～の～に、他人任せのアイデンティティ

Translate: 導体は、第１基板の第２基板に対向する第１面に配設されている。

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"The conductor is arranged on the first surface of the first substrate, which faces the second substrate."

あなた:

 

How about the following?

1. The conductor is disposed on the first surface facing the second substrate of the first substrate.

2. The conductor is disposed on the first surface of the first substrate that faces the second substrate.

3. The conductor is disposed on the first surface of the first substrate facing the second substrate.

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Here’s an analysis of the corrected alternatives:

1. "The conductor is disposed on the first surface facing the second substrate of the first substrate."

   • This phrasing is somewhat ambiguous because "facing the second substrate of the first substrate" can be confusing. It sounds like "second substrate" belongs to "first substrate," which may not be the intended meaning.

2. "The conductor is disposed on the first surface of the first substrate that faces the second substrate."

   • This is clearer than option 1. The phrase "that faces the second substrate" makes it clear which part of the first substrate is being described. However, there might be a more straightforward way to express this.

3. "The conductor is disposed on the first surface of the first substrate facing the second substrate."

   • This is the clearest and most natural of the three. It efficiently conveys that the conductor is on the surface of the first substrate, which is oriented toward the second substrate.

Given these comparisons, option 3 is the most precise and avoids potential ambiguities.

対向：oppose, opposite, face

Translate: 第１基板は絶縁体を挟んで第２基板に対向する。

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"The first substrate faces the second substrate with an insulator in between."

あなた:

How does it compare with the following?

1. The first substrate opposes the second substrate with an insulator therebetween.

2. The first substrate is opposite the second substrate with an insulator therebetween.

3. The first substrate is opposed to the second substrate with an insulator therebetween.

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Here’s a comparison of your alternatives:

1. "The first substrate opposes the second substrate with an insulator therebetween."

   • "Opposes" is grammatically correct but can imply a sense of resistance or conflict, which may not fit well in a technical context. "Therebetween" is a formal and somewhat outdated term for "in between" or "between," though it can be acceptable in legal or technical writing.

2. "The first substrate is opposite the second substrate with an insulator therebetween."

   • This phrasing is clearer. "Is opposite" correctly describes the positioning without implying resistance, and "therebetween" maintains a formal tone. However, using "in between" or "between" would sound more modern and natural.

3. "The first substrate is opposed to the second substrate with an insulator therebetween."

   • "Is opposed to" can sound similar to "opposes," suggesting a conflict, which might make it less suitable for a neutral, descriptive context. "Therebetween" still adds formality, but could be replaced for simplicity.

Among these, option 2 ("is opposite") is the clearest and most neutral. However, the original translation ("faces") might still be preferable for its simplicity and directness.

あなた:

How about "The first substrate is disposed opposite the second substrate with an insulator in between"

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"The first substrate is disposed opposite the second substrate with an insulator in between" is a clear and accurate translation. Using "disposed" maintains a technical tone, and "opposite" correctly describes the positioning. Additionally, "in between" is straightforward and more modern than "therebetween," making the overall phrasing effective and natural for technical contexts.

This version strikes a good balance between precision and readability.

部分的：partly, partially

Translate: 厚さ方向から見て基板と部分的に重なる絶縁体。

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"An insulator that partially overlaps with the substrate when viewed from the thickness direction."

あなた:

How about "partly" instead of "partially"?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"An insulator that partly overlaps with the substrate when viewed from the thickness direction."

This version is also correct. "Partly" and "partially" are often interchangeable, though "partially" is slightly more common in technical contexts.

あなた:

Translate: 部分的に導電性を有する絶縁体

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"An insulator that is partially conductive."

あなた:

Is it the same as "An insulator that is partly conductive"?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Yes, "An insulator that is partly conductive" and "An insulator that is partially conductive" have the same meaning. Both are correct, but "partially conductive" might be slightly more commonly used in technical contexts.

ずれて配置：offset

Is the following sentence correct, grammatically or otherwise? "The light-emitting part is disposed so as to be offset to the left."

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Yes, the sentence is grammatically correct and understandable. However, the phrasing "disposed so as to be offset to the left" can sound a bit formal or technical. Depending on the context, you could simplify it to:

• "The light-emitting part is positioned slightly to the left."
• "The light-emitting part is offset to the left."

These alternatives are less formal but convey the same meaning. If you need to maintain technical phrasing, your original sentence works well.

あなた:

How about "The light-emitting part is disposed offset to the left"?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"The light-emitting part is disposed offset to the left" is grammatically correct, but it sounds slightly awkward. The word "disposed" is a technical term often used in engineering, but pairing it directly with "offset" in this way can make the sentence less clear. A more natural phrasing might be:

• "The light-emitting part is disposed so that it is offset to the left."
• "The light-emitting part is positioned offset to the left."

