- ベストアンサー
日本の新しい首相の保守的なビジョンと国民の懸念
Nakay702の回答
- Nakay702
- ベストアンサー率80% (9778/12183)
以下のとおりお答えします。 ＞the fact that Abe "envisions Japan as a 'country that can be proud of its history and culture,'" which he goes on to warn is "a nod to the virulent strains of nationalism still frighteningly potent within Japanese society." ＞この部分の構文が分かりません。the fact がどこにかかるのか、the fact とwhich は同格なのか、which は何を指してどこにかかるのか？ ⇒このthe fact は、is a nod to ～につながると思います。 《その事実は、彼（安倍首相）の～に対する肯定・賛成である／それにつながる》 といったニュアンスでしょう。 また、whichは関係代名詞で、先行詞は直前の節全体と見られます。 すなわち、それは、 Japan as a 'country that can be proud of its history and culture 《日本はその歴史と文化を誇りにできる国である（と安倍首相は捉えて）》 の部分です。 そして、これをwhich で受けて、 which he goes on to warn 《彼はそのこと（which）を警告する／訴えたり押しつけたりする》 と続くわけですね。 ＞また最後のWe're still a very long way from the days of his grandfather. ですが、 ＞安倍首相の祖父の岸信介氏の安保闘争の時代ですから６０年前ですね。その６０年が長いと言ってるのでしょうが、still が入って意味が分かりにくくなってしまいました。この文は何を言いたいのでしょうか？ ⇒この部分を訳せば、 《我々はまだ、彼の祖父の時代から長い道のりの途上にある》 といった感じになります。 その意味することはこういうことでしょう。まず、前段で、Zielenziger氏が、 《安倍首相の祖父の時代も「健全な愛国心」からはほど遠い「凶悪なナショナリズム」に固執していたが、今安倍首相もそれと同じである》と考えるわけですね。 このくだりはそれに続いて、 《彼安倍首相が「健全な愛国心」に目覚めるまでにはまだ長い時間がかかりそうだなあ》という筆者の感慨がこういう表現になったのだと思います。
関連するQ&A
- 再び構文把握の問題です
教えてください。本当にすみませんが、自分なりに頑張っても分からないので再投稿させていただきました。先ほどと違う文章です。 強調構文の考え方です。It is～thatと言う文章でこれらを省略しても文章が成り立っているのなら強調構文である。と書いてありました。 It is a fact that he wants to know.→a fact he wants to know→He wants to know a fact.となり、たとえば、It is a fact that he has won the game.は同じようにやるとa factの役割が不明になり、前とは違って成り立たない。よってこれは強調構文ではない。ここまでは理解できます。 しかしこの考え方が次の文章では分かりません。この文章ではどうやって上のような考え方を当てはめればいいのでしょうか。 It ewasn't until mysuitcases and I were piled into a little Fait and the man in dark glasses was telephoning to his mamma that he would be late for supper, that the voice of my mamma could be heard above my desperation. この文章は「It ewasn't until」と「that the voice of 」の「that」が呼応してます。
- 締切済み
- 英語
- heは安倍かMr. Zielenzigerか
http://st.japantimes.co.jp/english_news/essay/2006/ey20061013/ey20061013main.htm?print=noframe# 以下の which he goes on to warnでheは安倍かMr. Zielenzigerか、どちらですか？ またwhichは何を指しますか？ What has Abe done to spur these horrible worries? According to Mr. Zielenziger, the fact that Abe "envisions Japan as a 'country that can be proud of its history and culture,'" which he goes on to warn is "a nod to the virulent strains of nationalism still frighteningly potent within Japanese society." Methinks Mr. Zielenziger has a problem distinguishing between healthy patriotism and "virulent nationalism." よろしくお願いいたします。
- 締切済み
- 英語
- 構文把握 教えてください。
強調構文の考え方です。It is～thatと言う文章でこれらを省略しても文章が成り立っているのなら強調構文である。と書いてありました。 It is a fact that he wants to know.→a fact he wants to know→He wants to know a fact.となり、たとえば、It is a fact that he has won the game.は同じようにやるとa factの役割が不明になり、前とは違って成り立たない。よってこれは強調構文ではない。ここまでは理解できます。 しかしこの考え方が次の文章では分かりません。この文章ではどうやって上のような考え方を当てはめればいいのでしょうか。 It is not the fact virtue wins out at the end which promotes morality ,but that the hero is the most attractive to the child,who identifies with the hero in all his struggles. よろしくお願いします。
- 締切済み
- 英語
- 英文の意味の取り方を教えてください
The great man is too often all of a piece; it is the little man that is a bundle of contradictory elements. He is inexhaustible. You never come to the end of the surprises he has in store for you. For my part I would much sooner spend a month on a desert island with a veterinary surgeon than with a prime minister. （The Summing Up by W. S Maugham) 最初に出てくる"The great man is too often all of a piece."について質問があります。 偉大な人間はあまりにしばしば断片のすべてである・・・・・？ ＊ここはどうやって意味をとればよいのでしょうか？ 断片を統合したような人物、という感じですか？ ＊また、too oftenのところがわからないのですが、 The great man is all of a piece.にするのとどういうニュアンスの違いがあるのでしょうか？ 以下は前文です。 ＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊ I have been more concerned with the obscure than with the famous. They are more often themselves. They have had no need to create a figure to protect themselves from the world or to impress it. Their idiosyncrasies have had more chance to develop in the limited circle of their activity, and since they have never been in the public eye it has never occurred to them that they have anything to conceal. They display their oddities because it has never struck them that they are odd. And after all it is with the common run of men that we writers have to deal; kings, dictators, commercial magnates are from our point of view very unsatisfactory. To write about them is a venture that has often tempted writers, but the failure that has attended their efforts shows that such beings are too exceptional to form a proper ground for a work of art. They cannot be made real. The ordinary is the writer's richer field. Its unexpectedness, its singularity, its infinite variety afford unending material.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- この英文を、同じ意味でかきかえていただきたいです。
