英语翻译，求助高手 英语翻译，求助高手
作者&投稿：离娟 （若有异议请与网页底部的电邮联系）
我认为，生产电钻的厂家对MIKE犯了疏忽大意侵权，首先，生产电钻的厂家对购买电钻的消费者负有谨慎爱护之责，这是要件之一，生产厂家，明知道这批电钻大约有5%质量有问题，电路会融化，会导致购买者受到电击，却不回收修理或者提醒购买者，这就违背了谨慎爱护之责，是要件之二。而消费者MIKE，因此受到了电击和摔伤等严重的伤害，这就是要件之三。所以，在此次事件中，三个要件全都符合，所以，MIKE可以以民事侵权的疏忽大意来起诉这家电钻公司。
I think that the manufacturers of drills commit a tort of negligence. First of all, the producers of drills has the duty of care to the consumer who purchases the product., this is one element, on the other hand ,Producers who know there are 5% of the drills have some problems of quality that is to say the circuit will melt and it will lead to electric shocks of the purchasers do not repair or recovery the product ,neither remind the purchaser. This is the second element that it has the breach of duty of care. At last, consumer MIKE had been shocked and serious injury which is the third element. Therefore, in this case, three elements are meeting and MIKE can be prosecuted for negligence of this appliance drilling company.
生产厂家，对MIKE附有谨慎爱护之责吗？我们可以从两个方面来考虑，首先，合理的可预见性，生产厂家明知道自己的产品有问题会导致事故的发生，却不回收和修补，从而导致了MIKE受了很严重的伤害，这是可以预见的，其次是亲近性（proximity）
Dose the manufacturer has the duty of care to Mike? We can see from these two aspects to consider, first of all, a reasonable foreseeability that the manufacturers know their products have problems and will lead to accidents but without recoverying and repairing, resulting in the serious injury of Mike, which is expected, followed by proximity.
而生产厂家应该对FRED的损失做出赔偿吗？很显然，我认为是的，因为FRED所受的损失是纯经济损失（pure economic loss)而寻求赔偿其纯经济损失的第三方需要满足一些前提条件：因为生产厂家，明知道这批电钻大约有5%质量有问题，电路会融化，会导致购买者受到电击，却不回收修理或者提醒购买者，就应该会预想到这批产品会导致事故，从而给消费者带来事故，可能会影响很大地方，所以，我认为这是可以预见的，第二点是所受到的纯经济损失具有亲近性（proximity），我认为，生产厂家的过失，导致了MIKE的遭受 电击，从而影响了FRED的工作，所以，我认为这之间是有因果联系的，是因果关系的亲近，所以，这两点全都符合，所以厂家应该对FRED的损失给与适当赔偿。
Did the manufacturers make compensation for the loss of FRED? Obviously, I think it is, because the loss FRED suffered is pure economic loss and the third-party who seeking compensation for pure economic loss need to meet some of the prerequisite conditions: ,Producers who know there are 5% of the drills have some problems of quality that is to say the circuit will melt and it will lead to electric shocks of the purchasers do not repair or recovery the product ,neither remind the purchaser, it should be expected that these products will lead to accidents, thus it will bring accidents to consumers which may affect the great place, so I think this is foreseeable, the second point is that the pure economic loss has the proximity, I believe that the fault of the manufacturer, resulting in the suffering of MIKE of electric shocks which affected the work of FRED, I think that there is a causal link between them and it is the proximity. Therefore, manufacturers should give appropriate compensation to FRED in the case that the two aspects all meet .
而MIKE应该对Fred的损失做出赔偿吗?我认为这是不用的，因为MIKE在本身的操作上没有失误，是因为产品质量原因造成的事故，而导致Fred的工作受到了影响，造成了经济上的损失，这是不可预见的。所以MIKE 不应该对FRED 承担责任。
so because MIKE himself did not has a failure of the operation , it is because the quality of the products that caused the accident, which led to the affection of Fred's work, resulting in the economic loss, which is unpredictable .So MIKE should not be held responsible for FRED.
厂家可以有什么理由辩解吗？我认为没有，因为疏忽大意的抗辩有两个条件： 一 原告自己也有粗心大意，二 原告自愿承担了风险，这二者此案例中都没有，所以这个公司应承担全部责任，没有什么辩解的。
Is there any reasons manufacturers can justify it? I do not think so, because there are two conditions of the negligence defense: a plaintiff also has its own carelessness, the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk, which in this case the two are not, so the company should take full responsibility, there is no excuse.
