Engelsk tekst - vurdering.

[specnaz91]

Ok, har 3 tekster som skal leveres inn imorra til engelsk mappe. Hadde vært veldig fint om noen av dere kunne ha lest igjennom disse. Vil ha så god karakter som mulig, er avgangselev på ungdomsskolen. Hvis noen kunne ha lest dem idag, helst før 12 og gitt meg en liten konklusjon om hva som mangler, hva jeg burde rette på osv, hadde det vært VELDIG fint. Trenger ikke å lese alle 3, men hvis dere i det minste kunne kjapt lese gjennom en, så hadde det vært supert. Tusen takk, blir veldig glad hvis noen kan hjelpe meg, satser høyt i livet og vil at alt skal være bra.

Alle tekstene har en overskrift, men selve teksten er 'skjult'. Vær kritiske, hadde vært greit hvis dere kunne vist hvor det kan bli bedre og kanskje et par tips om hvordan.

Nok en gang, tusen takk folkens! . Er så takknemlig om noen gidder å sjekke igjennom disse tekstene. Har sett dem igjennom haugevis av ganger, hadde vært greit om flere kan se den.

Ligger på en karakter som 'egentlig' er en 5er, men læreren sier at jeg egentlig fortjener en 5'er, men at hun ikke kan gi meg pga de grammatiske feilene. Hadde vært veldig snilt om dere kunne ha sett noen.

 

 

Iraq Conflict (Min andre versjon *advanced*)

Klikk for å se/fjerne innholdet nedenfor

Imagine a child who's whole life revolved around conflicts and wars. He has not seen a peaceful world; he has just experienced the world plagued by useless conflicts. He always has to worry about being shot when going to the local 'bazaar' (market). He must to go to the market, because he has a family to take care of, your biggest fear is to getting a ticket, as you cruise in your Cadillac, his fear is that the tank which has left will turn around and come back. Everyday he thinks, "will I survive another day?". He is terrorized in his own land, and he is the terrorist?

As time goes on, he wishes the agonizing war to be over. He doesn’t want to live under these brutal conditions anymore, but his dedication to his loved ones keeps him alive.

To capture a single man (Saddam Hussein), it's unneccessary to bomb a country back to the Stone Age, every day the world see civilians killed by extremists and US soldiers.

Why is the Western country trying to eliminate the terrorist organizations with violence? It’s a hard question to answer, USA as a super power and killing innocent civilians.

Who would ever think that Saddam Hussein was a close friend to the US government?

Before USA's anti-terror policies, Saddam Hussein was a close friend to the United States.

To use violence to defeat violence is the biggest mistake any country can do, all it does is perpetuate more violence. Violence seeds violence, nothing good ever come from violence. This will only cause a much larger resistances against the opposing forces, in this case United State's forces and its alliances. Saddam Hussein has been captured and executed live on television.

 

USA is now in Iraq to maintaint peace, but this is only fueling the fire of resistance against US forces. Peace can't be held with violence, United States policies in Iraq will not result in peace.

Violence won’t end the war raging in Iraq, it’s caused by bad communication and understanding between two parts (USA and Iraq).

A lot of power requires a lot of responsibility, as an example we see Hitler's lack of responsibility and vast power has scarred history with a deep gash.

 

USA invaded Iraq, oil being one of the factors in which US denies. Iraq is a oil rich nation, and a member of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum and Economic Countries) who is holding one of the biggest oil resources.

Before the invasion of Iraq, the country was a very important country in the inter-connected global economy we live in today. Many countries are in need of the most vital resource for industries, oil.

There are a lot of resources in Iraq, so to capture a country, like oil rich Iraq, and then exploit its oil for selfish gains and to become richer .

The need of oil grows, but to find oil is getting harder. The USA uses a lot of oil, so to capture an oil rich nation is ‘necessary’.

Today, the oil in Iraq is shipped to NATO countries, and a huge amount to it is directly exported to USA.

Oil won’t be here forever here at earth it will soon ‘disappear’, but scientists has dated that oil will not be available here at earth in approximately 20 years.

Today’s world needs oil for far too many things, vehicles, machinery and other human constructed elements.

 

The history has never been so dangerous as it is today, conflicts is raging, no matter where you live in, there will be some form of useless conflict destroying families somewhere around the world.

To invade and destroy a country, pulvarize what social order it had, because of a dictator should never be a good enough reason. To invade a whole country will destroy the country's economy to the ground.

There are a lot of problems inside USA to solve before declaring war; USA is suffering from obesity epidemic and a high rate of criminality.

The criminality is growing, although USA's crime policy is very stricted, USA is leading with highest rapes and other criminalities.

