• ベストアンサー
  • すぐに回答を!

和訳 Some

Some foreigners say that when they listen to Japanese people speaking , they are ((1)) to follow their logic and don't even understand what is being discussed . Why does this happen? Well western logic in communication is constructed and understood in a different manner than that of Japanese. A typical western approach for communicating a set of ideas is by saying the main point first. In ((2)) words , start with the most important idea and then support in with other points and example. At last , a conclusion and perhaps a summary are offered. If you hear the Japanese approach being used, you may find that the first sentences given contain background information and that the main point is often not there at all. This approach of constructing ideas is called Ki Sho Ten Ketsu ,Ki refers to the starting point mentioned above, when general background information is given .Sho refers to the speech that supports the Ki part. At this stage,it is still quite difficult in many cases to ascertain when the main point is. And what's even more confusing is the part known as Ten,which provides a completely ((3)) story or idea from what is grasped through listening to the Ki and Sho parts. The conclusion is called Ketsu. When listening to thispart,you will discover that the three parts before it support a main idea,which at last is given in this final part. In Japanese it is always recommendable to hold onto your questions or comments until the end of what is being said. Of cとourse,this goes for visitors in Japan,too. Dont't expect to be interrupted while you're speaking.Remember,silence is considered golden when other people are engage in anything from a presentation to a story. ☆和訳と和訳時の注意点を 分かりやすくお願いできますか? ☆((1))unable ((2))other ((3))easy で 合っていますか? 以上、宜しくお願いします。

共感・応援の気持ちを伝えよう!

  • 英語
  • 回答数1
  • 閲覧数184
  • ありがとう数1

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
  • 回答No.1
  • sayshe
  • ベストアンサー率77% (4555/5904)

(1) unable (2) other (3) different 日本人が話すのを聞いていると、日本人の論理について行けないし、何が話し合われているのかさえ理解できないという外国人もいます。なぜこうしたことが起こるのでしょうか?西欧のコミュニケーションの論理は、日本人の論理とは異なって構築され理解されるのです。一連の考えを伝える典型的な西欧のやり方は、最初に要点を述べることです。言いかえれば、最も重要な考えから始めて、その後、他の論点や例を使って補強します。最後に、結論と、おそらくは、要約が提示されるでしょう。 日本的なやり方が用いられているのを聞けば、提示される最初の文章には、背景情報が含まれ、要点は、しばしば、そこには全くないことに気づくかもしれません。この様に考え方を構築していくやり方は、「起承転結」と呼ばれます。「起」は、上述の最初の部分を指し、この時に、一般的な背景情報が提示されます。「承」は、「起」の部分を受ける発言を指します。この段階でも、多くの場合、いつ要点が述べられるのか確認することは、まだとても困難です。そして、もっと複雑なのは、「転」として知られている部分です、ここでは、「起」や「承」の部分を聞いて理解したこととは、まったく異なる話や考え方が提示されます。結論は、「結」と呼ばれます。この部分を聞いて、それ以前の3つの部分が、要点を支えていることが分かります、要点は、この最後の部分でようやく提示されるのです。 日本語では、質問や意見は、発言の終わりまで控えることが常に推奨されます。もちろん、このことは、日本を訪問している人にも当てはまります。発言中に、中断させられることを予想してはいけません。忘れないでください、他の人が、発表や話し等をしている時には、沈黙が、金だと考えられているのです。 ☆カッコ (3) に関しては、... a completely (3) story or idea 【from】 とありますので、この from から、different を入れるのがよいと思います。

共感・感謝の気持ちを伝えよう!

質問者からのお礼

短時間でご返答を頂けた上に とても理解しやすい訳だっので 本当に助かりました! ありがとうございます(^ー^*)

関連するQ&A

  • 英文和訳

    前置詞の論文を読んでいて、今atに関するところです。 (19) the cafe is at the highway. (20) the cafe is on the highway. という例文があり、次から解説があります。 その解説文が上手く訳せないので誰か教えてください>< at first sight,(19) appears to constitute a counterexample to the claim that "at" involvese the constual of the two elements involved in the relationship as geometric points, since this seems incompatible with the fact that a highway is a long, straight object, more natually conceptualised as a line in geometric terms. in fact, the typical context of use for (19) is when i am moving along a path (for example, driving a car) and i say that the cafe is located at the place where my oath intersects with the highway at the same point ahead- a location that is quite naturally conceptualised as a point. Similary, there is an implicit notion of path in each of the following. お願いします><

  • ◼︎和訳をお願いします!