疏忽的行为必须造成损失，这是证明有疏忽大意民事侵权存在的第三个要素。首先要考虑的事，损失是否由于被告疏忽大意引起的。这就是因果关系的因素。要问的就是“原告所遭受到得损失是因为被告违背了其谨慎爱护责任引起的吗？”第二个要考虑的是损失不能太遥远，太间接。只有可预见的损失能够得到补偿
It is the third factor to prove the existence of civil tort carelessness if the careless behaviors which has a damage. First thing to consider is whether the loss caused by defendant’s carelessness. This is the causal relationship between factors. Which has to ask is that "did the loss the plaintiff suffered is due to the breach of duty of care caused by defendant?” The second to consider is the loss can not too far nor indirect. Only foreseeable loss can be compensated.
纯手工翻译，可能有错，但比软件翻得强，那个没有语法的
这个翻译，你出100人民币才有人翻译。
I think I can competently do it for free, unlike the other guy.
It is a products liability case. There are three causes of action an injured party can bring: breach of warranty, negligence, and strict product liability. What are the facts? My question is why not strict product liablity. Why is Mike not suing Fred, his employer. Why are you discussing Manufacturer's potential liability agasint Fred. Mike is all you need to worry about.
1. (When you are making an argument in a legal brief as here, DO NOT use I think, becaues it does not matter what you think. So just get on with the argument.) The drill Manufacturer("M") is negligent against Mike. First, the drill manufacturer has the duty to protect its consumers as a reasonable prudent manufacturer. M knew that 5% of its products had defective circuits resulting in melting of such circuits and electricuting users. However, there has been no warning or product recall on part of the M; therefore, M breached its duty as a reasonable prudent M. Mike is a consumer of M's product and is injured because of drill's defect in a manner foreseeable by the M. All three prima facie elements are met. Mike could have a cause of action against M in negligence. (you are missing causation here.)
2. Duty arises when there is a reasonably foreseeable danger that could cause harm. It is reasonably foreseeable that a drill could electricute a user when M put defective products on the market. It is irrelevant the manner in which the accident occurs; as long as it is caused by the defect, M has breached its duty. In the instant case, the way Mike is harmed is exactly the way he is expected to be harmed, so proximity of harm is met.
3. Pure economic loss is only recoverable in nelgigence when there is personal injury or property damage. Fred is the employer of Mike. So he is not going to recover for the loss as a result of losing Mike as an employee. If Fred owns the drill and the defective drill has damaged other property of his, he might get recovery of other property, usually measured by rental value.
4. Consequential damages in tort is governed by proximate causation. Fred should be precluded from recovering consequential damages because such harms are too far removed from the defect.
5. Mike has no liability against Fred for he is doing what is supposed to do.
6. M has affirmative defenses in contributory negligence and assumption of risk. Both defenses need to be pleaded by the defendant, M, and in some juridictions, both defenses can be brought in when rebutting causation.
Are you a law student in China learning American torts? LOL!!
你好 翻译如下
2楼的同志你好，what you mean？ So what, ok, you understand every thing.Got? 请看
1, I think that the manufacturers of electric production MIKE negligence committed a tort, first of all, the production of an electric drill electric drill on the purchase of the manufacturers of consumer responsibility for the Prevention of Cruelty to have caution, this is one element, producers, know the drill 5% of the quality of some problems, the circuit will melt, will lead to electric shocks by the purchaser, repair or recovery is not to remind the purchaser, which runs counter to the Prevention of Cruelty to be responsible for care is the second element. Consumer MIKE, so by the fall, such as electric shock and serious injury, and this is the third element. Therefore, in this case, three elements are met, therefore, MIKE tort can be prosecuted for negligence of this appliance drilling company.
2, the manufacturer of the Prevention of Cruelty to MIKE care responsibilities with it? We can see from the two aspects to consider, first of all, a reasonable predictability manufacturers know their products have problems will lead to accidents, but the recovery and repair, resulting in the MIKE by a serious injury, which it is expected, followed by affinity (proximity)
3, while the manufacturers should make compensation for the loss of FRED it? Obviously, I think it is because of the loss suffered FRED pure economic loss (pure economic loss) and seeking compensation for pure economic loss of its third-party will need to meet some of the prerequisite conditions: because the manufacturer know about the electric drill 5% of quality problems, the circuit will melt, will lead to electric shocks by the purchaser, repair or recovery is not to remind the purchaser, it should be expected that these products will lead to accidents, incidents and thus to consumers may affect the great place, so I think that this is foreseeable, the second point is that the pure economic loss has been close to nature with the (proximity), I believe that the fault of the manufacturer, resulting in the suffering MIKE
Electric shocks, which affected the work of FRED, I think that there is a causal link between the, the close causal relationship is, therefore, are consistent with these two points, so manufacturers FRED loss should be given appropriate compensation.
