• 締切済み

和訳をお願い致します

英語が不得意なため英語の得意な方に切実なお願いです 下記の文章の和訳が至急必要です。 Embassy of USA Tokyo, Japan No.14810 November 17, 2010 To Whom It May Concern This is to state that the concerned party has informed this Embassy that Ms.S.K, a bona fide USA national, date of birth 29 January 1970 and a permanent resident of (住所)USA has married Mr. K.M, a Japanese national according To the marriage registration certificate, issued by Mr. M, Director of Shinagawa Ward, Japan On 17 November, 2010 宜しくお願い致します

  • 英語
  • 回答数2
  • ありがとう数2

みんなの回答

  • tkltk73
  • ベストアンサー率54% (171/315)
回答No.2

アメリカ大使館 東京、日本 第14810号 2010年11月17日 関係各位殿 本書は、関係当事者が当大使館に、女性であり、真正にアメリカ国籍を保有し、1970年1月29日に生まれ、アメリカ合衆国(住所)の永住権所有者であるS.K.と、男性であり、日本国籍を保有するK.M.が結婚していることを2010年11月17日に品川区長より発行された婚姻届受理証明書の提示により報告したことを証す。

  • SPS700
  • ベストアンサー率46% (15294/33013)
回答No.1

 アメリカ大使館  東京、日本  #148102010年11月17日  各位様  本書は、1970年1月28日生まれ、真正な米国市民SKと、米国の(住所)に永住する日本市民KMとが、本大使館に、東京都品川区長、Mによって発行された結婚証明書を提出した事を証する。  2010年11月17日  

関連するQ&A

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    It will be observed that in this statement of the case I have expressly excluded the psychology of man, as being a department of comparative psychology with reference to which I am not entitled to assume the principles of Evolu tion. It seems needless to give my reasons for this exclusion For it is notorious that from the hour when Mr. Darwin and Mr. Wallace simultaneously propounded the theory which has exerted so enormous an influence on the thought of thepresent century, the difference between the views of these two joint originators of the theory has since been shared by the ever-increasing host of their disciples. We all know what that difference is. We all know that while Mr. Darwin believed the facts of human psychology to admit of being explained by the general laws of Evolution, Mr. Wallace does not believe these facts to admit of being thus explained. Therefore, while the followers of Mr. Darwin maintain that all organisms whatsover are alike products of a natural genesis, the followers of Mr. Wallace maintain that a distinct exception must be made to this general atement in the case of the human organism ; or at all events in the caso of the human mind. Thus it is that the great school of evolutionists is divided into two sects ; according to one the mind of man has been slowly evolved from lower types of psychical exist ence, and according to the other the mind of man, not having been thus evolved, stands apart, sui generis, from all other types of such existence.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    The Hebrew race, their works, and their books, are great facts in the history of man; the influence of the mind of this people upon the rest of mankind has been immense and peculiar, and there can be no difficulty in recognising therein the hand of a directing Providence. But we may not make ourselves wiser than God, nor attribute to Him methods of procedure which are not His. If, then, it is plain that He has not thought it needful to communicate to the writer of the Cosmogony that knowledge which modern researches have revealed, why do we not acknowledge this, except that it conflicts with a human theory which presumes to point out how God ought to have instructed man? The treatment to which the Mosaic narrative is subjected by the theological geologists is anything but respectful. The writers of this school, as we have seen, agree in representing it as a series of elaborate equivocations -- a story which palters with us in a double sense.' But if we regard it as the speculation of some Hebrew Descartes or Newton, promulgated in all good faith as the best and most probable account that could be then given of God's universe, it resumes the dignity and value of which the writers in question have done their utmost to deprive it. It has been sometimes felt as a difficulty to taking this view of the case, that the writer asserts so solemnly and unhesitatingly that for which he must have known that he had no authority. But this arises only from our modern habits of thought, and from the modesty of assertion which the spirit of true science has taught us. Mankind has learnt caution through repeated slips in the process of tracing out the truth.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    On entering so wide a field of enquiry as that whose limits I have now indicated, it is indispensable to the continuity of advance that we should be prepared, where needful, to supple ment observation with hypothesis. It therefore seems desira ble to conclude this Introduction with a few words both to explain and to justify the method which in this matter I intend to follow. It has already been stated that the sole object of this work is that of tracing, in as scientific a manner as possible, the probable history of Mental Evolution, and therefore, ofcourse, of enquiring into the causes which hare determined it. So far as observation is available to guide us in this enquiry, I shall resort to no other assistance. Where, however, from the nature of the case, observation fails us, I shall proceed to inference. But though I shall use this method as sparingly as possible, I am aware that criticism will often find valid ground to object — ' It is all very well to map out the sup posed genesis of the various mental faculties in this way, but we require some definite experimental or historical proof that the genesis in question actually did take place in the order and manner that you infer.'

