texte d'anglais à corriger

[fullmoon]

salut la compagnie! j'ai un boulot à faire, un texte qui doit me servir à uneprise de position qui sera suivie d'un petit débat. La position qui m'a été attribuée est "l'interdiction de fumer dans les lieux publics, c'est po bien" (no comment..).
Pourriez-vous jeter un coup d'oeil à ce txt pour corriger mes fautes de langue/vocabulaire/grammaire etc? Il est long donc je comprendrais tout à fait que tout ne soit pas fait ou que juste quelques points importants soient relevés. merci bcp par avance!



The debate of today is: is cigaret smoking has to be banned in bars ands public spaces? This one is of topicality since, as you obviously noticed, it is prohibited to smoke in the French publicplaces since the first of february. My intervention aims to show you in what this law is absurd and scandalous, and has consequently to be withdrawn. For that, it will first of all be necessary for us to think of the personal freedom of smoking, called into question by this decision. We will then see in what this one appears aggravating at the ideological level, that is to say in what it contributes to the installation of a society totally asepticized and governed by unbearable principles of sanitarianism.But it will be also seen that vis-a-vis with this will, reality is quite different, since the planet goes to the catastroph, because of the industrial and daily pollution, which it poisons us differently more than the cigaret. and against which no measurement is taken. Lastly, the last part of our analysis will show in what this duty of public health actually testifies to a great political and governmental hypocrisy.

We have evoked the principle of freedom, which governs the nation. Isn’t it called into question by this law? Indeed, in the places of exits, bar, nightclubs, restaurants, to smok is integral part of the activity. Although I don’t smoke it appears inconceivable to me that a smoker can drink his coffee without accompanying it by a small cigarette. That would be absolutely frustrating and unpleasant, both being indissociable. This banning will thus prevent him from living his choice to be a smoker, since this man will have no another choice that to stop the cigarette or to desert these places public from recreation and relaxation. You probably will think that this constraint which is imposed to him has to purpose to deliver the non-smokers of another constraint, much more dangerous, that of the passive nicotinism. But aren't the nonsmokers fully aware that this danger exists, and that they are free to choose of going or not in the smoked out places? It is true that if a nonsmoker wants to go in a public place but must abstain from because smoke disturbs him too much, its personal freedom will suffer too. This is why I do affirm that it is quite simply necessary to find solutions adapted and not to pose such rigid prohibitions. the public places must adapt to our way of life and not the reverse.Why not leave the choice with the managers to make a entirely smoker or non-smoker bar ? This way, the two types of customers will find their happiness there. But sometimes in a group of friends or a family some smoke and some don’t. Exist for a long time extractors of smoke, very powerful and effective apparatuses. this system is not developed because it’s considered as too much expensive for the establishments’owners . But today these places are deserted because they’re too smoked out, and the purchase of this apparatus would quickly be shown a profit if it makes it possible to preserve the customers. Moreover, the state could impose this system, by using the money deployed to take care of the respect of current prohibition and making use of it to subsidize of such purchases.
this only aspect answer the question without adopting of radical, extreme and total measures.

Furthermore, I can’t help thinking that this cigarette banning is disturbing on the level of morals and manners that it imposes. One should not smoke because that is harmful and dangerous,one should not either eat too fatty, too salted or too sweetened, because that made grow bigger and is bad for health. Our society wants us to have a more and more irreproachable hygiene and life style, privated of small pleasures.
Certainly, to eat at Mc Do is unhealthy, certainly to smoke spoil and damage our lungs, but one is conscious of this and it is and this drug is before all very pleasant and constitutes a pleasure. This law takes part of a larger phenomenom that still leds to this ambient sanitarianism, within an asepticized world.

But this sanitarianism is completely hypocritical. A nonsmoker who will come to howl with the scandal because his neighbour smokes will very leave this restaurant at the wheel from a large 4 4 very pollutant…In a more general way, industrial pollution and the carbon discharges of the innumerable vehicles kill us much more efficiently than the neighbour’s cigaret. There, however, no measurement of scale is taken in spite of the imminence of the catastrophe. Beautiful paradox! The great priorities are not treated but small measures are taken, requesting all the concentration of the government and giving him a positive image.

This is why it appears, and that will be the ultimate point of our reflexion, that this measurement of cigarette banning is demagogic and hypocritical. Indeed, the state refuses that one pollutes the lungs of our co-citizens in a hall of station or our colleagues in our place of work, but it grants an other year to us to do it in limp of night and the bars. Especially, if they have understood that smoking is too dangerous, why not to decide completely to ban the consumption of cigaret, and even to stop the sale of it? For the same reason as there is a prohibition today but no prevention which would consist of an real education and sensitizing as of childhood. This reason is simple: profit. The state enormously recovers taxes of the sale of tobacco. Even if there are less smokers, the price of the tobacco increases and the cases of the state are charmed. This lure of gain prevents from carrying out in a effective, concrete and real way, a true work and duty of public health, but does not prevent them simulating it. This is why I’m firmly opposed this law of smoking banning in public places.

