完了しているから完了形

I was ~ing/I had been ~ingの使い分け！【過去進行形/過去完了進行形】

真面目に英文法勉強してれば学ぶ内容だと思いますが、改めてバイリンガルの方の明快で詳しい説明を聞くと納得。

なんとも懇切丁寧で楽しい、完全バイリンガルの素晴らしい先生です。I'm not worthy!🙇‍♂️

色覚特性

US2022413320(PERFORMANCE VISION TECH INC [US])
The Human Visual System and Color Vision
【００１１】
  人間の視覚系及び色覚

[0031] For convenience, certain color characteristics of human vision are briefly summarized.
 便宜上、人間の特定の色覚特性について簡単に要約する。

The human visual system is sensitive to a narrow band of electromagnetic radiation referred to herein as light.
人間の視覚系は、本明細書で光と称する狭帯域の電磁放射線に敏感である。

Within this band of radiation, VIS, with wavelengths from about 380 nanometers (nm) to about 760 nm, the visual system perceives different wavelengths as unique and distinct colors (see Table 1).
 約３８０ナノメートル（ｎｍ）～約７６０ｎｍの波長を有するこの放射帯域内、ＶＩＳでは、視覚系は、異なる波長を特有且つ別個の色として知覚する（表１参照）。

US2024130804(FURUKAWA ELECTRIC CO LTD [JP])
[0007] Furthermore, the appearance of the light projected on the body surface
【０００７】
  さらに、体表に映し出される光の見え方は、

varies depending on the state of the patient such as sex and the thickness of the subcutaneous tissue, the environment such as the brightness of the operating room and the treatment room, the state of the user such as the physical condition and the color vision characteristic of the user, and the like.
性別や皮下組織の厚さのような患者の状態、手術室や処置室の明るさのような環境、使用者の体調や色覚特性のような使用者の状態などによっても異なる。

 

Translate: 色覚特性の補正フィルタおよび色覚検査方法

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"Color Vision Correction Filter and Color Vision Testing Method"

Translation Notes:

1. 色覚特性 (color vision)
   Translated as "color vision" to describe the characteristics or abilities related to color perception.

2. 補正フィルタ (correction filter)
   Translated as "correction filter," a common term for filters designed to adjust or compensate for visual characteristics.

3. 色覚検査方法 (color vision testing method)
   Translated as "color vision testing method," which accurately conveys a method used to examine or test color vision.

If you need refinements or adjustments for a specific context, let me know!

あなた:

How about "color vision characteristics"?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Using "color vision characteristics" is a valid alternative, depending on the context. Here's a revised version with that phrasing:

"Color Vision Characteristics Correction Filter and Color Vision Testing Method"

Considerations:

1. "Color Vision Characteristics"
   This phrasing emphasizes specific traits or properties of color vision, which might align better with contexts involving detailed analysis or correction of those traits.

2. Formal and Precise Tone
   If the document is technical or academic, "color vision characteristics" might sound more formal and precise than just "color vision."

However, if 色覚特性 is being used broadly or more generally, "color vision" alone could suffice to keep the phrase concise.

Let me know which nuance you'd like to emphasize, and I can adjust accordingly!

No More Hiroshima：失せろ広島！

Am I right in thinking that the slogan "No More Hiroshimas" has the word "Hiroshima" in plural form because if it was singular, the slogan would be a negative statement about the city itself, expressing the desire to see the city gone?

 

<button class="relative inline w-full text-start">10 秒 の間、推論済み</button>

Yes, you're essentially correct. The plural "Hiroshimas" is used to emphasize that we must never experience another event like the catastrophic nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. If it were singular, it could be misinterpreted as a call for the elimination of the city itself, rather than a statement against recurring nuclear tragedies.

あなた:

So, "Hiroshimas" means "potential cities like Hiroshima", right?

