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.