和訳のお願いです。 -意味論についての論文だと思いますが、和訳お願いいたし-

自然記号に関する論文の和訳について

自然記号(煙＝火）と慣習的な記号(赤旗＝危険）の例をあげて動詞"mean"の様々な使い方に関する論文なのですが、内容が難しく、上手に和訳できません。大体の意味を取るだけでなく、他の人にも読んでもらうことを考慮して和訳していただきたくお願いいたします。 (1)Whereas smoke is a natural sign of fire, causally connected with what it signifies, the red flag is a conventional sign of danger: it is a culturally established symbol. These distinctions between the intentional and the nonintentional, on the one hand, and between what is natural and what is conventional, or symbolic, on the other, play a central part in the theoretical investigation of meaning. (2)That the verb 'mean' is being employed in different senses in the examples that I have used so far is evident from the fact that Mary means trouble is ambiguous: it can be taken like Mary means well or like Smoke means fire. Indeed, with a little imagination it is possible to devise a context, or scenario, in which the verb 'mean' in Mary means trouble can be plausibly interpreted in the way that it would normally be interpreted in That red flag means danger. Most language-utterances, we shall see, depend for their interpretation upon the context in which they are used. And the vast majority of them have a wider range of meanings than first come to mind. Utterances containing the word 'meaning' (or the verb 'mean') are no different from other English utterances in this respect.

英語の例文は原文のままでいいのでしょうか？（翻訳）

以下の英文を翻訳するとき、(1)の"the red flag is a conventional sign of danger"や(2)の"Mary means trouble","Mary means well","Smoke means fire"等の例文として挙げている文は原文のままでいいのでしょうか？また、その例文の箇所に""(ダブルクオーテーション）等つけた方がいいのでしょうか？お時間があれば以下の英文を翻訳していただけないでしょうか？よろしくお願いいたします。 (1)Whereas smoke is a natural sign of fire, causally connected with what it signifies, the red flag is a conventional sign of danger: it is a culturally established symbol. These distinctions between the intentional and the nonintentional, on the one hand, and between what is natural and what is conventional, or symbolic, on the other, play a central part in the theoretical investigation of meaning. (2)That the verb 'mean' is being employed in different senses in the examples that I have used so far is evident from the fact that Mary means trouble is ambiguous: it can be taken like Mary means well or like Smoke means fire. Indeed, with a little imagination it is possible to devise a context, or scenario, in which the verb 'mean' in Mary means trouble can be plausibly interpreted in the way that it would normally be interpreted in That red flag means danger. Most language-utterances, we shall see, depend for their interpretation upon the context in which they are used. And the vast majority of them have a wider range of meanings than first come to mind. Utterances containing the word 'meaning' (or the verb 'mean') are no different from other English utterances in this respect.

和訳お願い致します。

It is obvious, then, to start with, that by Mind we may mean two very different things, according as we contemplate it in our own individual selves, or as manifested by other beings. For if I contemplate my own mind, I have an imme diate cognizance of a certain flow of thoughts and feelings, which are the most ultimate things — and, indeed, the only things— of which I am cognizant. But if I contemplate Mind in other persons or organisms, I can have no such immediate cognizance of their thoughts and feelings ; I can only infer the existence of such thoughts and feelings from the activities of the persons or organisms which appear to manifest them. Thus it is that by Mind we may mean either that which is subjective or that which is objective. Now throughout the present work we shall have to consider Mind as an object ; and therefore it is well to remember that our only instrument of analysis is the observation of activities which we infer to be prompted by, or associated with, mental antecedents or accompaniments analogous to those of which we are directly conscious in our own subjective experience. That is to say, starting from what I know subjectively of the operations of my own individual mind, and of the activi ties which in my own organism these operations seem to prompt, I proceed by analogy to infer from the observable activities displayed by other organisms, the fact that certain mental operations underlie or accompany these activities.

