• ベストアンサー
  • すぐに回答を!

和訳お願い致します。

But the first clear view which we obtain of the early condition of the earth presents to us a ball of matter,fluid with intense heat,spinning on its own axis and revolving round the sun. How long it may have continued in this state is beyond calculation or surmise. It can only be believed that a prolonged period,beginning and ending we know not when, elapsed before the surface became cooled and handened and capable of sustaining organized existences. The water, which now enwraps a large portion of the face of the globe, must for ages have existed only in the shape of steam, floating above and enveloping the planet in one thick curtain of mist. When the cooling of the surface allowed it to condense and descend, then commenced the process by which the lowest stratified rocks were formed and gradually spread out in vast layers. Rains and rivers now acted upon the scoriaceous integument, grinding it to sand and carrying it down to the depths and cavities. Whether organised beings coexisted with this state of things we know not, as the early rocks have been acted upon by interior heat to an extent which must have destroyed all traces of animal and vegetable life, if any such ever existed. This period has been named by geologists the Azoic or that in which life was not. Its duration no one presumes to define. And it is in the system of beds which overlies these primitive formations that the first records of organisms present themselves .

共感・応援の気持ちを伝えよう!

  • 英語
  • 回答数2
  • ありがとう数2

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
  • 回答No.2
  • oignies
  • ベストアンサー率20% (673/3353)

すでに回答がでているので、ここはまずいという部分のみ回答します。 But the first clear view which we obtain of the early condition of the earth, presents to us a ball of matter, fluid with intense heat, spinning on its own axis and revolving round the sun. しかし地球の初期の状態について我々が受け入れている最初のはっきりとした見解は、内部が熱く熱せられた物質と液体で出来た丸い玉で、自転しながら太陽の周りを廻っていることを示している。(見解が~しめしている。というのは日本語訳としては少々まずいのですが、訳しにくいこともああり、このままとします) How long it may have continued in this state is beyond calculation or surmise. 予測や推測がつかないこの状態がどれほど長く続いてきたことだろう。(地球のこの状態がどれほど長い時間にわたって続いてきたのかは、計算できる範囲を超えているし、推測できる範囲のことでもない。と訳すべき。文章構造があきらかにとれていません。) It can only be believed that a prolonged period, beginning and ending we know not when, elapsed before the surface became cooled and hardened and capable of sustaining organized existences. 地球の表面が冷めて硬くなり、有機的存在物の生存が可能となる以前、我々にはいつ始まっていつ終わったのかわからない長い長い時間が経過してきたことだけは信じることが出来る。(固い訳ですがそういう意味です。) The water which now enwraps a large portion of the face of the globe, must for ages have existed only in the shape of steam, floating above and enveloping the planet in one thick curtain of mist. 今地球表面の大部分を包み込む水は、長期間にわたって、天上に漂い、一つの厚いミストとして地球を覆う水蒸気の形でのみ存在していたに違いない。(地球表面の大部分→地球表面の相当部分) When the cooling of the surface allowed it to condense and descend, then commenced the process by which the lowest stratified rocks were formed, and gradually spread out in vast layers. 地球の表面が冷えてきた時、水蒸気は液化して下へ落ちてきた。それからもっとも低い層の(※1)成層岩が作られるプロセスがはじまり、徐々に広い層へと広がっていったのだ。 ※1:地質学的には、連続した層状の堆積岩において、最も低い層が最も古いという原則 がありますので、lowestは「層として一番低いもの」という意味になります。(地球の表面が冷えてきたとき、水蒸気は液化して下へおちてきた→地球の表面が冷えてきたことで、水蒸気の液化と落下がまず可能となり、それにつづいて) Rains and rivers now acted upon the scoriaceous integument, grinding it to sand and carrying it down to the depths and cavities. 雨や川はスコリア質の岩の外皮に影響を与え、それを砂へと粉砕し、地下深くや空洞の奥へと運んだ。(nowさてそれから。雨や川ハスコリア質の岩の外皮に影響を与え→降雨と河川がスコリア質の岩の外皮に作用したことで・・・。地下深くや→海底深く。運んだ→運ばれた。必ずしも受動態になっているわけではありませんが、前半部分につなげて自然に訳そうとするとこうなります。ここでは、簡単にしるされていますが、もちろん、降雨で、岩がけずられ砂ができ、その砂を河川が海の底に運んだという事実関係が簡潔に記されています。) Whether organized beings co-existed with this state of things we know not, as the early rocks have been acted upon by interior heat to an extent which must have destroyed all traces of animal and vegetable life, if any such ever existed. This period has been named by geologists the Azoic, or that in which life was not. Its duration no one presumes to define. 初期の岩は、動物や植物の生態の痕跡を破壊したに違いない地球内側の熱によってある程度影響を受けているので、そうしたものが存在していたとしても、このような状態のものと有機体としての生き物が共存していたかは我々にはわからない。この期間は地質学者によって「無生代」=生命のない時代と命名された。その期間は誰も明確に推定していない。 (この文章の訳は全体にまずいです。まだ熱をおびていたことがわかっているこの段階の状態の物質と、有機体としての生物が共存しえたのかは、わかっていない。というのも、初期の岩は、地球内部の熱の作用をうけすぎており、もしあったとしてもそういうものが存在していたとすればの話だが、そこにのこされていたはずの動物植物問わず生物の痕跡はけしさられている)…無性代の長さは誰にも比定できるものではない。) And It is in the system of beds which overlies these primitive formations that the first records of organisms present themselves. そして生命体がその存在を示す最初の記録はこうした太古の情報の上に横たわる地層のシステムの中なのだ。(一読して意味が取れない日本語なので、どこかがちがっています。ただし、いま部屋に辞書がなく、いくつか辞書で確認しないとわたしも誤訳してしまいそうなので、この部分はあなたが、辞書をひいて考えてください。太古の情報なんたらいう部分が一番あやしい。辞書ひかずにふつうに考えたら、primitive formationsは太古あるいは、原初の生成物だと思います。情報という意味が辞書になければ、原初の生成物がただしい訳だとおもってください。) 参照原文:http://biblehub.com/library/temple/essays_and_reviews_the_education_of_the_world/mosaic_cosmogony.htm