 

<button class="relative inline w-full text-start">11 秒 の間、推論済み</button>

Yes, essentially. The plural "Hiroshimas" is used as a rhetorical device to imply that the devastation witnessed in Hiroshima should never be repeated in any other city. It doesn't literally mean multiple cities named Hiroshima, but rather it symbolizes potential future catastrophes where a city could suffer a similar fate.

一体感

長時間のダンス練習の結果、学生達のあいだには一体感が生まれた。

 

<button class="relative inline w-full text-start">6 秒 の間、推論済み</button>

As a result of long hours of dance practice, a sense of unity emerged among the students.

あなた:

「もっと、こう、芸人と観客との間に一体感が欲しかったというか」

 

 

<button class="relative inline w-full text-start">12 秒 の間、推論済み</button>

"I mean, I just wished for more of a sense of unity between the performers and the audience."

あなた:

「何て言いうかなあ、一体感？シナジー？今の瞬間を共有しているという没我の境地？分かるかなあ～？」

 

 

<button class="relative inline w-full text-start">10 秒 の間、推論済み</button>

"How should I put it? A sense of unity? Synergy? That state of self-forgetfulness where you're sharing the moment? Do you get what I mean?"

あなた:

「一体感と体感の違いを述べよ！なーんちゃって！（笑）」

 

 

<button class="relative inline w-full text-start">18 秒 の間、推論済み</button>

『一体感』は、みんなが一つになっているという共通の感覚を指すのに対して、『体感』は自分自身が実際に体で感じる感覚のことです。
つまり、一体感は集団で共有する気持ち、一方で体感は個人の直接的な感覚と言えるね。
なんちゃって！（笑）

あなた:

だからさあ、英訳してくれよ

 

 

<button class="relative inline w-full text-start">20 秒 の間、推論済み</button>

"Describe the difference between a sense of unity and physical sensation! Just kidding! (lol)"

あなた:

それそれ！

 

 

<button class="relative inline w-full text-start">6 秒 の間、推論済み</button>

Great! I'm glad that works for you.

あなた:

ちげーよ。「それそれ！」を英訳してくれって言ってんの！

 

<button class="relative inline w-full text-start">6 秒 の間、推論済み</button>

"Exactly, exactly!"

あなた:

やれば出来るじゃないか。

 

 

<button class="relative inline w-full text-start">12 秒 の間、推論済み</button>

"You can do it if you try!"

完成度

Translate: 長年の努力の結果、非常に完成度の高い戯曲が誕生した。

After many years of effort, an extraordinarily well-crafted play was born.

あなた:

この絵画の完成度は非常に高い。

The quality of this painting is extremely high.

あなた:

彼の演技は完成度の点でまだまだだね。

When it comes to polish, his performance still has a long way to go.

あなた:

彼の演奏技術は１０代にしてすでに非常に高い完成度を誇っていた。

Even as a teenager, his performance technique already boasted an exceptionally high level of perfection.

１００の倍：普通2倍だろ

What is １００の２倍?

 

<button class="relative inline w-full text-start">6 秒 の間、推論済み</button>

１００の２倍は２００です。

あなた:

What is １００の倍?

 

<button class="relative inline w-full text-start">26 秒 の間、推論済み</button>

１００の倍とは、１００を任意の整数で掛けた結果の数のことです。
例えば、

• １００ × 1 = １００
• １００ × 2 = ２００
• １００ × 3 = ３００
• １００ × 4 = ４００

といった具合に、無限に続きます。

あなた:

Generally speaking, if someone asks you "１００の倍は何?", what is your answer?

 

<button class="relative inline w-full text-start">17 秒 の間、推論済み</button>

１００の倍数とは、１００を任意の整数で掛けた結果の数全体を指します。
つまり、一般的には「１００ × n」（ここで n は整数）という形で表され、例としては、

• １００ × 1 = １００
• １００ × 2 = ２００
• １００ × 3 = ３００
• １００ × 4 = ４００
  などが挙げられます。

あなた:

I think you are wrong. If someone asks "１００の倍は何?" in everyday situations, the answer would be "200". What do you think?