  • 和訳をお願い致します。

    These have already been actioned. If you refer to the attachments that you sent me it states that on the 03/12/2014 there was a reversal of $9.88 the original mailing statement has been charged for the amount of $6.18 As for the second discrepancy for the $3.80, this has also been reversed and re charged on the 07/01/2015 for the amount of $1.95 Everything has been reversed and charged accordingly *Amended request for Invoice No.xxxxxxxx

  • 和訳をよろしくお願いします

    That may be a problem, because Japan has a high cost of living compared to other countries.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    The question of the meaning of the word bara,'create,'has been previously touched upon;it has been acknowledged by good critics that it doesn't of itself necessarily imply 'to make out of nothing upon the simple ground that it is found [to be]uesd in cases where such a meaning would be inapplicable . But the difficultly of giving to it the interpretation contended for by Dr Buckland and of uniting with this the assumption of a six days' creation, such as that described in Genesis, at a comparatively recent period, lies in this,that the heaven itself is distinctly said to have been formed by the division of the waters on the second day. Consequently , until. The first Mosaic day of creation, there was no sky, no local habitation for the sun,moon and stars, even supposing those bodies to have been included in the original material. Dr Buckland doesn't touch this obvious difficulty, without which his argument that the sun and moon might have been contemplated as pre-existing , although they aren't stated to have been set in the heaven until the forth day, is of no value at all.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    A third opinion has been suggested both by learned theologians and by geologists, and on grounds independent of one another -- viz., that the days of the Mosaic creation need not be understood to imply the same length of time which is now occupied by a single revolution of the globe, but successive periods each of great extent; and it has been asserted that the order of succession of the organic remains of a former world accords with the order of creation recorded in Genesis. This assertion, though to a certain degree apparently correct, is not entirely supported by geological facts, since it appears that the most ancient marine animals occur in the same division of the lowest transition strata with the earliest remains of vegetables, so that the evidence of organic remains, as far as it goes, shows the origin of plants and animals to have been contemporaneous: if any creation of vegetables preceded that of animals, no evidence of such an event has yet been discovered by the researches of geology. Still there is, I believe, by no sound critical or theological objection to the interpretation of the word day' as meaning a long period.' Archdeacon Pratt also summarily rejects this view as untenable:

  • 和訳お願い致します!

    英語が得意な方、どなたか和訳お願いします。 I am Sadden to hear this. I am also Sorry for  Jr.'s behaviour and Hope he has a change of Heart. I know he does have feelings for you. He told me so.  Jr. does not have a fiancee that I know of. You are Welcome and your kindness is also accepted graciously.  お手数おかけしますが宜しくお願い致します

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    We venture to think that the world at large will continue to consider the account in the first chapter of Genesis to be a cosmogony. But as it is here admitted that it does not describe physical realities, but only outward appearances, that is, gives a description false in fact, and one which can teach us no scientific truth whatever, it seems to matter little what we call it. If its description of the events of the six days which it comprises be merely one of appearances and not of realities, it can teach us nothing regarding them. Dissatisfied with the scheme of conciliation which has been discussed, other geologists have proposed to give an entirely mythical or enigmatical sense to the Mosaic narrative, and to consider the creative days described as vast periods of time. This plan was long ago suggested, but it has of late enjoyed a high degree of popularity, through the advocacy of the Scotch geologist Hugh Miller, an extract from whose work has been already quoted. Dr. Buckland gives the following account of the first form in which this theory was propounded, and of the grounds upon which he rejected it in favour of that of Chalmers:

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    It should be borne in mind,' says Dr. Buckland, that the object of the account was, not to state in what manner, but by whom the world was made.' Every one must see that this is an unfounded assertion, inasmuch as the greater part of the narrative consists in a minute and orderly description of the manner in which things were made. We can know nothing as to the object of the account, except from the account itself. What the writer meant to state is just that which he has stated, for all that we can know to the contrary. Or can we seriously beleive that if appealed to by one of his Hebrew hearers or readers as to his intention, he would have replied, My only object in what I have written is to inform you that God made the world; as to the manner of His doing it, of which I have given so exact an account, I have no intention that my words should be taken in their literal meaning? We come then to this, that if we sift the Mosaic narrative of all definite meaning, and only allow it to be the expression of the most vague generalities, if we avow that it admits of no certain interpretation, of none that may not be shifted and altered as often as we see fit, and as the exigencies of geology may require, then may we reconcile it with what science teaches. This mode of dealing with the subject has been broadly advocated by a recent writer of mathematical eminence, who adopts the Bucklandian hypothesis, a passage from whose work we shall quote.