parks, humans and animals change roles, now it’s the people who are in cages, while THE animals freely wander around. But the freedom is quite deceptive, because the animals are often forced back into the open, so the visitors could get their money's worth. Many safari parks are commercialized a lot. And the get-rich-quick philosophy dominates there. In my opinion, zoos should exist for the reason of THEIR educational value, not only for us but PRIMARILY for our children, so that they can GET TO KNOW THE animals that they otherwise would see only on TV or IN encyclopedias. |
Ой, а этот текст более правильный, так ведь? Спасибо, что уделили мне время! |
Править можно до бесконечности, но нужно где-то ставить точку. Удачи! |
"Попробую поймать её за хвост"! Спасибо! |
а я могу поспорить, что сейчас on the one hand не используется, три года общения с англоговорящими и ни разу ни слышала. То что есть мои ошибки да согласна не углядела может что просто хотелось скорей помочь на работе время выдалось. |
**три года общения с англоговорящими и ни разу ни слышала** Странные какие-то у Вас "англоговорящие". Вот пожалуйста. Статья американского журналиста. Обратите внимание не 20-й абзац сверху. |
Еще можете сюда зайти http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q="on+the+one+hand"+site:.bbc.co.uk&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr=countryUK|countryGB |
|
link 26.06.2008 13:43 |
Cutie, поспорить-то Вы можете, безусловно, но будете неправы :-))) http://www.tolearnenglish.com/exercises/exercise-english-2/exercise-english-1544.php |
оk оk my bad, but they definitely use on one hand too http://www.thefreedictionary.com/on+one+hand found this site so, sorry for confusing you guys I asked them and they said that in speech they use on one hand whereas in writing they do use on the one hand |
You need to be logged in to post in the forum |