共感・感謝の気持ちを伝えよう!

質問者からのお礼

詳しくありがとうございました。

その他の回答 (1)

  • 回答No.1
  • ddeana
  • ベストアンサー率74% (2977/4020)

But the first clear view which we obtain of the early condition of the earth, presents to us a ball of matter, fluid with intense heat, spinning on its own axis and revolving round the sun. しかし地球の初期の状態について我々が受け入れている最初のはっきりとした見解は、内部が熱く熱せられた物質と液体で出来た丸い玉で、自転しながら太陽の周りを廻っていることを示している。 How long it may have continued in this state is beyond calculation or surmise. 予測や推測がつかないこの状態がどれほど長く続いてきたことだろう。 It can only be believed that a prolonged period, beginning and ending we know not when, elapsed before the surface became cooled and hardened and capable of sustaining organized existences. 地球の表面が冷めて硬くなり、有機的存在物の生存が可能となる以前、我々にはいつ始まっていつ終わったのかわからない長い長い時間が経過してきたことだけは信じることが出来る。 The water which now enwraps a large portion of the face of the globe, must for ages have existed only in the shape of steam, floating above and enveloping the planet in one thick curtain of mist. 今地球表面の大部分を包み込む水は、長期間にわたって、天上に漂い、一つの厚いミストとして地球を覆う水蒸気の形でのみ存在していたに違いない。 When the cooling of the surface allowed it to condense and descend, then commenced the process by which the lowest stratified rocks were formed, and gradually spread out in vast layers. 地球の表面が冷えてきた時、水蒸気は液化して下へ落ちてきた。それからもっとも低い層の(※1)成層岩が作られるプロセスがはじまり、徐々に広い層へと広がっていったのだ。 ※1:地質学的には、連続した層状の堆積岩において、最も低い層が最も古いという原則 がありますので、lowestは「層として一番低いもの」という意味になります。 Rains and rivers now acted upon the scoriaceous integument, grinding it to sand and carrying it down to the depths and cavities. 雨や川はスコリア質の岩の外皮に影響を与え、それを砂へと粉砕し、地下深くや空洞の奥へと運んだ。 Whether organized beings co-existed with this state of things we know not, as the early rocks have been acted upon by interior heat to an extent which must have destroyed all traces of animal and vegetable life, if any such ever existed. This period has been named by geologists the Azoic, or that in which life was not. Its duration no one presumes to define. 初期の岩は、動物や植物の生態の痕跡を破壊したに違いない地球内側の熱によってある程度影響を受けているので、そうしたものが存在していたとしても、このような状態のものと有機体としての生き物が共存していたかは我々にはわからない。この期間は地質学者によって「無生代」=生命のない時代と命名された。その期間は誰も明確に推定していない。 And It is in the system of beds which overlies these primitive formations that the first records of organisms present themselves. そして生命体がその存在を示す最初の記録はこうした太古の情報の上に横たわる地層のシステムの中なのだ。 参照原文:http://biblehub.com/library/temple/essays_and_reviews_the_education_of_the_world/mosaic_cosmogony.htm

