General speed limit on the "Autobahn"

[Laubfrosch]

Guten Abend!

Nachdem mir eure Korrektur der letzten Arbeit echt viel gebracht hat, würde ich ich freuen, wenn jemand nochmal ein paar Minuten für mich opfern würde. Vielen Dank dafür schonmal!

Thema dieser Composition ist "Discus the pros + cons of a general speed limit on the “Autobahn".

The exhaust of the cars contribute a lot to the world wide CO2 emissions which are responsible for the greenhouse effect. Our target must be to reduce this emissions to prevent the peoples from rising temperatures and the destruction of the earth. One possibility to reach this target is a general speed limit on the “Autobahn“. Is this useful or not?

One argument for the speed limit is that because of the lower speed the fuel consumption is lower than with high speed. If we must drive slower than today we can reduce our CO2 emissions enormously. Large cars like SUVs and vans burn a lot of petrol if you drive with a high speed. We could reduce this if we must drive with for example 120 km/h. Another effect would be that the car manufactures don`t need the sell cars with big engines because nobody would buy them since the speed limit make them unnecessary. The manufactures could use their money for developing environment friendly technology instead of bigger engines and more and more extra things we don`t need like sound systems with 8 speakers and more.

Another argument for the speed limit is that the number of accidents would fall if we must drive slower than today. A lot of accidents are caused of too high speed and reduce the speed limit could be one way to decrease the rate of accidents on the “Autobahn“. If all people only be allowed to drive with 120 km/h it would be easier to drive on the streets because if you drive slower don`t have to react as fast as you must when you drive 200 km/h and more. It would be impossible that someone passing you and you think “Oh man, where did this car came from?“.

My third argument for a speed limit are the clearer rules on the roads. On some highways you must change you speed from 100 to 120 to 100 and sometimes you can drive as fast as you want until you must slow down again to 120 km/h. It would be so easy if you have to drive only 120 km/h all over the highway. It would also be an advantage for the drivers because they know everywhere how fast they are allowed to drive and they can`t get stopped by the police because the drive to fast and they didn`t know how fast they had to drive.

My first argument against the speed limit is an very important argument for the german drivers. The state isn`t allowed to restrict the freedom of the citizens. If I want to drive fast than I should be allowed to and nobody has to tell how fast I should drive or not. I think that it will be very difficult to tell the german citizen that he have to slow down. The german man love his car and he want to drive it the way he likes. If a politician would say that he want to introduce a speed limit he will not be elected again.

Another argument against a speed limit is the time which everyone will lose if he must drive slower. The advantage of the german “Autobahn“ is that you can drive as fast as you want if don`t have much time. If you are only allowed to drive slow you must start earlier to reach your target in time.

Finally we can say that is right to set an speed limit on the “Autobahn“. But we must also take care of the arguments against the limit. The citizens have to agree with it so we must restrict the limit. One possibility could be to set the limit only in the time from 8.00 am to 22.00 pm and let the citizens drive as fast as they want in the night. This could be a good comprise for the the people and the environment.

Nochmals vielen Dank und noch ein schönes Wochenende!

[Duckduck (Contributor)]

Liebe(r) Laubfrosch!

Auch dieser Text ist inhaltlich ganz prima. Aber eben beim Lesen ist mir aufgefallen, dass Deine Sätze teilweise uuuuunendlich lang sind! Das ist für das Englische ganz untypisch.
Sei doch bitte so gut, und sieh ihn selbst noch einmal daraufhin an und verbessere, soweit Du kannst. Achte dabei doch auch gleich noch auf 3. Person Singular und das "s". Dann korrigiere ich mit Freude!

Denn mal ganz unter uns, obwohl es uns allen wirklich Spaß macht, hier zu helfen, in ein paar Minuten ist so ein Text, wie Du ihn hier eingestellt hast, nicht zu bewältigen. Das hast Du selbst vielleicht an der Qualität der Korrektur gemerkt, oder? Komm uns ein wenig entgegen, ja?

Grüße
Duckduck

[joy]

Hallo Duckduck

Ich habe deine Zeilen gelesen und habe zu diesem Text zwei Fragen, die vielleicht für Laubfrosch auch interessant sind:

1. Was ist richtig? – Gegenwartsform oder Möglichkeitsform? Wäre es möglich, alles in der Gegenwartsform zu schreiben, z. B. auch die If-Sätze, weil es allgemeingültige Aussagen sind? Siehe Beispiele:

Gegenwartsform:
If we have to drive slower than today we can reduce our CO2 emissions enormously.