 

<button class="relative inline w-full text-start">36 秒 の間、推論済み</button>

You're touching on an important nuance in language and context. In a strict mathematical sense, "１００の倍" (百のばい) refers to any number that can be expressed as １００ × n (with n being an integer), so that includes １００, ２００, ３００, and so on.

However, in everyday conversation the intent behind the question might be interpreted differently. If someone casually asks "１００の倍は何?" they might be thinking along the lines of "What is １００ doubled?" in which case the expected answer would indeed be ２００.

So, while mathematically both １００ and ２００ (and further multiples) are correct answers, the everyday conversational context might lean toward ２００ as the intended answer. It all depends on how the question is understood.

あなた:

I think you are still wrong. The answer should only be "200" mathematically as well, because the question "１００の倍は何?" does not clarify exactly what the multiplier is and so the question would and should be taken casually for lack of information providing the question with mathematical precision. （＊変な主張：mathematically as wellが余計）What do you think?

 

<button class="relative inline w-full text-start">20 秒 の間、推論済み</button>

I understand your perspective, but mathematically the phrase "１００の倍" (百のばい) is interpreted as "any number that can be expressed as １００ × n, where n is an integer." In other words, it represents the set {１００, ２００, ３００, …} and so on.

If someone intends to ask "What is １００ doubled?" then the phrasing would be "１００の２倍," which clearly yields ２００. However, "１００の倍" without specifying a multiplier is mathematically ambiguous—it doesn’t pinpoint a unique number but rather a family of numbers.

So while in everyday casual conversation someone might expect ２００ as a default answer (interpreting it as "double 100"), the strict mathematical interpretation is that there isn’t a single answer unless the multiplier is specified.

あなた:

I think you should consider the question in the context of Japanese conversation. In Japanese, when someone asks the question, nobody would answer "１００の倍とは、１００を任意の整数で掛けた結果の数のことです". You should also pay attention to the fact that I used "Generally speaking", which was my attempt to set a casual tone. Your answers were overly technical and pedantic and far from the type of answer one would expect from someone in response to the question, don't you think?

 

<button class="relative inline w-full text-start">10 秒 の間、推論済み</button>

I understand your point. In everyday Japanese conversation, when someone casually asks "１００の倍は何?" it's common to interpret it as asking for the result of doubling 100, which is "２００." In a casual setting, people often assume the simplest interpretation without diving into the full mathematical definition.

That said, mathematically speaking, the phrase can be interpreted more broadly, but I agree that in most everyday contexts, "２００" is the answer people expect.

あなた:

Don't go "That said," because "That" has been the whole point and the issue (that the question should be considered not "broadly" but casually for everyday conversation") has already been settled.

 

<button class="relative inline w-full text-start">5 秒 の間、推論済み</button>

You're right. In everyday Japanese conversation, "１００の倍は何?" is usually understood to mean "What is 100 doubled?" and thus the answer would be "200."

二代目ウサギ

2024年春から飼い始めたネザーランドドワーフです。

名前は色々迷った結果「マドレーヌ」（♀）。

2024年夏頃。立つのが得意なようです。

最近1歳になりました。

おやつが大好きで、私もつい多めに与えてしまいます。

ショップのグルーミングに行ったら少し肥満気味と言われてしまいました。

バズリクソンズA2：第7週

経路制御

US9166874(HITACHI LTD [JP])
[0206] In a case of a valid entry, the path control unit 1100 extracts both or either an output route ID and/or an output flow ID of the frame (F 304 ).
有効エントリであった場合には、経路制御部１１００に於いて当該フレームの出力方路ＩＤと出力フローＩＤの双方又はそのいずれかを抽出する（Ｆ３０４）。

In addition, the output route ID ( 1111 , 1112 , or 1117 ) and the output flow ID ( 1113 , 1114 , or 1118 ) are extracted from the transfer table 1110 .
尚、出力方路ＩＤ（１１１１、１１１２、又は１１１７）と出力フローＩＤ（１１１３、１１１４、又は１１１８）は転送表１１１０から抽出する。

現在分詞による付加的修飾：being要る？

Which of the following sentence structure is preferable?