These options maintain the technical tone while improving clarity.

主、副、主副：ハイフン

Translate: ヘッドライトは主発光部と副発光部を有する。

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"The headlight consists of a main light-emitting section and an auxiliary light-emitting section."

あなた:

How about the following alternatives for "auxiliary light-emitting"?

1. Sub-light-emitting

2. Sub light-emitting

3. Sub-light emitting

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Here are my thoughts on the alternatives:

1. "Sub-light-emitting" - This is understandable but may sound a bit unconventional. The hyphen makes it clear that "sub" modifies "light-emitting," but "sub-" is not commonly used in this context.

2. "Sub light-emitting" - Without the hyphen, it can be ambiguous. It may not clearly convey that "sub" is modifying "light-emitting," and could be read as "sub" and "light-emitting" as separate terms.

3. "Sub-light emitting" - This is also somewhat ambiguous, and it’s unclear if "sub-light" is intended to be a separate entity or if "sub" is modifying "light emitting."

For clarity and conventional phrasing, "auxiliary light-emitting" remains the best option. If "sub-" is important, then consider "secondary light-emitting section" or use a hyphenated "sub-light-emitting section" to maintain clear meaning.

あなた:

Translate:ヘッドライトは主電源部と副電源部を有する。

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"The headlight has a main power supply unit and an auxiliary power supply unit."

あなた:

How about "sub-power supply unit" or "sub-power-supply unit" instead of "auxiliary power supply unit"?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Both "sub-power supply unit" and "sub-power-supply unit" could work, but they have slight differences:

1. "Sub-power supply unit" - This is clear and understandable. Using "sub-" indicates a secondary or subordinate unit. It’s slightly less conventional than "auxiliary," but still effective.

2. "Sub-power-supply unit" - Adding the hyphen between "power" and "supply" creates a clearer compound modifier. It emphasizes that "sub" applies to the entire "power-supply unit," improving readability. However, it might feel a bit over-hyphenated.

Overall, "sub-power supply unit" is a good alternative, though "auxiliary" remains more standard and widely understood.

の前方に光を照射

Translate: このヘッドライトは車両の前方に光を照射する。

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"The headlight illuminates the area in front of the vehicle."

あなた:

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

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"The headlight projects light forward from the vehicle."

あなた:

How about the following?

1. The headlight projects light ahead of the vehicle.

2. The headlight emits light in front of the vehicle.

3. The headlight radiates light forwardly of the vehicle.

4. The headlight irradiates light forward of the vehicle.

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Here are my thoughts on the translations you provided:

1. "The headlight projects light ahead of the vehicle." - This is clear and natural. "Ahead of" is a good alternative to "in front of," making this a solid option.

2. "The headlight emits light in front of the vehicle." - Also a good translation. "Emits" is a straightforward term, but "in front of" can be slightly less specific than "projects" or "shines," as it might imply a shorter range of light.

3. "The headlight radiates light forwardly of the vehicle." - The use of "radiates" is technically correct but less common in everyday language for describing headlights. "Forwardly of" is somewhat awkward and might be better replaced with just "forward."

4. "The headlight irradiates light forward of the vehicle." - "Irradiates" is a more technical term and is typically used in scientific contexts (e.g., radiation, medical), so it may sound unusual in this context. "Forward of" works, but the overall phrase might be too technical for general use.

If you want to prioritize clarity and natural phrasing, I would recommend option 1 or 2.

旋回可能、回転可能、転舵

US11072973(REGALO INT LLC [US])
[0008] Another feature of the present invention is the provision in such a gated barrier, of the visual indicator apparatus including a hand wheel and a threaded shaft, where the threaded shaft includes inner and outer ends, where the inner end of the threaded shaft is insertable into the second standard, where the outer end of the threaded shaft is adjacent to one of the opposing surfaces, where the hand wheel turns on the threaded shaft and is turnable against the second standard so as to draw the second standard from an oblique relationship with the threshold to a right angle relationship with the threshold, and where the hand wheel includes a receptacle formed therein with the receptacle opening toward the second standard.

US11919568(FORD GLOBAL TECH LLC [US])
[0012] A further aspect of this disclosure is directed to a vehicle having a pair of turnable wheels, a steering system having steering linkage connecting a steering wheel to the pair of turnable wheels, and a controller programmed to control the steering system to perform an autopark maneuver. The pair of turnable wheels have tires disposed around the wheels. The steering system has a steering-wheel torque sensor configured to monitor steering-wheel torque. The steering system has a power-steering motor coupled with the steering linkage configured to provide torque into the steering system to turn the pair of turnable wheels. The steering system also has a power-steering motor torque sensor configured to monitor power-steering motor torque.