4, and MIKE should make compensation for the loss of Fred? I do not think this is because the MIKE in itself a failure of the operation because the quality of products caused the accident, which led to Fred's work have been affected, resulting in the economic loss, which is unpredictable. MIKE So should not be held responsible for FRED.
5, there is no reason why manufacturers can justify it? I do not think so, because of the negligence defense there are two conditions: a plaintiff also has its own carelessness, the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk, which in this case the two are not, so the company should take full responsibility, there is no excuse.
1, I think, the production of electric factory to MIKE made negligence of infringement, first, the production of electric drills to purchase the consumer factory has the responsibility, the careful care is one of elements, manufacturers, know about 5% of the electric circuit will be quality to have a problem, can lead to buyers are melting, shock, but not recycling, the purchaser or repair remind the caution of love, is the second requirement. While consumers by shock, so MIKE and hurt badly hurt, etc, which is three elements. So, in the event of all three elements, with, so MIKE to civil tort of negligence to Sue the electric company.
2, manufacturer, with caution for love of MIKE? We can come from two aspects, firstly, the reasonable predictability, manufacturers of products is knowing oneself problem will cause accidents, but not the recovery and repair, causing MIKE received very serious damage, it can be predicted, the second is close proximity) (
3, and manufacturers should make compensation for the loss of FRED? Obviously, I think yes, because the loss is FRED pure economic loss (loss) and pure have sought compensation for the pure economic loss to meet some of the third prerequisite: for manufacturers, know about 5% of the electric circuit will be quality to have a problem, can lead to buyers are melting, shock, but not recycling repair or cautioned buyers, should be foreseen this batch of products will cause accidents, and give consumers may bring accident, influence, so, I think it can be predicted, the second is the pure economic loss by proximity to (with), I think, the manufacturer's fault, led by MIKE
The shock, thus affecting the FRED's work, so I think it is a causal link between the causal relationship, is close, so that all fit in, so should give appropriate compensation for loss of FRED.
Four, but MIKE to Fred loss should make compensation? I think this is not in itself, because of the operation on MIKE no mistakes, because the product quality, the causes of accidents caused by the influence of Fred work, the economic loss, this is not foresee. So MIKE should not liable to FRED.
5, manufacturer can have what reason excuse? I think not, because the negligence of the defense has two conditions: a plaintiff themselves are careless, the plaintiff shall voluntarily undertake risk, it is not the case, so the company shall bear all responsibility, no excuse.
英语翻译 翻译 求助高手啊~
I think that the manufacturers of drills commit a tort of negligence. First of all, the producers of drills has the duty of care to the consumer who purchases the product., this is one element, on the other hand ,Producers who know there are 5% of the drills have some problems of quality that is to say the circuit will melt and it will lead to electric shocks of the purchasers do not repair or recovery the product ,neither remind the purchaser. This is the second element that it has the breach of duty of care. At last, consumer MIKE had been shocked and serious injury which is the third element. Therefore, in this case, three elements are meeting and MIKE can be prosecuted for negligence of this appliance drilling company.
生产厂家，对MIKE附有谨慎爱护之责吗？我们可以从两个方面来考虑，首先，合理的可预见性，生产厂家明知道自己的产品有问题会导致事故的发生，却不回收和修补，从而导致了MIKE受了很严重的伤害，这是可以预见的，其次是亲近性（proximity）
Dose the manufacturer has the duty of care to Mike? We can see from these two aspects to consider, first of all, a reasonable foreseeability that the manufacturers know their products have problems and will lead to accidents but without recoverying and repairing, resulting in the serious injury of Mike, which is expected, followed by proximity.