Möglichkeitsform:
If we had to drive slower than today we could reduce our CO2 emissions enormously.


2. Wenn der erste Teil des Satzes das Wort “would” enthält, folgt denn beim Rest des Satzes die Vergangenheit, oder auch would? Siehe Beispiele:

Another effect would be that the car manufactures would no longer be able to sell cars with big engines because nobody would buy them since the speed limit would make them unnecessary. (Das wäre jetzt eben ein zu langer Satz, aber Duckduck, Laubfrosch hat sicher deine Zeilen gelesen)

Another effect would be that the car manufactures were no longer able to sell cars with big engines because nobody bought them since the speed limit made them unnecessary.


Es wäre schön, wenn du oder auch andere dies anschauen könnte. Es würde mich freuen.
Grüsse von
joy

[Duckduck (Contributor)]

Hallo Duckduck

Ich habe deine Zeilen gelesen und habe zu diesem Text zwei Fragen, die vielleicht für Laubfrosch auch interessant sind:

1. Was ist richtig? – Gegenwartsform oder Möglichkeitsform? Wäre es möglich, alles in der Gegenwartsform zu schreiben, z. B. auch die If-Sätze, weil es allgemeingültige Aussagen sind? Siehe Beispiele:

Gegenwartsform:
If we have to drive slower, we can reduce our CO2 emissions enormously.

Möglichkeitsform:
If we had to drive slower, we could reduce our CO2 emissions enormously.

Hallo joy, es freut mich sehr, dass Du den Text von Laubfrosch so aufmerksam gelesen hast und jetzt diese interessanten Fragen stellst.
Deine beiden Vorschläge sind richtig. Sie unterscheiden sich lediglich ein wenig in der inhaltlichen Aussage.
Der erste geht stärker davon aus, dass ein Tempolimit erlassen wird und beschreibt die Folge. Es ist ein if-Satz des ersten Typs. Eigentlich werden in ihm Present Tense im if-Teil mit will-Future im Hauptsatz kombiniert. Aber auch die Kombination von zweimal Present Tense ist möglich.
Der zweite Vorschlag beschreibt die Erlassung des Tempolimits als etwas unwahrscheinlicher bzw. unsicherer, eben als Möglichkeit. Es ist ein if-Satz des zweiten Typs, indem Konjunktiv (Form des Past Tense) mit Conditional1 kombiniert wird.


2. Wenn der erste Teil des Satzes das Wort “would” enthält, folgt denn beim Rest des Satzes die Vergangenheit, oder auch would? Siehe Beispiele:

Another effect would be that the car manufactures would no longer be able to sell cars with big engines because nobody would buy them since the speed limit would make them unnecessary. (Das wäre jetzt eben ein zu langer Satz, aber Duckduck, Laubfrosch hat sicher deine Zeilen gelesen)

*Another effect would be that the car manufactures were no longer able to sell cars with big engines because nobody bought them since the speed limit made them unnecessary.

Es handelt sich bei diesem Satz nicht um einen if-Satz, deshalb gelten die strengen Kombinationsregeln der Zeitformen hier nicht. Das * soll sagen, dieser Satz ist nicht richtig, der obere ist OK, aber, wie Du schon sagtest, einfach zu lang.

Es wäre schön, wenn du oder auch andere dies anschauen könnte. Es würde mich freuen.
Grüsse von
joy

Duckduck

[joy]

Danke vielmals Duckduck; es beruhigt mich, dies zu wissen. Nicht ver"z"agen - Duckduck fragen!

Schönen Tag
joy

[Laubfrosch]

Ich werde mir das ganze noch mal durchschauen mit den Hinweisen und dann nochmal reinstellen

Hoffe ich schaffe das irgendwann

[Duckduck (Contributor)]

Klar schaffst Du das, Laubfrosch!
Dein Text ist insgesamt doch wirklich gut, also sogar echt prima. Ich wollte mit meiner Anmerkung einfach mal klar machen, dass all die lieben User ihre Texte vor dem Einstellen auch selbst überprüfen sollen und können, denn je mehr Fehler ihr selbst entdeckt, desto weniger müssen wir korrigieren und anstreichen. Das ist wiederum gut für euer Selbstvertrauen und so ist uns allen geholfen.

