• 締切済み


Nonetheless, most economists continue to preach on the efficacies of free trade, citing the priniciples of the early nineteenth-century economist David Ricardo. Whereas Adam Smith had argued that nations gain by exporting whatever it is they produce more cheaply and ignoring those markets in which they are less competitive-the theory of absolute advantage-Ricardo took a different tack by asserting that trade between counties to make sense even if one of the counties has an absolute advantage in every industry. Whereas Adam Smith had argued that nations gain by exporting whatever it is they produce more cheaply and ignoring those markets in which they are less competitive-the theory of absolute advantage-Ricardo took a different tack by asserting that trade between counties to make sense even if one of the counties has an absolute advantage in every industry. このようなとても長い英文はどのように読めばいいでしょうか?



ほんとだ、2つ目のパラグラフは繰り返しですね。間違って貼りつけてしまったのしょうか? >長い英文はどのように読めばいいでしょうか? 自分の分かるレベルに適度に区切って読む。 でも自分の英語力に対して文章が難し過ぎるとそれでも困難です。 現状で読めないものはどうやっても「今すぐには」読めません。勉強を続けて英語力を上げないと。。。 #2様の >当該文の場合で言えば、西洋経済史に疎い人は分りにくいと思います。 を拝見して、あーどうりで私にはよく分からないわけです。 アダム・スミスとか自由貿易とか書いてあるので経済なことは分かるんですが、話題的に苦手です・・・・・ 長いだけでなくて、話題がそれなりに難しく、単語もちょっと難しい。 だと、読むのは難しくなります。 逆に、分量としては長い。だけど、話の内容や単語や文の構造がもっと平易。だったら、また違いますよ。もっと読みやすいはずです。

  • Him-hymn
  • ベストアンサー率66% (3489/5257)

何だか、2つ目の段落は最初の段落の途中からと同一ですよね。 1つ目の段落はたったの78 wordsですから、とても短い文章ですね。(よく入試問題などで「長文」と言っているのは、たいてい短い文章ばかり。もし、本当に長い文章を読むなら、何と余分でしょうかね?大長文とかでしょうか。 その大長文の読み方にはもちろんコツがあります。 まず、どういう種類の文か探ることです。論文なのか、小説なのか、エッセイなのか、日記なのか。そして、論説文や評論文などでは、論理を追うことをこころがけます。 うんと単純に言うと、WhyとBecause。しかし、論説文には、筆者の主張があります。その主張をはっきりと把握し、その次に、その主張を支える、いわゆる支持文ーーつまり、例をあげる。そして最後に根拠。この主張・支持・根拠が大事ですね。 では、お示しの文章を読むと、まず、最初の一語で、この文章はある文章の途中からであることがわかります。Nonethelessを冒頭に置くなどという乱暴なことはできません。 経済学者David Ricardoの「経済法則・原則」を引き合いに出し(引用し)、ほとんどの経済学者はfree tradeをよいものとして伝え広めるというのです。こういうのを読むときは、おそらく、少数の人はfree trade反対なのだという裏の意味をくみ取りたいところです。これも、mostという単語に着目する癖がついているからです。おそらく、筆者の主張はこの段落の前にあると思われます。 もっと、2つの立場の違いを知りたいという読者に、アダム・スミスとDavid Richardoを比較して論を展開します。こういう場合、両者の違いは何なのかを読み取ればいいわけです。ここでは経済の大切な概念の比較優位論が展開していますね。これを知っているかどうかは、ここを読むのに大きな違いです。こういう知識も大事なものです。 以上、ご参考になればと思います。

  • litsa1234
  • ベストアンサー率28% (230/795)

>このようなとても長い英文はどのように読めばいいでしょうか? 一文が長くて複雑な場合は一回読んでも分らないのが当たり前なので、文の構造を解析しましょう。 文が長くなっている原因は大抵接続語でつながっていることが多いので、それらの「節」を整理しましょう。 後はそれらの従属関係を順序良く解明していけば「主語-述語」関係が見えて来るでしょう。 といっても、文の内容に門外漢である場合は、解釈できないことが多いのは当たり前でしょうね。 当該文の場合で言えば、西洋経済史に疎い人は分りにくいと思います。 以上、参考まで。