Did you know that over 600.000 children in USA is kidnapped yearly? And over 100.000 of the children disappear for months or even years.

US soldiers are not safe in Iraq, neither the children in USA.

A country needs to solve its own problems before fix others problems. USA is not perfect as it seems, every country has its own problems.

To hijack a plane and fly it into one of the worlds most known buildings is not acceptable, though US forces is killing innocent civilians in Iraq.

It is not arguable to bomb neutral areas to find a dictator, and to protect the Kurds. I think that Bush's administration is after oil, since it's highly in demand in the USA, and in the around the industrialized world.

If in this world you have the power of the oil resources, you have a lot of power in the world economy; countries can export it to other countries and earn money out of it.

So after all I think that US forces has captured Iraq in need of resources, since the need of oil is growing each minute.

 

 

What is fashion?

Klikk for å se/fjerne innholdet nedenfor

What is actually fashion? 'Everyone' knows that it the name is related to clothes and accessories.

But what is fashion, it's a quite hard question to answer. I think that fashion is related to clothing, something which is popular to wear, we call it for 'fashionable'.

Well if it really is, then the word fashion is a synonym to popular, but related to clothing.

If we travel back when most of the peoples lived on the country-side as farmers. Was the clothing they weared fashionable?

So many questions, so few answers.

After 1-3 years a clothing style will be 'out' and a new clothing style will be 'in', most peoples don't except the changes.

During the mid of 1800's, a mass production of clothing was made fashionable, and mass production means lower prices. So ordinary peoples could buy more stylish clothes, which is why we are wearing is what we are today.

Your clothing tells another person a small part of your personality, I think you will notice the difference between a human weared dirty clothes than a human who is keeping his clothes neat and clean.

This will tell you how responsible a person is, though the first person could have felt into something or done it with a mistake. The options are many, so you can't judge a book by it's cover. But there is another proverb, 'a book won't sell without a good cover'.

 

Your clothing can maybe tell about you, but it don't have too. In the Western world, clothing is a part of the society.

Some peoples are friends because of the same clothing they wear, so radically you can't be with another group if you don't talk or wear as them. This is just a radical example, but it happens.

If you have seen the movie 'High School Musical', where the movie is based on the splinted groups at a school.

It was nominated for an Emmy, because it was the first movie in USA who really took this problem seriously. The movie is based on two different peoples, a nerd and a sport-freak.

They both love each other, but they have different kind of styles, both of them are interested in theatre, but they can't tell their friends because they don't accept it.

I won't tell you the end, because then you have to watch the movie, I recommend it.

 

So fashion can be positive and negative, the positive effect is that some peoples might find other peoples with the same clothing and same interests.

The negative is that fashion classify groups, if you have the same clothing, it doesn't has to mean that you have the same interests as the others in the group.

Is this the beginning of a Western so-called Mafia society?

Fashion is something which many peoples in a country wears, simple said it is popularity when your talking about clothes and/or accessories.

Every day you will see famous peoples spend money on a cloth or on accessories. If you imagine the money a famous person will spend, if he sent this to a organization who will help poor children with their education, so they can have a successful career.

Some rich peoples don't know what they will spend their money on, because they have too much money, and too less time to spend them.

If the rich and famous people could a small percentage of their profit to poor peoples in the Eastern world, so their future could be a bit brighter.

 

Nowadays fashion is distributed through media, every day you will see famous and rich peoples wear new clothes. The result of it will be that 'everyone', want the same clothes as the famous or rich person.

It can be seen as positive, but isn't it something called variation?

We're like zombies, we follow other persons without our own thoughts, we just duplicate other persons, if you want to say that.

Humans don't live with instinct, only animals does, this is the main thing which separate humans from animals.

So I conclude with that fashion is what most of the peoples in a country wear, something which is popular when we talk about clothes or accessories.

Fashion can be a positive thing, but there are many negative things too. I think that if you really think before you buy, rather than buy the 'hottest' in the stores, be independent!

 

Tourist Conversation (frivillig liten tekst)

Klikk for å se/fjerne innholdet nedenfor

John Smith ('Tourist' number one): Have you ever been in Australia? It is really awesome, the climate and the weather is just perfect.

Brian Lockheart ('Tourist' number two): Yeah, I was there last summer with my family. They do have some rare animals, such as Kangaroo's and Koala bears.

John Smith: That's true, have you ever climbed Ayers Rock? It's the largest piece of stone in the world.

Brian Lockheart: No, I've never been there, but isn't it a sacred place to the Aboriginals?