Grüße
Duckduck

[Laubfrosch]

Das mit dem selbstprüfen ist immer so eine Sache. Nachdem ich/man 1-2 Stunden an einem Text gearbeitet hat finde ich nach nochmaligem lesen nicht einen einzigen Fehler. Lese ich den Text, wenn er korrigiert wurde, nochmals dann sind die Fehler total klar, wie konnte ich die übersehen?!?!

Ich habe den Text jetzt nochmals leicht überarbeitet und einige Fehler gefunden und ein paar Sätze gekürzt. Ich liebe lange Sätze! Wenn ich die Sätze so kurz mache denke ich immer es klingt abgehakt.

Mit der 3. Person Singular und dem "s" habe ich jetzt nicht wirklich was entdeckt. Für mich ist das alles korrekt so.

Hier ist also die neue Version, vielen Dank schonmal für alle die ihn lesen:

The exhaust of the cars contribute a lot to the world wide CO2 emissions which are responsible for the greenhouse effect. Our target must be to reduce this emissions to prevent the peoples from rising temperatures and the destruction of the earth. One possibility to reach this target could be a general speed limit on the “Autobahn“. Is this useful or not?

One argument for the speed limit is that because of the lower speed the fuel consumption is lower than with high speed. If we have to drive slower than today we can reduce our CO2 emissions enormously. Large cars like SUVs and vans burn a lot of petrol if they get driven with a high speed. We could reduce this if we must drive with for example 120 km/h. Another effect would be that the car manufactures don`t need to sell cars with big engines. Nobody would buy them since the speed limit make them unnecessary. The manufactures could use their money for developing environment friendly technology instead of bigger engines and more and more extra things we don`t need like sound systems with 8 speakers and more

Another argument for the speed limit is that the number of accidents will fall if we must drive slower than today. A lot of accidents are caused by too high speed. To reduce the speed limit could be one way to decrease the rate of accidents on the “Autobahn“. If all people only be allowed to drive with 120 km/h it would be easier to drive on the streets. If you drive slower don`t have to react as fast as you must when you drive 200 km/h and more. It would be impossible that someone passing you and you think “Oh man, where did this car came from?“.

My third argument for a speed limit are the clearer rules on the roads. On some highways you must change you speed from 100 to 120 to 100. Sometimes you can drive as fast as you want until you must slow down again to 120 km/h. It will be so easy if you have to drive only 120 km/h all over the highway. Also it would be an advantage for the drivers because they know everywhere how fast they are allowed to drive. This means that they can`t get stopped by the police because the drive to fast and they didn`t know how fast they had to drive.

An argument against the speed limit is an very important argument for the german drivers. The state isn`t allowed to restrict the freedom of the citizens. If I want to drive fast than I should be allowed to and nobody has to tell how fast I should drive or not. I think that it will be very difficult to tell the german citizen that he have to slow down. The german man love his car and he want to drive it the way he likes. If a politician would say that he want to introduce a speed limit he will not be elected again.

Another argument against a speed limit is the time which everyone will lose if he must drive slower. The advantage of the german “Autobahn“ is that you can drive as fast as you want if you don`t have much time. If you are only allowed to drive slow you must start earlier to reach your target in time.

Finally we can say that is right to set an speed limit on the “Autobahn“. But we must also take care of the arguments against the limit. The citizens have to agree with it so we must restrict the limit. One possibility could be to set the limit only in the time from 8.00 am to 22.00 pm and let the citizens drive as fast as they want in the night. This could be a good comprise for the the people and the environment.

[Duckduck (Contributor)]

Das mit dem Selbstprüfen ist immer so eine Sache. Nachdem ich 1-2 Stunden an einem Text gearbeitet habe, finde ich nach nochmaligem Lesen nicht einen einzigen Fehler. Lese ich den Text, wenn er korrigiert wurde, nochmals, dann sind die Fehler total klar, wie konnte ich die übersehen?!?!

