Indirekte Rede Englisch. Würde jemand so nett sein und nachschauen, ob ich das so richtig gemacht habe?
Es geht einfach darum "will" in der indirekten Rede umzuformen. Trotzdem bin ich mir nicht ganz sicher.
- Sally: "Restaurants will soon have no fish on the menu." --> Sally said that restaurants would soon have no fish on the menu.
- Christian: "As I understand it, I will have to pay more for my fish and chips in the future." --> Christian said that he would have to pay more for his fish in the future.
- Helen: "I like tuna, but as I see it I won't be able to get it so easily in the supermarket." --> Helen said that she likes tuna, but that she wouldn't be able to get it so easy in the supermarket.
- Alex and Jane: "We won't be able to buy so much seafood so cheaply." --> Alex and Jane said that they wouldn't be able to buy so much seafood so cheap. Bleibt hier dann das cheaply oder heißt es dann einfach cheap?
- Owen: "In my opinion, I won't have any fish protein to eat apart from algae." --> Owen said that in his opinion he wouldn't have any fish protein to eat apart from algae.
- Sharon: "As I see it, govermments will have to act quickly to avoid a disaster." --> Sharon said that governments would have to act quickly to avoid a disaster.
- Bill and Ben: "After reading the article that went with the photo we are sure the catastrophe will happen in our lifetime." --> Bill and Ben said that they were sure that the catastrophe would happen in their lifetime after reading the article that went with the photo.
- Donna: "I won't eat so much fish after reading this article." --> Donna said, that she wouldn't eat so much fish, after reading that article.
Will wird zu would,das hast du richtig gemacht:-)
Ich bin aber der Meinung,dass beim 3. Satz das 2. -that- weg muss.
Helen: "I like tuna, but as I see it I won't be able to get it so easily in the supermarket." --> Helen said that she likes tuna, but -that- she wouldn't be able to get it so easy in the supermarket.
Im Grunde ist alles korrekt (es handelt sich ja um immer dieselbe Regel).
Bei Satz 8 beidel Kommata streichen.
Bei Satz 4 kann "cheaply" beliben (obwohl "cheap" hier auch akzeptabel ist). Adverbien haben mit dem "shift of tenses" nichts zu tun.
Bei Nr. 6 "will have to" ist für mich im Dt. "soll" oder muß. Dann ist der Konjunktiv "should act".
Would have to ist auch richtig.
Wieso fragst Du eigentlich????
Warum ist diese Lösung richtig (Reported speech)?
Der erste Satz soll ins Passiv umgewandelt werden.
People said that the President is ill. --> It was said that the president is ill. (So stehts in der Lösung)
Muss es nicht heißen "It was said that the president was ill."?
"to have something done" und "to be said to" Erklärung?
wie genau funktioniert das "to have something done" mit den Zeiten und wie erkennt man welche man nehmen muss; wie genau ist die Satztstellung? Und wie funktioniert das "to be said to" mit den Zeiten und der Satzstellung?
Ich würde mich über ne Erklärung und vielleicht Beispielen freuen. Danke schonmal im vorraus.
Richtiges Indirect speech verwenden?
Wir sollen diesen Satz ins indirect schreiben: Alice said: “I’ve failed two exams so I have to take re-sits in the summer.”
Wäre dass dann: She said that she had failed two exams and therefore had to take re-sits in that summer.
Ist das korrekt?
Wo kommt "only" in diesem Satz hin? (Englisch, Satzbau)
Also: A person who makes an effort to eat only food that is..... Oder A person who makes an effort only to eat food that is .....
Was meinte Kurt Cobain damit, als er sagte Its okay to eat fish, cause they don`t have any feelings?
In dem Lied "somethig in the way", singt er das. Was meint er damit?
Englisch Text korriegieren
Hallo kann jemand folgenden Text korrigieren? Dankeschön Dear Ben Russell, I read your article “Credit cards to ration individuals' carbon use“, which is published in newspaper The Independent in July19,2006. First of all I want to say that I think it's very good that there are people like you who think about the environment and of course about the problems which are exist. The suggestion is that every body has a credit-card with Carbon Dioxide points and if someone travels, use electricity, gas or petrol with carbon rations they have to pay. There is a special amount of this points and if you need more than your personal cap you have to buy credits on the open market. On the other side if there are people who cut the pollution of the carbon they produce, they could sell their surplus. Mr Miliband also suggests that banning products like light bulbs or electrical appliances which waste power while on standby, have to forbid. Everyone have to make automatic payments of offset pollution. I think this credit cards are not a good idea, because there would be a discrimination, because on the one hand rich people wouldn't cut their consume because they have the money to buy this credits. The most of them wouldn't take care about the environment. On the other hand the poor people have to take care about their carbon use. They haven't got the money to buy new credits. The result would be that the poor people take care and the richer people don't take care. Now you can say that it's maybe not a completely good result but now there are a few people who take care. Better than no one. But what is if the poorer people have to use the car everyday because they have to drive to work. They have to pay that they are working. This wouldn't make work more attractive. The poorer people are disadvantaged. Another cause why this credit cards are not a good idea is that you can't control it. There would be a lot of situations where are disagreements. For example if people drive together to work. Now who have to pay with carbon for that? The driver or the other ones? Another fact is that you can't handle everything with money. Everyone has to pay that the environment become better. But money doesn't help. You can't stop the global warming with money. My idea is that there have to be recompenses for those people who do something against the environment problems. There have to be individual things, which make environment protection very attractive and also necessary. It's very important that everybody knows about the problems and the results if we go on like this. All in all I think it's very good that there are people who think about a solution and things that can be do to stop the global warming. Nevertheless I think the credit-cards and money wouldn't be a good solution