Annibale Carracci’s artwork, The Coronation of the Virgin – 1590-1609, this piece of the soul and the mind. This picture grabbed my attention because it is one of the few paintings in which God, Jesus, and Mary are represented as “equals”, because of their sizes. The arrangement of the figures, and the colors implemented by the artist were other elements that interested me. In the following essay I will discuss the subject matter of the painting, and the technique used, as well as a brief discussion of the features that identify this artwork with the time period when it was painted. In this painting Mary is being crowned by Jesus and God, after her ascension to heaven. This action is taking place in heaven, because angels that are sitting in the background and also clouds closer to the border of the painting surround the three main figures. Jesus, Mary, and God are the main figures. In the center, Mary extends her arms as if welcoming a son/daughter or family member and her face expresses tranquility and acceptance. To her right is Jesus, who lifts His right hand to hold the crown, and His face shows kindness and respect. On Mary’s left, is God, who raises His left hand to hold the other side of the crown that is being placed on Mary’s head. God’s face also shows kindness towards Mary, and as the Father and the Son put the crown on Mary’s head, the Holy Spirit, represented as a dove, descends over her. Crowds of angels sit in order, one on the side of the other, around the semicircular theater in the background of the painting, and others, closer to the viewer’s point of view, are represented playing instruments and holding books, as if they were singing. In the center small human figures are shown, one of them holding a scroll as if they were asking Mary to intercede for them before God. Organization, light, and clothing are important elements of this representation, because they make a reference to the style under which it was created. On “The Coronation of the Virgin,” figures form three triangles. The first and smallest one is formed by Mary’s head and extended arms. Jesus and God’s arms and bellies form the second triangle. The third and biggest triangle starts on the Holy Spirit and extends from both sides to the two low corners of the painting. Triangles may serve as reference to the Holy family and also to the Trinity, which are formed by three figures, the same as triangles have three angles and sides. The organization of the figures in this painting make reference to the High Renaissance where the arrangement of the figures played an important role in the meaning and message that the artist was seeking to convey. This painting is also full of light and color, which bring to this picture a sense of natural appearance, characteristic of the Byzantine and High Renaissance, and also of the Baroque. Clothing is another important element of this painting for it is a reminder of the Classical revival. The colors of the draperies are very basic; blue and pink on Mary’s drapery, white on God and Jesus, and red on two angels in the right corner of the painting, and some green in the center, and a lot of yellow in the background. Another important feature that relates this painting with the style the artist implemented is the body types, especially in Jesus and God. Jesus is shown as having Byzantine facial features, and a classical body type, where muscles and a well shaped body are visible. Also God’s body has been idealized, due to the fact that His body looks as young as His son’s body; giving to this picture a characteristic usually seen during the classical period.