Ich habe den Text jetzt nochmals leicht überarbeitet und einige Fehler gefunden und ein paar Sätze gekürzt. Ich liebe lange Sätze! Wenn ich die Sätze so kurz mache denke ich immer es klingt abgehackt. Ja, aber die Engländer mögen keine langen Sätze und es ist wirklich völlig untypisch für diese Sprache. Außerdem macht man leichter Anschlussfehler, wenn der Satz ewig lang ist und er wird schwer verständlich, oder würdest Du sagen, wenn Du ganz ehrlich bist, dass dieser Satz, den ich noch über viele Seiten verlängern könnte, wenn ich dazu Lust und Zeit hätte und draußen nicht die Sonnne schiene, noch gut zu lesen ist...?

Mit der 3. Person Singular und dem "s" habe ich jetzt nicht wirklich was entdeckt. Für mich ist das alles korrekt so.

Hier ist also die neue Version, vielen Dank schonmal für alle, die sie lesen:

The exhaust fumes of our cars contribute a lot to the world wide CO2 emissions, which are responsible for the greenhouse effect. Our target (oder goal) must be to reduce these emissions in order to save all living creatures from the rising of the temperatures and the resultant destruction of the earth. One possibility to reach this target could be a general speed limit on the “Autobahn“ (= motorway). Is this useful or not?

One argument for the speed limit is that lower speed leads to the decrease of fuel consumption. If we have to drive slower than today, we can reduce the CO2 emissions enormously. Large cars like SUVs and vans burn a lot of petrol at high speed. We could reduce this if we had a speed limit of, for example, 120 km/h. Another effect would be that the car manufacturers wouldn't be able to sell cars with big engines. Nobody would buy them since the speed limit would make them unnecessary. The manufacturers could use their money for developing environment-friendly technology instead of bigger engines. and more and more extra things we don`t need like sound systems with 8 speakers and more (Du hast zwar Recht, dass diese Dinge nicht nötig sind, aber sie gehören nicht zu Deinem Argument, weil sie nicht von den Autobauern erfunden werden. Und dass die Lobby der Autofabrikanten gegen genau diesen Vorschlag ist, versteht sich auch von selbst, nicht? Die wollen in erster Linie verdienen, nicht die Umwelt schützen.)

Another argument for the speed limit is that the number of accidents will fall if we have to drive slower. A lot of accidents are caused by too high speed. Reducing the speed limit could be one way to decrease the rate of accidents on the motorway. On top of that the injuries sustained in an accident would be less severe. Thus, if all people were allowed a maximum speed of 120 km/h, driving would be easier and safer as well. When you drive slower you have more time to react. The risk of someone passing you and you thinking “Goodness, where did this car come from?“ would be minimized.

My third argument for a speed limit are the clearer rules on the roads. On some motorways you must change your speed from 100 to 120 to 100. Sometimes you can drive as fast as you want until you must slow down again to 120 km/h. It would be so easy if you could just drive 120 km/h and knew that this was the correct speed. Drivers wouldn't get stopped by the police for speeding so often. Or if they drove too fast it would be their own mistake and not because of overlooking a changed speed limit.

There is an very important argument against the speed limit for the German drivers, though. Most of them are convinced that the state should not be allowed to restrict the freedom of the citizens when driving is concerned. Their motto is something like: "If I want to drive fast, I should be allowed to and nobody has the right to tell me differently". I think that it will be very difficult to convince the German drivers that they have to slow down. The German male loves his car and he wants to drive it the way he likes. If a politician said that they wanted to introduce a speed limit, they would not be elected again.

Another argument against a speed limit is the resultant loss of time. The advantage of the German motorway is that - if there is no speed limit - you can drive as fast as you want if you don't have much time. If you were only allowed to go at 120 km/h, you would have to start earlier to reach your destination in time.

Finally we can say that is right to set an speed limit on the motorway. But we must also consider the arguments against the limit. The citizens should be convinced of the necessity of restricting the speed. One possible compromise could be to set the limit only in the time from 8.00 am to 10.00 pm and let the citizens drive as fast as they want in the night. This would make people happy and help the environment.

Sag' ich doch, schöner Text und gute Argumente. Aber eben doch noch etwas bunt, wobei das Grüne ja hauptsächlich Stil ist, aber eben auch nicht zu vernachlässigen. Manchmal ist die Grenze zwischen "falsch" und "nicht ganz korrekt" eben schwammig.
Wenn der Text zum Abgeben ist, überprüfe nochmal, ob Kurzformen erlaubt sind.
Und bei Fragen zu den Korrekturen melde Dich gerne wieder!