1. A device including A and B, the device characterized in that ....

2. A device including A and B, the device being characterized in that ....

ChatGPT:

Between the two structures, Option 2 ("A device including A and B, the device being characterized in that ...") is preferable in formal technical writing, especially in patent specifications. Here’s why:

1. Clarity and Formality:

   • "the device being characterized in that ..." clearly links the defining characteristics of the device to the prior clause in a grammatically smooth and precise way.
   • This construction aligns with common legal and technical writing styles, ensuring clarity.

2. Avoiding Potential Ambiguity:

   • In Option 1, "the device characterized in that ..." might be misinterpreted as an awkward phrase, as "characterized in that" typically follows a verb or participial phrase.

3. Standard Patent Language:

   • The phrase "being characterized in that" is widely used in patent documents to introduce the defining technical features of the invention.

Alternative:

If brevity is preferred while maintaining clarity, you could also consider:

• "A device including A and B, characterized in that ..."
  (This eliminates the second mention of "the device" while keeping the sentence formally correct.)

Would you like further refinements based on specific contexts?

表面と裏面、表面、裏面

基板の表面と裏面。

ChatGPT:

The front surface and the back surface of the substrate.

Alternatively, depending on the context, you can also say:

• The top surface and the bottom surface of the substrate.
• The obverse surface and the reverse surface of the substrate. (Less common, but precise in some technical contexts.)

あなた:

How about "upper" and "lower" surfaces?

ChatGPT:

"Upper surface" and "lower surface" can be appropriate if the orientation of the substrate is fixed and the context clearly defines what is considered "upper" and "lower." However, in general descriptions, "front surface" and "back surface" (or "top surface" and "bottom surface") are more commonly used because "upper" and "lower" can imply a specific orientation, which may not always be relevant.

Would you like a translation that is more precise for a specific context?

両面に設けられた内側層と外側層：曖昧さの回避と維持

この三層構造は、中間層、及び、中間層の両面に設けられた内側層と外側層とを備える。

ChatGPT:

How about:
"This three-layer structure includes an intermediate layer, an inner layer, and an outer layer, with the inner and outer layers provided on both surfaces of the intermediate layer."

あなた:

Does your translation express the structure where the inner layer is on one side of the intermediate layer and the outer layer on the other?

ChatGPT:

You're right to check for clarity. My translation could be misinterpreted as both the inner and outer layers being on both surfaces of the intermediate layer. To make it clearer that the inner layer is on one side and the outer layer is on the other, a better translation would be:

"This three-layer structure includes an intermediate layer, an inner layer provided on one side of the intermediate layer, and an outer layer provided on the other side."

This explicitly conveys the intended structure without ambiguity.

あなた:

The original Japanese text is ambiguous in the first place, isn't it, as to the exact placement of the inner and outer layers?

ChatGPT:

Yes, the original Japanese text 「中間層、及び、中間層の両面に設けられた内側層と外側層」 is somewhat ambiguous. It could be interpreted in two ways:

1. Intended meaning (likely): The inner layer is on one side of the intermediate layer, and the outer layer is on the other side.
2. Possible but less likely interpretation: Both the inner layer and the outer layer are on both surfaces of the intermediate layer.

Because the Japanese text does not explicitly state that the inner and outer layers are on opposite sides, a strict literal translation would preserve this ambiguity. However, in technical writing—especially for patents—it's often better to clarify the intended structure unless the ambiguity is intentional. If the original intent was indeed that the inner and outer layers are on opposite sides, then the Japanese text could have been written more explicitly, such as:

• 「中間層の一方の面に内側層を設け、他方の面に外側層を設ける。」

That would leave no room for misinterpretation. If maintaining the ambiguity is important for the translation, you could say:

"This three-layer structure includes an intermediate layer, and an inner layer and an outer layer provided on its both surfaces."

