 |
kyw | Mar 8, 2016 4:02 AM
Hi guys.おはよう ございます! 私はここで新しいですよ! |
 |
Erelen | Mar 6, 2016 7:48 PM
Ap19 is in most aspects correct. I heard from a Japanese acquaintance, that in some aspects Polish and Japanese are closer to each other than English and Japanese (in terms of honorifics. not words or grammar of course).The second main problem is lack of Polish - Japanese dictionaries. In fact, there are 0. Thanks to ap19, DreamingBeats and now dmrch I was able to improve the knowledge of proper meaning of words. I am really grateful. |
 |
ap19 | Mar 6, 2016 7:43 AM
I second all of dmrch's statements.I believe that a good number of the problems arising from Erelen's comments comes from translating Polish to English to Japanese. No offense, but the wall between Polish to English seems high enough already, not necessarily in terms of grammar and vocabulary, but rather in terms of corpora. I feel as queasy about how these questions are being asked in this survey, but in any case, we might as well stick to Japanese correctness more so than the context of a survey. |
|
Erelen | Mar 6, 2016 1:48 AM
@dmrch: Thank you very much for your help. Some questions have more sense if You could seen all of them. :)@DreamingBeats: Do you think that ...? In which way? It is something from my notes. It looks like, that there are people who answer only one of this two questions, if they're asked one after another (without breaking them into separate blocks). But about this, You should ask someone from sociology, they have a better knowledge than me. |
 |
dmrch | Mar 5, 2016 4:27 PM
@ErelenTranslation from English sentences to Japanese sentences? If so: 1. あなたは賛成でしたか? 反対でしたか? As DreamingBeats said, you need to add more information to this question. I think this sentence is grammatically correct in Japanese but doesn't make sense. 2. 日本政府はどのようにして国民の声に耳を傾けていますか? However, this sentence in Japanese sounds like a question to ask what is an objective fact. As a questionnaire, the following would be better. 日本政府はどのようにして国民の声に耳を傾けていると思いますか? 3. あなたはどの団体を支持していますか? 下記の項目からお選びください。 (1) "どんな" is a casual word from "どのような". Your Japanese sentences were very polite, so the "どんな" was unnatural. (2) The meaning of "支える" includes paying money or directly participating the act of an group. If you wanted to ask such a question, "支える" would be better. (And most of Japanese don't do such things). If you wanted to ask a question including what organization people agree, "支持する" would be better. (3) The word "組織" without other connecting another word sounds a little strange in Japanese. But I can't confirm what word is proper until I see the list below this question. 4. 日本政府はエネルギー政策の分野で活動する非政府組織の意見を尊重する意思があると思いますか? "従事する" usually has meaning of regarding something as the most central stuff to do. Also, this translation is difficult, so I slightly changed the meaning of the original English sentence. When a government do "話し合う" or "対話する", it often sounds like the government talks with another government or terrorists in the Japanese language. 5. それはどのような形においてだと思いますか? 6. 福島第一原子力発電所の事故以降、環境問題に関するあなたの意見は変わりましたか? In such cases, verbs of present tense like "変更しますか" indicate future stuff. |
 |
DreamingBeats | Mar 5, 2016 1:16 PM
i never said that you needed to ask both questions in a single sentence. i meant something likeDo you think that ...? In which way? instead of asking those in separate blocks |
|
Erelen | Mar 5, 2016 1:12 PM
@DreamingBeats: They would make more sense if I would paste all question. But there is 40 of them, and reading them would be too much in my opinion. Question #1 and #6 are in different blocks. The question #5 in previous post was the question do they listen, with possible answers: Yes, No. If they said yes, I'm asking "In which way?". #3 Thank you. #4 and #5: according to text books it is impossible. Asking two question in one sentence/point is considered as one of the biggest mistakes. Don't ask me why, I don't understand it. But it took me over half year to get all questions correct. That was nightmare... Was hoping that I will finish it at the end of January, it was accepted this Thursday. |
|
DreamingBeats | Mar 5, 2016 1:03 PM
#1 opinion about what? i think you need to be more clear, here.i think you meant Did you have a positive or negative opinion in regard to the use of nuclear energy prior to the Fukushima disaster? (since you're using past tense, you're implying that something major happened - which it did - which might have made people change their opinion in regard to the use of nuclear energy) #2 was already asked / answered in a previous post (question #5) #3 sounds too direct, almost rude. maybe something along the lines of "do you support an organization"? would be better. #4 and #5 should be merged together #6 should go right after #1 |
|
Erelen | Mar 5, 2016 12:46 PM
@ap19: Thank you very much! Your answers are really interesting, it is sad that I wasn't able to make a normal survey. Sadly, the Murphy's Law is always correct. :)@DreamingBeats: about Fukushima accident, the more I know the more I see that Japanese government ignored informations that were bad for him. From the person who was in this region just after the March 2011 I heard that there were some signs (or shrines, need to find my notes) showing how high was the previous tsunami. And not that long ago (100 or 200 years ago), there was tsunami that was way higher than what government predicted in the documents (need to verify this part). @DreamingBeats and @ap19: even if nuclear fusion would become a reality, it can change nothing. Over 20 years ago scientists started working on new generations of nuclear reactors. But building new (and safer) reactors cost money (plenty money), so there are no companies who want to. So we are still stuck on the old generation, and noone know for how long. Just after Fukushima many CEOs said that they will introduce new generation soon, but after 5 years... You know what. If anyone could check the last part of questions I would be grateful. I was able to correct few of them after few tries, but some of them still looks weird. :/ Thank you very much for all your help, ap19 and DreamingBeats. |
