- ベストアンサー
訳が仮定法らしくならないのですが・・・
Parismadamの回答
はじめまして。 ご質問１： ＜仮定法の訳になってないと思うのですがどうしたら良いのでしょうか？＞ このwouldは事実でないことを遠回しに述べる婉曲用法ですから、仮定法の訳にならなくていいのです。 ここでは、「だろう」といった推量のニュアンスになります。 ご質問２： ＜tourists～at home～と訳したのですが＞ だいたいできていますが、以下の点に注意を要します。 １．experience： ここでは現在形になっていますから、「経験するだろう」と未来形、または推量表掩にする必要はありません。。 ２．stranger： ここでは「知らない人」ではなく、「異国人」というニュアンスになります。 ３．being among strangers： （１）このbeingは「～であること」「～でいること」という意味の動名詞です。 （２）amongはstrangerという「人」を受けていますから、「～の一人」と訳します。 ４．goes with： 「～に伴う」という原義ですが、ここでは「～という」ぐらいで軽く訳すといいでしょう。 ５．dream of： は「～を夢見る」という動詞句のイディオムになります。 ６．at home： 「自国で」という意味もあり、ここでは意味上その用法になります。 ７．do、doing： 後半で使われている動詞doとdoingは代動詞で、前出のexperienceを指しています。反復をさけるために、doで代用しているのです。 ８．以上を踏まえて訂正例は （直訳）「観光客と訪問客はしばしば、異国人であることからくる、解放感を経験する。そして、彼らは自国で経験するのを夢にも思わないだろうことがらを、経験する」 → （意訳）「（外国を）観光したり訪問すると、よく自分達が外人であるという、一種の解放感を経験する。そして、自国では決して経験できないようなことを経験する」 となります。 ご質問２： ＜後半が訳せないのですが教えていただけるでしょうか？＞ １．let me knowはよく使われる決り文句なので、「私に知らせる」と覚えておかれるといいでしょう。 ２．この意味になる理由は、letが「人に～させる」という使役動詞になるからです。ここでは「私に、知ることを、させる」となり、これが「私に知らせる」という訳になるのです。 ３．ここで使われているjustは、「ちょっと」というニュアンスですが、ここでは訳出しなくてもいいでしょう。 ４．shouldは仮定法のIfが省略されて、倒置された用法です。Ifに比べ可能性の低い用法になり、意味は「万一」となります。 ５．anyは「多く」ではありません。some「いくらか」という形容詞で、条件節の中でsomeが使われるとanyに変わるのです。 ６．以上を踏まえて訳例は （直訳）「万一何か援助が必要なら、私に知らせて下さい」 →（意訳）「必要な時は、私に知らせてね」 ぐらいになります。 以上ご参考までに。
関連するQ&A
- decompress
Most izakaya are casual establishments, filled with the sounds of animated conversation and laughter. On weeknights they’re often full of company workers decompressing among colleagues, ここでのdecompressingはどう訳したら良いのでしょうか？よろしくお願いします
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- この文の構造と訳お願いします。
My father had a strongidea that half the disobedience of little children arose from wan of employment, and that they had a very early perception of the difference between amusing themselves and doing something that savedtrouble to others.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文を訳を教えてください^^;
英語が苦手なのでまったくわからなくて困っています。・・・ I was moving about with my little mallards in the May green grass in our garden. I was squatting and quacking, "quahg, gegegeg, quahg, gegegeg." I was pleased that my little mallards were following me. Suddenly, I looked up and saw a group of tourists standing at the fence. They started at me in surprise. "Naturally!" I thought. All that they could see was a big man with a beard who was squatting, looking constantly over his shoulder, and even quacking. On the other hand, the little mallards, which could explain my strange behavior, were hidden in the tall grass from the view of the tourists. No wonder the tourists were surprised to see me. in the interest of ～のために move about 動き回る no wonder 無理もない "quahg, gegegeg" マガモの鳴き声
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英訳
They were also asked to evaluate the tasks they were doing in terms of the level of challenge and difficulty they posed. の訳をみると、 「彼らはまた、自分がやっている課題を、それが与えるやりがいと難しさの程度の点で評価するよう求められた。」 となっていますが、 they were doing in terms of the level of challenge and difficulty they posed. の英文が日本語訳にあてはまりません。 文法的に教えてください。
- 締切済み
- 英語
- 英文の訳!!