和訳お願い致します。

The point is that, notwithstanding special difficulties in assigning this or that being to one or the other class, the psychological classification which I advocate resembles the zoological classification which I have cited ; it is a valid classification, inasmuch as it recognizes a distinction where there is certainly something to distinguish. For even if we take the most mechanical view of mental processes that is possible, and suppose that conscious intelligence plays no part whatever in determining action, there still remains the fact that such conscious intelligence exists, and that prior to certain actions it is always affected in certain ways. Therefore, even if we suppose that the state of things is, so to speak, accidental, and that the actions in question would always he performed in precisely the same way whether or not they were thus connected with consciousness, it would still remain desirable, for scientific purposes, that a marked distinction should be drawn between cases of activity that proceed without, and those that proceed with this remarkable association with consciousness. As the phenomena of subjectivity are facts at any rate no less real than those of objectivity, if it is found that some of the latter are invariably and faithfully mirrored in those of the former, such pheno mena, for this reason alone, deserve to be placed in a distinct scientific category, even though it were proved that the mirror of subjectivity might be removed without affecting any of the phenomena of objectivity.

和訳をお願いいたします

英文の和訳をしていただけるかたのみで、お願いできますでしょうか？抽象的かもしれませんがどうぞよろしくお願いいたします。 There is no Uranus aspect to your house of soulmates A planet that lacks aspects also shows what the relationship lacks. This means the relationship will be more conventional than you think, or want it to be. It may also lack surprises, so that once it has begun there is nothing really unexpected or sudden in the love that develops or follows. This planet placement can also mean that there is less turbulence and no sudden interruptions or disruptions that spoil; or upset your romantic life, less inclination to break up. Your emotions may be strong but cautious at the same time. There will be consistency in the relationship and you will know how you stand as times goes on, a leveling out, rather than great mountains and swooping disappointments or valleys in the terrain of love. Your love life, or choice of soulmate will be temperate, and will not be, impulsive or dangerous or too unorthodox, however unique this love is, it will not be irregular.. or inconstant. This position of Uranus also means that you may meet the soulmate, the greatest of all your loves and will be happy with him, how he is, not wanting to change or reform him greatly.

和訳お願い致します。

It is, then, adaptive action by a living organism in cases where the inherited machinery of the nervous system does not furnish data for our prevision of what the adaptive action must necessarily be — it is only in such cases that we recognize the element of mind. In other words, ejectively con sidered, the distinctive element of mind is consciousness, the test of consciousness is the presence of choice, and the evidence of choice is the antecedent uncertainty of adjustive action between two or more alternatives. To this analysis it is, however, needful to add that, although our only criterion of mind is antecedent uncertainty of adjustive action, it does not follow that all adjustive action in which mind is con cerned should be of an antecedently uncertain character; or, which is the same thing, [it does'nt follow] that because some such action may be of an antecedently certain character, we should on this account regard it as non-mental. Many adjustive actions which we recognize as mental are, nevertheless, seen before hand to be, under the given circumstances, inevitable ; but analysis would show that such is only the case when we have in view agents whom we already, and from independent videuce, regard as mental.

和訳をお願い致します(長めです)。

和訳をお願いします。自分で訳してみたのですが、どうも意味が分かり辛い部分が合って、うまく把握できないので、どなたか和訳をして頂けると助かります。アメリカの交通違反の違反切符についての説明の一部です。 Q：What does it mean to plead “no contest” to a criminal or traffic offense? A: A plea is a person’s formal response to a criminal or traffic charge. A person charged with a criminal or traffic offense is called the defendant. The defendant can choose from the pleas of guilty, not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity, or no-contest. Entering a plea refers to the judge’s act of formally noting a defendant’s plea, or “entering” it, in the court’s official file. If you enter a no-contest plea, it means that, while you do not admit your guilt, you do admit the truth of the facts alleged in the indictment, information or complaint (the so-called “charging” documents that start a criminal or traffic case). No-contest pleas are sometimes know as “nolo contendere” or just “nolo” pleas. Q: So what’s the difference between pleading guilty and pleading no contest? A: Good question. Sometimes there’s no difference whatsoever and sometimes there’s a big difference. If you plead guilty, you are admitting to the facts and the legal consequences of those facts. The benefit of a no-contest plea (when you admit the facts, but not your guilt) is that it allows you to avoid a trial if your defense has become hopeless, but it prevents the plea from being used against you in any later civil or criminal proceeding. It also allows you the opportunity to appeal rulings by the court, such as rulings allowing certain evidence to be used by the government.

