Comme des milliers de personnes, recevez gratuitement chaque semaine << Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais || En bas
Commentaire anglais/correction
Message de antisthene86 posté le 14-02-2009 à 21:06:49 (S | E | F)
Bonsoir voici mon commentaire d'un article en anglais; j'aimerais si quelqu'un trouve le courage qu'il m'aide à corriger des fautes (conjugaison grammaire). Tout ce qui estabérent aberrant.
The article i would like to introduce you is entitled angry workers protest as MPs grill bankers. It was published in the tenth February 2009 on the guardian website. As is suggested by the title, the topic refers to the crisis, in deed the article describes the debate taking place in parliament and involving leaders of RBS and HBOS.
The last few days in parliament there was an investigation involving the former of top bankers in order determine their responsibilities in relation to the crisis. Protagonists, Sir Fred Goodwin and his chairman Sir Tom McKillop who used to run Royal Bank of Scotland - and Andy Hornby and Lord Stevenson of HBOS, are quizzed by the Treasury committee on their actions that led to several losses. Actually it doesn’t seem extraordinary it appears normal. But bankers’ talks and their explanations seem to be a little ambiguous it is all the more distressing when Angry bank workers protested outside parliament by bearing the slogan Remember us you’ve put our job at risk
The first four former statement was saying we are sorry, in deed Goodwin offered "a profound and unqualified apology for all the distress that has been caused, while Hornby said he was" extremely sorry for the turn of events «. In fact it may seem a little ridiculous, but it’s already a good start…
A question which asked about wages, bonuses and their implication in the difficulties of bankers judgments attracted by the lure of profit is a very interesting question because it touch an important problem, however, Hornby‘s answer seems to be cheeky, in deed he declares My interest was entirely aligned with shareholders, and I never received a single penny in cash as a bonus, I held mine for nine years, and never sold a share. Sorry can you really believe that? In any case it seems to be a way for them to show that they also hit by stock market’s crash and they are also victims. Now we should complain them…
The last part of the article refers to comments made by Derek Simpson and John Mc fall. These words are quite inquisitive, moralizing, a term in vogue in this trouble time. Derek Simpson refers to the problem of wage differentials between bank workers and senior executives and denounced their total responsibilities. As for John Mac fall, he focus on the fact the world has changed, and that the millions of pounds allocated as bonus must be controlled to avoid excesses of speculation, and gambling bringing the breakdown of the system.
To my mind I think this article despite it is short shows well the triviality of such a debate. It looks like a great drama whit the first act present bankers saying we are truly sorry please have mercy on us, it's really pathetic. But what is even more pathetic are tactless interventions of the "judges"; These MPS who pretend grilled this men, but in fact they just want to have a clear conscience. So I think nothing will come of this. We expect acts
Obviously the last chapter does not exist, because England and Mr. Brown seems have some reluctances to do what France ,the USA but also the Swiss have made that is to say a policy targeting bonuses.
Personally I don’t understand how a bank bailed-out by taxpayers and so nationalized to 70%, still planned to pay out bonuses without any government consents. Mr. Brown said 'There are no rewards for failure in what we are proposing.' But for the time being, he just want to gain time and I don’t know why. But we could wonder if the government is not conniving with the most lucrative business in the world. To be rewarded for losing money is the century's bargain…
Merci,
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 14-02-2009 21:40
+ titre
Message de antisthene86 posté le 14-02-2009 à 21:06:49 (S | E | F)
Bonsoir voici mon commentaire d'un article en anglais; j'aimerais si quelqu'un trouve le courage qu'il m'aide à corriger des fautes (conjugaison grammaire). Tout ce qui est
The article i would like to introduce you is entitled angry workers protest as MPs grill bankers. It was published in the tenth February 2009 on the guardian website. As is suggested by the title, the topic refers to the crisis, in deed the article describes the debate taking place in parliament and involving leaders of RBS and HBOS.
The last few days in parliament there was an investigation involving the former of top bankers in order determine their responsibilities in relation to the crisis. Protagonists, Sir Fred Goodwin and his chairman Sir Tom McKillop who used to run Royal Bank of Scotland - and Andy Hornby and Lord Stevenson of HBOS, are quizzed by the Treasury committee on their actions that led to several losses. Actually it doesn’t seem extraordinary it appears normal. But bankers’ talks and their explanations seem to be a little ambiguous it is all the more distressing when Angry bank workers protested outside parliament by bearing the slogan Remember us you’ve put our job at risk
The first four former statement was saying we are sorry, in deed Goodwin offered "a profound and unqualified apology for all the distress that has been caused, while Hornby said he was" extremely sorry for the turn of events «. In fact it may seem a little ridiculous, but it’s already a good start…
A question which asked about wages, bonuses and their implication in the difficulties of bankers judgments attracted by the lure of profit is a very interesting question because it touch an important problem, however, Hornby‘s answer seems to be cheeky, in deed he declares My interest was entirely aligned with shareholders, and I never received a single penny in cash as a bonus, I held mine for nine years, and never sold a share. Sorry can you really believe that? In any case it seems to be a way for them to show that they also hit by stock market’s crash and they are also victims. Now we should complain them…
The last part of the article refers to comments made by Derek Simpson and John Mc fall. These words are quite inquisitive, moralizing, a term in vogue in this trouble time. Derek Simpson refers to the problem of wage differentials between bank workers and senior executives and denounced their total responsibilities. As for John Mac fall, he focus on the fact the world has changed, and that the millions of pounds allocated as bonus must be controlled to avoid excesses of speculation, and gambling bringing the breakdown of the system.