共感・感謝の気持ちを伝えよう!

質問者からのお礼

ありがとうございました!

関連するQ&A

  • 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。

    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.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    Now, in answer to this objection, I have only to say that no one can have a more lively appreciation than myself of the supreme importance of experimental or historical veri fication, in all cases where the possibility of such verification is attainable. But in cases where such verification is not attainable, what are we to do ? We may clearly do either of two things. We may either neglect to investigate the sub ject at all, or we may Jo our best to investigate it by employ ing the only means of .investigation which are at our disposal. Of these two courses there can be no doubt which is the one that the scientific spirit prompts. The true scientific spirit desires to examine everything, and if in any case it is refused the best class of instruments wherewith to conduct the examination, it will adopt the next best that are available. In such cases science clearly cannot be forwarded by neglect ing to use these instruments, while her cause may be greatly advanced by using them with care. This is proved by the fict that, in the science of psychology, nearly all the con siderable advances which have been made, have been made, not by experiment, but by observing mental phenomena and reasoning from these phenomena deductively. In such cases, therefore, the true scientific spirit prompts us, not to throw away deductive reasoning where it is so frequently the onlyinstrument available, but rather to cany it with us, and to use it as not abusing it.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    The other point which has to be noted with regard to this criterion is as follows. I again quote from " Animal Intelligence :"— " Of course to the sceptic this criterion may appear un satisfactory, since it depends, not on direct knowledge, but on inference. Here, however, it seems enough to point out, as already observed, that it is the best criterion available ; and, further, that scepticism of this kind is logically bound to deny evidence of mind, not only in the case of the lower animals, but also in that of the higher, and even in that of men other than the sceptic himself. For all objections which could apply to the use of this criterion of mind in the animal kingdom, would apply with equal force to the evidence of any mind other than that of the individual objector. This is obvious, because, as I have already observed, the only evi dence we can have of objective mind is that which is furnished by objective activities ; and, as the subjective mind can never become assimilated with the objective so as to learn by direct feeling the mental processes which there accompany the objective activities, it is clearly impossible to satisfy any one who may choose to doubt the validity of inference, that in any case, other than his own, mental processes ever do accompany objective activities.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    It is obvious, then, to start with, that by Mind we may mean two very different things, according as we contemplate it in our own individual selves, or as manifested by other beings. For if I contemplate my own mind, I have an imme diate cognizance of a certain flow of thoughts and feelings, which are the most ultimate things — and, indeed, the only things— of which I am cognizant. But if I contemplate Mind in other persons or organisms, I can have no such immediate cognizance of their thoughts and feelings ; I can only infer the existence of such thoughts and feelings from the activities of the persons or organisms which appear to manifest them. Thus it is that by Mind we may mean either that which is subjective or that which is objective. Now throughout the present work we shall have to consider Mind as an object ; and therefore it is well to remember that our only instrument of analysis is the observation of activities which we infer to be prompted by, or associated with, mental antecedents or accompaniments analogous to those of which we are directly conscious in our own subjective experience. That is to say, starting from what I know subjectively of the operations of my own individual mind, and of the activi ties which in my own organism these operations seem to prompt, I proceed by analogy to infer from the observable activities displayed by other organisms, the fact that certain mental operations underlie or accompany these activities.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    The early speculator was harassed by no such scruples, and asserted as facts what he knew in reality only as probabilities. But we are not on that account to doubt his perfect good faith, nor need we attribute to him wilful misrepresentation, or consciousness of asserting that which he knew not to be true. He had seized one great truth, in which, indeed, he anticipated the highest revelation of modern enquiry -- namely, the unity of the design of the world, and its subordination to one sole Maker and Lawgiver. With regard to details, observation failed him. He knew little of the earth's surface, or of its shape and place in the universe; the infinite varieties of organized existences which people it, the distinct floras and faunas of its different continents, were unknown to him. But he saw that all which lay within his observation bad been formed for the benefit and service of man, and the goodness of the Creator to his creatures was the thought predominant in his mind. Man's closer relations to his Maker is indicated by the representation that he was formed last of all creatures, and in the visible likeness of God. For ages, this simple view of creation satisfied the wants of man, and formed a sufficient basis of theological teaching, and if modern research now shows it to be physically untenable, our respect for the narrative which has played so important a part in the culture of our race need be in nowise diminished. No one contends that it can be used as a basis of astronomical or geological teaching, and those who profess to see in it an accordance with facts, only do this sub modo, and by processes which despoil it of its consistency and grandeur, both which may be preserved if we recognise in it, not an authentic utterance of Divine knowledge, but a human utterance, which it has pleased Providence to use Providence a special way for the education of mankind.