John Smith: That's right, you can go there unless you have rifle in your hand. But if you visit Australia some time, you really have to visit Ayers Rock, it is a one time experience you won't ever forget. The Aboriginals was gentle, guided us to the stone.

 

Brian Lockheart: I will visit Australia again, enough with Ayers Rock, have you been to the Sydney Opera House? I personally think that it is the 8th worlds monument. The white colour, and the human made island, completes the structure of the building.

John Smith: If I have to be honest, I personally hate Opera, but the building totally spelled me. I just had to go inside and see the beautiful structure, but I left the building before the show started.

 

Brian Lockheart: Did you know that Australia is one of the countries who has most people living in the cities. Over 60% of the population lives in the cities. The weather is just perfect almost every day, have you ever tried “barbie”?.

John Smith: Yeah, it is very popular in Australia to barbecue outside with friends. Did I forgot to tell you that I have lived in Australia for years?

 

Brian Lockheart: Yeah you actually did, I'm wondering if I'll travel there next summer I will travel alone.

 

John Smith: Well, it's nice to hear. I hope you enjoy your vacation in Australia. But I recommend to go with a friend or family, it can be hard sometimes.

Brian Lockheart: Thank you for your advise, I will ask a friend or two, to travel togheter. Anyway, which town do you recommend me to start with?

John Smith: It is hard to tell, because every town has it's own ways to attract peoples. But my personal favourite needs to be Sydney, with great beaches and not to mention the waves.

Brian Lockheart: Yeah, I do not surf, but I prefer skating instead.

John Smith: But you have to try surfing, try everything, and get the most out of your vacation. Don't be afraid, release yourself.

Brian Lockheart: I'm not sure, but I have to go now. Maybe we can talk more some other day? My mom is yelling at me, I really have to go now.

John Smith: Sure, I have to go now too though, mom's can be scary sometimes.

Endret 2. mai 2007 av specnaz91

[specnaz91]

Ingen som vil lese litt? ...

 

Håper noen får svart i løpet av denne kvelden .

[Stian89]

Orker ikke å lese gjennom alt, men du bør nok gå over språket noen ganger til

 

Eksempelvis: "Your biggest fear is to getting a ticket, as you cruise on your Cadillac,".

 

For det første "cruiser" man ikke oppå bilen sin, for det andre... "is to _getting_ a ticket"...

[specnaz91]

Your biggest fear is to getting a ticket, as you cruise in your Cadillac, his fear is that the tank which has left will turn around and come back. Everyday he thinks, "will I survive another day?". He is terrorized in his own land, and he is the terrorist?

 

Min andre edit, foreslår du noe å putte mellom to til getting og etter getting til a?

 

 

Tusen takk!

Endret 2. mai 2007 av specnaz91

[Stian89]

Your biggest fear is to getting a ticket, as you cruise in your Cadillac, his fear is that the tank which has left will turn around and come back. Everyday he thinks, "will I survive another day?". He is terrorized in his own land, and he is the terrorist?

 

Min andre edit, foreslår du noe å putte mellom to til getting og etter getting til a?

 

 

Tusen takk! 

8522794[/snapback]

 

Skulle det liksom være rettet?

 

Hva med å stryke "getting", og heller skrive _get_. Jamfør "is to GET a ticket..."

 

"his fear is that the tank which has left will turn around and come back" What? Which?

 

edit

 

Ikke vet jeg, men ville muligens skrevet noe ala dette...

 

"Your biggest fear would be to/is to get a traffic ticket, while driving your Cadillac..."

 

Det der med "...his fear is that the tank...", betyr det at han er redd for en tanks, som muligens kan vende om og komme tilbake til byen/markedet hvor han holder til?

 

Possibly: "His biggest fear is that the tank, that recently was here, might turn around, only to come back creating even more havoc."

 

Anyways, I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree, meaning this could probably have been done a lot better.

Endret 2. mai 2007 av Stian89

[specnaz91]

Det er vel en sammenligning, kom ikke på noe bedre i midtøsten enn en tanks. Det er bare en såkalt skildring.

 

Retter på nu, tusen takk!

 

Da er vel irak konflikten nogenlunde rettet, er VELDIG usikker på What is fashion?

Endret 2. mai 2007 av specnaz91

[Fisker]

Jeg gikk gjennom litt av den ene teksten. Det er en del grammatiske feil der, og jeg har prøvd å rette på de jeg har sett. Jeg kan ikke garantere at alt jeg har skrevet er riktig heller, men jeg har gjort mitt beste.

 

 

What is actually fashion? 'Everyone' knows that it the name is related to clothes and accessories.

