[en] briefje engels gemaakt... kunnen jullie het aub nakijken

[halilo]

Halil Uslu
appelstraat 34
7684 VS Almelo
The Netherlands

BBC one
18 St George’s Street
MANCHESTER M19 8DJ
Great Britain

March 15, 2005

Dear Sir/Madam,

Yesterday I have followed your discussion about legalising of drugs. I think it’s a very bad idea to legalize drugs, because more people can use them. All the young people will using soft drugs.

A very big problem is the responsibility. If young people have the choice for using drugs, they will become a victim of this. They will also not ask the permissions of their parents, because it is legal.

If soft drugs will legalised, more people will use this. I have also some proofs. I have a lot of graphics that improve you, if drugs are legalised, that more people will using it. 35% of the young people used drugs before the legalistration. After legalistration, this is raised to 40%. So legalisation of drugs causes a very big problem in our society.

You get a increase of coffe shops if jou legalise soft drugs.The possibility to buy soft drugs at young people is bigger, because if they are faild to get softdrugs,they would go to an another coffe shop.And you will see that these young people at the end of the day get soft drugs,also if they are not 18 years old.

I hope you understand what I mean. This is a very big problem. The responsebility is eventually at the young people,so if they will use soft drugs they can do it without the permission from their parents or with the permission from their parents. But after the legalisation, they wil not take the effort to ask it.

Yours sincely

Halil Uslu


die schuine alinea en de slot is wel beetje fout denk ik.

alvast bedankt

groetjes, halil

[Cola]

halilo schreef op 24-02-2005 @ 16:53 :
Halil Uslu
appelstraat 34
7684 VS Almelo
The Netherlands

BBC one
18 St George’s Street
MANCHESTER M19 8DJ
Great Britain

March 15, 2005

Dear Sir/Madam,

Yesterday I have followed your discussion about legalising of drugs. I think it’s a very bad idea to legalise drugs, because more people can use them. All the young people will use soft drugs.

A very big problem is the responsibility. If young people have the choice for using drugs, they will become a victim of this. They will also not ask the permissions of their parents, because it is legal.

If soft drugs will legalised, more people will use this. I have also some proofs. I have got a lot of pictures(als je foto's bedoelt) that prove to you, if drugs are legalised, that more people will use it. 35% of the young people used drugs before the legalistration. After legalistration, this wiil be raised to 40%. So legalisation of drugs causes a very big problem to our society.

You get an (als je a voor een klinker krijgt word het automatisch an) increase of coffee shops if jou legalise soft drugs.The possibility to sale soft drugs to young people is bigger, because if they are faild to get softdrugs,they would go to an another coffe shop.And you will see that these young people at the end of the day get soft drugs,also if they are not 18 years old.

I hope you understand what I mean. This is a very big problem. The responsebility is eventually at the young people,so if they will use soft drugs they can do it without the permission from their parents or with the permission from their parents. But after the legalisation, they wil not take the effort to ask it.

Yours sincely

Halil Uslu


die schuine alinea en de slot is wel beetje fout denk ik.

alvast bedankt

groetjes, halil

verrander bij word de taal van de spellings controle en verbeter het dan want ik weet niet of ik alle spel fouten heb gehad of verkeerde zinnen goed gemaakt heb.....
maar dit is een goede brief

[MightyMarcel]

owkee, here goes : vetgedrukt = verbeterd. cursief=suggestie. onderstreept=weglaten.

halilo schreef op 24-02-2005 @ 16:53 :
Halil Uslu
appelstraat 34
7684 VS Almelo
The Netherlands

BBC One
18 St George’s Street
MANCHESTER M19 8DJ
Great Britain (England)

March 15, 2005

Dear Sir/Madam,

yesterday I have followed your discussion about legalising of drugs. I think it’s a very bad idea to legalize drugs, because more people can use them. All the young people will be using soft drugs.

1e y : komt na komma, dus kleine letter
legalising of drugs
be using. of : will use soft drugs.
mogelijk betere zin : 'I think it's a very bad idea to legalize drugs, because more people will start using drugs. After a while, all young people will be using soft drugs.

(het is niet 'the young people', omdat je het geheel van alle jonge mensen bedoeld. 'The young people' zou betekenen dat er maar 1 'young people' zou zijn. bv. 'the dog' en 'dogs', niet 'the dogs', tenzij je specifiek een (aantal) 'dogs' bedoelt.)

A very big problem will be the responsibility. If young people have the choice of using drugs, they will become a victim of that. Also, they will not ask the permissions of their parents, because it is legal.

niet 'is' maar 'will be', omdat het over een voorstel tot legalisatie gaat en de situatie zich dus nog niet voordoet. 'the' responsibility, dus met lidwoord ('the'). 'that' ipv 'this', verwijzing naar ander onderwerp. niet 'the permission', dus zonder 'the'. Permission is enkelvoud in dit geval, dus zonder ~s.

