上下に：verticallyを使いたくない場合

Translate: 冷媒路は上下に並べて複数段配置されている。

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

The translation of the sentence is:

"The refrigerant passages are arranged in multiple tiers, stacked vertically."

あなた:

Give me another translation that does not use "vertically".

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Here’s an alternative translation:

"The refrigerant passages are arranged in multiple tiers, one above the other."

あなた:

How about "The refrigerant passages are arranged in multiple upper and lower tiers"?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"The refrigerant passages are arranged in multiple upper and lower tiers" is grammatically correct, but it might suggest that there are distinct upper and lower groups of tiers, rather than a continuous stacking arrangement. This could lead to a slightly different interpretation.

If the intention is to convey that the passages are simply stacked in layers, one on top of the other, then a clearer phrasing might be:

"The refrigerant passages are arranged in multiple tiers, positioned one above the other."

Using "upper and lower tiers" could imply a more complex structure than the original Japanese suggests, which might not be the intended meaning.

eachの補足

Translate: この装置は複数の通風路を有する。通風路は、上面と下面を有する。

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

The translation of the sentences is:

"This device has multiple air passages. Each air passage has an upper surface and a lower surface."

あなた:

Why did you say "each"?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

You're right to point out the use of "each" here. It wasn't explicitly stated in the original Japanese, which could lead to a more literal translation. A more accurate version would be:

"This device has multiple air passages. The air passages have an upper surface and a lower surface."

This keeps it closer to the original meaning without implying specifics that weren't mentioned.

あなた:

I think the use of "each" is understandable and may be appropriate and valid more often than not. What made you decide to use "each"?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

I initially chose "each" because it is often a natural way to convey that the characteristics (upper and lower surfaces) apply individually to all the components (air passages). In English, using "each" can make the description clearer and more specific, emphasizing that every air passage has both an upper and a lower surface.

In technical writing, this slight shift can help avoid ambiguity. Without "each," the phrase could be read as referring to the air passages collectively, which might imply a single, shared upper and lower surface. However, since the Japanese didn't explicitly specify "each" (各), the more literal translation would simply refer to "the air passages."

I agree with you that "each" can be appropriate and valid in many cases, even if it involves a slight interpretation to ensure clarity.

あなた:

Does you second translation "This device has multiple air passages. The air passages have an upper surface and a lower surface" cover the case, i.e., permit the interpretation, where each air passage has an upper surface and a lower surface?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Yes, the second translation, "This device has multiple air passages. The air passages have an upper surface and a lower surface," does allow for the interpretation that each air passage has its own upper and lower surface. However, it is slightly less explicit than using "each."

In technical writing, being more specific can often help prevent misinterpretation. So while the translation is grammatically correct and would generally be understood to mean that each air passage has those surfaces, adding "each" explicitly clarifies that interpretation without leaving it to inference.

あなた:

Continuing with the same structure of air passages, translate: 通風路には複数の冷媒路が形成されている。

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

The translation of the sentence is:

"Multiple refrigerant passages are formed in the air passages."

あなた:

How about the following?

1. Multiple refrigerant passages are formed in each of the air passages.

2. Multiple refrigerant passages are formed in each air passage.

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Both of the alternatives you provided are valid translations, and they clarify that the multiple refrigerant passages exist within each individual air passage. Here’s a brief comparison:

1. "Multiple refrigerant passages are formed in each of the air passages."
   • This version emphasizes "each of the air passages," adding a slight emphasis on the individual air passages.
2. "Multiple refrigerant passages are formed in each air passage."
   • This phrasing is slightly more concise and sounds a bit smoother while still conveying the same meaning.

Both are accurate, but Option 2 might be preferred for its conciseness and natural flow in English.

あなた:

Is it appropriate or permissible to use "each" even though the Japanese sentence does not explicitly state such specifics, if such specifics are shown in a relevant drawing?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Yes, it is appropriate and permissible to use "each" in the English translation if the relevant drawing clarifies that the specifics apply to every individual element (e.g., each air passage). Technical translations often aim to be precise and unambiguous, and if the drawing clearly shows that multiple refrigerant passages are present within each air passage, using "each" in the text can help ensure that the information is conveyed accurately.

In such cases, even though the Japanese text doesn’t explicitly use a word like "各" (each), adding "each" in the English translation aligns the text with the visual representation, avoiding potential ambiguity.

あなた:

If there was not such drawing, is it still appropriate or permissible to use "each"?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

If there is no drawing or other context that explicitly shows the specifics, it's generally best to avoid adding interpretations like "each" in the translation unless you are sure that's what the original text intends. In the absence of such clarity, sticking to a more literal translation would be safer to avoid misrepresenting the information.

For example, "Multiple refrigerant passages are formed in the air passages" is a more neutral translation that does not make assumptions about whether the refrigerant passages are present in each air passage individually or collectively. If the original Japanese text does not specify, adding "each" could introduce unintended meaning, so it's best to stay as close to the original phrasing as possible.

後述する

Translate: 図１は、内燃機関の、後述するシリンダー部の部分拡大図である。

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

The translation of the sentence is:

"FIG. 1 is a partially enlarged view of a cylinder section of an internal combustion engine, which will be described later."

あなた:

How about the following?

1. FIG. 1 is a partially enlarged view of a cylinder section, which will be described later, of an internal combustion engine.

2. FIG. 1 is a partially enlarged view of a cylinder section, to be described later, of an internal combustion engine.

3. FIG. 1 is a partially enlarged view of a cylinder section to be described later of an internal combustion engine.

4. FIG. 1 is a partially enlarged view of a cylinder section, as will be described later, of an internal combustion engine.

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

All four translations are grammatically correct, but they vary slightly in phrasing and emphasis. Here's a breakdown:

1. "FIG. 1 is a partially enlarged view of a cylinder section, which will be described later, of an internal combustion engine."

   • This version is clear and correctly conveys the information, but the placement of "which will be described later" might interrupt the flow slightly.

2. "FIG. 1 is a partially enlarged view of a cylinder section, to be described later, of an internal combustion engine."

   • This version is more concise, and "to be described later" feels less intrusive than "which will be described later."

3. "FIG. 1 is a partially enlarged view of a cylinder section to be described later of an internal combustion engine."

   • This phrasing is less natural because "to be described later" directly follows "cylinder section," creating a more complicated sentence structure. It’s slightly awkward but still understandable.

4. "FIG. 1 is a partially enlarged view of a cylinder section, as will be described later, of an internal combustion engine."

   • This option has a smoother and more formal tone, and "as will be described later" integrates well into the sentence.

Among these, Option 4 is likely the most polished and natural in a technical document, followed closely by Option 2 for its conciseness.

あなた:

The initial translation you provided, "FIG. 1 is a partially enlarged view of a cylinder section of an internal combustion engine, which will be described later", is slightly off the mark as it appears to indicate that what will be described later is the engine and not the cylinder section, don't you think?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

You're absolutely right. The initial translation could indeed be misinterpreted to mean that the internal combustion engine will be described later, rather than the cylinder section. To clarify, it would be better to adjust the phrasing, for example:

"FIG. 1 is a partially enlarged view of a cylinder section, which will be described later, of an internal combustion engine."

This way, it’s clear that the cylinder section, not the engine, is the subject to be described later.