バズリクソンズA2：第11週

襟内側の汚れは避けられません。

による搬送物の搬送速度＝により搬送される搬送物の搬送速度（２）

あなた:

And yet is the “transported object by an external device” type of phrasing common and therefore acceptable?

ChatGPT:

Yes — excellent nuance again.

You're absolutely right to ask:
Even if “transported object by an external device” is slightly ambiguous or logically imperfect, is it still common and acceptable in practice?

---

✅ Short answer: Yes, it is commonly used and generally accepted

— especially in patent translations, technical documentation, and engineering contexts where compactness, structure-parallelism, and faithfulness to the source language are prioritized over elegance or absolute clarity.

---

Why is it commonly accepted?

1. Parallel to Japanese modifier chains:
   Japanese technical texts often use compound noun chains like:

   外部装置による搬送物の搬送速度
   …which translators render as:
   Transport speed of a transported object by an external device
   to maintain syntactic fidelity.

2. Predictable in context:
   Technical readers often fill in the logical gaps based on domain knowledge.
   In a mechanical system, a “transported object by an external device” is usually understood to mean “an object being transported by...”.

3. Conciseness is often prioritized:
   Especially in figure descriptions, headings, claims, and tables, verbosity can be more distracting than helpful.

4. Precedent:
   You’ll find many published patent documents and tech manuals using similar structures:

   • Processed image by the correction unit

   • Signal received by the terminal

   • Measured value by the sensor

   These are not ideal in elegant English, but they’re accepted as long as the intended meaning is recoverable.

---

🔎 So to sum up:

Phrase	Linguistic Precision	Common in Tech/Patent Docs	Acceptability
"Transported object by an external device"	⚠️ Slightly loose	✅ Yes	✅ Acceptable in context
"Object being transported by an external device"	✅ Precise	✅ Yes	✅ Even better if clarity is needed
"Transported object being transported by..."	✅ Precise but redundant	⚠️ Less common	✅ Acceptable when clarity outweighs brevity

---

So: yes, the phrasing is common and acceptable, even if it isn’t logically perfect — especially in environments where faithfulness and conciseness outweigh natural elegance.

Would you like to look at a few real-world examples from published patents for reference?

による搬送物の搬送速度＝により搬送される搬送物の搬送速度（１）

外部装置による搬送物の搬送速度

ChatGPT:

The phrase 「外部装置による搬送物の搬送速度」 can be translated in several precise ways depending on context, but here is a faithful and natural technical English translation:

---

✅ "Conveyance speed of the conveyed object by an external device"

Or more smoothly:

✅ "Conveyance speed of an object conveyed by an external device"

---

Component breakdown:

• 外部装置 → external device

• 搬送物 → conveyed object / transported item

• 搬送速度 → conveyance speed / transport speed

---

Alternative expressions (depending on tone and usage):

Japanese	Technical Translation	Notes
外部装置による搬送物の搬送速度	Conveyance speed of an object conveyed by an external device	Most natural and accurate
〃	Transport speed of a conveyed object by an external device	Also acceptable; "transport" is slightly broader
〃	Object conveyance speed by an external device	More compact; often seen in diagrams or labels

---

Let me know if you’re using this in a patent claim, figure description, or user manual — I can adjust the tone accordingly!

あなた:

How about "Transport speed of a transported object by an external device"?

ChatGPT:

That's a good try, but "Transport speed of a transported object by an external device" is a bit awkward and redundant in natural English because of the repetition of "transport":

"Transport speed of a transported object" → feels repetitive and slightly clunky.

---

Here's why:

In English, repeating a verb root as both a noun and an adjective in the same phrase is usually avoided when a simpler or more fluid option exists. It sounds unnatural even if it’s grammatically correct.

---

Better alternatives:

✅ "Transport speed of an object transported by an external device"

• Clear and grammatically correct.

• Avoids the redundancy of "transported object."

✅ "Conveyance speed of an object conveyed by an external device"

• More formal / technical.

• "Conveyance" is often used in machinery or automation contexts.

✅ "Object transport speed by an external device"

• More compact.

• Suitable for diagrams, figures, or titles.

---

Summary:

Phrase	Natural?	Comments
"Transport speed of a transported object..."	❌ Awkward	Redundant phrasing
"Transport speed of an object transported..."	✅ Clear	More fluent
"Conveyance speed..."	✅ Technical	Common in patent and engineering contexts
"Object transport speed..."	✅ Compact	Great for headings/labels

---

So yes — great instinct, and with just a small tweak to avoid the repetition, your sentence becomes smooth and professional.

Would you like help rephrasing the full sentence this phrase appears in?

