Bread asked in 社會與文化語言 · 1 decade ago

看我的文法對不對...很簡單的...

In that report, we can know what we are doing for the nature. We are hurting it !! If we don’t stop what we are do, the earth must be fall away. Then we must be fall away too.We need to treasure (cherish) the nature.

Another, smoker are the crucial point also.

About 1.44 kg rubbish have been made by everyone .

Do you know how much rubbish we make every day?

The harbor have been polluted by us.

If everyone doesn’t stop to throw the rubbish in the sea, we will lost it forever. It won’t back.

講真的..我也不知道我的同學想說甚麼....所以沒有中文翻譯...

不過應該蠻簡單的吧...

幫我看看她的文法對不對吧!!

Update:

某名詞要加"s"的話也要跟我說!

2 Answers

Rating
  • 石川
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    In that report, we can see (know) what we are doing to (for) the nature.在這裡,用see會比know來得符合一點。而且是to不是for,因為我們是「對」大自然做這些事,不是「為了」大自然做這些事。We are hurting it!! If we don't stop what we are doing now, the earth will fall apart for sure (must be fall away). Then we woudn't survive, either (must be fall away too).are do改成are doing,再加一個now強調。must是「必須、一定得」的意思,不太合,我改成will...... for sure。fall apart是崩潰的意思,而後面一句因為我覺得大自然和人類在這裡很難用同樣的動詞描述,所以改寫成「也不能存活」。We need to cherish (treasure) the nature/the Mother nature.cherish比treasure好一點;the nature可以,也可以用the Mother nature來強化。Also (Another), smokers are another (the) crucial point (also).Another不是副詞,意思也不對,不能在這裡用;我想可能是要用在後面,因為關鍵點(crucial point)絕對不只一個。smoker改成複數,因為不只一人抽煙。前面改成also後,後面就重覆了。其實我覺得這一句跟前面的沒有很大的連結;不過這牽涉到文章結構,我就留給你同學改正了!About 1.44 kilograms (kg) of garbage (rubbish) have been produced (made) (by everyone).我的習慣是在這裡把公斤整個寫出來:不是在算物理題目。garbage這個字比rubbish來得順。用produced比用made更明確一點,而且製造垃圾的人很明顯是每個人,就不用再加by everyone了。而且這一句有個很大的缺失:每人多久產生出1.44公斤的垃圾?如果後面要加every day(下面那句講是每天)之類的時間詞的話,have been就要改成are,因為是規律的。Do you know how much garbage (rubbish) we make every day?garbage/rubbish同上。這句是問句,感覺比較口語,所以用make我覺得沒問題。不過我覺得這句應該調到上面比較好:我沒有印象有看過先答後問的修辭法。The harbor have been polluted by us.這一句文法和意義上沒錯,只是很軟弱,感覺不出有要傳達什麼。我不清楚你同學實際要表達的內容,不過如果連續列舉好幾個汙染的事實的話,可能語意會比較強烈。If we don't (everyone doesn't) stop throwing garbage into (to throw the rubbish in) the sea, we would lose (will lost) it forever. It wouldn't (won't)/would never come back.用everyone感覺很奇怪;用we比較通順、有「自己包含在內」的感覺。stop後面接動名詞;garbage/rubbish同上;丟垃圾有方向性,所以要用into而非in。用wouldt比will好的原因是這是一個假設的情況,並非未來一定會發生。lose才是動詞,lost是過去分詞或形容詞。wouldn't/won't同上。back不是動詞,要加上come變成「回來」才行;可視情形加never,並把wouldn't改成would。

  • 1 decade ago

    我用自己的想法,小小改了一下,看看合不合你意。

    According to that report, we could know what we are doing to the nature. We are hurting it. If we don't stop doing so, the earth will surely be fallen away. Hence we will be fallen away as well. We need to cherish the nature.

    In addition, smoke are the cruial point, too.

    About 1.44kg rubbish have been made by people.

    Do you know how much rubbish we make everyday?

    The harbor have been polluted by us.

    If everyone doesn't stop throwing the rubbish to the sea, we will lost it forever. It will never back.

    Source(s): 相當不克觀的個人意見
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.