- 締切済み
He added that this sets A
wind-sky-windの回答
- wind-sky-wind
- ベストアンサー率63% (6647/10387)
Asians を代名詞で受けたとして、 three-quarters of them are ～ 「彼らのうちの４分の３は～」 ここで of の後は them という目的格になるように、 Asians を先行詞とする関係代名詞も whom です。 are の主語は three-quarters of ～というかたまり。 だからといって、of の後に主格がくるわけじゃないです。 One of them is ～のような英語を考えれば、 one of them で主語、であっても主格 they になるわけじゃない。 どっちかというと、one とか、ここでは three-quarters (of ～) が主格みたいなもの。 現代英語で主格と目的格の区別があるのは I, he, she, we, they くらいです。 あとは名詞・代名詞をそのまま使えば主語でも目的語でも使うので 主格・目的格などあると気づかないだけ。 こういう英語は There are thirty students, some of whom are from Australia. こういうパターンは one/some/neither/none of whom/which という形で 高校英語で出てきます。 必ず、コンマつきの継続用法。 some of whom で some of them のような主語で、are が続く。 でも、of の後は目的格。 こういう英語はあくまでも例外的で、逆にこういうのだけわかって、 本当の関係代名詞とか疑問詞の役割がわからない人もいるのですが、 普通にはこちらのパターンがわからない人が多いです。
noname#212313
関連するQ&A
- thatの品詞は？
「騒音は人間に影響を及ぼす」という長文中で [ ]の中でわからないところがあります。 Again ,like the passers-by,nearly three-quarters of the 52 students helped pick up the books under normal conditions,but [only half that many volunteered when the room was noisy.] このthatは接続しですか。それとも？？ only halfを that many が修飾していますか？ 訳は「うるさい部屋では半分の人しか自発的に助けなかった。」 という意味だというのはわかるんですが。 基本的な質問ですが お願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 【英語について】日本語→英語
日本語→「人口約3億人のアメリカには、1100万人以上の不法移民がいると言われています。また、その約8割がメキシコ国境線を越えて入る込んだヒスパニックの人たちだとも言われています。」 英語→「It is said that the United States that of three hundred million has more than 11 million of illigal immigrants. Moreover, it is said that account for 80% of immigrants is Hispanic who cross the border between Mexico. 」 こちらの文を日本語→英語にしたのであっているか見て欲しいです。よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- now that構文？
For the last three years I’ve had full custody of my (now) 9-year-old daughter. It hasn’t been easy. I was never enthusiastic about having a child and, while I adore her now she’s here, being a parent hasn’t come naturally to me. now she’s hereはどのような訳になるでしょうか？now that構文のthatが省略された形でしょうか？よろしくお願いします
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 【和訳】和訳をお願いできませんでしょうか。
国連の世界貿易レポートを読んでいるのですが、イマイチ理解できません。 大変長い文章ですが、和訳していただけませんでしょうか。 どうかよろしくお願いします。 Thus, while developing countries (25 per cent) have a lower share of foreign value added than the world average (28 per cent), their foreign value added share is significantly higher than in the United States and Japan – or than in the EU, if only external trade is taken into account. Among developing economies, the highest shares of foreign value added in trade are found in East and South-East Asia and in Central America (including Mexico), where processing industries account for a significant part of exports. Foreign value added in exports is much lower in Africa, West Asia, South America and in the transition economies, where natural resources and commodities exports with little foreign inputs tend to play an important role. The lowest share of foreign value added in exports is found in South Asia, mainly due to the weight of services exports, which also use relatively fewer foreign inputs. The average foreign value added share of exports and the degree of double counting in global exports of an industry provide a rough indication of the extent to which industries rely on internationally integrated production networks, as it proxies the extent to which intermediate goods and services cross borders until final consumption of the industry’s output. Clearly, GVCs do not equate with industries. A value chain for a given product may incorporate value added produced by many different industries (e.g. manufactured products incorporate value added from services industries). The global average shares by industry of foreign value added ignore the fact that each industry may be part of and contribute to many different value chains. The value and share of developing-country exports that depend on GVCs, because of either upstream links (foreign value added in exports) or downstream links (exports that are incorporated in other products and re-exported) is quite significant (figure IV.8). East and South-East Asia remains the region with the highest level of GVC participation, reflecting its primacy as the most important region for exportoriented manufacturing and processing activities. Central America (including Mexico) also has a high participation rate, but whereas it ranked equal with South-East Asia in terms of foreign value added in exports, it has a lower downstream participation rate, reflecting the fact that it exports relatively more to the United States domestic market rather than for onward exports.
