Hello ! I have to make a summary of a text. I submitted the introduction last week. Here there is the introduction + the summary itself. Is there any possible improvement ? Thanks for your help This text is an article by Václav Havel entitled “A New Impetus for Old Europe”. It was published in The Economist in 2004. V. Havel is a Czech writer and dramatist. He was a leading figure in the Velvet Revolution which brought down communism in Czechoslovakia. In December 1989, he was elected President of his country. In 1993, he was chosen as the first president of the newly-separate Czech Republic and served for two terms until February 2003. “A New Impetus for Old Europe” approaches the geographical expansion of the European Union (E.U.) with the entry of ten new countries in 2004. More precisely, it examines the cultural, economical and political consequences entailed by the widening of the E.U. In V. Havel’s view, the enlargement eastward marks a turning point in the history of Europe. It “heralds the Union’s transformation into an entirely new geopolitical entity”. We can wonder about the reasons for this statement. According to V. Havel, the expansion of 2004 will entail/bring about great/significant/considerable cultural and political outcomes/impact/repercussions. In the first place/firstly, the cold war (in capital letters? Cold War?) separated the central and eastern countries from Europe during nearly fifty years. The E.U. widening into these states (is it correct?) means thus a transition between the past (finished with the fall of the Berlin Wall/the fall of Berlin Wall (wall or Wall ?) and the current period/the present. This transition raises a certain number of problems (not too heavy?). Indeed, the essence of the E.U. enlargement/the E.U.’s enlargement is (a richer verb?) a broadening of the area of commonly shared values. Yet, (a comma or no comma?) the iron curtain entailed a considerable cultural and political gap between western and eastern countries it will be difficult to fill in. The different member-states (member-states or member states?) will have difficulties to come to new commonly shared values. Secondly/in the second place, on the more strictly political side, the expansion eastward puts an end to the idea of a supranational/supranationalist approach of Europe (a synonymous of approach? I know it is a good word but it is taken from the text and I want a different word). Indeed (a synonymous? I use it too many times in my text), the new member states want/would like (a richer verb?) to keep their national sovereignty recently acquired. Lastly/at last/finally/in the last place, the expansion of 2004 poses the problem of the future of Europe. After the entry of a few former western eastern block countries, Russia integration/Russia’s integration will become very problematic. Moreover, broadening the boarder of E.U., the enlargement will also raise the question of Turkey entry.
Hi regbar. This is my contribution. You will have to look and see for yourself what parts of your text that I changed. I spent a fair amount of time on it and haven’t the time at the moment identify or explain my changes. And there is a health warning, I’m posting this simply as a native English speaker…….. for grammar etc you will have to listen to others. Anyway I’m sure my little bit will give you something to think about while you wait for other opinions. best regards. badger. This text is a summary of an article by Václav Havel entitled “A New Impetus for Old Europe”. It was published in The Economist in 2004. V. Havel is a Czech writer and dramatist. He was a leading figure in the Velvet Revolution which brought down communism in Czechoslovakia. In December 1989, he was elected President of his country. In 1993, he was chosen as the first president of the newly-separate Czech Republic and served for two terms until February 2003. “A New Impetus for Old Europe” addresses the geographical expansion of the European Union (E.U.) by the entry of ten new countries in 2004. More precisely, it examines the cultural, economical and political consequences entailed by the widening of the E.U. In V. Havel’s view, the enlargement eastward marks a turning point in the history of Europe. It “heralds the Union’s transformation into an entirely new geopolitical entity”. We can wonder about the reasons for this statement. According to V. Havel, the expansion of 2004 will bring about significant cultural and political repercussions. In the first place, the cold war (in capital letters? < I’m not sure. badger) separated the central and eastern countries from the rest of Europe for nearly fifty years. The widening of The E.U. to include these states will mean a transition from the past (finished with the fall of the Berlin Wall) to the present. This transition raises a certain number of problems. Indeed, the essence of the E.U.’s enlargement will be a broadening of the area of commonly shared values. Yet, the iron curtain entailed a considerable cultural and political gap between western and eastern countries that will be difficult to fill in. The different member-states will have difficulties in coming to new commonly shared values. Secondly, on the more strictly political side, the expansion eastward puts an end to the idea of a supranational Europe, the new member states will want to keep their recently acquired national sovereignty. Finally, the expansion of 2004 poses the problem of the future of Europe. After the entry of a few former western “eastern block” countries, Russia’s integration will become very problematic. Moreover, by the broadening of The E.U., the enlargement will also raise the question of Turkey’s entry.