Good luck says
Duckduck

[joy]

The exhaust of the cars contribute a lot to the world wide CO2 emissions which are responsible for the greenhouse effect. Our target must be to reduce these emissions to prevent the peoples from rising temperatures and the destruction of the earth. One possibility to reach this target could be a general speed limit on the “Autobahn“. Is this useful or not?

One argument for the speed limit is that because of the lower speed the fuel consumption is lower than at high speed. If we have to drive slower than today we can reduce our CO2 emissions enormously. Large cars like SUVs and vans burn a lot of petrol if they are driven with a at high speed. We could reduce this if we must had to drive with at for example 120 km/h. (Mit “could” muss der If-Satz in der Vergangenheit sein = Möglichkeitsform). Another effect would be that the car manufactures don`t need to could no longer sell cars with big engines. Nobody would buy them since the speed limit would make them unnecessary. The manufactures should use their money for developing environment friendly technology instead of bigger engines and more and more extra things we don’t (nimm das Häkchen beim Fragezeichen – das ist das Richtige und sieht schöner aus) need like sound systems with 8 speakers and more.

Another argument for the speed limit is that the number of accidents will fall if we must drive slower than today. A lot of accidents are caused by too high speed. To reduce the speed limit could be one way to decrease the rate of accidents on the “Autobahn“. If all people were obliged to drive at 120 km/h it would be easier to drive on the streets. If you drive slower you don`t have to react as fast as you must when you drive 200 km/h and more. It would be impossible that someone could pass by you in such a high speed that you would think “Oh man, where did this car come from?“.

My third argument for a speed limit are the clearer rules on the roads. On some highways you must change you speed from 100 to 120 to 100. Sometimes you can drive as fast as you want until you must slow down again to 120 km/h. It would be so easy if you could drive only 120 km/h all over the highway. Also it would be an advantage for the drivers to know everywhere how fast they would be allowed to drive. This means that they can`t get stopped by the police because they drive too fast and they didn`t know how fast they had to drive. (Sie können trotzdem zu schnell fahren und von der Polizei gestoppt werden.)

A very important argument for the German drivers against the speed limit is that the state isn`t allowed to restrict the freedom of the citizens. If I want to drive fast than I should be allowed to and nobody has to tell how fast I should drive. or not. I think that it will be very difficult to tell the German citizen that he has to slow down. The German man love his car and he wants to drive it the way he likes. If a politician would says that he wants to introduce a speed limit he will not be elected again.

Another argument against a speed limit is the time which everyone will lose if he must drive slower. The advantage of the German “Autobahn“ is that you can drive as fast as you want if you don`t have much time. If you are only allowed to drive slowly you must start earlier to reach your target in time.

Finally we can say that it is right to set a speed limit on the “Autobahn“. But we must also take care of the arguments against the limit. The citizens have to agree with it so we must restrict the limit. One possibility could be to set the limit only in the time from 8.00 am to 22.00 pm and let the citizens drive as fast as they want during the night. This could be a good compromise for the the people and the environment.

-------------------
Hallo Laubfrosch
Hier ist meine Korrektur, die bestimmt noch verbesserungswürdig ist, denn ich bin nicht ganz sicher, ob man die Zeiten so hin- und her wechseln darf. Vielleicht hilft uns jemand auf die Sprünge!?
Grüsse
joy

[joy]

Noch ein Nachtrag:

The German loves his car and he wants to drive it the way he likes.

Grüsse
joy

[Delfino]

The exhaust gases of the cars contribute a lot to the world wide CO2 emissions which are responsible for the greenhouse effect.
Our target must be to reduce these emissions to protect people against rising temperatures and the destruction of the earth as a habitat for human beings.
One possibility to reach this target could be a general speed limit on the “Autobahn“. Is this useful or not?

One argument for the speed limit is that because of the lower speed the fuel consumption is lower than at high speed.
If we have to drive slower than today we can reduce our CO2 emissions enormously.
Large cars like SUVs and vans burn a lot of petrol if they are driven at high speed.
We could reduce this if we had to drive at for example 120 km/h.
Another effect would be that the car manufactures could no longer sell cars with big engines.
Nobody would buy them since the speed limit would make them unnecessary. ( Prinzip Hoffnung - Wer kauft schon einen Sports- oder Geländewagen ? )
The manufactures should use their money to develop environment friendly technology instead of bigger engines or more and more extras we don’t need like sound systems with 8 speakers and such things.