和訳お願い致します。

It should be borne in mind,' says Dr. Buckland, that the object of the account was, not to state in what manner, but by whom the world was made.' Every one must see that this is an unfounded assertion, inasmuch as the greater part of the narrative consists in a minute and orderly description of the manner in which things were made. We can know nothing as to the object of the account, except from the account itself. What the writer meant to state is just that which he has stated, for all that we can know to the contrary. Or can we seriously beleive that if appealed to by one of his Hebrew hearers or readers as to his intention, he would have replied, My only object in what I have written is to inform you that God made the world; as to the manner of His doing it, of which I have given so exact an account, I have no intention that my words should be taken in their literal meaning? We come then to this, that if we sift the Mosaic narrative of all definite meaning, and only allow it to be the expression of the most vague generalities, if we avow that it admits of no certain interpretation, of none that may not be shifted and altered as often as we see fit, and as the exigencies of geology may require, then may we reconcile it with what science teaches. This mode of dealing with the subject has been broadly advocated by a recent writer of mathematical eminence, who adopts the Bucklandian hypothesis, a passage from whose work we shall quote.

和訳お願い致します。

Our earth then is but one of the lesser pendants of a body[a body=the sun]which is itself only an inconsiderable unit in the vast creation.And now if we withdraw our thoughts for the immensities of space and look into the construction of man's obscure home,the first question is whether it has ever been in any other condition than that in which we now see it,and if so,what are the stages through which it has passed,and what was its first traceable state. Here geology steps in and successfully carriers back the history of earth's crust to a very remote period,until it arrives at a region of uncertainty,where philosophy is reduced to mere guesses and possibilities and pronounces nothing definite. To this region belong the speculation which have been ventured upon as to the original conccretion of the earth and planets our of nebular matter of which the sun may have been the nucles.

和訳お願い致します。

Two points have to be observed with regard to this criterion, in whichever verbal form we may choose to express it. The first is that it is not rigidly exclusive either, on the one hand, of a possibly mental character in apparently non- mental adjustments, or, conversely, of a possibly non-mental character in apparently mental adjustments. For it is certain that failure to learn by individual experience is not always conclusive evidence against the existence of mind; such failure may arise merely from an imperfection of memroy, or from there not being enough of the mind-element present to make the adjustments needful to meet the novel circum stances. Conversely, it is no less certain that some parts of our own nervous system, which are not concerned in the phenomena of consciousness, are nevertheless able in some measure to learn by individual experience. The nervous apparatus of the stomach, for instance, is able in so con siderable a degree to adapt the movements of that organ to the requirements of its individual experience, that were the organ an organism we might be in danger of regarding it as dimly intelligent. Still there is no evidence to show that non-mental agents are ever able in any considerable measure thus to simulate the adjustments performed by mental ones ; and therefore our criterion, in its practical application, has rather to be guarded against the opposite danger of defying the presence of mind to agents that are really mental For, as I observed in " Animal Intelligence," " it is clear that long before mind has advanced sufficiently far in the scale of development to become amenable to the test in question, it has probably begun to dawn as nascent subjectivity. In other words, because a lowly organized animal does not learn by its own individual experience, we may not therefore con clude that in performing its natural or ancestral adaptations to appropiate stimuli, consciousness, or the mind-element, is wholly absent ; we can only say that this element, if present, reveals no evidence of the fact. But, on the other hand, if a lowly organized animal does learn by its own individual experience, we are in possession of the best available evi dence of conscious memory leading to intentional adaptation. Therefore, our criterion applies to the upper limit of non- mental action, not to the lower limit of mental[action]''.

和訳お願い致します。

こんにちは。和訳をしていたのですが、どう訳せば自然な日本語になるのか分からず、止まってしまっています。和訳宜しくお願い致します。本文：As a designer of clothing and what we call fashion, we must readapt our approach entirely to a world spiraling into chaos by a system of human civilization and philosophies that is not working--and whether humanity likes it or not--will change rapidly. 宜しくお願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

In actual research these three objects are prosecuted, not successively, but simultaneously. Thus it is not necessary in either case that the final object — that of classification- should wait for its commencement upon the completion of the dissection or analysis of every organism or every mental structure that is to be found upon the earth. On the con trary, the comparison in each case begins with the facts that are first found to be comparable, and is afterwards pro gressively extended as knowledge of additional facts becomes more extensive. * The word " structure " is used in a metaphorical sense when applied to mind, but the usage it convenient.