- 締切済み
- 英語
- 英文の翻訳
以下の翻訳をお願いします One who travels hopefully in life knows where he wants to be and what he wants to do, but quite never arrives. Yet the pursuit of things may bring him more pleasure than would the victory. He will enjoy a wide experience of life, the highs and the lows, the wealth and the poverty, life riches tapestry of experience but he has not realized that it is the journey for him that counts, not the success or failure at the end of it. He is free with his gains, and can be lavish and prodigal, can throw himself totally into everything he becomes involved He is not extreme so much as whole hearted in things, he has no moderation. He is irascible, yet kind. He gives advice and wisdom and the benefit of his experience to those who are more expert or aught to know better than him. He has a kind of shrewd cleverness, A good judge of things as they are. And an intuitive knowledge of how to manipulate things to his own advantage in life.
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文について教えてください。
Moreover-taking the word "tragedy" in its most ordinary modern sense-it is Gretchen who suffers the tragedy, which Faust takes in his stride. We never see him hunted by the furies, like Orestes: no sooner has Part Two begun than spirits "remove the burning arrows of remorse, and cleanse his mind of memories." And though he dies blind like Oedipus, (1)【he does not blind himself with clasps plucked in a passion from the corpse of his beloved, resolved to live in infamy and night.】 Rather, he loses his sight when he is a hundred years old, just before he dies in a moment of elation. Faust's sufferings are incidental. He is not a tragic hero like Orestes, who is called upon to kill his mother, or like Oedipus, who owes it to his city to find out who killed his predecessor and who thus discovers that he killed his father and is wedded to his mother. In Faust, tragedy engulfs not the hero but representatives of unheroic, non-outstanding, suffering humanity: Gretchen, Philemon and Baucis, Gretchen's mother. The death of Philemon and Baucis in the fifth act of Part Two involves no tragic conflict in Faust's mind: he has given different instructions; their death is a hideous surprise to him; but again he takes it in his stride.(2)【 It is another episode, no more.】(3)【 In retrospect we realize, if it was not clear to us all along, that Gretchen's tragedy, too, was a mere episode.】 The drama is epic, the effect cumulative. 『Goethe's Faust by Walter Kaufmann』 上記の英文の(1)【】、(2)【】、(3)【】の部分について質問です。 (1)【he does not blind himself with clasps plucked in a passion from the corpse of his beloved, resolved to live in infamy and night.】 ＊clasps pluckedとはどういう意味にとればよいのでしょうか？ ＊全体はどういう訳になりますか？ (2)【 It is another episode, no more.】 ＊これはどういうことを言っているのでしょうか？ another episodeとは？ (3)【 In retrospect we realize, if it was not clear to us all along, that Gretchen's tragedy, too, was a mere episode.】 ＊文の構造がよくわかりません。 if節があって、帰結はGretchen's tragedy, too, was a mere episodeだと思うのですが、Gretchen's tragedyの前にthatがついているのがわかりません。 ＊また、it was not clear to us all alongのitは何をさしているのでしょうか？ よろしくお願いいたします。
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 構文分析よろしくお願い致します
A good farmer is always one of the most intelligent and best educated men in our society. We have been inclined in our wild industrial development, to forget that agriculture is the base of our whole economy and that in the economic structure of the nation it is always the cornerstone. It has always been so throughout history and it will continue to be so until there are no more men on this earth. We are apt to forget that that the man who owns land and cherishes it and works it well is the source of our stability as a nation, not only in the economic but the social sense as well. できるだけ詳しく教えていただけると嬉しいです。 よろしくお願い致します🙏
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
- 英文の構造を教えてください