  • Nebusoku3
  • ベストアンサー率38% (1459/3802)

これはまだ長い方ではないですが、本当に長くてすぐに理解しなければならない場合は部分読み(飛ばし読み)して結論と思われるところを探し、そこから読みます。(文の言いたいことが分かる) その後、枝葉になるところを付け足して読み、最後に全体を頭から読みます。(自分の場合)



  • 英文和訳をお願いします。

    Since the early 18th century, however, the force of the rule of law has fostered standards of living that rose by 20 times in that part of the world that embraced competitive markets. Life expectancy more than doubled. And in the developing countries that have abandoned central planning for markets since the end of the Cold War, hundreds of millions of people have been elevated from subsistence poverty. Other hundreds of millions are now experiencing a level of affluence that people born in developed nations have experienced all their lives.

  • 英文を訳して下さい。

    Finally, Evans argued that it is untrue that Versailles caused the premature end of the Republic, instead contending that it was the Great Depression of the early 1930s that put an end to German democracy. He also argued that Versailles was not the "main cause" of National Socialism and the German economy was "only marginally influenced by the impact of reparations". Ewa Thompson points out that the treaty allowed numerous nations in Central and Eastern Europe to liberate themselves from oppressive German rule, a fact that is often neglected by Western historiography, more interested in understanding the German point of view. In nations that found themselves free as the result of the treaty—such as Poles or Czechs—it is seen as a symbol of recognition of wrongs committed against small nations by their much larger aggressive neighbours. Regardless of modern strategic or economic analysis, resentment caused by the treaty sowed fertile psychological ground for the eventual rise of the Nazi Party.[citation needed] The German historian Detlev Peukert wrote that Versailles was far from the impossible peace that most Germans claimed it was during the interwar period, and though not without flaws was actually quite reasonable to Germany. Rather, Peukert argued that it was widely believed in Germany that Versailles was a totally unreasonable treaty, and it was this "perception" rather than the "reality" of the Versailles treaty that mattered. Peukert noted that because of the "millenarian hopes" created in Germany during World War I when for a time it appeared that Germany was on the verge of conquering all of Europe, any peace treaty the Allies of World War I imposed on the defeated German Reich were bound to create a nationalist backlash, and there was nothing the Allies could have done to avoid that backlash. Having noted that much, Peukert commented that the policy of rapprochement with the Western powers that Gustav Stresemann carried out between 1923 and 1929 were constructive policies that might have allowed Germany to play a more positive role in Europe, and that it was not true that German democracy was doomed to die in 1919 because of Versailles. Finally, Peukert argued that it was the Great Depression and the turn to a nationalist policy of autarky within Germany at the same time that finished off the Weimar Republic, not the Treaty of Versailles. French historian Raymond Cartier states that millions of Germans in the Sudetenland and in Posen-West Prussia were placed under foreign rule in a hostile environment, where harassment and violation of rights by authorities are documented.

  • 至急この英文の和訳をお願い致しますm(*_*)m

    Societies which recognize that pacta sunt servanda among their own members,do not find it difficult to recognize the advantages of fulfilling obligations and contacts in dealings with individuals and groups in different societies.The fact that all societies appear to recognize that there is an obligation to fulfil contacts,alongwith prudential advantage in fulfilling them (just as,it is often argued,they all recognize rules that limit violence among their members and enjoin respect for rights of property) provides a basis for the extension of the principle of the sanctity of contracts beyond the bounds of particular societies.