US10570660(CARLSON PET PRODUCTS INC [US])
[0005] Another feature of the present invention is the provision in a sliding expanding incrementally adjustable barrier having two partition frames sliding parallel to each other in two parallel planes spaced apart from each other, of a threaded rod engaged to one of the partition frames, of a tube engaged to the other partition frame and the threaded rod being received in the tube, and of a piece having a threaded opening and being turnable on the threaded rod such that the piece can incrementally bring pressure to bear upon an end of the tube and thereby incrementally draw the partitions apart and incrementally expand an effective length of the barrier to pressurize the barrier between two locations such as between two jambs of a doorway.

 

Is "turnable" a proper English word?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Yes, "turnable" is a proper English word, but it is not very common. It means "capable of being turned" or "able to be rotated." While it's technically correct, in many contexts, more familiar terms like "rotatable" or "pivotable" might be preferred, especially in technical descriptions.

If you're aiming for clarity and natural usage, consider using "rotatable" if it fits the context.

浴び心地

US2022266269(TOTO LTD [JP])
[0078] In addition, in the water spouting apparatus 1 of the present embodiment, vortex street conduit 26 formed in downstream member 20 is constituted so that its height is smoothly diminished toward the downstream ( FIG. 6 and FIGS. 11 through 14), therefore the flow velocity of water flowing into downstream member 20 gradually increases toward the downstream.
【００５７】
  さらに、本実施形態の吐水装置１によれば、下流側部材２０に形成された渦列通路２６は、下流に向かって滑らかに高さが低くなるように構成されている（図６、図１１乃至図１４）ので、下流側部材２０に流入した水の流速は下流に向かって少しずつ上昇する。

As a result, the flow velocity of water flowing in vortex street conduit 26 can be made to approach the flow velocity when water flows out from upstream member 18 , and the negative effects of dividing the vortex street conduit 26 into two members can be ameliorated.
これにより、渦列通路２６内を流れる水の流速を、上流側部材１８から流出した際の流速に近づけることができ、渦列通路２６を２つの部材に分割して構成したことによる悪影響を軽減することができる。

Also, since vortex street conduit 26 in downstream member 20 is constituted so that its height diminishes smoothly without a step difference,
また、下流側部材２０内の渦列通路２６は、段差なく、滑らかに高さが低くなるように構成されているので、

it is less susceptible to the effects of vortices included in water flowing in the conduit, and water can be discharged at the desired oscillation angle and showering comfort.
通路内を流れる水に含まれる渦に影響を与えにくく、所望の往復振動角度、及び浴び心地で水を吐出させることができる。

US9821326(LIXIL CORP [JP])
[0009] In contrast, when the pulse shower device is enlarged,
【０００６】
  これに対してパルスシャワー装置を大型化したとき、

for example, when the entire larger-diameter water dispersion plate of the shower head up to an outer peripheral portion thereof is used as the water dispersion plate of the pulse shower device, the impeller is made to have a larger diameter with an increase in the diameter of the water dispersion plate, and thereby, when the pulse shower device is enlarged,
例えばシャワーヘッドの大径の散水板を外周部に到るまで全体的にパルスシャワー装置の散水板として用い、また散水板の大径化に伴って羽根車を大径化し、パルスシャワー装置を大型化したとき、

a sensation while showering in water deteriorates if the shape of the small (small-diameter) impeller is merely made large (made to have a larger diameter) as it is.
単に小さな（小径の）羽根車の形状をそのまま大きく（大径化）しただけであると、シャワーの浴び心地が悪化してしまうことが判明した。

 

Translate: このシャワーノズルはシャワーの浴び心地を改善する。

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"This shower nozzle improves the showering experience."

あなた:

How about the following?

1. This shower nozzle improves the showering feel.

2. This shower nozzle improves the showering sensation.

3. This shower nozzle improves the sensation of showering.

4. This shower nozzle improves the comfort of showering.

5. This shower nozzle improves the feeling one gets from showering.

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

All of these options are grammatically correct, but they have slight differences in nuance:

1. "This shower nozzle improves the showering feel."

   • This sounds less natural. "Feel" can be a bit vague, and it might not fully convey the intended sense of comfort or quality.

2. "This shower nozzle improves the showering sensation."

   • This is more specific, focusing on the physical sensations. It sounds more technical and could work well in certain contexts, though it might not feel as natural in everyday language.

3. "This shower nozzle improves the sensation of showering."

   • Similar to option 2 but slightly more natural. It still has a technical tone but flows better as a complete phrase.

4. "This shower nozzle improves the comfort of showering."

   • This is clear and natural, emphasizing the comfort aspect. It directly addresses how the nozzle enhances the experience.

5. "This shower nozzle improves the feeling one gets from showering."

   • This is casual and descriptive, but it feels wordier than necessary. It conveys the idea but might be less concise than needed.

Among these, option 4 is the most straightforward and natural, making it a strong choice for general use.