If soft drugs will be legalised, more people will use drugs (of 'them'). I have also some proofs. I have a lot of graphs that [u]im[/]prove to you, if drugs are legalised, that more people will use them. thirty-five percent of the (all) young people used drugs before the legalisation. After legalisation, this is raised up to 40%. So , legalisation of drugs can causes a very big problem in our society.

drugs 'will be', niet 'will'.
niet 'this' om te verwijzen naar drugs, staat slecht, gewoon 'drugs' of 'them' (drugs = meervoud).
proof zonder 's', ook in geval van meervoud.
graph (je bedoelt toch grafieken ?), niet graphics (=plaatjes).
niet 'improve' maar 'prove' (en dat had je in een woordenboek op kunnen zoeken).
'that' weglaten, is niet nodig, en is nederlandse grammatica.
'use them', zelfde verhaal als eerste zin.
'35 %' voluit schrijven, staat netter, krijg je hoger cijfer.
niet 'the young people' ('the' weglaten)
legalisation, goed spellen. (heb ik al verbeterd).
niet 'this is raised', gewoon 'this raised'.
'up to', netter dan 'to' (to is niet per se verkeerd).
So, komma,.....
niet 'causes' maar 'can cause', zie 1e alinea.

You will see an increase of coffee shops if you legalise soft drugs.The possibility to buy soft drugs for young people is bigger, because if they are unable to get softdrugs,they will go to an another coffee shop. .you will see that these young people , at the end of the day , get [/i]acces to[/i] soft drugs, even if they are not 18 years old.

gewoon wat kleine verbeteringen, hoewel ik je zinsbouw niet echt charmant vind (sorry).

I hope that you understand what I mean. This is a very big problem. The responsebility is eventually for the young people, so if they choose to use soft drugs they can do it without the permission from their parents or with the permission from their parents. But after the legalisation, they wil not take the effort to ask it.

[MightyMarcel]

nick roozeboom schreef op 24-02-2005 @ 17:08 :
verrander bij word de taal van de spellings controle en verbeter het dan want ik weet niet of ik alle spel fouten heb gehad of verkeerde zinnen goed gemaakt heb.....
maar dit is een goede brief

you missed 'responsability', but so did I...

[Liesjeuh]

*Yesterday I followed your discussion about the legalising of drugs. I think it’s a very bad idea to legalise drugs, because that way more people can use them.
*They won't ask the permission of their parents either, because it is legal.
*If soft drugs would be legalised, more people will use them.
*I have got a lot of pictures that prove that, if drugs were legalised, more people would use it.
*the young people = youngsters
*legalisation.
*this would be raised to 40%. So legalisation of drugs would cause a very big problem for our society.
*if you would legalise soft drugs.
*because if they are faild to get softdrugs
--> bedoel je "because if they can't get any soft drugs" of bedoel je iets van "if they are determined to get soft drugs" ?
*And you will see that, at the end of the day, these young people get soft drugs, even if they are not 18 years old yet.
*responsibility
*so if they want to use soft drugs, they can do it with our without the permission from their parents. But after the legalisation, they wouldn't make the effort to ask it.

[T_ID]

Ik had de eerste fout zo al gespot, de stelling van de brief is verkeerd.

Je kan de laatste twee alineas schrappen aangezien het niet zo zal zijn dat kinderen zomaar drugs kunnen kopen.

Check ook even hoe je coffeeschop schrijft, je schrijft vaak coffeshop. verder kennen Engelsen dat fenomeen niet, en zullen denken dat je een koffiehuis bedoelt in plaats van een coffeeshop..

[MightyMarcel]

Liesjeuh schreef op 24-02-2005 @ 17:29 :
*Yesterday I followed your discussion about the legalising of drugs. I think it’s a very bad idea to legalise drugs, because that way more people can use them.

(tis niet per se 'the legalising', het lidwoord mag (niet moet( je hier weglaten. De mooiste (imho) zin zou zijn : 'Yesterday, I followd your discussion on legalising drugs'. zo simpel mogelijk dus.)

*They won't ask the permission of their parents either, because it is legal.

(permission 'from their parents' is gebruikelijker volgens mij, en tis niet 'the permission'.)

*I have got a lot of pictures that prove that, if drugs were legalised, more people would use it.


(ik denk dat de TS grafieken bedoelt, niet 'graphics')
(if drugs were to be legalised)


*because if they are faild to get softdrugs
--> bedoel je "because if they can't get any soft drugs" of bedoel je iets van "if they are determined to get soft drugs" ?
------> failed btw, niet 'faild'


*responsibility

*so if they want to use soft drugs, they can do it with our without the permission from their parents. But after the legalisation, they wouldn't make the effort to ask it.

(niet 'the permission', tis hier zeker zonder 'the'.)
(make -> 'take' the effort. ... to ask. (niet to ask 'it'.)

[LayDee88]

heeeeelemaal bovenaan de brief mag je geloof ik je eigen naam er niet bijzetten.... dus alleen je straat, postcode plaats en land...

[TopDrop]

LayDee88 schreef op 25-02-2005 @ 15:56 :
heeeeelemaal bovenaan de brief mag je geloof ik je eigen naam er niet bijzetten.... dus alleen je straat, postcode plaats en land...

Ja inderdaad. Als je de brief afsluit met je eigen naam, mag je naam niet meer bij je adres staan.

[Liesjeuh]

@Mighty Marcel:
ik heb alleen wat vetgedrukt staat aangepast, wat er verder instaat kan best nog fout staan, maar voor ik postte waren die over het algemeen al opgemerkt