  • 英文を訳して下さい。

    Though Churchill was unable to suggest an alternative, a critical view of the British on the Somme has been influential in English-language writing ever since. As recently as 2016, historian Peter Barton argued in a series of three television programmes that the Battle of the Somme should be regarded as a German defensive victory. A rival conclusion by some historians (Terraine, Sheffield, Duffy, Chickering, Herwig and Philpott et al.) is that there was no strategic alternative for the British in 1916 and that an understandable horror at British losses is insular, given the millions of casualties borne by the French and Russian armies since 1914. This school of thought sets the battle in a context of a general Allied offensive in 1916 and notes that German and French writing on the battle puts it in a continental perspective.

  • 英文

    The women - known to their neighbors here as decent people making what they could of life in a place marred by appalling destitution - are suspected of involvement in one of the deadliest waves of terror ever in Russia. 上記英文の下記の部分の文の構造の説明と和訳をお願いします。 making what they could of life in a place marred by appalling destitution

  • この英文の構造について教えてください。

    バートランド・ラッセルの「The Conquest of Happiness」からの英文です。 They found themselves in the presence of something which awoke in them that sense of reverence which nothing else claimed, and something to which they felt, even in the very depths of their being, that an unquestioning loyalty was due. 彼らは、彼らの中に呼び起こした何かの存在の中に、他に値するものが何もない尊敬の意味、そして絶対的な忠誠が当然払われるものであると、彼らの存在のまさに深みの中でさえ、彼らが感じた何かに、気がついた。 と訳してみましたが、全体の構造がよくわかりません。 They(S) found(V) themselves in the presence of something (which) awoke in them が最初にあって、 以下はthat節でしょうか? (that) sense of reverence (which) nothing else claime, and something to( which) they felt(後半のthatにつながる→) (that) an unquestioning loyalty was due. even in the very depths of their being(挿入句)

  • 英文の和訳をお願いします

    What do our customers pay us for? Why do they buy from us? In a competitive, non-monopolistic market, and that is what the world has become, there is absolutely no reason why a customer should buy from you rather than from your competitor. None. He pays you because you give him something that is of value to him. What is it that we get paid for? You may think this is a simple question. It is not. I have now been working with some of the world’s biggest manufacturers, producers, even in Slovenia. I have been asking that question now for a year. We have two kinds of customers: one, of course, is the retailer and, if that soap or that detergent or that mayonnaise is not on the retailer’s shelves, the housewife won’t buy it.

  • 英文の構造と邦訳

    In contrast, official observers have for decades assumed that PC (patient capital) provision is an important function of capital markets, albeit one they often fail to perform adequately. 上記英文のalbeit oneのoneの意味が分りません。構造と邦訳をお教え下さい。

  • この英文が分かりません。

    (1)I assume that the house will not be burn, but the fire gets in on it.. この文でbut以下にgett in on というのがあるのですが、それが分かりません。 なぜinとonがつながってるのでしょうか。 (2)Dont presume on a persons goodnature by borrowing money from her. この文章で presume と goodnatureが分かりません。 質問すると、Presume- to take an unfair advantage.と言われました。 よくわかりません。 (3)The tv that i bought have 2 months guarantee of service.. この文でなぜhasではなくhaveなんですか。 よろしくお願いいたします。

  • 言い換え問題について<英文>

    Reichardt argued for a dramatic genre that would foreground “the most pleasant lieder” by the “simple, moving, meaningful delivery of knowledgeable, expressive singers.” 「Raichardt argued for dramatic musical genre emphasize the most pleasant Lieder using simple, moved and meaningful by expressive singers.」 以前質問して、いただいた回答をもとに言い換えしてみたのですが… 言い換えできているでしょうか? こちらの英文であっているかどうかみてほしいです。 よろしくお願いします。

  • 某一部上場企業グループビジネスホテルに宿泊し、斡旋のマッサージ店で施術を受けた際、要望とは異なる施術が行われ、骨折の原因となった。
  • 施術後にホテルフロントに申し伝えたが、責任者には連絡が取れず、病院への受診を勧められた。
  • ホテル側からの謝罪や責任の認識はなく、被害者が自宅まで帰ってから連絡を受けたほど深刻に取り扱われていない。