吸引：suction

Translate: 気体吸引ステップでは容器内から気体が吸引される。

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"In the gas suction step, gas is drawn from the container."

あなた:

How about "In the gas suction step, gas is suctioned out of the container"?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"In the gas suction step, gas is suctioned out of the container" is grammatically correct, but "suctioned" can sound less natural in this context. "Drawn out" or "extracted" might be more commonly used in technical descriptions. However, if you want to emphasize the action of using suction, your version is still acceptable.

Overall, it depends on the tone and precision you're aiming for:

• "In the gas suction step, gas is drawn out of the container." (more natural)
• "In the gas suction step, gas is suctioned out of the container." (more literal, emphasizing the method)

あなた:

Translate: この掃除機は埃を吸引する吸引力に優れている。

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"This vacuum cleaner excels in suction power for drawing in dust."

少なくとも一部：of which, partly

Translate: この装置は、少なくとも一部が上部電極と対向する下部電極を有する。

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

"This device includes a lower electrode, at least a part of which faces the upper electrode."

あなた:

How about the following?

1. This device includes a lower electrode which at least partly faces the upper electrode.

2. This device includes a lower electrode at least a part of which faces the upper electrode.

3. This device includes a lower electrode of which at least a part faces the upper electrode.

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

All three translations are grammatically correct, but they have slight differences in phrasing. Here's a closer look:

1. "This device includes a lower electrode which at least partly faces the upper electrode."

   • This phrasing emphasizes the extent ("at least partly") to which the lower electrode faces the upper electrode. It flows naturally, but the placement of "at least partly" could be seen as slightly ambiguous.

2. "This device includes a lower electrode at least a part of which faces the upper electrode."

   • This is precise and directly matches the structure of the original sentence. It clearly indicates that a specific part of the lower electrode faces the upper electrode.

3. "This device includes a lower electrode of which at least a part faces the upper electrode."

   • This is also a correct translation and maintains the meaning. It has a slightly more formal tone compared to the other two.

If precision and clarity are important (e.g., in a technical or patent context), I would recommend option 2 as it avoids potential ambiguity and directly mirrors the original structure.

あなた:

Referring to your initial translation "This device includes a lower electrode, at least a part of which faces the upper electrode", why did you place a comma before "at least"? Is it just a matter of personal preference or style, or is it for the purpose of eliminating the potential interpretation that there is another "lower electrode" other than the one at least a part of which faces the upper electrode?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

The placement of the comma in the initial translation—"This device includes a lower electrode, at least a part of which faces the upper electrode"—serves to clarify the sentence structure and eliminate potential ambiguity. Without the comma, there could be a slight chance of misinterpreting it as if there might be multiple lower electrodes, and this one is just one of them.

By adding the comma, it makes it clearer that the clause "at least a part of which faces the upper electrode" is an additional, descriptive phrase directly modifying "the lower electrode." This prevents any misreading that suggests multiple lower electrodes are involved.

In summary, it's more than just a matter of style—it's a deliberate choice to ensure precision and avoid misinterpretation, especially in technical or legal contexts where clarity is essential.

無機含有

US2023106811(UNIV NORTHEASTERN [US])
Based on these limited tests, it can be seen that CNTs generated from the initial use of the catalyst had some inorganic content,
これらの制限的なテストに基づくと、触媒の初回使用により生成されたＣＮＴは幾らかの無機含有物を有していたことが分かる。

which we typically see in such CNTs, in the order of 10%.
これは、このようなＣＮＴでは、我々が通常１０％のオーダーで確認するものである。

This is mostly attributed to metal inclusions in the tubes based on their “tip growth” which detaches and lifts metal particles to the tip of CNTs.
これは、金属粒子を分離してＣＮＴの先端に上昇させる金属混入物の「先端成長」に基づくチューブ内の金属混入物に主に起因する。

WO2017214179(L LIVERMORE NAT SECURITY LLC [US])
[0046] In another embodiment, the glass-forming material may be a single composition of inorganic particles, for example, but not limited to, fumed silica, colloidal silica, LUDOX colloidal silica dispersion, titania particles, zirconia particles, alumina particles, metal chalcogenide particles (e.g. CdS, CdSe, ZnS, PbS), etc.
【００２３】
  他の実施形態では、ガラス形成材料は無機粒子の単一組成物、たとえば、ヒュームドシリカ、コロイドシリカ、ＬＵＤＯＸコロイドシリカ分散液、チタニア粒子、ジルコニア粒子、アルミナ粒子、金属カルコゲナイド粒子（たとえば、ＣｄＳ、ＣｄＳｅ、ＺｎＳ、ＰｂＳ）などであるが、これらに限定されるわけではない。

In yet other embodiments, the glass-forming material may be a single composition of inorganic- containing particles.
さらに他の実施形態では、ガラス形成材料は無機物含有粒子の単一組成物でもよい。