- ベストアンサー
Under which...
U.S. Vice President Mike Pence said on Saturday the United States would honor a controversial refugee deal with Australia, under which the United States would resettle 1,250 asylum seekers, a deal President Donald Trump had described as "dumb". なぜwhichじゃなくてunder whichなのですか？ 詳しく教えてください。
- yuriayuria
- お礼率37% (836/2235)
- 英語
- 回答数2
- ありがとう数2
- みんなの回答 （2）
- 専門家の回答
質問者が選んだベストアンサー
whichはa controversial refugee deal with Australiaのことですが、under which 以下を平文に置き換えると、 The United States would resettle 1,250 asylum seekers under the controversial refugee deal with Australia. となります。 「米国は"オーストラリアと論争になっていた難民に関しての取り決め”の”もと”、1250人の亡命希望者を移住させる」 underは日本語訳の"もと”に当たりますが、これが無いと、which が節の中のどこにかかるのかわからなくなります。上の平分からunder を取って見るとわかると思います。which だけでなりたたそうとすると、 which (eventually) makes U.S resettle 1,250 asylum seekers とかに構文を変えないといけません。
その他の回答 (1)
- SPS700
- ベストアンサー率46% (15295/33014)
１。訳 米国副大統領のマイク・ペンスは、土曜、トランプ大統領が「愚かしい」と述べた、1,250名の亡命申請者を移住させるオーストラリアとの取り決めを、アメリカ合衆国は尊重する、と言った。 ２。なぜwhichじゃなくてunder whichなのですか？ 「deal に従って」という前置詞句が必要だからです。 under がないと、deal は、すでに asylum seekers という目的語がある resettle にもう一つ意味の繋がらない（deal を resettle するという） 非文を作るからです。
お礼
回答ありがとうございます！
関連するQ&A
- 日本語訳をお願いいたします。
The Allied Powers agreed that the German withdrawal from Luxembourg would be observed by the United States, and that the USA would receive the honour of liberating the captive country. On 18 November, General John Pershing issued a proclamation to the people of Luxembourg, stating that the United States' newly formed Third Army would move through Luxembourg to occupy the German Rhineland, but that the Americans would come as allies and as liberators:
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- would の意味
Four years ago, no relay team was able to cover 400 meters as quickly as four United States runners had in 1988 in Seoul, South Korea. Carl Lewis jumped farther in Seoul than any man would 12 years later in Sydney, Australia, and Jackie Joyner-Kersee did the same among women. 後半の than any man would 12 years later における would の意味、文法的な用法がわかりません。 教えていただけませんか。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- ひとつの文に過去完了が２つある場合
Newsweekの記事からです。 http://europe.newsweek.com/trump-accuses-obama-wiretapping-phones-campaign-563795 （現・前大統領の写真の下、５つ目の段落から引用） Trump's national security adviser, Michael Flynn, resigned in February after revelations that he 【(1)had discussed】 U.S. sanctions on Russia with the Russian ambassador to the United States before Trump took office. Flynn 【(2)had promised】 Vice President Mike Pence he 【(3)had not discussed】 U.S. sanctions with the Russians, but transcripts of intercepted communications, described by U.S. officials, showed that the subject had come up in conversations between him and the Russian ambassador. １． (1)の過去完了はresignedを基準として、それより前のことだからhad discussed という過去完了を使っている。この解釈で合っていますか。 ２． (2)と(3)についてですが、ひとつの文に過去完了が２つある場合、どちらがもう一方についてそれより前の時を表している、と何を基準に判断するのでしょうか。今回は日本語のニュースで内容がわかっていたため、「フリン氏は、副大統領に、アメリカの対露制裁について協議していない(had not discussed)と伝えた（約束した？）。」と、前後関係はわかるのですが、予備知識のない状態で過去完了がひとつの文に２つ入っている場合、どちらが先に起こったか混乱しそうです。promise などの動詞を見て判断するのでしょうか。 ３．(2)と(3)もやはり、上のほうの文の resigned が過去の基準点となっていると捉えていいですか。 よろしくお願いします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- SITS ON
北朝鮮の食糧危機に関する記事です。 The anticipated provision of 500,000 metric tons of grain by the United States as part of the nuclear deal would be welcome but won't solve the problem: because U.S. aid must be sourced domestically and transported on U.S. vehicles, it will take months to arrive. This makes the behavior of China, South Korea and Japan critical. In the short run, China must remove its export taxes and quotas on food to North Korea. Japan sits on 1.5 million metric tons of rice, which could be used for relief—if the United States agrees not to enforce a bilateral treaty restricting its use. この最後の文賞 Japan sits on 1.5 million metric tons of rice, which could be used for relief—if the United States agrees not to enforce a bilateral treaty restricting its use. がわかりません。 日本は救援物資として利用することができる１５０万メトリックトンの米（の援助）の決定を遅らせている それとも 日本は１５０万メトリックトンの米を使わずに貯蓄しており、もしアメリカが・・・・・・なら救援物資として使われることができる。 なのか。 そして 上記に ・・・・・・と略した部分 if the United States agrees not to enforce a bilateral treaty restricting its use. もしアメリカがその利用を禁止する二カ国条約を行使しないことに同意すれば という文章がぴんときません。 宜しくお願いします(´＿｀。)
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文を日本語訳して下さい。
President Wilson agreed to this, in the belief that such cooperation would sustain continued good relations with Germany, and that more efficient German-American diplomacy could assist Wilson's goal of a negotiated end to the war. The Germans handed in messages to the United States embassy in Berlin, which were relayed to the embassy in Denmark and then to the United States by American telegraph operators. However, the United States placed conditions on German usage, most notably that all messages had to be in the clear (i.e., uncoded). The Germans assumed that the United States cable was secure and used it extensively. Obviously, Zimmermann's note could not be given to the United States in the clear. The Germans therefore persuaded Ambassador James W. Gerard to accept it in coded form, and it was transmitted on 16 January 1917. In Room 40, Nigel de Grey had partially deciphered the telegram by the next day.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 日本語訳をお願いいたします。