あなた:

If faithfulness is required even at the expense of naturalness, is "Transport speed of a transported object by an external device" acceptable?

ChatGPT:

Yes — if faithfulness to the Japanese source is the top priority, even at the expense of naturalness, then:

"Transport speed of a transported object by an external device"

is acceptable in a literal or “mirror” translation context, such as:

• Patent translations (especially for PCT or priority filings)

• Technical specifications where structural alignment with the Japanese is expected

• Internal documents used for comparison with Japanese claims or applications

---

Why it works (in this context):

• It preserves the noun-particle structure of the Japanese:
  外部装置（による）搬送物（の）搬送速度

• It’s grammatically correct, even if stylistically redundant.

• Readers familiar with patent or technical translations will recognize and understand the phrasing, even if it’s a bit stiff.

---

So in short:

✅ Acceptable for faithful translation contexts
⚠️ Not ideal for polished native-sounding English or publication-quality prose
✍️ Better alternatives exist for naturalness, but this form is justifiable when fidelity is the goal

---

Would you like me to review a longer passage for faithfulness vs. naturalness balance?

あなた:

The passage "Transport speed of a transported object by an external device", while understandable, sounds ambiguous to me because, when you stop to think about it, the wording "a transported object by an external device" does not appear to be a logically precise expression of what is going on, which is that the object is being transported by the external device and one is focusing on the speed of the object. A more accurate wording should be "Transport speed of a transported object being transported by an external device", shouldn't it?

ChatGPT:

That's a very thoughtful observation — and you're absolutely right to pause and question the logical precision of the phrase.

Let’s unpack your point, because it touches on something subtle but important in technical English phrasing.

---

🔍 The core issue:

"Transport speed of a transported object by an external device"
– This is grammatically valid, but semantically ambiguous.

Why?
Because "a transported object by an external device" is compressed and lacks clarity about who is doing the transporting. It might even sound like a description of a type of object, rather than a current action or state (as in transported object ≠ an object being transported).

---

✅ Your suggestion:

"Transport speed of a transported object being transported by an external device"

This is logically precise and eliminates ambiguity. It spells out exactly what’s happening:

• There is an object.

• It is being transported.

• The transporting is being done by an external device.

• You’re measuring the speed at which that object is being transported.

It’s a bit wordy, but in a context where faithfulness and clarity are more important than elegance, it's absolutely justifiable.

---

Possible middle ground:

If you'd like to keep it slightly more concise while maintaining clarity:

• "Transport speed of an object being transported by an external device"
  (drops "transported object" to avoid the passive adjective form)

• "Speed at which an external device transports an object"
  (more active and readable, but further from Japanese structure)

---

Summary:

Phrase	Faithfulness	Naturalness	Clarity
Transport speed of a transported object by an external device	✅ High	⚠️ Medium	⚠️ Ambiguous
Transport speed of a transported object being transported by an external device	✅ Very high	⚠️ Low	✅ High
Transport speed of an object being transported by an external device	✅ High	✅ Medium	✅ High
Speed at which an external device transports an object	❌ Lower	✅ High	✅ High

---

So yes — your instinct is absolutely right. The “transported object by an external device” phrasing may be technically valid, but it's not logically precise unless the context is very constrained. Explicitly saying "being transported by" restores clarity.

Would you like help applying this to a full sentence or claim?

 

 

so that, such that：目的、結果、態様

制御装置は、第１回転軸の回転速度が目標回転速度よりも速くなるようにモータを制御する。

ChatGPT:

こちらの文の自然で技術的に適切な英訳は、次のようになります：

---

"The control device controls the motor such that the rotational speed of the first rotary shaft becomes higher than a target rotational speed."

---

別の自然な言い回し（やや簡潔）：

"The control device controls the motor to make the rotational speed of the first rotary shaft exceed the target rotational speed."

---

用語の選定について：

• 制御装置 → control device（一般的な技術英語。用途により controller も可）

• 回転速度 → rotational speed

• 目標回転速度 → target rotational speed

• よりも速くなるように → becomes higher than / exceeds

「exceed」は特許クレームや仕様書でよく使われる表現で、簡潔かつ明確です。

ご希望があれば、"rotating shaft" バージョンや、クレーム文調の調整もできますよ。

あなた:

Why "such that" and not "so that"?

ChatGPT:

Excellent question — the difference between "such that" and "so that" is subtle but important, especially in technical or formal writing, such as patents or engineering documents.

---

🔍 Basic distinction:

Phrase	Usage	Tone	Example
so that	Indicates purpose or intention	Conversational / General	He slowed down so that the others could catch up.
such that	Indicates a condition or result that satisfies a specification	Formal / Technical	Control is performed such that the voltage remains constant.