- 締切済み
- 英語
- so～thatの構文だと思うのですが・・・
新聞で見かけた英文です。 後半部分ですが、so～thatの構文で、thatの省略された文で、しかも、＜so parsimonious it goes undermarked＞は＜an aid package＞を後置修飾していると思うのですが、正しいでしょうか？so～thatが単語を修するようなことがあり得るのでしょうか？ "He（小泉首相） took a risk by supporting the United States at the start of the Iraq war," the Foreign Ministry official snapped back. "There is no way we can back off now and present an aid package so parsimonious it goes unremarked." 試訳：「彼（小泉首相）は、イラク戦争が始まったとき、アメリカ合衆国を支持するという冒険にでた」、と外務大臣は言った。（そして）「今さら後戻りするすべはなく、また、あまりにも安っぽすぎて気づいてもらえないような支援などできるはずもない。」と続けた。 どうぞよろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 高校レベルの「関係代名詞」がわかりません。
高校レベルの「関係代名詞」がわかりません。 ■問題■ 1:She had three sons, all ( ) became doctors. (1)of whom (2)which (3)who (4)of which →解答は(1) 2:He lent me two books, neither of ( ) I have read. (1)that (2)which (3)what (4)them →解答は(2) ■解説■ 1： ┏She had three sons. ┗All of them became doctors. them を whom にし、all of them を節の頭に置いたもの。 2： ┏He lent me two books. ┗I have read neither of them. them を which にし、all of which を節の頭に置いたもの。 ■ここがわかりません！■ どうして両方の問題が、 「them を whom」「them を which」のように、同じ[ them ]でも二通りに置き換えるのでしょうか？ わたしの見解では、[ them ]は、「～に／へ」を意味すると思うので、両方の問題とも[ whom ]になると思うのですが、いかがでしょうか。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 文構造・訳がわかりません
Apart from humility, he means that he does not find in himself a reasonably deep and clear feeling about the bearing upon one another, and upon his mind, of three things, among others : art, science, and religion. この文章です。 of three thingsとあるのでapart fromは「humility」「he means ～ one another」「and upon his mind」の3つにかかってくるのでしょうか？ among以降の訳の入れる場所もよくわかりません
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 移民の話です。翻訳お願いします。
移民についての英文です。長文ですが、日本語訳をお願いします。 The notion that unskilled immigrants tend to complement rather than replace native Americans is supported by the unusually low unemployment rates of the six states that have the largest influx of illegal immigrants-New York, California, Illinois, Texas, Florida, and Arizona. Millions and millions of new jobs requiring no more than a high school education will have to be filled over the next decade. Who will take them? Not those born in America. Our fertility rates are falling, our education levels rising. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that we will have many vacancies for unskilled labor-exactly where the vast majority of immigrants expect to be working. In the California workforce of 2004, among undocumented men ages 18 to 64, more than 90 percent were working, compared with just over 80 percent of native-born men. Illegal immigrants receive virtually no welfare transfers that could sustain them without work. They know that if they're going to be unemployed, they're better off at home in Mexico instead of New York or Chicago. They're here because they want to work. That is one side of the immigration coin. We hear less about the other side—the high-tech immigrants and the value they provide our economy. By some estimates, about a third of Silicon Valley start-ups in the past decade have been founded by Indians or Chinese, who also power the science departments of America's great universities. Yet, we continue to lock out of the U.S. economy some of the world's best and brightest in such fields as medicine, computers, and engineering, forcing them to work abroad where they can develop businesses or work in businesses that compete with us. It doesn't make sense. So looking forward, we will need more rather than less migration at both the low end and the high end of the skill sets. Bear in mind that we are getting older. As the 80 million baby boomers retire, we will have 250 seniors to 1,000 working people in 2010; by 2030, 411 seniors per 1,000. Who will pick up the financial burden in the Social Security system for the aging baby-boomer generation?