  • 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。

    Without, therefore, entertaining the question as to the connexion between Body and Mind, it is enough to say that under any view concerning the nature of this connexion, we are justified in drawing a distinction between activities which are accompanied by feelings, and activities which, so far as we can see, are not so accompanied. If this is allowed, there seems, to be no term better fitted to convey the distinction than the term Choice ; agents that are able to choose their actions are agents that are able to feel the stimuli which determine the choice. Such being our Criterion of Mind, it admits of being otherwise stated, and in a more practically applicable manner, in the following words which I quote from " Animal Intelli gence :" — " It is, then, adaptive action by a living organism in cases where the inherited machinery of the nervous system does not furnish data for our prevision of what the adaptive action must necessarily be — it is only here that we recognize the objective evidence of mind. The criterion of mind, therefore, which I propose, and to which I shall adhere throughout the present volume, is as follows : — Does the organism learn to make new adjustments, or to modify old ones, in accordance with the results of its own individual experience ? If it does so, the fact cannot be merely due to reflex action in the sense above described ; for it is impossible that heredity can have provided in advance for innovations upon or alterations of its machinery during the lifetime of a particular individual".

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    The diffculties and disputes which attended the first revival of science have recurred in the present century in consequence of the growth of geology. It is in truth only the old question over again-precisely the same point of theology which is involved, although the difficulties which present themselves are fresh. The school books of the present day, while they teach the child that the earth moves, yet [they] assure him that it is a little less than six thousand years old and that it was made in six days. On the other hand, geologists of all religious creeds are agreed that the earth has existed for an immense series of years-to be [to be=it should be] counted by millions rather than by thousands:and that indubitably more than six days elapsed from its first creation to the appearance of man upon its surface. By this broad discrepancy between old and doctrine is the modern mind startled, as were the men of the sixteenth century [startled] when [they were] told that the earth moved.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    It is, then, adaptive action by a living organism in cases where the inherited machinery of the nervous system does not furnish data for our prevision of what the adaptive action must necessarily be — it is only in such cases that we recognize the element of mind. In other words, ejectively con sidered, the distinctive element of mind is consciousness, the test of consciousness is the presence of choice, and the evidence of choice is the antecedent uncertainty of adjustive action between two or more alternatives. To this analysis it is, however, needful to add that, although our only criterion of mind is antecedent uncertainty of adjustive action, it does not follow that all adjustive action in which mind is con cerned should be of an antecedently uncertain character; or, which is the same thing, [it does'nt follow] that because some such action may be of an antecedently certain character, we should on this account regard it as non-mental. Many adjustive actions which we recognize as mental are, nevertheless, seen before hand to be, under the given circumstances, inevitable ; but analysis would show that such is only the case when we have in view agents whom we already, and from independent videuce, regard as mental.