Describe a custom from your country that you would like people from other countries to adopt Explain your choice using specific reasons and examples v.1
Describe a custom from your country that you would like people from other countries to adopt Explain your choice using specific reasons and examples v. 1
It is believed by many that the government must preserve an archaic or language of small regions, however others have opposite meaning. My opinion in a full agreement with a first community. This essay explains view both of debaters from two sides: a legacy of ancestors and inevitable modification of a local language.
First, saving almost a dying language means to keep a memory about our ancient time, about local of traditions and rituals. Moreover, archaeologists throughout the time by a digging find out new fragments antique languages that had lost among centuries that help better understanding culture of ancient people now, however, many are lost irrevocably. In addition, many countries still have two languages in everyday life. For instance, English intertwines archaic and modern tongue plus a few of the words from an archaic French especially it heard in church. Another example, the Ukrainian has an exciting mix ancient and newly of words; however, only in small villages. Consequently, we should preserve language for other people in the future.
Secondly, time changes with technologies and our needs, so old words replaced by modern ones. Moreover, inasmuch as many families are accumulated knowledge and preserve ancient languages from a generation to a generation without the support of the government: citizens could preserve languages by themselves. In addition, many languages of small regions are combined tongues from different countries without any cultural weight, thereby spent money on it useless. Hence, probably better leave this process on people’s shoulders.
In general, my opinion that saving the mother tongue case of families not the government that corresponds to the facts is presented previously which should convince even opposition in my view.
It
is believed
by
many
that the
government
must
preserve
an archaic or
language
of
small
regions,
however
others have opposite meaning. My opinion in a full agreement with a
first
community. This essay
explains
view both of debaters from two sides: a legacy of ancestors and inevitable modification of a local language.
First
, saving almost a dying
language
means to
keep
a memory about our
ancient
time, about local of traditions and rituals.
Moreover
, archaeologists throughout the time by a digging find out new fragments antique
languages
that had lost among centuries that
help
better understanding culture of
ancient
people
now
,
however
,
many
are lost
irrevocably
.
In addition
,
many
countries
still
have two
languages
in everyday life.
For instance
, English intertwines archaic and modern tongue plus a few of the words from an archaic French
especially
it heard in church. Another example, the Ukrainian has an exciting mix
ancient
and
newly
of words;
however
,
only
in
small
villages.
Consequently
, we should
preserve
language
for other
people
in the future.
Secondly
, time
changes
with technologies and our needs,
so
old
words replaced by modern ones.
Moreover
, inasmuch as
many
families
are accumulated
knowledge and
preserve
ancient
languages
from a generation to a generation without the support of the
government
: citizens could
preserve
languages
by themselves.
In addition
,
many
languages
of
small
regions
are combined
tongues from
different
countries without any cultural weight, thereby spent money on it useless.
Hence
,
probably
better
leave
this process on
people
’s shoulders.
In general
, my opinion that saving the mother tongue case of families not the
government
that corresponds to the facts
is presented
previously which should convince even opposition in my view.
7Linking words, meeting the goal of 7 or more
7Repeated words, meeting the goal of 3 or fewer
7Mistakes