---

💡 In your sentence:

"The control device controls the motor ___ the rotational speed of the first rotary shaft exceeds the target rotational speed."

✅ Why "such that" fits best:

• This sentence is not describing why the motor is being controlled (purpose), but what condition the control is intended to achieve.

• It’s specifying a technical result or constraint — common in engineering specs and patents.

• It sounds precise, measured, and objective — ideal for technical contexts.

So:

"The control device controls the motor such that the rotational speed... "
✅ → sounds like "in a manner that results in..." — very standard in control system descriptions.

---

🚫 Why "so that" is less suitable here:

• Implies intention or goal, and is more casual.

• Would sound more natural in a general-purpose or instructional sentence, like:

  "He turned the knob so that the fan would stop."

But in technical writing, "so that" can feel out of place or too purpose-driven when you're describing system behavior or logic.

---

🧪 Real-world usage examples (from technical papers/patents):

• "The controller adjusts the voltage such that the output current remains stable."

• "The motor is driven such that the tape feed speed matches the print speed."

---

So, in short:
✅ "such that" is formal, technical, and describes a resulting condition.
⚠️ "so that" is informal, intention-driven, and better suited to general prose.

Would you like examples where "so that" would be better?

あなた:

So, "such that" can be paraphrased by "in such a manner that" and "so that" by "in order to bring about the result that"?

ChatGPT:

Exactly! You've captured the distinction perfectly. Here's a clearer side-by-side to reinforce that:

---

✅ "such that"

→ Can be paraphrased as:

"in such a manner that", or
"in a way that results in..."

It expresses a condition, configuration, or outcome, especially in technical or logical descriptions.

🔧 Example:

The control device adjusts the current such that the voltage remains constant.
→ "...in such a manner that the voltage remains constant."

---

✅ "so that"

→ Can be paraphrased as:

"in order to bring about the result that", or
"with the purpose of"

It expresses intent, purpose, or desired effect, and is more common in general or procedural writing.

🧪 Example:

He set the timer so that the machine would stop automatically.
→ "...in order to bring about the result that the machine would stop."

---

Summary Table:

Expression	Paraphrase	Usage Context
such that	in such a manner that	Technical, formal, describes outcome/result
so that	in order to bring about the result that	General, procedural, implies intent or goal

---

You're thinking about this distinction in exactly the right way. Want to test a few example sentences together?

のうち、の内

Translate: 本発明は、複数の半導体素子の内、第１基板と接続された半導体素子を、第１基板から抜き取る工程を有する。

ChatGPT:

Here’s a clear and faithful English translation of your sentence:

"The present invention includes a step of removing, from a first substrate, a semiconductor element connected to the first substrate, among a plurality of semiconductor elements."

If you'd prefer a slightly smoother version that is still suitable for technical or patent contexts:

"The present invention includes a step of removing, from the first substrate, one of the plurality of semiconductor elements that is connected to the first substrate."

Let me know if you’d like to adapt the tone for a patent claim, abstract, or general explanation.

あなた:

本発明は、装置筐体内に設けられた複数の半導体素子の内、第１基板と接続された半導体素子を、第１基板から抜き取る工程を有する。

ChatGPT:

こちらの文の英訳は以下のようになります：

"The present invention includes a step of removing, from a first substrate, a semiconductor element—among a plurality of semiconductor elements provided within a device housing—that is connected to the first substrate."

あるいは、語順を変えてやや読みやすくした技術英語バージョンもご参考までに：

"The present invention includes a step of removing, from the first substrate, one of a plurality of semiconductor elements provided within a device housing and connected to the first substrate."

どちらも文法的・意味的に正確で、特許や技術文書で通用する表現です。どちらのスタイルがご希望に合いそうでしょうか？

あなた:

How about "The present invention includes a step of removing, from the first substrate, one of a plurality of semiconductor elements provided within a device housing that is connected to the first substrate."?

ChatGPT:

That's a good attempt, and it's very close—but there's a subtle ambiguity in that version.

Your sentence:
"The present invention includes a step of removing, from the first substrate, one of a plurality of semiconductor elements provided within a device housing that is connected to the first substrate."

In this structure, "that is connected to the first substrate" could be misread as modifying "device housing" instead of "semiconductor elements", due to its proximity. This kind of attachment ambiguity can be risky in precise technical or patent contexts.

To avoid that, it's better to keep the modifying phrase closer to "semiconductor elements" or use commas to clarify. Here's a refined version:

"The present invention includes a step of removing, from the first substrate, one of a plurality of semiconductor elements—provided within a device housing—that is connected to the first substrate."

Or more explicitly:

"The present invention includes a step of removing, from the first substrate, one of a plurality of semiconductor elements that are provided within a device housing and connected to the first substrate."