The phenomenon of intetest is in itself a most interesting subject . It is not too much to say that a man's interests are a sure guide to the real man. We certainly act on that assumption when we choose our friends. It is just as reasonable to suppose that what a culture defines as interesting is no less a guide to its own values, goals and self consciousness. という英文で、it is just as reasonable to suppose that …のところのasが前文の内容が比較対照が明らかなので、省略されているらしのですが、これは it is just as reasonable to suppose that what a culture defines as interesting is no less a guide to its own values, goals and self consciousness as it is just as reasonable to say that a man ' s intetests are a sure guide to the real man ということでいいのでしょうか？あとhe is rich and you are just as rich[as he is]のようにto say that a man ' s intetests are a sure guide to the real man をthatとし、it is just as reasonable to suppose that …as that isのように書き換えられるのでしょうか？
- ベストアンサー
- 英語
お礼
質問を閉じてしまったのでこのコメントが貴方に届くか心配です。まだまだ好奇心旺盛で新しい知見に接して喜びを感じているとのプロフィールがありましたので、今後の勉学の研鑽に是非役立ててもらいたいと思い、書くことにしました。以前、she が妻か５才の娘かどちらかでやり取りしたのも貴方だったと思います。 気になったのでheが安倍なのかMr. Zielenzigerなのか例のアメリカの知り合いに訊いてみたのです。またwhichが何かも。今回はカナダの知り合いにも訊いてみました。アメリカの知り合いは定年退職した人でインテリ(と思います)、カナダの知り合いは定年間近の人でインテリ。すると両人とも、heはMr.Zと言うのです。 先ずアメリカの方の説明です。 "According to Mr. Zielenziger, the fact that Abe "envisions Japan as a 'country that can be proud of its history and culture,'" which he goes on to warn is "a nod to the virulent strains of nationalism still frighteningly potent within Japanese society." This section is talking about Mr. Zielenziger's point of view. The "he" is definitely Mr. Zieglenziger NOT Abe. The author is quoting what Mr. Z said and then saying why he thinks that Mr. Z. is wrong. Mr. Zielenziger is the one who is warning the reader that "the virulent strains of nationalism still frighteningly potent within Japanese society." And that Abe is in favor of nationalism. 彼女の説明によると、warn はreader に"the virulent strains of nationalism still frighteningly potent within Japanese society."で先行詞which の前にあるJapan以下ではないようです。先行詞が後に来るものを受けているなんてことがあり得るのかと調べてみましたら、c[関係詞節が主節に先立って] 《文語》 …であるが. Moreover, which the poor man never expected, they had decided in advance to dismiss him. そのうえ, 気の毒にもその人は夢にも思わなかったことだが, 彼らは前もって彼を解雇することに決めていた. というのがありました。ちょとぴったりとはいかないのですが、これに該当しませんか？ この際と思ってカナダの知り合いにも訊いてみました。すると、私の示した英文だけでなく正確に答えたいのでしょうね、Mr. ZielenzigerのL.A. Timesの投稿文まで参照していました。 以下に貼り付けます。 You wrote: "which he goes on to warn I can't understand this part very well. Who is he, Abe or Mr. Zielenziger?". I believe that when the Japan Times writer says, "which he goes on to warn", he is referring to the L.A. Times writer, Mr. Zielenziger. Mr. Zielenziger cautions in his newspaper article that Prime Minister Abe's political perspective promotes a dangerous form of Japanese nationalism, rather than patriotism. The writer of the Japan Times essay seems to believe that moderate patriotism is healthy, and a reasonable demonstration of pride in one's country's cultural and social achievements, but nationalism is extreme, and attempts to promote superiority. The essay from the Japan Times that you sent for me to read seems to suggest that Mr. Zielenziger's warning of Prime Minister Abe as a nationalist is unfair or, at least premature. The Japan Times writer urges Japan to give Prime Minister Abe an opportunity to prove that he is not as extreme in his political beliefs as Mr. Zielenziger believes, and that Abe actually is a promoter of patriotism rather than nationalism. Here is the link to the original L.A. Times article written by Mr. Zielenziger: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-sep-25-oe-zielen25-story.html It is interesting to note that Prime Minister Abe's 'nationalism' is only part of the L.A. Times article written by Mr. Zielenziger -- the article also addresses the unemployment of young people, social changes, and financial uncertainty in Japan when Abe was elected. I see that the article was written a few years ago. 彼女はheはMr.Zだと書いてますが、whichについては何も書いてませんね。質問したつもりなんですが。 この質問は既に閉じてしまっているのでNakayさんが応答するには管理サイトに掛け合うなど面倒だと思います。それでNakayさんが応答出来るように新たに「heは安倍かMr.Zか」というタイトルで質問を立てておきます。もし、ご興味とがあれば再コメントを投稿して下さい。お忙しい所失礼致します。
補足
丁寧な回答ありがとうございます。 理解出来ました。 その上でも質問なんですが、 that...which は同格にはなり得ないのですか？ もし、同格にしたい場合、that...that にすれば同格と考えていいのでしょうか？ それとも、that...that でも、後ろのthat はやはり関係代名詞と考えた方がいいのでしょうか？ ＞長い道のりの途上にある つまり、ただ今の時点では「まだ短い」と言いたいのですね。still がなければ、もう６０年もの長い年月が経った、で「長い」の意味に取ったのですが、still が入ると意味が逆になってしまうのですね。こんがらがりました。