Another argument for the speed limit is that the number of accidents will fall if we must drive slower than today.
A lot of accidents are caused by driving at inappropriately high speed.
Reducing the speed limit could be a way to decrease the number of accidents on the “Autobahn“.
If all people were obliged to drive at (a maximum of) 120 km/h it would be easier to drive on the streets.
If you drive slower you don't have to react as fast as you must when you drive 200 km/h and more.
It would be less likely that someone could pass by you at such a high speed that you would think “Oh man, where did this car come from?“.

My third argument for a speed limit is the clearer rules on the roads.
On some highways you must change you speed from 100 to 120 to 100.
Sometimes you can drive as fast as you want until you must slow down again to 120 km/h or less.
It would be so much easier if you could drive only 120 km/h on each highway.
Also it would be an advantage for the drivers to know exactly how fast they would be allowed to drive.

A very important argument for the German drivers against the speed limit is that the state isn't allowed to restrict the freedom of the citizens.
If I want to drive fast than I should be allowed to and nobody has to tell how fast I should drive.
I think that it will be very difficult to tell a German citizen that he has to slow down.
The German loves his car and he wants to drive it the way he likes it. *
If a politician says that he wants to introduce a speed limit he will probably not be elected or re-elected.

Another argument against a speed limit is the time which everyone will lose if one must drive slower.
The advantage of the German “Autobahn“ is that you can drive as fast as you want if you don't have much time.
If you are only allowed to drive slowly you must depart earlier to reach your destination in time.

Finally, we can summarise that it is right to set a speed limit for driving on the “Autobahn“.
But we must also consider the arguments against such a limit.
So we must restrict the limit because the citizens have to agree with it. **
One possibility could be to set the limit only in the time from 8.00 am to 22.00 pm and let the citizens drive as fast as they want during the night. ***
This could be a good compromise for the the people and the environment.

* In Germany you are allowed to drive as you like on your own private property only.
The streets including the German highways called "Autobahn" are a shared public space.
So you have to obey the traffic rules.
** Has anybody ever been ask to agree to changes of the traffic rules or the original set of rules?
*** Talking about appropriate speed - it's so much safer to drive fast during the night. Right?

[joy]

Hallo Duckduck und Delfino. Ich habe eure guten Beiträge gelesen. Somit möchte ich Laubfrosch darauf aufmerksam machen, dass in meinem Beitrag noch folgende Schreibfehler sind:

... in at such a high speed
... car manufacturers
... someone could pass by you someone passing you (ist bei dir, Laubfrosch, richtig)
....The German man love his car The German male loves his car
... from 8.00 am to 22 pm 10.00 pm
... This could be a good compromise for the the people and the environment.
.... My third argument for a speed limit is are the clearer rules on the roads. (are ist bei mir richtig – bezieht sich auf rules und roads)

Danke euch und habt noch einen schönen Abend!
joy

[Laubfrosch]

Wow, vielen Dank für die ganzen Korrekturen, Anmerkungen und vorallem auch inhaltlichen Anregungen!

Habe ich wieder ein paar neue hilfreiche Vokabeln gelernt

Dieses mal habe ich nur eine einzige Frage zu den Korrekturen:

"On top of that the injuries sustained in an accident would be less severe."

Denn Satz ansich verstehe ich, aber ist "sustained" das richtige Wort? Wenn ich das bei dict.cc eingebe, dann passt die deutsche Übersetzung (ununterbrochen,anhaltend, stattgegeben usw.) da nicht so rein, finde ich.
Würde es so nicht besser sein? "On top of that the injuries induced (verursacht) in an accident would be less severe."

Ansonsten habe ich keine weiteren Fragen. Wieder mal einiges gelernt. Vielen Dank an alle!!

Gruß

Laubfrosch

[Duckduck (Contributor)]

Hi Laubfrosch,

schön, dass die Korrekturen Dir gefallen. Wenn Du das Verb "sustain" eingibst, wirst Du neben vielen anderen Bedeutungen auch "erleiden" finden.

"sustain an injury/trauma" oder "an injury sustained" sind ganz gängige, in der Medizin häufig verwendete Formulierungen.
Schau auch mal hier http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/to+sustain.html .

Beste Grüße

Duckduck