Room 40 had previously obtained German cipher documents, including the diplomatic cipher 13040 (captured in the Mesopotamian campaign), and naval cipher 0075, retrieved from the wrecked cruiser SMS Magdeburg by the Russians, who passed it to the British. Disclosure of the Telegram would obviously sway public opinion in the United States against Germany, provided the Americans could be convinced it was genuine. But Room 40 chief William Reginald Hall was reluctant to let it out, because the disclosure would expose the German codes broken in Room 40 and British eavesdropping on the United States cable. Hall waited three weeks. During this period, Grey and cryptographer William Montgomery completed the decryption. On 1 February Germany announced resumption of "unrestricted" submarine warfare, an act which led the United States to break off diplomatic relations with Germany on 3 February.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 翻訳をお願い致します。
Trump’s Warning To North Korea Called ‘Exactly Wrong’ And ‘Reckless’ President Donald Trump issued a stark warning to North Korea on Tuesday promising to unleash “fire, fury and, frankly, power, the likes of which this world has never seen before” if the country continues to escalate its threats against the U.S. “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States,” Trump said Tuesday in a short statement to reporters before a meeting on the national opioid crisis. “They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. [North Korean leader Kim Jong Un] has been very threatening beyond a normal state.”
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 和訳をお願いします。
The German High Command believed they would be able to defeat the British and French on the Western Front and strangle Britain with unrestricted submarine warfare before American forces could be trained and shipped to Europe in sufficient numbers to aid the Allies. The Germans were encouraged by their successes on the Eastern Front into believing that they would be able to divert large numbers of troops to the Western Front in support of their goals. Mexican President Venustiano Carranza assigned a military commission to assess the feasibility of the Mexican takeover of their former territories contemplated by Germany. The general concluded that it would be neither possible nor even desirable to attempt such an enterprise for the following reasons: The United States was far stronger militarily than Mexico was. No serious scenarios existed under which Mexico could win a war against the United States.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 日本語訳をお願いいたします。
Germany's promises of "generous financial support" were very unreliable. The German government had already informed Carranza in June 1916 that they were unable to provide the necessary gold needed to stock a completely independent Mexican national bank. Even if Mexico received financial support, the arms, ammunition, and other needed war supplies would presumably have to be purchased from the ABC nations (Argentina, Brazil, and Chile), which would strain relations with them, as explained below. Even if by some chance Mexico had the military means to win a conflict against the United States and reclaim the territories in question, Mexico would have severe difficulty accommodating a large English-speaking population that was better supplied with arms than most populations. Other foreign relations were at stake. The ABC nations organized the Niagara Falls peace conference in 1914 to avoid a full-scale war between the United States and Mexico over the United States occupation of Veracruz.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 時制は合っていますか。
クリントン元大統領の沖縄訪問時の演説の一部ですが、読んだり、聞いたりして直ぐに理解できない文です。恐らく時制も関連しているように思われるので、お分かりの方お教え下さい。 Both the government of Japan and the government of the United States agree that our security partnership is a good one, and that we cannot say with confidence that there are no circumstances under which American forces would ever be called upon to defend Japan or our common allies. （日本語訳） 日本政府もアメリカ政府も以下のことを合意しているのですが、私たちの協力関係は良い関係である事、そして、アメリカ軍が、日本あるいは同盟国を防衛するするために呼ばれる様な状況と言うものが無いとは、確信を持って言う事は出来ないと。 この文で、there are no circumstances の時制がスッキリと入って来ないのですが、 考えすぎでしょうか？日本語では、”呼ばれる様な状況は来ないだろう” 仮定・未来 の様に訳すのではないかと思いました。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
お礼
回答ありがとうございます！