而生产厂家应该对FRED的损失做出赔偿吗？很显然，我认为是的，因为FRED所受的损失是纯经济损失（pure economic loss)而寻求赔偿其纯经济损失的第三方需要满足一些前提条件：因为生产厂家，明知道这批电钻大约有5%质量有问题，电路会融化，会导致购买者受到电击，却不回收修理或者提醒购买者，就应该会预想到这批产品会导致事故，从而给消费者带来事故，可能会影响很大地方，所以，我认为这是可以预见的，第二点是所受到的纯经济损失具有亲近性（proximity），我认为，生产厂家的过失，导致了MIKE的遭受 电击，从而影响了FRED的工作，所以，我认为这之间是有因果联系的，是因果关系的亲近，所以，这两点全都符合，所以厂家应该对FRED的损失给与适当赔偿。
Did the manufacturers make compensation for the loss of FRED? Obviously, I think it is, because the loss FRED suffered is pure economic loss and the third-party who seeking compensation for pure economic loss need to meet some of the prerequisite conditions: ,Producers who know there are 5% of the drills have some problems of quality that is to say the circuit will melt and it will lead to electric shocks of the purchasers do not repair or recovery the product ,neither remind the purchaser, it should be expected that these products will lead to accidents, thus it will bring accidents to consumers which may affect the great place, so I think this is foreseeable, the second point is that the pure economic loss has the proximity, I believe that the fault of the manufacturer, resulting in the suffering of MIKE of electric shocks which affected the work of FRED, I think that there is a causal link between them and it is the proximity. Therefore, manufacturers should give appropriate compensation to FRED in the case that the two aspects all meet .
而MIKE应该对Fred的损失做出赔偿吗?我认为这是不用的，因为MIKE在本身的操作上没有失误，是因为产品质量原因造成的事故，而导致Fred的工作受到了影响，造成了经济上的损失，这是不可预见的。所以MIKE 不应该对FRED 承担责任。
so because MIKE himself did not has a failure of the operation , it is because the quality of the products that caused the accident, which led to the affection of Fred's work, resulting in the economic loss, which is unpredictable .So MIKE should not be held responsible for FRED.
厂家可以有什么理由辩解吗？我认为没有，因为疏忽大意的抗辩有两个条件： 一 原告自己也有粗心大意，二 原告自愿承担了风险，这二者此案例中都没有，所以这个公司应承担全部责任，没有什么辩解的。
Is there any reasons manufacturers can justify it? I do not think so, because there are two conditions of the negligence defense: a plaintiff also has its own carelessness, the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk, which in this case the two are not, so the company should take full responsibility, there is no excuse.
疏忽的行为必须造成损失，这是证明有疏忽大意民事侵权存在的第三个要素。首先要考虑的事，损失是否由于被告疏忽大意引起的。这就是因果关系的因素。要问的就是“原告所遭受到得损失是因为被告违背了其谨慎爱护责任引起的吗？”第二个要考虑的是损失不能太遥远，太间接。只有可预见的损失能够得到补偿
It is the third factor to prove the existence of civil tort carelessness if the careless behaviors which has a damage. First thing to consider is whether the loss caused by defendant’s carelessness. This is the causal relationship between factors. Which has to ask is that "did the loss the plaintiff suffered is due to the breach of duty of care caused by defendant?” The second to consider is the loss can not too far nor indirect. Only foreseeable loss can be compensated.
纯手工翻译，可能有错，但比软件翻得强，那个没有语法的
这个翻译，你出100人民币才有人翻译。
I think I can competently do it for free, unlike the other guy.
It is a products liability case. There are three causes of action an injured party can bring: breach of warranty, negligence, and strict product liability. What are the facts? My question is why not strict product liablity. Why is Mike not suing Fred, his employer. Why are you discussing Manufacturer's potential liability agasint Fred. Mike is all you need to worry about.
1. (When you are making an argument in a legal brief as here, DO NOT use I think, becaues it does not matter what you think. So just get on with the argument.) The drill Manufacturer("M") is negligent against Mike. First, the drill manufacturer has the duty to protect its consumers as a reasonable prudent manufacturer. M knew that 5% of its products had defective circuits resulting in melting of such circuits and electricuting users. However, there has been no warning or product recall on part of the M; therefore, M breached its duty as a reasonable prudent M. Mike is a consumer of M's product and is injured because of drill's defect in a manner foreseeable by the M. All three prima facie elements are met. Mike could have a cause of action against M in negligence. (you are missing causation here.)
2. Duty arises when there is a reasonably foreseeable danger that could cause harm. It is reasonably foreseeable that a drill could electricute a user when M put defective products on the market. It is irrelevant the manner in which the accident occurs; as long as it is caused by the defect, M has breached its duty. In the instant case, the way Mike is harmed is exactly the way he is expected to be harmed, so proximity of harm is met.
3. Pure economic loss is only recoverable in nelgigence when there is personal injury or property damage. Fred is the employer of Mike. So he is not going to recover for the loss as a result of losing Mike as an employee. If Fred owns the drill and the defective drill has damaged other property of his, he might get recovery of other property, usually measured by rental value.