この文章を和訳してください

Ｉｔ is only in the present dimension of time-that which lies between past and future,between what has already happened what is yet to comethat freedom and the priority of the political for the human world fully emerge in Arendt's thought.For her the political is by no means the be-all and end-all of human experience. It is distinct from “what we can do and create in the singular: in isolation like the artist,in solitude like the philosopher,in the inherently worldless relationship between human beings as it exists in love and sometimes in friendship.

英語の訳し方

That the verb 'mean' is being employed in different senses in the examples that I have used so far is evident from the fact that Mary means trouble is ambiguous. の訳し方が非常に難しいです。確かに全体の意味の捉え方としては「私がこれまであげたいくつかの例の中で'mean’という動詞がことなった意味で使われていることは”メアリーには問題がある。”という使い方があいまいであるということから明白である。」という捉え方にしかなりませんが,これを英会話の中で聞いたとしてすぐに意味がわかるかというと絶対にわかりません。何かコツは無いでしょうか？

和訳お願い致します。

Now in this necessarily ejective method of enquiry, what is the kind of activities that we are entitled to regard as indicative of mind ? I certainly do not so regard the flowing of a river or the blowing of a wind. Why ? First, because the subjects are too remote in kind from my own organism to admit of my drawing any reasonable analogy between them and it; and, secondly, because the activities which they present are invariably of the same kind under the same circumstances : they therefore offer no evidence of that which I deem the distinctive character of my own mind as such — Consciousness. In other words, two conditions require to he satisfied before we even begin to imagine that observable activities are indicative of mind ; the activities must be dis played by a living organism, and they must be of a kind to suggest the presence of consciousness. What then is to be taken as the criterion of consciousness ? Subjectively, no criterion is either needful or possible ; for to me, individually, nothing can be more ultimate than my own consciousness, and, therefore, my consciousness cannot admit of any criterion having a claim to a higher certainty. But, ejectively, some such criterion is required, and as my consciousness cannot come within the territory of a foreign consciousness, I can only appreciate the latter through the agency of ambassadors — these ambassadors being, as I have now so frequently said, the observable activities of an organism. The next question, therefore, is, What activities of an organism are to be taken as indicative of consciousness ? The answer that comes most readily is, — All activities that are indicative of Choice; wherever wo see a living organism apparently exerting inten tional choice, we may infer that it is conscious choice, and, therefore, that the organism has a mind. But physiology shows that this answer will not do ; for, while not disputing whether there is any mind without the power of conscious choice, physiology, as we shall see in the next chapter, is very firm in denying that all apparent choice is due to mind.

和訳お願い致します。

Without, therefore, entertaining the question as to the connexion between Body and Mind, it is enough to say that under any view concerning the nature of this connexion, we are justified in drawing a distinction between activities which are accompanied by feelings, and activities which, so far as we can see, are not so accompanied. If this is allowed, there seems, to be no term better fitted to convey the distinction than the term Choice ; agents that are able to choose their actions are agents that are able to feel the stimuli which determine the choice. Such being our Criterion of Mind, it admits of being otherwise stated, and in a more practically applicable manner, in the following words which I quote from " Animal Intelli gence :" — " It is, then, adaptive action by a living organism in cases where the inherited machinery of the nervous system does not furnish data for our prevision of what the adaptive action must necessarily be — it is only here that we recognize the objective evidence of mind. The criterion of mind, therefore, which I propose, and to which I shall adhere throughout the present volume, is as follows : — Does the organism learn to make new adjustments, or to modify old ones, in accordance with the results of its own individual experience ? If it does so, the fact cannot be merely due to reflex action in the sense above described ; for it is impossible that heredity can have provided in advance for innovations upon or alterations of its machinery during the lifetime of a particular individual".

和訳お願い致します。

We venture to think that the world at large will continue to consider the account in the first chapter of Genesis to be a cosmogony. But as it is here admitted that it does not describe physical realities, but only outward appearances, that is, gives a description false in fact, and one which can teach us no scientific truth whatever, it seems to matter little what we call it. If its description of the events of the six days which it comprises be merely one of appearances and not of realities, it can teach us nothing regarding them. Dissatisfied with the scheme of conciliation which has been discussed, other geologists have proposed to give an entirely mythical or enigmatical sense to the Mosaic narrative, and to consider the creative days described as vast periods of time. This plan was long ago suggested, but it has of late enjoyed a high degree of popularity, through the advocacy of the Scotch geologist Hugh Miller, an extract from whose work has been already quoted. Dr. Buckland gives the following account of the first form in which this theory was propounded, and of the grounds upon which he rejected it in favour of that of Chalmers:

和訳お願い致します。

The early speculator was harassed by no such scruples, and asserted as facts what he knew in reality only as probabilities. But we are not on that account to doubt his perfect good faith, nor need we attribute to him wilful misrepresentation, or consciousness of asserting that which he knew not to be true. He had seized one great truth, in which, indeed, he anticipated the highest revelation of modern enquiry -- namely, the unity of the design of the world, and its subordination to one sole Maker and Lawgiver. With regard to details, observation failed him. He knew little of the earth's surface, or of its shape and place in the universe; the infinite varieties of organized existences which people it, the distinct floras and faunas of its different continents, were unknown to him. But he saw that all which lay within his observation bad been formed for the benefit and service of man, and the goodness of the Creator to his creatures was the thought predominant in his mind. Man's closer relations to his Maker is indicated by the representation that he was formed last of all creatures, and in the visible likeness of God. For ages, this simple view of creation satisfied the wants of man, and formed a sufficient basis of theological teaching, and if modern research now shows it to be physically untenable, our respect for the narrative which has played so important a part in the culture of our race need be in nowise diminished. No one contends that it can be used as a basis of astronomical or geological teaching, and those who profess to see in it an accordance with facts, only do this sub modo, and by processes which despoil it of its consistency and grandeur, both which may be preserved if we recognise in it, not an authentic utterance of Divine knowledge, but a human utterance, which it has pleased Providence to use Providence a special way for the education of mankind.

和訳お願い致します。

Now, in answer to this objection, I have only to say that no one can have a more lively appreciation than myself of the supreme importance of experimental or historical veri fication, in all cases where the possibility of such verification is attainable. But in cases where such verification is not attainable, what are we to do ? We may clearly do either of two things. We may either neglect to investigate the sub ject at all, or we may Jo our best to investigate it by employ ing the only means of .investigation which are at our disposal. Of these two courses there can be no doubt which is the one that the scientific spirit prompts. The true scientific spirit desires to examine everything, and if in any case it is refused the best class of instruments wherewith to conduct the examination, it will adopt the next best that are available. In such cases science clearly cannot be forwarded by neglect ing to use these instruments, while her cause may be greatly advanced by using them with care. This is proved by the fict that, in the science of psychology, nearly all the con siderable advances which have been made, have been made, not by experiment, but by observing mental phenomena and reasoning from these phenomena deductively. In such cases, therefore, the true scientific spirit prompts us, not to throw away deductive reasoning where it is so frequently the onlyinstrument available, but rather to cany it with us, and to use it as not abusing it.

英文の訳　　文法について

one of the first rules as t how to read a book is to know what sort of book it is. That means knowing what intention the author had and what sort of thing you can expect to find in his work 本の読み方でまず身につけるべきことの１つは、それがどんな類の本なのかを知ることである。つまり、筆者がどんな意図をもっていたのか、その本を読めばどんなことがわかると思えるのかということを知ることである what sort of book it isのit　isはなんのためでしょうか？必要ありますか？又、That meansからの訳がさっぽりわかりません。解説していだだけないでしょうか？

和訳のお願いです。

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

その他の回答 (2)

お礼 2002/11/29 22:49

関連するQ&A

自然記号に関する論文の和訳について

英語の例文は原文のままでいいのでしょうか？（翻訳）

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳をお願いいたします

和訳お願い致します。

和訳をお願い致します(長めです)。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

この文章を和訳してください

英語の訳し方

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

英文の訳　　文法について

注目のQ&A

カテゴリ

あなたにピッタリな商品が見つかる！ OKWAVE セレクト

専門家に質問してみよう

和訳のお願いです。

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

その他の回答 (2)

お礼 2002/11/29 22:49

関連するQ&A

自然記号に関する論文の和訳について

英語の例文は原文のままでいいのでしょうか？（翻訳）

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳をお願いいたします

和訳お願い致します。

和訳をお願い致します(長めです)。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

この文章を和訳してください

英語の訳し方

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

和訳お願い致します。

英文の訳 文法について

注目のQ&A

カテゴリ

あなたにピッタリな商品が見つかる！ OKWAVE セレクト

専門家に質問してみよう

英文の訳　　文法について