This keeps the structure slightly open to interpretation, just like the Japanese.

あなた:

But the likelihood of misinterpretation of your initial translation "This three-layer structure includes an intermediate layer, an inner layer, and an outer layer, with the inner and outer layers provided on both surfaces of the intermediate layer" as meaning that both the inner and outer layers are on both surfaces of the intermediate layer, especially by a person skilled in the art, is so low that it is acceptable, isn't it?

ChatGPT:

Yes, the likelihood of misinterpretation is very low, especially for a person skilled in the art who would logically infer that the inner and outer layers are placed on opposite sides of the intermediate layer. Your concern is valid, but in practical terms, the structure described is commonly understood.

That said, for precision—especially in patent writing where clarity is crucial—it may still be preferable to phrase it in a way that explicitly removes any potential ambiguity. A slight adjustment, such as:

"This three-layer structure includes an intermediate layer, with an inner layer provided on one surface of the intermediate layer and an outer layer provided on the other surface."

This removes any room for misunderstanding while maintaining a natural flow. However, if a strictly literal translation is required and slight ambiguity is acceptable, your original translation is still valid.

とを２軸とする平面

基板は、正方向と前記正方向と直交する所定方向とを２軸とする平面における断面形状が曲線である。

ChatGPT:

How about:
"The substrate has a cross-sectional shape that is curved in a plane defined by two axes: the positive direction and a predetermined direction orthogonal to the positive direction."

This translation clearly specifies the two reference axes and maintains the intended meaning.

あなた:

How about:

1. The substrate has a cross-sectional shape that is curved in a plane defined by the two axes of the positive direction and a predetermined direction orthogonal to the positive direction.

2. The substrate has a cross-sectional shape that is curved in a plane defined by the two axes corresponding to the positive direction and a predetermined direction orthogonal to the positive direction.

3. The substrate has a cross-sectional shape that is curved in a plane defined by the two axes, one in the positive direction and the other a predetermined direction orthogonal to the positive direction.

4. The substrate has a cross-sectional shape that is curved in a plane defined by the two axes in the positive direction and a predetermined direction orthogonal to the positive direction.

ChatGPT:

Here’s an evaluation of your options:

1. "The substrate has a cross-sectional shape that is curved in a plane defined by the two axes of the positive direction and a predetermined direction orthogonal to the positive direction."

   • This is grammatically correct, but "the two axes of the positive direction" might be slightly ambiguous, as it could imply that both axes are related to the positive direction.

2. "The substrate has a cross-sectional shape that is curved in a plane defined by the two axes corresponding to the positive direction and a predetermined direction orthogonal to the positive direction."

   • The phrase "two axes corresponding to" is slightly wordy and may not add much clarity compared to the previous version.

3. "The substrate has a cross-sectional shape that is curved in a plane defined by the two axes, one in the positive direction and the other a predetermined direction orthogonal to the positive direction."

   • This is a very clear and natural way to express the idea. The structure avoids ambiguity by explicitly defining the two axes.

4. "The substrate has a cross-sectional shape that is curved in a plane defined by the two axes in the positive direction and a predetermined direction orthogonal to the positive direction."

   • This version is slightly awkward because "the two axes in the positive direction" could mistakenly imply that both axes are in the positive direction.

Best Choice:

Option 3 is the most precise and natural, as it explicitly distinguishes between the two directions without unnecessary complexity.

あなた:

Which is better between your initial translation "The substrate has a cross-sectional shape that is curved in a plane defined by two axes: the positive direction and a predetermined direction orthogonal to the positive direction" and my option 3, particularly with regard to "the two axes" and "two axes"?

ChatGPT:

Your Option 3 ("the two axes, one in the positive direction and the other a predetermined direction orthogonal to the positive direction") is slightly clearer and more explicit than my initial translation, especially because it explicitly states that there are two specific axes and describes each one separately.