4. Consequential damages in tort is governed by proximate causation. Fred should be precluded from recovering consequential damages because such harms are too far removed from the defect.
5. Mike has no liability against Fred for he is doing what is supposed to do.
6. M has affirmative defenses in contributory negligence and assumption of risk. Both defenses need to be pleaded by the defendant, M, and in some juridictions, both defenses can be brought in when rebutting causation.
Are you a law student in China learning American torts? LOL!!
你好 翻译如下
2楼的同志你好，what you mean？ So what, ok, you understand every thing.Got? 请看
1, I think that the manufacturers of electric production MIKE negligence committed a tort, first of all, the production of an electric drill electric drill on the purchase of the manufacturers of consumer responsibility for the Prevention of Cruelty to have caution, this is one element, producers, know the drill 5% of the quality of some problems, the circuit will melt, will lead to electric shocks by the purchaser, repair or recovery is not to remind the purchaser, which runs counter to the Prevention of Cruelty to be responsible for care is the second element. Consumer MIKE, so by the fall, such as electric shock and serious injury, and this is the third element. Therefore, in this case, three elements are met, therefore, MIKE tort can be prosecuted for negligence of this appliance drilling company.
2, the manufacturer of the Prevention of Cruelty to MIKE care responsibilities with it? We can see from the two aspects to consider, first of all, a reasonable predictability manufacturers know their products have problems will lead to accidents, but the recovery and repair, resulting in the MIKE by a serious injury, which it is expected, followed by affinity (proximity)
3, while the manufacturers should make compensation for the loss of FRED it? Obviously, I think it is because of the loss suffered FRED pure economic loss (pure economic loss) and seeking compensation for pure economic loss of its third-party will need to meet some of the prerequisite conditions: because the manufacturer know about the electric drill 5% of quality problems, the circuit will melt, will lead to electric shocks by the purchaser, repair or recovery is not to remind the purchaser, it should be expected that these products will lead to accidents, incidents and thus to consumers may affect the great place, so I think that this is foreseeable, the second point is that the pure economic loss has been close to nature with the (proximity), I believe that the fault of the manufacturer, resulting in the suffering MIKE
Electric shocks, which affected the work of FRED, I think that there is a causal link between the, the close causal relationship is, therefore, are consistent with these two points, so manufacturers FRED loss should be given appropriate compensation.
4, and MIKE should make compensation for the loss of Fred? I do not think this is because the MIKE in itself a failure of the operation because the quality of products caused the accident, which led to Fred's work have been affected, resulting in the economic loss, which is unpredictable. MIKE So should not be held responsible for FRED.
5, there is no reason why manufacturers can justify it? I do not think so, because of the negligence defense there are two conditions: a plaintiff also has its own carelessness, the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk, which in this case the two are not, so the company should take full responsibility, there is no excuse.
1, I think, the production of electric factory to MIKE made negligence of infringement, first, the production of electric drills to purchase the consumer factory has the responsibility, the careful care is one of elements, manufacturers, know about 5% of the electric circuit will be quality to have a problem, can lead to buyers are melting, shock, but not recycling, the purchaser or repair remind the caution of love, is the second requirement. While consumers by shock, so MIKE and hurt badly hurt, etc, which is three elements. So, in the event of all three elements, with, so MIKE to civil tort of negligence to Sue the electric company.
2, manufacturer, with caution for love of MIKE? We can come from two aspects, firstly, the reasonable predictability, manufacturers of products is knowing oneself problem will cause accidents, but not the recovery and repair, causing MIKE received very serious damage, it can be predicted, the second is close proximity) (
3, and manufacturers should make compensation for the loss of FRED? Obviously, I think yes, because the loss is FRED pure economic loss (loss) and pure have sought compensation for the pure economic loss to meet some of the third prerequisite: for manufacturers, know about 5% of the electric circuit will be quality to have a problem, can lead to buyers are melting, shock, but not recycling repair or cautioned buyers, should be foreseen this batch of products will cause accidents, and give consumers may bring accident, influence, so, I think it can be predicted, the second is the pure economic loss by proximity to (with), I think, the manufacturer's fault, led by MIKE
The shock, thus affecting the FRED's work, so I think it is a causal link between the causal relationship, is close, so that all fit in, so should give appropriate compensation for loss of FRED.