The Cold War is usually capitalized because it is a proper noun when writing about the actual event between the U.S and U.S.S.R. but it is not wrong to write it uncapitalized.
Many thanks for having spend your time on my text In green, I added some remarks about your correcting. Thanks again for your help !
Regbar, I think you've already been given good suggestions, so I started with a later post. =================== This is your original text: This text is a summary of an article by Václav Havel entitled “A New Impetus for Old Europe”. It was published in The Economist in 2004. V. Havel is a Czech writer and dramatist. He was a leading figure in the Velvet Revolution, [you need a comma before "which"] which brought down communism in Czechoslovakia. In December 1989, he was elected President of his country. In 1993, he was chosen as the first president of the newly-separate Czech Republic and served for two terms until February 2003. If you want to improve your style, you might do something like this, which is merely an example, and I'll only do it for one paragraph… This text is a summary of an article by Václav Havel entitled “A New Impetus for Old Europe”, published in The Economist in 2004. V. Havel is a Czech writer and dramatist who was a leading figure in the Velvet Revolution, which brought down communism in Czechoslovakia. In December 1989[,] he was elected President of his country, and in 1993[,] he was chosen as the first president of the newly-separate Czech Republic, serving for two terms until February 2003. The two commas in "[]" are correct but not necessary because the introductory phrases are so short. It's your decision… Now, a few more suggestions: =================== “A New Impetus for Old Europe” addresses the geographical expansion of the European Union (E.U.) by the entry of ten new countries in 2004. More precisely, it examines the cultural, economical and political consequences entailed by the widening of the E.U. In V. Havel’s view, the enlargement eastward marks a turning point in the history of Europe. It “heralds the Union’s transformation into an entirely new geopolitical entity”. Let's examine the reasons for this statement. According to V. Havel, the expansion of 2004 will bring about significant cultural and political repercussions. In the first place, the Cold War separated the central and eastern countries from the rest of Europe for nearly fifty years. The widening of The E.U. to include these states will mean a transition from the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall to the present. =================== (Something about that last paragraph is awkward, and I could not quite fix it. I believe you are using the fall of the Berlin Wall as the end of one period and the beginning of another, but your wording does not make that clear.) =================== This transition raises a certain number of problems. Indeed, the essence of the E.U.’s enlargement will be [in fact, here I want to say that the widening of E.U. in general is about the broadening of values ; here I do not want to talk about the enlargement of 2004 in particular ; so, I see that my sentence is not clear, I will try to improve it] a broadening of the area of commonly shared values. Yet, the iron curtain entailed a considerable cultural and political gap between western and eastern countries that will be difficult to fill in. The different member-states will have difficulties in coming to new[, ]commonly shared values. =================== You will have to fix that last paragraph yourself, since you are not yet quite sure what you want to say! =================== Secondly, on the more strictly political side, the expansion eastward puts an end to the idea of a supranational Europe; the new member states will want to keep their recently acquired national sovereignty. =================== (You could also use a period, but a semicolon is also correct when joining to related sentences. A comma would be wrong.) =================== Finally, the expansion of 2004 poses the problem of the future of Europe. After the entry of a few former western “eastern block” countries [I see I made mistake here ; it is "a few former eastern block" and not western eastern], Russia’s integration will become very problematic. Moreover, by the broadening of The E.U., the enlargement will also raise the question of Turkey’s entry. =================== (Again, I'm not sure what you mean in that last paragraph. Overall, it is easy to correct style, grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes, but it is impossible for us to help you well until you decide exactly what you want to say!) Good luck!
