繰り返しを避ける

予測部により消費電力が電力リソースに収まるものと予測された場合には新たに要求された通信を開始し、消費電力が電力リソースを超えるものと予測された場合には新たに要求された通信を拒否する通信制御部

ChatGPT:

A communication control unit that initiates newly requested communication when the prediction unit predicts that the power consumption will fall within the power resource, and rejects the newly requested communication when the prediction unit predicts that the power consumption will exceed the power resource.

あなた:

Is a translation possible in which "prediction unit" is not repeated?

ChatGPT:

Yes, absolutely — in English, it's often preferable to avoid repetition when the subject remains clear. Here's a more natural and concise translation without repeating "prediction unit":

A communication control unit that initiates newly requested communication when the power consumption is predicted to fall within the power resource, and rejects the newly requested communication when it is predicted to exceed the power resource.

---

✅ Notes:

• "is predicted" implicitly refers back to the prediction unit.

• This structure improves readability while preserving accuracy.

• It’s commonly used in technical writing to streamline complex sentences.

あなた:

Use "prediction unit" but do not repeat it.

ChatGPT:

Certainly. Here's a version that uses "prediction unit" only once while keeping the meaning clear:

A communication control unit that, when the prediction unit predicts that the power consumption will fall within the power resource, initiates newly requested communication, and, when it predicts that the power consumption will exceed the power resource, rejects the newly requested communication.

---

✅ Why this works:

• "when the prediction unit predicts..." introduces the subject.

• "when it predicts..." in the second clause clearly refers back to "the prediction unit," avoiding repetition without ambiguity.

あなた:

Do not use "it".

ChatGPT:

Understood. Here's a refined version that uses "prediction unit" only once and avoids using "it":

A communication control unit that initiates newly requested communication when the prediction unit predicts that the power consumption will fall within the power resource, and rejects the newly requested communication when the power consumption is predicted to exceed the power resource.

---

✅ Why this works:

• The first clause introduces "the prediction unit" explicitly.

• The second clause uses a passive construction ("is predicted") that logically and clearly refers back to the same prediction unit, without repeating or using "it".

増幅して供給する：してする問題

増幅回路は、高周波信号を増幅してアンテナに供給する。

ChatGPT:

The amplifier circuit amplifies a high-frequency signal and supplies it to the antenna.

あなた:

How about 1. The amplifier circuit amplifies a high-frequency signal and supplies the amplified high-frequency signal to the antenna. 2. The amplifier circuit amplifies and outputs a high-frequency signal to the antenna. 3. The amplifier circuit amplifies a high-frequency signal and supplies the result of amplification to the antenna. 4. The amplifier circuit amplifies a high-frequency signal and supplies an amplified signal to the antenna.

ChatGPT:

All four versions are grammatically correct and technically reasonable, but they differ slightly in clarity, naturalness, and emphasis. Here's a breakdown:

---

1. "The amplifier circuit amplifies a high-frequency signal and supplies the amplified high-frequency signal to the antenna."

• ✅ Clear and explicit

• 🔁 Slightly redundant due to repeating "high-frequency signal"

• 💡 Best when you want to emphasize exactly what is being supplied

2. "The amplifier circuit amplifies and outputs a high-frequency signal to the antenna."

• ⚠️ Slightly ambiguous — could be read as outputting the input signal rather than the amplified one.

• Less formal/precise for technical writing.

• You could improve it by saying:
  → "The amplifier circuit amplifies a high-frequency signal and outputs the amplified signal to the antenna."

3. "The amplifier circuit amplifies a high-frequency signal and supplies the result of amplification to the antenna."

• ✅ Accurate and unambiguous

• 💬 Slightly formal or abstract — “result of amplification” sounds more like documentation or academic style

• Good if you want to avoid repeating “signal”

4. "The amplifier circuit amplifies a high-frequency signal and supplies an amplified signal to the antenna."

• ✅ Natural and concise

• Slightly less precise — "an amplified signal" could imply it's a different signal, but this is usually acceptable in context.

• 🔍 Best for balance between readability and technical clarity

---

✅ Recommendation:

For most technical or patent-related documents, I suggest:

"The amplifier circuit amplifies a high-frequency signal and supplies the amplified signal to the antenna."

Or if you're optimizing for precise repetition:

"The amplifier circuit amplifies a high-frequency signal and supplies the amplified high-frequency signal to the antenna."

腎臓病、糖尿病、癌、高血圧：冠詞

慢性腎臓病に罹患している患者

ChatGPT:

A clear and natural translation of 慢性腎臓病に罹患している患者 is:

A patient with chronic kidney disease

---

Alternative, slightly more formal:

A patient suffering from chronic kidney disease

---

Notes:

• 罹患している can be translated as "with", "suffering from", or "affected by", depending on tone and context.

• In medical or clinical documents, "a patient with [disease]" is the most standard and neutral phrasing.

Let me know if you'd like to phrase it for a research paper, medical chart, or something else!

あなた:

Why "chronic kidney disease" and not "a chronic kidney disease"?

ChatGPT:

Great question — and you're really getting into the subtlety of natural medical English.

---

🔹 Why we say "chronic kidney disease" (without "a"):

Because "chronic kidney disease" is treated as a non-countable, general disease category, not as one of many individual diseases. It's similar to how we talk about:

• diabetes, not a diabetes

• cancer, not a cancer (unless specifying types, e.g., a cancer of the liver)

• hypertension, not a hypertension

In medical English, when we refer to well-defined disease categories — especially those recognized as syndromes or diagnostic classifications — we almost always omit the article.

---

🔹 When a would be appropriate (rarely in this case):

You might use "a" when referring to an instance of a disease or one of several types, e.g.:

• a rare autoimmune disease

• a form of cancer

But chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a defined clinical condition with staging, and is used as a fixed term, not as one instance of many chronic diseases of the kidney.

---

✅ So:

"A patient with chronic kidney disease"
is standard and natural.

❌ "A patient with a chronic kidney disease"
sounds unusual or awkward, as if you're describing some unspecified one among many unrelated conditions.

---

Let me know if you'd like examples from similar conditions or more on countable vs. uncountable disease names!