英文の訳をお願いします! Through learning their nativetongues,people have come to bemore proud of their cultures. A Mohawk teacher at the Freedom School says,"Our children are taught to be proud of who they are,Languages have evolved over centuries,and they contain a lot of culture.When we lose a language,we lose a part ofour whole human heritage" よろしくお願いします!!
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 準備が間に合わないので経済英語の訳をお願いします。
下記の部分が間に合いません・・・。 訳をお願いします・・・。 少々長いですが優しい方の回答お待ちしてます・・。 As studies in organizational innovation, these stories indicate why du Pont, General Motors, Standard Oil (New Jersey), and Sears, Roebuck enlarged their business, took on new functions, moved into new lines of businesses, and why each such move required a new design for administration. They trace the way in which busy executives worked out, often slowly and painfully, new methods and means for coordinating, appraising, and planning the effective use of vast and varied assortments of men, money, and materials. To make the case studies more meaningful, they are preceded by a broad survey of changing patterns in the growth and administration of the large enterprise in the United States, based on the experience of many of the largest companies. The case studies are then followed, first by a comparative analysis of organizational innovation in the four companies, and then by an estensive investigation into what other industrial enterprise accepted or rejected the new "decentralized" structure, and why and how they did so.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 日本語訳で困っています。
以下の文章がものすごく難しくて、長いしどう訳せばいいかわかりません。 だれか教えてください。お願いします。 (1)After spending a period of time abroad, you may have to prepare yourself for a period of re-adjustment when you return home. (2)Simply because, if you have had a full experience living and learning overseas, you are likely to have changed, so the place you return to may itself appear to have changed, as indeed it might have. (3)But as you try to settle back into your former routine, you may recognize that your overseas experience has changed some or many of your ways of doing things, even what it means to “be yourself”. (4)But this intellectual and personal growth means that you can expect a period of difficulty in adjusting to the new environment at home.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 日本語訳を教えてください。
ゼミで社会運動論を学んでいるのですが、次の参考文献が日本語訳できなくて困っています。日本語訳を教えてください。 Schools of anarchism, in contrast, almost invariably emerge from some kind of organizational principle or form of practice: Anarcho-Syndicalists and Anarcho-Communists, individualists, and so on. Anarchrists are distinguished by what they do, and how they organize themselves to go about doing it. And indeed this has always been what anarchists have spent most of their time thinking and arguing about. They have never been much interested in the kinds of broad strategic or philosophical questions that preoccupy Marxism such as Are the peasants a potentially revolutionary class? [anarchists consider this something for peasants to decide] or what is the nature of the commodity form? Rather, they tend to argue about what is truly democratic way to go about a meeting, at what point organization stops empowering people and starts squelching individual freedom. Is "leadership" necessarily a bad thing? Or alternately, about the ethics of opposing power: What is direct action? Should one condemn someone who assassinates a head of state? When is it okay to throw a brick?
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文の訳お願いします
Indian footwear looked more like stockings than shoes. These coverings for the feet came much higher on the leg than ordinary shoes. They were made of tanned skins and sewed with the sinews of animals. Early settlers found these Indian shoes extremely comfortable and well suited for walking through the woods. They often wore them and took over their Indian name, moccasin. The word seems actually to have meant "box" or "case." It is still in everyday use, but the shoes to which the name is now given do not look at all like the shoes the Indians wore. When white people borrowed a word from the Indians they often made more use of it than the Indians had ever done. They applied moccasin to a poisonous snake, the short, stout form and color of which may have suggested the Indian shoe. Most of the early pioneers knew very little about snakes and so gave the name moccasin to many snakes, some of which do not much resemble the Indian shoes and are not at all poisonous.
- 締切済み
- 英語
- 日本語訳を教えてください。
ゼミの資料の一部です。日本語訳を教えてください。 Schools of anarchism, in contrast, almost invariably emerge from some kind of organizational principle or form of practice: Anarcho-Syndicalists and Anarcho-Communists, individualists, and so on. Anarchrists are distinguished by what they do, and how they organize themselves to go about doing it. And indeed this has always been what anarchists have spent most of their time thinking and arguing about. They have never been much interested in the kinds of broad strategic or philosophical questions that preoccupy Marxism such as Are the peasants a potentially revolutionary class? [anarchists consider this something for peasants to decide] or what is the nature of the commodity form? Rather, they tend to argue about what is truly democratic way to go about a meeting, at what point organization stops empowering people and starts squelching individual freedom. Is "leadership" necessarily a bad thing? Or alternately, about the ethics of opposing power: What is direct action? Should one condemn someone who assassinates a head of state? When is it okay to throw a brick?
- 締切済み
- 英語