Revue (Engels) nakijken?

[Saarah]

Hoi,
ik moet een revue schrijven over een toneelstuk dat we voor Engels gezien hebben. Zijn er mensen die het willen nakijken en er fouten willen uithalen, of betere formuleringen geven ofzo? Alvast bedankt!

Revue: Macbeth
‘Macbeth’ is a story written by Shakespeare, like the most people will probably know. It deals with blind ambition that turns a good guy into a bad one. We’ve seen a story tent of it, by Alastair K. Daniel.

I found it really good. First of all was Alastair a very good actor. He really knew how to influence the public, and how to engage their attention for two hours! I don’t think that’s very easy. He didn’t had a lot of attributes with hem, yet the play was interesting. And the attributes that he had with him, were very original (like the doll of Lady Macbeth)!
Secondly he talked very clear and loud enough, I could easily understand him. But still it was clever that we had perused the different scenes before. Otherwise I think that I hadn’t understand the whole play.
It was funny that he picked some people out of the crowd to let them participate! It also was a
little bit scary, but it was amusing to see. And in that way, everybody is more or less ‘obligated’ to at-tend the play.
The story itself did interest me too. I like old, famous stories, and Macbeth surely is a classic! But if I want to read the original story, I read very laborious, because of the old English. So this is a good way to become acquainted with it.
But there was one disadvantage: the circumstances weren’t very good. We had to sit on the floor, and although I had a cushion with me, was it very unpleasant! I couldn’t move, because there were people in front of me, behind me, and beside me! I couldn’t stretch my legs, which is not agreeable. I
understand that it is easier for the actor that everybody is sitting on the floor, but give everybody at least a little bit more space!

So, the play certainly was successful, and I hope Alastair will come back to our school with another classic story. And in that case, we’ll maybe get a little bit more room to sit!

nou, om te beginnen neem ik aan dat je 'review' (recensie) bedoelt en niet 'revue' (bepaald genre muziek/dans)

[Saarah]

Hmm ja, inderdaad.

Revue: Macbeth review dus ‘Macbeth’ is a story written by Shakespeare, likeas the most people will probably know. It deals with blind ambition that turns a good guy into a bad one. We’ve seen a story tent wat bedoel je hiermee? of it, by Alastair K. Daniel.

I found it is spreektaal, beter: I thought it was really good. First of all was Alastair , Alastair was (of: is) a very good actor. He really knew how to influence the public, and how to engage their attention for two hours! I don’t think that’s very easy. He didn’t had have a lot of attributes with hem, yet the play was interesting. And the attributes that he had did have with him, were very original (like the doll of Lady Macbeth)!
Secondly he talked very clear and loud enough, I could easily understand him. But still it was clever that we had perused the different scenes before. Otherwise I think that I hadn’t understand the whole play. Beter: I don't think I would have understood the whole play otherwise.
It was funny that he picked some people out of the crowd to let them participate! It also was a little bit scary, but it was amusing to see. And in that way, everybody is more or less ‘obligated’ to attend pay attention to the play. The story itself did interest me too. I like old, famous stories, and Macbeth surely is a classic! But if I want to read the original story, I read very laborious dit klinkt wat raar, beter is bijvoorbeeld: I have difficulties understanding it, because of the old English. So this is a good way to become acquainted with it.
But there was one disadvantage: the circumstances weren’t very good. We had to sit on the floor, and although I had a cushion with me, was it very unpleasant! I couldn’t move, because there were people in front of me, behind me, and beside me! I couldn’t stretch my legs, which is not agreeable. I understand that it is easier for the actor that everybody is sitting on the floor, but give everybody at least a little bit more space!

So, the play certainly was successful, and I hope Alastair will come back to our school with another classic story. And in that case, we’ll maybe get a little bit more room to sit!

Ik kan je niet garanderen dat het nu perfect is, maar dit zijn iig wat kleine dingetjes die beter kunnen

[Saarah]

Bedankt!

En ehm ja die 'story tent' had onze leerkracht op bord geschreven. Ik veronderstel dat het hetzelfde betekent als 'toneelstuk', maar misschien vervang ik het nog wel door "play". Maar dat woord gebruik ik al zo vaak , maar ik kan er geen voor synoniem vinden.

[innogen]

(Revue) review dus : Macbeth
‘Macbeth’ is a (story) play - het is geen verhaal maar een toneelstuk written by Shakespeare, (like the) who most people will probably know. It deals with blind ambition that turns a good guy (into a bad one) bad - klinkt mooier . We’ve seen a (story tent) - heb geen flauw idee wat je hiermee bedoelt? of it, by Alastair K. Daniel.