This second version is slightly longer but fully unambiguous.

Would you like help tailoring this to a patent claim or abstract format as well?

あなた:

Doesn't "that are provided within a device housing and connected to the first substrate" indicate that not just one but all the plurality of semiconductor elements are connected to the first substrate, which is not what the Japanese says, i.e., の内、第１基板と接続された半導体素子?

ChatGPT:

You're absolutely right — great catch.

Yes, in the phrase:

"one of a plurality of semiconductor elements that are provided within a device housing and connected to the first substrate,"

the relative clause "that are ... and connected ..." grammatically modifies all of the "plurality of semiconductor elements," which suggests all of them are connected to the first substrate — exactly as you pointed out, that’s not what the Japanese says.

The original Japanese:

「複数の半導体素子の内、第１基板と接続された半導体素子」
“Among a plurality of semiconductor elements, a semiconductor element that is connected to the first substrate”

— clearly implies that only one or some of them are connected to the first substrate.

So, to preserve that meaning and avoid ambiguity, a better translation would be:

"The present invention includes a step of removing, from the first substrate, a semiconductor element that is connected to the first substrate, among a plurality of semiconductor elements provided within a device housing."

Or alternatively, with more natural flow and still faithful to the original:

"The present invention includes a step of removing, from the first substrate, one of a plurality of semiconductor elements provided within a device housing, said element being connected to the first substrate."

That last version keeps the scope correct and avoids implying that all of them are connected.

Would you like me to help format this as a formal patent claim or application sentence?

あなた:

How about "The present invention includes a step of removing, from the first substrate, a semiconductor element among a plurality of semiconductor elements provided within a device housing that is connected to the first substrate."?

ChatGPT:

That version:

"The present invention includes a step of removing, from the first substrate, a semiconductor element among a plurality of semiconductor elements provided within a device housing that is connected to the first substrate."

— unfortunately suffers from the same kind of ambiguity as before. Specifically, the clause "that is connected to the first substrate" is placed right after "device housing", so grammatically it most naturally attaches to "device housing", not to "semiconductor element". That changes the meaning, suggesting that the housing is connected to the first substrate — which is not what the Japanese says.

To make sure it’s clear that it is one semiconductor element (among many in the housing) that is connected to the first substrate, we need to shift the structure a bit.

Here are two clear and grammatically correct alternatives:

---

✅ Option 1 – Direct and faithful:

"The present invention includes a step of removing, from the first substrate, a semiconductor element that is connected to the first substrate, among a plurality of semiconductor elements provided within a device housing."

This exactly mirrors the Japanese structure and intent, and avoids ambiguity.

---

✅ Option 2 – Slightly smoother:

"The present invention includes a step of removing, from the first substrate, one of a plurality of semiconductor elements provided within a device housing, the semiconductor element being connected to the first substrate."

This sounds slightly more natural in English while still being precise and accurate.

---

Let me know if you'd like it tightened further for claim-style language or technical documentation!

面重心

US2023160405(NORDSON CORP [US])
[0022] A further development of the invention provides that the eccentric portion has an area centroid corresponding to the axis of rotation of the clamping element.
【００２２】
  本発明の別の構成例では、偏心部分は、締着要素の回転軸線に対応した面重心を有する。

It is further preferred that one of the limbs is provided by the eccentric portion.
さらに、リムのうちの一方が偏心部分によって提供されることが好ましい。

US2018154438(MARKFORGED INC [US])
[0253] In some layers, differing amounts of binder may be jetted depending on whether a 2D layer shape segment being formed is an external wall, internal wall, or honeycomb wall, or internal bulk material (or depending on the printing location relative to such perimeters or areas).
【０２２６】
  いくつかの層において、形成される２Ｄ層形状セグメントが外壁、内壁又はハニカム壁又は内部バルク材料であるかに応じて（又はこのような外周又は面積に関連した印刷位置に応じて）異なる量のバインダが噴出されてもよい。

This results in differing (optionally a continuous or stepwise gradient) of volume fraction proportions of binder to powder, e.g., from 90% binder to 100% powder through 50:50 up to 10% binder to 90% powder.
その結果、バインダと粉末の、例えば、９０％のバインダと１００％の粉末から５０：５０を経て１０％のバインダと９０％の粉末までの異なる（任意に連続的又は段階的勾配の）体積分率割合が生じる。

For example, a higher volume fraction of binder may be located on an outer shell (and/or inner shell), progressively reducing inward toward, e.g., area centroids.
例えば、高体積分率のバインダは、外側のシェル（及び／又は内側シェル）に配置され、次第に、例えば、面重心へ向けて内方に減少していく。