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文についての質問
Does pure democracy protect the rights of the people? という質問があります。 A pure democracy is not always protective of the rights of minorities. A study of direct democracy in California found that while voters only approved of one-third of all policy issues put to a vote of the people, they approved more than three-quarters of the ones that restricted civil rights.21 Constitutionally-based liberal democracy sets limits on the authority of the voters and their representatives in an effort to ensure continued political and civil equality of all citizens. （純粋民主主義は、少数民族の権利を常に保護しているわけではありません。カリフォルニアの直接民主主義に関する研究は、すべての政策問題の3分の1を承認した有権者だけが民衆の投票権を得ていたが、（実際は？）民権を4分の3以上も制限し、承認したことが判明した。憲法に基づく自由主義民主主義はすべての国民の政治的、市民的平等を継続的に確保するために、有権者とその代表者の権限を制限しています。） この質問に対する答えとして、上の英文から No, pure democracy doesn't always protect the rights of the people. It sets limits on the authority of the voters and their representatives. でいいでしょうか？ ただ回答の２文目は「Constitutionally-based liberal democracy sets～」を元に作成しました。 これはliberal democracyのことであってpure democracyのことではないのでしょうか？ 回答は、単純にNo, pure democracy doesn't always protect the rights of the people. だけで問題ないでしょうか？ よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 移民の話です。長文ですが、記事の翻訳お願いします。
The tide of Hispanic immigration today has similar roots, with two important differences: The European waves were legal, and immigration from the south of America, especially Mexico, is mainly illegal. The numbers are also on a wholly different scale from the immigration of the 20s and 30s. These factors understandably raise apprehensions, but so far the evidence shows that the new immigrants largely behave in positive ways similar to their predecessors. They are family oriented, they value education, and their children are learning English. Over time, they are intermarrying among growing numbers of other ethnic groups. They are people of faith. They are energetic, looking to move up in life through better jobs-they work hard and for long hours. In fact they often take jobs many Americans simply no longer wish to do. By and large the most recent surge of immigrants is made up of people who are young and mobile and who work in the least desired sectors of the U.S. economy-such as agriculture and service industries-for relatively low pay. If these immigrants weren't here, this kind of work would have to be done by more skilled Americans, and they would only do it for much more money-which could be seen as a cause of inflation and a misuse of skills. There was a very different situation in the 1960s. Then, half of all American men dropped out of high school to look for unskilled work. Today only about 10 percent of white males leave high school for a job, and high school graduates simply won't take the menial jobs that many immigrants are happy to take on. So for the most part, the new immigrant and the settled American are not competing for the same jobs. Even when they do compete more directly with low-skilled U.S.-born workers, the job preference is different. Immigrants find work in agriculture, while less educated natives often end up in manufacturing. The notion that unskilled immigrants tend to complement rather than replace native Americans is supported by the unusually low unemployment rates of the six states that have the largest influx of illegal immigrants-New York, California, Illinois, Texas, Florida, and Arizona. Millions and millions of new jobs requiring no more than a high school education will have to be filled over the next decade. Who will take them? Not those born in America. Our fertility rates are falling, our education levels rising. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that we will have many vacancies for unskilled labor-exactly where the vast majority of immigrants expect to be working. In the California workforce of 2004, among undocumented men ages 18 to 64, more than 90 percent were working, compared with just over 80 percent of native-born men. Illegal immigrants receive virtually no welfare transfers that could sustain them without work. They know that if they're going to be unemployed, they're better off at home in Mexico instead of New York or Chicago. They're here because they want to work. That is one side of the immigration coin. We hear less about the other side—the high-tech immigrants and the value they provide our economy. By some estimates, about a third of Silicon Valley start-ups in the past decade have been founded by Indians or Chinese, who also power the science departments of America's great universities. Yet, we continue to lock out of the U.S. economy some of the world's best and brightest in such fields as medicine, computers, and engineering, forcing them to work abroad where they can develop businesses or work in businesses that compete with us. It doesn't make sense. So looking forward, we will need more rather than less migration at both the low end and the high end of the skill sets. Bear in mind that we are getting older. As the 80 million baby boomers retire, we will have 250 seniors to 1,000 working people in 2010; by 2030, 411 seniors per 1,000. Who will pick up the financial burden in the Social Security system for the aging baby-boomer generation?
- ベストアンサー
- 英語