左右

左右

日本人は気にしてるけどネイティブはあまり気にしない文法ミス6選

 

Is it generally more conventional or customary to say "right and left" rather than "left and right"?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

In English, it is generally more conventional and customary to say "left and right" rather than "right and left", especially in informal speech and writing. However, there are exceptions:

1. "Left and right":

   • Common in everyday usage.
   • Often reflects the natural order when describing directions or positions, as people tend to think from left to right, similar to reading in English.

2. "Right and left":

   • May be used in formal or specific contexts, such as legal or technical language, or when "right" has a particular priority (e.g., emphasizing the right-hand side in certain standards or conventions).
   • Sometimes seen in fixed phrases or idiomatic expressions.

If you're working in a technical or formal context (like a patent or instruction manual), it's a good idea to follow the style used in similar documents. In casual contexts, "left and right" is more intuitive for most readers.

Would you like guidance for a specific application?

組み付け

車両に組み付けられた車載装置

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

An onboard device mounted on the vehicle.

Alternatively:
A vehicle-mounted onboard device.

Let me know if you'd like any refinements or alternative suggestions!

あなた:

How about 1. An onboard device assembled to the vehicle. 2. An onboard device assembled onto the vehicle. 3. An onboard device assembled in the vehicle. 4. An onboard device mounted in the vehicle. 5. An onboard device attached to the vehicle. 6. An onboard device attached in the vehicle. 7. An onboard device mounted to the vehicle.

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Here’s an evaluation of your options in terms of precision and natural usage:

1. An onboard device assembled to the vehicle.

   • This is grammatically correct but somewhat unusual phrasing. "Assembled to" is less common than "assembled on" or "assembled into."

2. An onboard device assembled onto the vehicle.

   • This works, but "onto" emphasizes the idea of being placed on the exterior of the vehicle, which might not align with typical "onboard device" usage (usually internal).

3. An onboard device assembled in the vehicle.

   • Correct and clear, emphasizing the device is inside the vehicle. Suitable for internal onboard systems.

4. An onboard device mounted in the vehicle.

   • This works well, especially if the device is securely installed inside the vehicle. "Mounted" implies a more permanent installation.

5. An onboard device attached to the vehicle.

   • Correct and versatile. "Attached to" suggests a general attachment to the vehicle, possibly external or internal.

6. An onboard device attached in the vehicle.

   • Slightly less common than "mounted in" but still works if the device is inside the vehicle.

7. An onboard device mounted to the vehicle.

   • Acceptable but slightly less natural than "mounted on" or "mounted in," as "to" doesn't strongly specify the attachment location.

Recommendations:

• For general, versatile usage: "An onboard device attached to the vehicle."
• For internal systems: "An onboard device mounted in the vehicle."
• For external systems: "An onboard device mounted onto the vehicle."

Would you like to refine further based on specific context?

被嵌合部

このコネクタは、被嵌合部と、被嵌合部に嵌合する嵌合部を有する。

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

This connector includes a mating portion and a fitting portion that mates with the mating portion.

Let me know if you’d like a different phrasing!

あなた:

How about "This connector includes a fitted portion and a fitting portion that fits with the fitted portion"?

ChatGPT:

ChatGPT

Your phrasing, "This connector includes a fitted portion and a fitting portion that fits with the fitted portion", is grammatically correct, but it might sound slightly repetitive or awkward because "fitted" and "fitting" are very similar in sound and meaning.

If you want to keep a clear distinction while maintaining readability, you could consider something like this:
"This connector includes a fitted portion and a fitting portion that engages with the fitted portion."

This avoids overusing "fit" while still conveying the intended relationship. Would you prefer this, or should we stick closer to your original phrasing?

面積平均粒径

US6759487(DOW CORNING [US])
 As used herein, "average particle size"
本明細書で用いる場合、「平均粒径」とは、

means area average particle size that is typically determined by evaluating a representative sample of the composition by microscopic techniques for the average area of the internal silicone elastomer particles. 
一般に、内部シリコーンエラストマー粒子の平均面積に関して、顕微鏡的技法で組成物の代表サンプルを評価することによって普通決定される面積平均粒径を意味する。

US2023037508(MITSUI MINING & SMELTING CO LTD [JP])

【００１９】
＜ＣＳ値＞

Regarding a powder, the CS value of the powder means a surface area per unit volume of the powder calculated on the assumption that each of the particles constituting the powder has a spherical shape. The unit is m2 /cm3 . 
ある粉末に関し、当該粉末のＣＳ値は、当該粉末を構成する粒子の形状を球形と仮定した場合の、当該粉末の単位体積あたりの表面積であり、単位はｍ^２／ｃｍ^３である。

The CS value of the powder is calculated from the following formula: CS value (m2 /cm3 )=6/MA, based on a volume-based particle size distribution of the powder measured by a laser diffraction scattering particle size distribution measurement method.
粉末のＣＳ値は、レーザー回折散乱式粒度分布測定法によって測定される当該粉末の体積基準の粒度分布に基づいて、次式：ＣＳ値（ｍ^２／ｃｍ^３）＝６／ＭＡから求められる。

In the above formula, MA represents an area average particle size (μm), and is obtained from the formula: MA (μm)=ΣVi/Σ(Vi/di), wherein Vi represents a frequency and di represents a median value in a particle size class.
なお、ＭＡは、面積平均粒径（μｍ）であり、次式：ＭＡ（μｍ）＝ΣＶｉ／Σ（Ｖｉ／ｄｉ）［式中、Ｖｉは頻度、ｄｉは粒度区分の中央値である。］から求められる。