Hi jacinta and gaer. I'm glad that you took up the baton and carried it forward. Sometimes it seems as though people are nervous in making secondary contributions. My effort was there to be improved on, and both of you did so. I've learned something from this exercise as I am sure our colleague regbar has badger.
I'm always learning. I'm a teacher. I truly believe that the only teachers who remain effective remain students as well! I also learned how hard it is to try to "fix" something, because you don't want to make someone elses ideas a copy of your own, and thinking about how to make suggestions without going too far is very hard. I wonder if we will get a full report about how the paper is finally received?
Hello gaer ! Yes, if you want, I will make you a report about the reception of my paper. I will give it to my teacher next monday. It will at the same time show you how demanding he is Thanks again for all your answers
I'd love to find out how you do. What is your native language? I'm guessing French because of the space before "!", which doesn't happen in English, Spanish or German. Small suggest: "I will 'give' you a report." Also: At the same time it will show you how demanding he is. OR It will show you how demanding he is at the same time. OR It will show you at the same time how demanding he is. We put the part about "time" in slightly different place. Good luck!
I've just learned recently about the difference between French and German pronuncation. « text » French »text« German Then there is an extra space before ";" and ":", I think there are also extra spaces before and after parentheses, but I'm not sure.
No, there is no extra spaces before and after parentheses. On whether to ";" and ":", I think it is more aesthetic with a space before, I do not sya that because I am french
An extra space before a semicolon or colon is simply wrong in English. Same with an extra space before an exclamation point or question mark. I personally agree that the French style of punctuation is aesthetically pleasing. We should probably start a new thread about punctuation.
Yes, it is an interesting thread because there is much more ponctuation in french than in english. When I read an english text, it sometimes disturbs and irritates me because of that lack of ponctuation !
My last version. If you see any remaining mistakes, thanks to tell me. This text is an article by Václav Havel entitled “A New Impetus for Old Europe”. It was written for The World in 2004, published by The Economist in 2003. V. Havel is a Czech writer and dramatist who was a leading figure in the Velvet Revolution, which brought down communism in Czechoslovakia. In December 1989, he was elected President of his country. In 1993, he was chosen as the first president of the newly-separate Czech Republic and served for two terms until February 2003. “A New Impetus for Old Europe” approaches the geographical expansion of the European Union (E.U.) by the entry of ten new countries in 2004. More precisely, it examines the cultural and political consequences entailed by the widening of the E.U. In V. Havel’s view, the enlargement eastward marks a turning point in the history of Europe. It “heralds the Union’s transformation into an entirely new geopolitical entity”. We can wonder about the reasons for this statement. Firstly, we will outline the author’s thesis and argument: as the E.U.’s borders move eastward, is it now impossible to conceive of a federal, supranational Europe because of the cultural differences between the member-states. Secondly, we will tell the history of the E.U. and will then focus on the current debate about Turkey’s integration. According to V. Havel, the expansion of 2004 will bring about significant cultural and political repercussions. In the first place, the Cold War separated the central and eastern countries from the rest of Europe for nearly fifty years. The widening of the E.U. to include these states means thus a transition from the past (finished with the fall of the Berlin Wall) to the present. This transition raises a certain number of problems. Indeed, the essence of the E.U.’s enlargement is a broadening of the area of commonly shared values. Yet, the iron curtain entailed a considerable cultural and political gap between western and eastern countries which will be difficult to fill in. The different member-states will have difficulties in coming to new, commonly shared values. Secondly, on the more strictly political side, the expansion eastward puts an end to the idea of a supranational approach of Europe. Indeed, the new member-states will want to keep their recently acquired national sovereignty. Finally, the expansion of 2004 poses the problem of the future of Europe. After the entry of former eastern block countries, Russia’s integration will become very problematic Moreover, the enlargement will also raise the question of Turkey’s entry.
