Apr 13, 2003 14:35
21 yrs ago
Japanese term
クリントン政権は８年間にわたり、同条約を如何に存続させていくべきか思考錯誤していた。
Japanese to English
Other
Government / Politics
politics
民主党の抗議やクリントン前政権スタッフからの警鐘、戦略的安定を著しく損なう可能性があるとの専門家たちの懸念を一蹴し、ブッシュ政権が、一方的に脱退した。
クリントン政権は８年間にわたり、同条約を如何に存続させていくべきか思考錯誤していた。
The first paragraph is clear, which simply translate to how the Bush administration despite many protest/opinions decided to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missle treaty with Russia.
The problem is with the 2nd paragraph. Is it asserting that Clinton's admin. in maintaining it for 8 years is wrong? or saying Bush is wrong??
クリントン政権は８年間にわたり、同条約を如何に存続させていくべきか思考錯誤していた。
The first paragraph is clear, which simply translate to how the Bush administration despite many protest/opinions decided to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missle treaty with Russia.
The problem is with the 2nd paragraph. Is it asserting that Clinton's admin. in maintaining it for 8 years is wrong? or saying Bush is wrong??
Proposed translations
(English)
Proposed translations
+2
34 mins
Selected
The Clinton Administration had repeated the process of (political) trial and error in ...
For 8 years, the Clinton Administration had been repeating [had repeated] the process of (political) trial and error in how it/they should keep [maintain] the treaty.
I think your reading is somewhat wrong. The adverbial phrase "8年間にわたり" is not modifying "存続させていくべきか", as in your interpretation, but is actually modifying "試行錯誤していた". (By the way, "思考錯誤" is a typo; it should be "試行錯誤".) This is correct, since the dot (、) is inserted right after "8年間にわたり", and this disconnects the "link" between "8年間にわたり" and "存続させていくべきか".
In my translation, "for 8 year" is an adjunct of "had been repeating [had repeated]", and is not modifying "how it/they should keep [maintain] the treaty". Here, "for 8 years" appears in the beginning to make it clear that "for 8 years" is the modifier of the main clause (i.e., had been repeating [had repeated]"). Since "the Clinton Administration" can be regarded as a group of people (singular) or as individual people (plural), we may use either "it" or "they".
I think your reading is somewhat wrong. The adverbial phrase "8年間にわたり" is not modifying "存続させていくべきか", as in your interpretation, but is actually modifying "試行錯誤していた". (By the way, "思考錯誤" is a typo; it should be "試行錯誤".) This is correct, since the dot (、) is inserted right after "8年間にわたり", and this disconnects the "link" between "8年間にわたり" and "存続させていくべきか".
In my translation, "for 8 year" is an adjunct of "had been repeating [had repeated]", and is not modifying "how it/they should keep [maintain] the treaty". Here, "for 8 years" appears in the beginning to make it clear that "for 8 years" is the modifier of the main clause (i.e., had been repeating [had repeated]"). Since "the Clinton Administration" can be regarded as a group of people (singular) or as individual people (plural), we may use either "it" or "they".
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thank you for your detailed explanation, it was very helpful. By reading it with 試行錯誤, it definitely made more sense. Thanks.
(Thank you to all other people who have contributed to this
discussion!!)"
45 mins
Roddy Stegemann
United States
United States
Native in English
United States
Search HKLNA!
Native in: English 
Works in: German to English, Japanese to English, French to English, and 3 more.
Related KudoZ points
:
8
ご返事です。
クリントン大統領の錯誤でしたの意味が表されているが、９１１の事件はクリントン政権の後でした。
後ろを見るだけの人々は歴史を分かっても、未来に対して何も分らないはずです。
後ろを見るだけの人々は歴史を分かっても、未来に対して何も分らないはずです。
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
jsl (X)
: You're not actually answering this question, and the first part doesn't make sense as a Japanese sentence.
12 hrs
|
|
He/she asked whether Clinton or Bush was wrong? Neither did he/she ask for a translation, nor a reinterpretation of the Japanese that he wrote. You have assumed that an error, where creative Japanese might be more appropriate!
|
+1
2 hrs
錯誤していたのは思考（＝如何に存続させるか）
錯誤していたのは思考（＝如何に存続させるか）
I don't think the author is saying that Clinton's maintaining the treaty for 8 years was wrong. If keeping the treaty itself was wrong, it would have said something like 「同条約を存続させるという思考におき錯誤していた」.
I think he is saying that Clinton's IDEAS/SUGGESTIONS on HOW to maintain it were wrong for the 8 years of his administration. Clinton tried many times to modify the treaty without withdrawing the US from it.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-04-13 17:30:06 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
correction: the Clinton administration¥'s IDEAS/SUGGESTIONS on HOW to maintain it were wrong for 8 years
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-04-14 07:39:34 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
1010 思考錯誤 sites found.
http://www.nau.jp/dsp/usage2.html
http://web3.incl.ne.jp/hide1/page002.html
It seems like some people use it to mean that certain ideas are wrong. However, the two sites above explain that it¥'s a thinking process; to have hypotheses and prove in your head that they are going to work without actually experimenting with them.
I don't think the author is saying that Clinton's maintaining the treaty for 8 years was wrong. If keeping the treaty itself was wrong, it would have said something like 「同条約を存続させるという思考におき錯誤していた」.
I think he is saying that Clinton's IDEAS/SUGGESTIONS on HOW to maintain it were wrong for the 8 years of his administration. Clinton tried many times to modify the treaty without withdrawing the US from it.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-04-13 17:30:06 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
correction: the Clinton administration¥'s IDEAS/SUGGESTIONS on HOW to maintain it were wrong for 8 years
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2003-04-14 07:39:34 (GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
1010 思考錯誤 sites found.
http://www.nau.jp/dsp/usage2.html
http://web3.incl.ne.jp/hide1/page002.html
It seems like some people use it to mean that certain ideas are wrong. However, the two sites above explain that it¥'s a thinking process; to have hypotheses and prove in your head that they are going to work without actually experimenting with them.
Reference:
14 hrs
The thinking error of how the Clinton administration should retain this treaty over eight years was
carried out.
i hope it will help you.
i hope it will help you.
Reference:
Something went wrong...