[Isis]

Bonsoir Fullmoon

Bon, je m'essaye au premier paragraphe... :

- En gras, les modifs.
- En rouge, à supprimer.
- En italique, ce qui me paraît bizarre (je vais réfléchir et y revenir plus tard).

The debate of today is: does cigaret smoking have to be banned in bars ands public spaces? This one is of topicality since, as you obviously noticed, smoking is prohibited in the French publicplaces since February, 1st. My intervention aims to show you in what way this law is absurd and scandalous, and has consequently to be withdrawn. In this purpose, it will first of all be necessary for us to think of the personal freedom of smoking, called into question by this decision. We will then see in what this one appears aggravating at the ideological level, that is to say in what it contributes to the installation of a society totally asepticized and governed by unbearable principles of sanitarianism. But it will be also seen that vis-a-vis with this will, reality is quite different, since the planet goes to the catastroph, because of the industrial and daily pollution, which it poisons us differently and far more than the cigaret, and against which no measurement is taken. Lastly, the last part of our analysis will show in what way this duty of public health actually testifies to a great political and governmental hypocrisy.

C'est ce que je vois pour l'instant...
Si d'autres veulent repasser derrière moi ...

[fullmoon]

Ok, c'est cool..
quand je vois de nombreuses fautes que tu m'as corrigées (bon "ands" c une faute de frappe, je sais je suis nulle mais là..), j'ai trop honte.. ne serait-ce que dans la première phrase lol. merci

comment pourrais-je alors dire "qui est d'actualité" , "remettre en question/en cause", "courir à la catastrophe"?

[Isis]

T'inquiète pas, c'est bien normal de faire des fautes/incohérences ou tout simplement des choses qui ne "passent" pas .

D'ailleurs, autant te dire que mes propositions ne sont pas forcément au top non plus, vu que mon anglais (écrit, qui plus est) n'est pas très bon (c'est ma langue C, en jargon de traducteurs, et je l'ai pas trop activée ces dernières années ....).

Bref.

Concernant les expressions que j'avais mises en italiques, c'est parce qu'elles me paraissaient bizarres au premier abord. J'ai cherché comment dire ça, et ça donne :


"qui est d'actualité" >> je dirais simplement avec l'adjectif topical, genre "This is indeed topical since, as you obviously....,..."

"remettre en question/en cause" >> effectivement, ça semble être la formule consacrée, même si je l'ai rarement vue... Peut-être qu'il faudrait un peu modifier la structure de la phrase pour que ça passe mieux : "it will first of all be necessary for us to think of the personal freedom of smoking that this decision calls into question." Je ne sais pas ce qui est le mieux. Attends l'avis d'un anglophone, ce sera mieux .

"courir à la catastrophe" >> Je te propose deux expressions qui me semblent un peu plus idiomatiques :

- the planet is on the road to ruin
- the planet is rushing headlong into disaster


* Un peu plus haut dans cette même phrase j'avais également repéré le "vis-a-vis with", qui ne me semblait pas correct. Je pense que ce que tu cherches à dire est plutôt "beside this will" ou "next to this will" (= à côté, comparé à). Est-ce que je me trompe ? Je ne suis pas sûre de bien comprendre ce début de phrase, d'ailleurs. Si tu peux m'expliquer ce que tu veux dire...?


* Dans la phrase d'avant j'ai oublié de te rajouter un "way" dans "in what way".

Voilà !

Si personne ne prend la suite, je reviendrai dans quelques temps...
C'est pour quand ?

A bientôt et ne te décourage pas : c'est déjà vraiment pas mal du tout !

[fullmoon]

D'accord, merci pour ces précisions.
Oui je voulais bien dire, en gros "beside this will".
Je me suis relue, et je vois déjà plein de "petites" fautes que je n'avais même pas repérées avant :s
ce boulot est pour mardi prochain, mais comme je ne suis pas certaine de pouvoir me reconnecter entre dimanche et mardi, l'idéal ce serait jusqu'à dimanche midi. Mais je me rends bien compte que vous n'avez pas que ca à faire et que ca fait court, donc pas de souci si ca n'a pas le tps d'avancer énormément je comprendrai
à bientôt

[Dada]

"qui est d'actualité"> une question d'actualite= a current issue


2e paragrpahe:

We have evoked (brought up, mentioned) the principle of freedom, which governs the nation. Isn’t it called into question by this law? Indeed, in the places of exits, bars, nightclubs, restaurants, smoking is an integral part of the activity. Although I don’t smoke it appears inconceivable to me that a smoker can drink his coffee without accompanying it by a small cigarette. That would be absolutely frustrating and unpleasant, both being indissociable. This banning will thus prevent him from living his choice to be a smoker, since this man will have no choice but to stop the cigarette (pas sur que ca se dise en anglais. Moi je mettrais smoking pour etre sur) or to desert these public places from recreation and relaxation. You probably will think that this constraint which is imposed to him has the purpose of delivering the non-smokers from another constraint, much more dangerous, that of the passive nicotinism. But aren't the nonsmokers fully aware that this danger exists, and that they are free to choose of going or not in the smoked out places? It is true that if a nonsmoker wants to go in a public place but must abstain from because smoke disturbs him too much, its personal freedom will suffer too. This is why I do affirm that it is quite simply necessary to find adapted solutions and not to pose such rigid prohibitions. The public places must adapt to our way of life and not the other way around. Why not leaving the choice to managers to make an entirely smoking or non-smoking bar ? This way, the two types of customers will find their happiness there. But sometimes in a group of friends or a family some smoke and some don’t. Exist for a long time extractors of smoke, very powerful and effective apparatuses. this system is not developed because it’s considered to be too much expensive for the establishments’owners . But today these places are deserted because they are too smoked out, and the purchase of this apparatus would quickly be seen as a profit if it makes it possible to preserve the customers. Moreover, the government could impose this system, by using the money deployed to take care of the respect of current prohibition and making use of it to subsidize of such purchases.
this only aspect answer the question (Je comprends pas la phrase) without adopting of radical, extreme and total measures.

[fullmoon]

Pour la dernière phrase, je souhaitais dire "apporter une solution au problème", "résoudre"
"to answer an issue"??

[fullmoon]

des volontaires pour la suite....? (regard de chien battu,lol)
Si vous pouviez m'apporter des aides de correction jusqu'à mardi, ce serait super! merci

[Dada]

Pour la dernière phrase, je souhaitais dire "apporter une solution au problème", "résoudre"
"to answer an issue"??

Ah! OK! De l'importance du 's' a la 3e personne ^^
This last point answers the question without adopting of radical, extreme and total(je pense pas que ca se dise en anglais) measures.

3e paragraphe:

Furthermore, I can’t help thinking that this cigarette banning is disturbing on the level of morals and manners that it imposes. One should not smoke because that is harmful and dangerous, one should not either eat too fatty, too salted or too sweetened (c'est correct, mais un anglophone dira plutot: to eat too fat, too sweet, too salty) because that makes you bigger and that is bad for your health. Our society wants us to have a more and more irreproachable hygiene and life style, keeping us from having/enjoying small pleasures.
Certainly, to eat at Mc Do is unhealthy, certainly to smoke spoils and damages our lungs, but one is conscious of this and it is and this drug is before all very pleasant and constitutes a pleasure. This law takes part of a larger phenomenom that still leads to this ambient sanitarianism, within an asepticized world.

[Fuokusu]

Pour "total", on a aussi "utter".

[Isis]

Bonsoir Fullmoon (je t'avais oubliée ).

Je prends les deux derniers...

But this sanitarianism is completely hypocritical. A non-smoker who will come to howl with the scandal because his neighbour smokes will very leave this restaurant at the wheel from a large, very pollutant 4x4 …In a more general way, industrial pollution and the carbon discharges of the innumerable vehicles kill us much more efficiently than the neighbour’s cigaret. There, however, no measurement of scale is taken in spite of the imminence of the catastrophe. Beautiful paradox! The great priorities are not treated but small measures are taken, requesting all the concentration of the government and giving it (si ça renvoit au gouvernement) a positive image.

This is why it appears -- and that will be the ultimate point of our reflexion -- that this measurement of cigarette banning is demagogic and hypocritical. Indeed, the state refuses that people (je préfère cette forme à "one". D'où les modifs qui suivent.)pollutes their co-citizens's lungs in a hall of station or their colleagues' at work, but it grants them an additional year to us to do it in limp of night (ce serait pas "discos" que tu voulais dire ?)and the bars. Especially, if they have understood that smoking is too dangerous, why not to deciding completely to ban completeley the consumption of cigaret, and even to stopping the saling of it? For the same reason as there is a prohibition today but no prevention which would consist of an real education and sensitizing as of childhood. This reason is simple: profit. The state enormously recovers taxes on the sales of tobacco. Even if there are less smokers, the price of the tobacco increases and the cases of the state are charmed. This lure of gain prevents from carrying out in an effective, concrete, real way, a true work and duty of public health, but does not prevent them simulating it. This is why I’m firmly opposed to this law of smoking banning in public places.

Je te laisse relire tout ça.
Je vais réfléchir pour ce que j'ai mis en italique.
Je reviens demain dans la journée (enfin, j'essaie !).

[fullmoon]

Merci Isis et Dada!