Four, but MIKE to Fred loss should make compensation? I think this is not in itself, because of the operation on MIKE no mistakes, because the product quality, the causes of accidents caused by the influence of Fred work, the economic loss, this is not foresee. So MIKE should not liable to FRED.
5, manufacturer can have what reason excuse? I think not, because the negligence of the defense has two conditions: a plaintiff themselves are careless, the plaintiff shall voluntarily undertake risk, it is not the case, so the company shall bear all responsibility, no excuse.
英语翻译 翻译 求助高手啊~
像这样这种长锥型的树皮能根据树的长度慢慢剥离，留下树木愈合再继续生长。
虽然没有理论为已认知的保证反应组（以及其他反应的重要性）提供先验理论，但是在采取措施后的基础上来识别他的模式还是可能的。 例如，在三个关于公用存取的变量中，没有一个可以产生保证反应。这是因为，应答者在考虑关于公用存取相关问题的时候，认为资助保证是不相关的。 两种关于水面水质的测量的保证反应看上去都对应答者的选择有潜在的影响（虽然水质测量仅在压强小于0.13的时候才重要），因为资助保证对于制定关于水质的政策市有潜在影响的。
意大利语翻译 (求助!!!)
答：我的意大利语不怎么好，但是，楼主，你的作文内容很有问题。有很多的重复情况，还有一些句子、词语用得不恰当的地方。Oggi, la luce del sole primaverile sta brillando sulla terra（今天明媚的春光照耀着大地）. Apro le finestre（我打开窗户 ）, respirando l'aria fresca （呼吸着新鲜的空气 ） ...
求助英语高手,这句话如何翻译,坐等
答：求助英语高手，这句话的翻译 求助英语高手 Help English master 重点词汇 高手ace; superior; past master; master-hand; proficient
日语基本翻译,求助高手
答：1书店へ行くたびに言语の方面の本を沢山买います。2彼女と会うたびに彼女の帽子が同じくないんです。3仆が毎日一时间の散歩を求めます。
求助英语翻译高手帮忙翻译(不要翻译工具翻译的),曾因我水平不够造成误会...
答：There are still very much thanks the always active consideration to solve my travel time to work on not convenient for me will allow me time to catch the bus, offered by the company I do not have strict working hours, and can Bus time to coordinate their own time, when ...
西班牙语 求高手翻译 可能会有点点语法的错误
答：yo porque tú eras lo que yo más amaba y tú porque yo era el que te amaba más.Pero de nosotros dos tú pierdes más que yo:porque yo podré amar a otras como te amaba a ti pero a ti no te amarán como te amaba yo.翻译如下：当我失去你的时候，我俩都是失败者。对我...
英语翻译 求助高手
答：intercourse not only , is also two kinds culture delivery. Therefore, culture is assignable factor , the middle contacting with each other in business affairs in translation , different culture translates method having also different.给了你这么多种翻译,你总该采纳我为最佳答案了吧....
英语翻译高手请进。要求:本人翻译,不能用电脑软件翻译。请把中文翻译...
答：从前有一只青蛙，它一直坐在井里，沉醉在头顶一方蓝天的美景中。There was once a frog, it has been sitting in the well, basking in the beauty of the blue sky overhead side.忽然有一天，一只黄色的十分可爱的小鸟从远方飞来，落在井沿上。 Suddenly one day, a very cute yellow birds ...
求语文文言文翻译高手~~急需译文
答：走了十里地，远远看见天姥峰，大船停下了。到了岸上，就看见庙宇荒废，佛像四散野外，无处归置。野草迷漫荒烟袅袅，到处是断瓦残垣。农夫僧人见到生人就后退畏缩，不知道李太白是谁，怎么能在这些人面前说梦游天姥的奇妙呢？山上桐柏密集，充当门户。李太白诗中所说的半壁见海，空中闻鸡，我很怀疑真实...
英文翻译求助,高手进~~
答：Abstract: The new rural cooperatives medical service system since the implementation, the very good solution home prominent farmer has sent day by day because of sickness poor, returns to the poor question, has safeguarded the people's most basic life demand, for social and national ...
求助马来语翻译高手,急!
答：中心：新巴生市 区：北KLANG 然：雪兰莪 NO报告：市 Tankh：时间：接受语言：B.马来西亚 报告的收件人资料 产品名称：KH RUL NO YEE乙诺丁人员：位置：详细的解释（如有）姓名：庄GO怎么没有K / P（新）：没有警察/军事：没有护照：语言产地：中国 地址：和平公园大街90582 000 Pontian柔佛 详细...