|
DreamingBeats | Mar 5, 2016 8:28 AM
the goal, according to the article, is being able to heat Hydrogen to 100million for as long as possible by the way. |
|
DreamingBeats | Mar 5, 2016 8:25 AM
not yet, but we're making major progress.China and Germany announced major breakthroughs a month ago, with Germany finally able to heat Hydrogen to 80million Celsius,for a quarter second, and China able to heat it to 50million Celsius for as long as 102 seconds. http://www.gadgette.com/2016/02/09/germany-and-china-make-nuclear-fusion-breakthroughs/ a few experts claim that we'll have nuclear fusion by the year 2020s Dr David Kingham, CEO of Tokamak Energy – a leading company in the production of tokamak machines which are devices used to produce nuclear fusion: “We think we could get first production of [nuclear fusion] electricity by 2025 and then energy into the grid might be a further five years.” http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/644339/EXCLUSIVE-UK-FIRST-country-roll-out-nuclear-fusion-power-plants-say-experts |
|
ap19 | Mar 5, 2016 7:59 AM
核融合って現実的になったの？最近あまり科学の進展については追いきれていないんだが。 |
|
DreamingBeats | Mar 5, 2016 1:18 AM
replace "March 2011 disaster" with nuclear fallout. |
|
DreamingBeats | Mar 5, 2016 1:16 AM
> 日本の場合はそこではなく、設備の災害防止、耐震・対津波用の建築構想などに注力してほしい。well, that's understandable, considering that Fukushima nuclear meltdown was mostly because there were not enough precautions against earthquake / tsunami, which severely weakened the infrastructure, and ultimately caused the March 2011 disaster. nuclear power plant engineers need to take everything into account. even the possibility of giant tsunamis / large-scale earthquakes - which they didn't at the time (or they severely miscalculated the impact that such natural phenomena would affect the infrastructure) nuclear fusion, from what i read, is far more stable than nuclear fission, and would result in less environmental impacts. supposedly anyway. |
|
ap19 | Mar 4, 2016 9:29 PM
原子力開発と聞くと殆どの人は真っ先に核分裂や核融合の制御方法について思い浮かべるけど、日本の場合はそこではなく、設備の災害防止、耐震・対津波用の建築構想などに注力してほしい。核分裂や核融合の研究ならヨーロッパなどに任せればいいが、設備や周辺環境の研究開発がまともにできる先進国って日本だけだろう。 |
|
DreamingBeats | Mar 4, 2016 5:35 PM
i remember reading about advancement in nuclear fusion technology, and how it could solve all the energy problems (cleaner than fission, while providing more energy) |
|
ap19 | Mar 4, 2016 5:05 PM
1. Did any member of your family have to move out because of Fukushima?2. Why are you supporting nuclear power? 3. Do you find any necessary changes in the government policy? 4. What is your ideal vision of the Japanese energy policy? 5. How much is this country governed according to the will of the people? 6. Have you expressed in public your opinion about the energy policy advocated by Yoshihiko Noda? I fixed your English according to your comments and have based the Japanese on my fixed version. 1. ご家族の中に福島を理由に退去・引っ越しを強要された方はいらっしゃいますか？ 2. 原子力推進の理由をお聞かせください。 3. 政府の現方針に対し望む変更点はございますか？ 4. 日本のエネルギー方針についてのX様の理想をお聞かせください。 5. 日本国政府はどの程度民衆の意思を反映していると思いますか？ 6. 野田佳彦元内閣総理大臣が掲げるエネルギー方針について、公的に意見を述べたことはございますか？ Here are my answers, for your information. 1. No. 2. My interest lies in the continued research of nuclear power, not necessarily the current usage of it. Forbidding nuclear power altogether will inevitably mean the long term end of the human race, without an alternative abundant energy source. If said research requires its practical implementation in modern society, then it should continue, even if the current generation would have to deal with its problems, given that succeeding generations will definitely benefit from the mastery of nuclear technology. 3. Japan should quit lying about the actual situation in Fukushima, which most Japanese people don't know or don't care about. Japan is absolutely not in a position to be holding the Olympics at this time. 4. Before nuclear policy, the Japanese government needs a competent second party, third party to actually move political debates forward. The current Japanese government is incapable of governing anything properly at this time. 5. The Japanese population doesn't have any authoritative will at this point, due to the horrible predicament of an education system we have here. The government and the majority of its people don't realize that there is supposed to be a relationship between them. 6. No. |
|
Erelen | Mar 4, 2016 8:11 AM
Ah, again my mistake: question #2 goes after the question about supporting, so I already know if he/she support it or not. Question #3, hmm, it should sound more neutral (as this is the question following the question about agreeing or not). On second hand, checking it in Polish version, it looks weird. Why would she/he want to change gov. police is he/she support it. DreamingBeats, you found a mistake that neither me and few professors couldn't find. :D Question #4: In #2 I'm asking only about nuclear power, in #4 I'm asking generally (not only nuclear power, but also oil, wind, etc.). But thank you very much for help, and noticing the mistake in point 3. :D |
|
DreamingBeats | Mar 4, 2016 8:01 AM
#2 implies that they necessarily support nuclear power.you should ask, instead: do you support nuclear power? if so, why? #3 implies that there's something inherently wrong with the government policy. #4 was already answered by #2 |
|
Erelen | Mar 4, 2016 7:48 AM
Would anyone be so nice and check my translations? Half I was able to do without any problem, but with the second part I'm struggling for the last few days.There are few more questions (not much), but I want to sit and check them few more times, maybe I will get some idea. |