(I found it really good) Dutchism : I thought it was very good . First of all (was Alastair) Alastair was - komma na 'first of all' a very good actor. He really knew how to influence the (public) audience, how to (engage) keep their attention for two hours! I don’t think that’s very easy. He didn’t had a lot of (attributes) props? with (hem) him , yet the play was interesting. (And the attributes that he had with him) The props that he did have were very original (like the doll of Lady Macbeth)!
Secondly he talked very clear and loud enough, I could easily understand him. But still it was clever that we had (perused) studied, het woord past in je stuk the different scenes before. Otherwise I think that I (hadn’t understand) wouldn't have been able to understand the whole play.
It was funny that he picked some people out of the crowd to let them participate! It also was a
little bit scary, but it was amusing to see. (And in that way) and that way, , everybody is more or less ‘obligated’ to (at-tend) pay attention to the play.
(The story itself did interest me too.) I was also very interested in the storyline as well. I like old, famous stories, and Macbeth surely is a classic! But if I want to read the original story, I(I read very laborious) I need to read very laboriously - bijwoord, geen bijvoeglijk naamwoord , because of the old English. So this is a good way to become acquainted with it.
But there was one disadvantage: the circumstances (weren’t) were not - klinkt beter very good. We had to sit on the floor, and although I had a cushion with me, (was it very unpleasant!) it was very unpleasant! I couldn’t move, because there were people in front of me, behind me, and beside me! I couldn’t stretch my legs, (which is not agreeable) which wasn't very comformtable . I understand that it is easier for the actor that everybody is sitting on the floor, but give everybody at least a little bit more space!

So, the play certainly was successful, and I hope Alastair will come back to our school with another classic story. And (in that case,) hopefully - past beter we’ll maybe get a little bit more room to sit!


Ik zou de afkortingen vermijden, gebruik gewoon was not ipv wasn't. Vooral als het voor school, of iets anders serieuzers is.
En pff er zitten nog wat kromme zinnen in maar ach.
Je gebruikt af en toe moeilijkere woorden die totaal niet passen in je simpele taalgebruik. Als je een woord normaal niet gebruikt dan heeft dingen opzoeken in woordenboeken ook niet echt zin want dat valt op.

[MickeyV]

Ik weet dat het in de omgangstaal steeds vaker gebeurt, maar voor de schrijftaal zou ik voorlopig blijven vasthouden aan "he talks very clearly".

"Loud" zonder -ly klinkt wel goed. Grappig genoeg bevestigt Google dit. Loudly en loud komen als bijwoord beide voor, maar loud vaker, terwijl "clear" als bijwoord juist aanmerkelijk minder vaak voorkomt dan "clearly".

[Droomvlucht]

L_angel schreef op 14-10-2006 @ 20:16 :
[B] who[/U] most people will probably know.

Dit is niet correct gezien de context. Het onderwerp is het toneelstuk, niet de persoon. Dus kan het niet 'who' zijn.

[June bug]

MickeyV schreef op 14-10-2006 @ 23:53 :
Ik weet dat het in de omgangstaal steeds vaker gebeurt, maar voor de schrijftaal zou ik voorlopig blijven vasthouden aan "he talks very clearly".

"Loud" zonder -ly klinkt wel goed. Grappig genoeg bevestigt Google dit. Loudly en loud komen als bijwoord beide voor, maar loud vaker, terwijl "clear" als bijwoord juist aanmerkelijk minder vaak voorkomt dan "clearly".

Een docente van me vertelde me laatst dat ze in de Verenigde Staten nogal vaak het '-ly' weglaten. Misschien dat dat de google resultaten verklaart.

Aragnabite schreef op 15-10-2006 @ 00:36 :
Dit is niet correct gezien de context. Het onderwerp is het toneelstuk, niet de persoon. Dus kan het niet 'who' zijn.

Volgens mij refereert die 'who' naar Shakespeare als persoon, en is het dus gewoon correct. Ligt er dus alleen aan wat de TS nou precies bedoelt.

June bug schreef op 15-10-2006 @ 01:48 :
Een docente van me vertelde me laatst dat ze in de Verenigde Staten nogal vaak het '-ly' weglaten. Misschien dat dat de google resultaten verklaart.



Volgens mij refereert die 'who' naar Shakespeare als persoon, en is het dus gewoon correct. Ligt er dus alleen aan wat de TS nou precies bedoelt.

Nee, ze bedoelt dat de meeste mensen wel weten dat Macbeth door Shakespeare is geschreven, anders had ze zelf toch ook nooit 'like' gebruikt?

[innogen]

Aragnabite schreef op 15-10-2006 @ 00:36 :
Dit is niet correct gezien de context. Het onderwerp is het toneelstuk, niet de persoon. Dus kan het niet 'who' zijn.

June bug schreef op 15-10-2006 @ 01:48 :

Volgens mij refereert die 'who' naar Shakespeare als persoon, en is het dus gewoon correct. Ligt er dus alleen aan wat de TS nou precies bedoelt.

Ja dat dus.

[Saarah]

Bedankt allemaal!

L_angel schreef op 14-10-2006 @ 20:16 :

Je gebruikt af en toe moeilijkere woorden die totaal niet passen in je simpele taalgebruik. Als je een woord normaal niet gebruikt dan heeft dingen opzoeken in woordenboeken ook niet echt zin want dat valt op.

Mja, maar als ik de vertaling van een woord niet weet zoek ik die wel op. En dan zijn er wel woorden bij die ik normaal niet zou gebruiken, maar soms weet ik geen beter synoniem en dan 'moet' ik het wel gebruiken..