But what is fashion (“But what fashion really is”), it's(is) a quite hard question to answer. I think that fashion is related to clothing, something which is popular to wear, we call it for 'fashionable'.

Well, if it really is, then the word fashion is a synonym to popular, but related to clothing.

If we travel back when most of the peoples lived on the country-side as farmers, was the clothing they weared fashionable?

So many questions, so few answers. Jeg finner ikke denne setningen nødvendig, og ville droppet den

After 1-3 years a clothing style will be 'out' and a new clothing style will be 'in', most peoples don't except the changes. Setningen er forferdelig, men jeg tror jeg vet hva du mener. Da skal det være ”most people won’t accept the changes”

During the mid of 1800's, a mass production of clothing was made fashionable, and mass production means lower prices. So ordinary peoples[/red] could buy more stylish clothes, which is why we are wearing is what we are today.

Your clothing tells another person a small part ofabout your personality, I think you will notice the difference between a human weared wearing dirty clothes than a human who is keeping his clothes neat and clean.

This will tell you how responsible a person is, though the first person could have felt into something or done it with a mistake. The options are many, so you can't judge a book by it'sits cover. But there is another proverb, 'a book won't sell without a good cover'.

 

Your clothing can maybe tell something about you, but it don't have too. In the Western world, clothing is a part of the society.

Some peoples are friends because of the same clothing they wear, so radically you can't be with another group if you don't talk or wear as them. This is just a radical example, but it happens.

If you have seen the movie 'High School Musical', where the movie is based on the splinted groups at a school. ”The movie ‘High School Musical’ is based on the splinted groups at a school and” it was nominated for an Emmy, because it was the first movie in USA who really took this problem seriously. The movie is based on two different peoples, a nerd and a sport-freak.

They both love each other, but they have different kind of styles, both of them are interested in theatre, but they can't tell their friends because they don't wouldn’t accept it.

I won't tell you the end, because then you have to watch the movie, I recommend it. Rar setning, og du har sporet av temaet. Dropp den.

 

 

[Stian89]

Har lite å gjøre, så jeg prøvde å skrive om en del av teksten "What is fashion", til hvordan jeg personlig hadde prøvd å formulere meg.

 

Klikk for å se/fjerne innholdet nedenfor

What is fashion?

 

'Everyone' knows that the term, fashion, usually relates to clothing and or accessories, but fashion itself, is a term with many possible faces. With this in mind, it's relatively hard to give you a proper, or correct if you will, answer to the question: “What is fashion”.

 

In my opinion, though, fashion is just another term for clothing, clothing, again, can in some situations help you become popular, granted you are wearing the “latest”, or the most popular brands.

 

If this is the case, the word fashion must be a synonym to “popular”.

 

Let's imagine for a moment, if you will, that we have traveled back in time, to when the most common way of living, was as country-side farmers. Did they care about fashion back then? Were they “fashionable”?

 

As you can see, we've gathered several questions already, though the answers might not be as easy to come up with.

 

After approximately one to three years, a certain type of clothing, dressing code or style, if you will, is bound to be outdated, only to be replaced by the “new hip thing” to come along. The problem with this “trend”, is that a lot of people don't accept it – as in they don't appreciate change.

 

During the mid eighteen hundreds, a mass production of clothing was made fashionable (what? - how, in what way?), and mass production, is another way of lowering prices. (Du bør kanskje komme med en eller annen source, som backer dette opp, wtf?)

 

This again lead ordinary people to the purchase of more stylish clothes. Could that have been the start of todays obsession with “clothing” and “style”?

 

In a lot of ways, the clothes you wear tells the people around you a little bit about your personality, for instance, the difference between someone wearing dirty, old and so-called “outdated” clothes, and someone wearing the latest batch of style, often expensive clothing items, is quite clear. Perhaps this tells you that the first person comes from poor origins, perhaps his family is poor, and so forth.. (Though thats actually not a personality trade, as far as the psychic part goes..). However you should always keep in mind, that judging a book by its cover is not ideal.

 

With this in mind, clothing doesn't necessarily have to be a piece of your personality. For instance, in the old West, everybody used to wear pretty much the same outfit – look at the cowboys.

 

 

edit: Med dette sagt, er det en del ting i teksten din jeg rett og slett ikke finner mening i, prøv heller å finne en litt tykkere "rød tråd", og filtrer ut det som er irrelevant.

Endret 2. mai 2007 av Stian89

[specnaz91]

Tusen takk, ble desperat og kom på setninger fra tider til annen. Tusen takk nok en gang.

 

Noen som har noen flere ideer? Jo fler jo bedre

Endret 2. mai 2007 av specnaz91