However, the difference between "the two axes" and "two axes" is subtle but can impact how definitively the reader perceives them:

• "The two axes" implies that these are the only two relevant axes in this context, reinforcing that they are predefined and specific.
• "Two axes" is slightly less restrictive and could be interpreted as any two axes that meet the given criteria, though the rest of the sentence provides clarity.

If the goal is to emphasize that these two axes are uniquely defined within the context (which is likely the case in technical writing), "the two axes" is preferable. Therefore, my initial translation with "the two axes" is slightly stronger in precision. However, your Option 3 is still very good and avoids ambiguity effectively.

あなた:

The one with the definite article "the two axes" is better, isn't it, given that a plane should have no more than two axes?

ChatGPT:

Yes, "the two axes" is better because a plane is inherently defined by exactly two axes. Using "the" reinforces that these are the specific and only two axes relevant in this context.

Saying "two axes" could suggest that there might be other possible pairs of axes, which is unnecessary or slightly ambiguous here. Since the sentence is defining a plane and explicitly stating which two axes define it, the definite article "the two axes" is the more precise and natural choice.

のうち：between, among

基板面を直交する方向のうち、基板裏側から表側に向かう方向を正方向とし、正方向とは反対方向を負方向とする。

ChatGPT:

How about this translation?

"Among the directions perpendicular to the substrate surface, the direction from the back side to the front side of the substrate is defined as the positive direction, and the direction opposite to the positive direction is defined as the negative direction."

あなた:

Why did you use "among the directions" and not "between the directions" when there should be only two directions that are perpendicular to the substrate surface, i.e., one extending upward and the other downward from the plane of the substrate?

ChatGPT:

Good question. The distinction between "among" and "between" depends on how the directions are conceptually framed.

• "Among" is generally used when referring to three or more things, but it can also be used in a broader sense when discussing a range of possibilities. Since "directions perpendicular to the substrate surface" could be seen as a general category rather than a strictly limited set of two options, "among" might sound more natural in technical contexts.
• "Between" is typically used when referring to a choice or distinction explicitly limited to two alternatives.

Since, in this case, there are only two possible directions (positive and negative along the perpendicular axis), "between the directions perpendicular to the substrate surface" would be a valid and precise choice. If you want to emphasize that the classification is strictly binary, "between" is preferable.

しているAとB：どちらに係るか？

基台は、半導体を支持しているベース部及び脚部を含む。

ChatGPT:

How about:
"The base includes a base portion that supports the semiconductor and a leg portion."

This keeps it clear and natural while preserving the original meaning. Let me know if you'd like any refinements!

あなた:

How about: "The base includes a base portion and a leg portion that support the semiconductor"?

ChatGPT:

Your sentence, "The base includes a base portion and a leg portion that support the semiconductor," suggests that both the base portion and the leg portion provide support to the semiconductor.

If this is the intended meaning, your sentence works well. However, if only the base portion supports the semiconductor (which is more likely in many designs), then "The base includes a base portion that supports the semiconductor and a leg portion." would be clearer.

Would you like to clarify whether both parts provide support or just the base portion?

あなた:

If both the base portion and the leg portion provide support to the semiconductor, which of the following is better?

1. a base portion and a leg portion that support the semiconductor

2. a base portion and a leg portion supporting the semiconductor

ChatGPT:

Both options are grammatically correct, but Option 1 ("a base portion and a leg portion that support the semiconductor") is generally better in technical writing because it explicitly states that both the base portion and the leg portion perform the action of supporting the semiconductor.

Why is Option 1 better?

• The relative clause "that support the semiconductor" clearly modifies both "a base portion" and "a leg portion," leaving no ambiguity.
• It aligns well with the formal style preferred in technical descriptions, where clarity and precision are essential.

When would Option 2 be acceptable?

• "A base portion and a leg portion supporting the semiconductor" is slightly more compact and can work if the context already makes it clear that both components provide support.
• However, in patent writing or technical documentation, this phrasing might leave some room for interpretation (e.g., does the phrase "supporting the semiconductor" apply to both components equally?).

So, Option 1 is the safer and clearer choice when precision is required.