    ●日本語にしてください。 "Not since the days when Socrate strode the marketplace in order to alert this follows that the unexamined life is not worth living, and when Diogenes took up residence in a barrel in order to make a somewhat different point about the nature of the good life, had the world seen a philosopher so dedicated to his quest as *Spinoza." *スピノザ(オランダの哲学者)

  • 和訳

      If there is one opinion that dominate in the Third World, at least among its politicians and intellectuals, it is that there is little hope for Third World countries to get over poverty unless they free themselves from their present state of dependency on the rich of countries. I think one must begin any discussion of policy choices for the Third World, assenting to this opinion.  It is, in its essence, a correct and very important definition of the situation. This need not mean that one has to assent to the opinion in all its forms. Thus I wouldn't assent to the view that the poverty of the Third World was historically caused by its invasion by Western imperialism, nor that the wealth of the West continues to be based on the sacrifice of the Third World, nor that revolution in the Third World are the only way to change the condition of dependency.  It is to the point, however, to say that much of economic relations between Third World countries and the northern half of the globe is harmful rather than useful for the former. Put simply, in a lot of bargains between the poor and the rich, ( ) get richer and ( ), at best, don't gain much. It is also clear, in the case of the Third World, that development, if it means anything at all must mean a change in this relationship. ( )にはformer かlatterが入るようですが… 1行目から文の構成がいまいちわからず… 2文目のassentingは分子構文?

  • 和訳をお願いします。

    POINT LATTICES AND THE UNIT CELL Let’s consider the three-dimensional arrangement of points in Fig.15.This arrangement is called a point lattice. If we take any point in the point lattice it has exactly the same number and arrangement of neighbors(i.e.,identical surroundings) as any other point in the lattice. This condition should be fairly obvious considering our description of long-range order in Sec. 2.1 We can also see from Fig. 15 that it is possible to divide the point lattice into much smaller untils such that when these units are stacked in three dimensions they reproduce the point lattice. This small repeating unit is known as the unit cell of the lattice and is shown in Fig.16 A unit cell may be described by the interrelationship between the lengths(a,b,c) of its sides and the interaxial angles (α,β,γ)between them. (α is the angle between the b and c, axes,β is the angle between the a and c axes, and γ is the angle between the a and b axes.)The actual values of a,b,and c, and α,β and γ are not important, but their interrelation is. The lengths are measured from one corner of the cell, which is taken as the origin. These lengths and angles are called the lattice parameters of the unit cell, or sometimes the lattice constants of the cell. But the latter term is not really appropriate because they are not necessarily constants; for example, they can vary with changes in temperature and pressure and with alloying. [Note: We use a,b and c to indicate the axes of the unit cell; a,b and c for the lattice parameters, and a,b and c for the vectors lying along the unit-cell axes.]

  • 和訳をお願いします

    POINT LATTICES AND THE UNIT CELL Let’s consider the three-dimensional arrangement of points in Fig.15.This arrangement is called a point lattice. If we take any point in the point lattice it has exactly the same number and arrangement of neighbors(i.e.,identical surroundings) as any other point in the lattice. This condition should be fairly obvious considering our description of long-range order in Sec. 2.1 We can also see from Fig. 15 that it is possible to divide the point lattice into much smaller untils such that when these units are stacked in three dimensions they reproduce the point lattice. This small repeating unit is known as the unit cell of the lattice and is shown in Fig.16 A unit cell may be described by the interrelationship between the lengths(a,b,c) of its sides and the interaxial angles (α,β,γ)between them. (α is the angle between the b and c, axes,β is the angle between the a and c axes, and γ is the angle between the a and b axes.)The actual values of a,b,and c, and α,β and γ are not important, but their interrelation is. The lengths are measured from one corner of the cell, which is taken as the origin. These lengths and angles are called the lattice parameters of the unit cell, or sometimes the lattice constants of the cell. But the latter term is not really appropriate because they are not necessarily constants; for example, they can vary with changes in temperature and pressure and with alloying. [Note: We use a,b and c to indicate the axes of the unit cell; a,b and c for the lattice parameters, and a,b and c for the vectors lying along the unit-cell axes.]