To my mind I think this article despite it is short shows well the triviality of such a debate. It looks like a great drama whit the first act present bankers saying we are truly sorry please have mercy on us, it's really pathetic. But what is even more pathetic are tactless interventions of the "judges"; These MPS who pretend grilled this men, but in fact they just want to have a clear conscience. So I think nothing will come of this. We expect acts
Obviously the last chapter does not exist, because England and Mr. Brown seems have some reluctances to do what France ,the USA but also the Swiss have made that is to say a policy targeting bonuses.
Personally I don’t understand how a bank bailed-out by taxpayers and so nationalized to 70%, still planned to pay out bonuses without any government consents. Mr. Brown said 'There are no rewards for failure in what we are proposing.' But for the time being, he just want to gain time and I don’t know why. But we could wonder if the government is not conniving with the most lucrative business in the world. To be rewarded for losing money is the century's bargain…
Merci,
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 14-02-2009 21:40
+ titre
Réponse: Commentaire anglais/correction de azer3, postée le 14-02-2009 à 23:17:49 (S | E)
Bonjour,
The article i
would like to introduce you is entitled angry workers protest as MPs grill bankers. It was published in the tenth February 2009 on the guardian website. As is suggested by the title, the topic refers to the crisis, in deed the article describes the debate taking place in parliament and involving leaders of RBS and HBOS.The last few days in parliament there was an investigation involving the former of top bankers in order determine their responsibilities in relation to the crisis. Protagonists, Sir Fred Goodwin and his chairman Sir Tom McKillop who used to run Royal Bank of Scotland - and Andy Hornby and Lord Stevenson of HBOS, are quizzed by the Treasury committee on their actions that led to several losses. Actually it doesn't seem extraordinary it appears normal. But bankers' talks and their explanations seem to be a little ambiguous it is all the more distressing when Angry bank workers protested outside parliament by bearing the slogan Remember us you've put our job at riskThe first four former statement was saying we are sorry, in deed Goodwin offered "a profound and unqualified apology for all the distress that has been caused, while Hornby said he was" extremely sorry for the turn of events «. In fact it may seem
a little ridiculous, but it's already a good start...A question which asked about wages, bonuses and their implication in the difficulties of bankers judgments
attracted by the lure of profit is a very interesting question because it touch an important problem, however, Hornby‘s answer seems to be cheeky, in deed he declares My interest was entirely aligned with shareholders, and I never received a single penny in cash as a bonus, I held mine for nine years, and never sold a share. Sorry can you really believe that? In any case it seems to be a way for them to show that they also hit by stock market's crash and they are also victims. Now we should complain them...The last part of the article refers to
comments made by Derek Simpson and John Mc fall. These words are quite inquisitive, moralizing, a term in vogue in this trouble time. Derek Simpson refers to the problem of wage differentials between bank workers and senior executives and denounced their total responsibilities. As for John Mac fall, he focus on the fact the world has changed, and that the millions of pounds allocated as bonus must be controlled to avoid excesses of speculation, and gambling bringing the breakdown of the system.To my mind I think this article despite it is short shows well the triviality of such a debate. It looks like a great drama whit the first act present bankers saying we are truly sorry please have mercy on us, it's really pathetic. But what is even more pathetic are tactless interventions of the "judges"; These MPS who pretend grilled this men, but in fact they just want to have a clear conscience. So I think nothing will come of this. We expect actsObviously the last chapter does not exist, because England and Mr. Brown seems
have some reluctances to do what France ,the USA but also the Swiss have made that is to say a policy targeting bonuses.Personally I don't understand how a bank bailed-out by
taxpayers and so nationalized to 70%, still planned to pay out bonuses without any government consents. Mr. Brown said 'There are no rewards for failure in what we are proposing.' But for the time being, he just want to gain time and I don't know why. But we could wonder if the government is not conniving with the most lucrative business in the world. To be rewarded for losing money is the century's bargain...ça s'écrit avec majusculeça manque quelque chose juste aprèsaussi ça manque quelque chose avant youça manque quelque chosetu peux ne pas utiliser invirguleaussi ça manque quelque chose avanton dit in order toon dit pas in relation to si c'est courire on dit donc run toenléve cette and ou le s de présent vérifie cette phrasepointthevirgulevérifie l'orthographe de cette motIou est l'auxiliaire? c'est la voi passive! aticle défini tu garde le presentthat est ce qu'on dit to my minde? voilà une fromulation plus correcte de cette phrase "despite that it is short, this article shows well the triviality of such debate." nom c'est pas ça. C'est un discour directe...thedeux verbes qui se suivent...come frompour quoi le s?vérifie cette phraseaje t'ai déjà proposé la traduction de ça.Voilà trop de fautes de structuration et de ponctuation ce qui rend ta rédaction parfois incomprhensible....Vérifie et corrige tes fautes en essayant d'étre encore plus simple que ça -------------------
Modifié par azer3 le 14-02-2009 23:28
Attention ça existe encore des fautes!
Bonne nuit.
INDISPENSABLES : 