  • 長いですが、和訳お願いします

    use of comma before "that" Hello, I know that usually ( or always) a comma is never written before the word "that", and yet, I found this sentence in Charles Dickens' book - Christmas carol: It was with great astonishment, and with a strange, inexplicable dread, that as he looked, he saw this bell begin to swing. is it the compound adjective clause "and with a strange, inexplicable dread" that is forcing the use of comma here? thanks! ---------------------- I'd say that at least indirectly that is the case. Most lists of rules for the use of commas have a "catch-all" rule at the end that says something like, "use a comma in any other case when it is necessary to prevent misreading or misunderstanding." The complex modifier separates the final word dread so much from the first part of the sentence that without a comma (and its associated pause), the reader woud be likely to think of the "that clause" as a complement of dread rather than as the completing clause of the main sentence beginning with, "It was …." In general, the rule "don't put a comma before that" is oversimplified. Certainly you don't put a comma before a restrictive relative clause that begins with that, and doing so is a mistake that is often made. So I see why the "rule" was written, but there are many uses of the word that, and sometimes it will happen that a comma comes naturally before one. __________________ ---- Pete

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    We pass to the account of the creation contained in the Hebrew record. And it must be observed that in reality two distinct accounts are given us in the book of Genesis, one being comprised in the first chapter and the first three verses of the second, the other commencing at the fourth verse of the second chapter and continuing till the end. This is so philologically certain that it were useless to ignore it. But even those who may be inclined to contest the fact that we have here the productions of two different writers, will admit that the account beginning at the first verse of the first chapter, and ending at the third verse of the second, is a complete whole in itself. And to this narrative, in order not to complicate the subject unnecessarily, we intend to confine ourselves. It will sufficient for our purpose to enquire, whether this account can be shown to be in accordance with our astronomical and geological knowledge. And for the right understanding of it the whole must be set out, so that the various parts may be taken in connexion with one another.

  • 和訳お願いします

    I shall here give a few other criticism of the many that appeared at that time. In the Electrician of April 3,1880,is found the following: 'Edison Electric Light.- Discussion on this subject still goes on in America and the Franklin Institute has taken the matter up.''He gets eight lights perhorsepowser,but Professor Elihu Thomson pointed out that he couldn't get more,because the heat energy at the present given out by these eight lamps nearly equals a horsepower. He estimated the light of each at best as only ten candles,that is,eightly candles per horsepower;but with the arc method it is easy to produse 800 candles,or ten times as much light per horsepower.' The power made on the tests of Edison's carbon filament lamps by Professor Henry Morton and Alfred M.Mayer,Ph.D.,B.F.,in April,1880,after giving facts concerning the relative production of gas and electric light,concludes as follows: 'If each apparatus and system could be worked with equal facility and economy,this would of course show something in favor of the electric light;but when in fact everything in this regard is against the electric light,which demands vastly more machinery,and that of a more delicate kind,requires more skillful management,shows more liability to disarrangement and waste,and presents an utter lack of the storage capacity which secures such vast efficiency,convenience,and economy in gas,then we see that this relatively trifling economy disappears or ceases to have any controlling importance in the practical relations of the subject.'

  • 和訳お願いしますす

    英語の授業で和訳の問題が出たのですが、この部分が自信ないので教えてください。 little as can be said about practice in this, as in any other filed. Should we assume that a myth as old and elementary as this has the prudish morals of the nineteenth-century outlook, and that the important point the story wants to convey to us is the embarrassment that their genitals were visible? よろしくお願いします。

  • この英文の和訳をお願いします。

    The second feature seen from Fig.11 is that the profile of R(e,0) does not depend significantly on r_p (for r_p=0.005 to 0.0002). Only an exception is found near e≒1, but this is, in some sense, a singular point in R(e,0), which appears in a narrow region around e≒1 ( in fact, for e=0.9 and 1.2, there is no appreciable difference between r_p=0.005 and 0.0002). Thus, neglecting such fine structures in R(e,0), we can conclude that R(e,0) does depend very weakly on r_p. In other words, the dependence on r_p of <P(e,0)> is well approximated by that of <P(e,0)>_2B given by Eq. (28). Now, we will phenomenalogically show what physical quantity is related to the peak at e≒1. We introduce the collisional flux F(e,E) for orbits with e and E, where E is the Jacobi energy given by (see Eq. (15)) E=e^2/2-(3b^2)/8+9/2. (31) The collisional flux F(e,E) is defined by F(e,E)=(2/π)∫【‐π→π】p_col(e,i=0, b(E), τ)dτ. (32) From Eqs. (11) and (31), we obtain <P(e,0)>=∫F(e,E)dE. (33) In Fig.12, F(e,E) is plotted as a function of E for the cases of e=0, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0. We can see from this figure that in the case of e=1 a large fraction of low energy planetesimals contributes to the collisional rate compared to other cases (even to the cases with e<1). In general, in the case of high energy a solution for the three-body problem can be well described by the two-body approximation: in other words, in the case of low energy a large difference would exist between a solution for the three-body problem and that in the two-body approximation. As shown before, this difference appears as an enhancement of the collisional rate. Thereby an enhancement factor peak is formed at e≒1 where a large fraction of low-energy planetesimals contributes to the collisional rate. よろしくお願いいたします。