英文短文专业翻译 急急急急

Question

可能是这文章太抽象专业了吧
这短文有大用处 但是理解和书面翻译很变扭
求神人相助
第一篇：
Most readers agree that much of the
biomedical literature is badly written (Woodford, 1967). The problem with most
biomedical research papers is that they lose the forest for the trees. The
extreme example is a paper that gives overwhelming details about what others
have found (“review of the literature”); exhaustive lists of variables measured
(generally written as an alphabet soup of abbreviations); a blizzard of data in
the form of means, standard errors, and P values; and
a meandering “discussion” of the data. No story is told; no message emerges.
But science is not data. Data are the raw material of science. It is what you
do with data that is science—the interpretation you make, the story you tell.

第二篇：
[A] A nosocomial infection was defined as one that was
clearly not present in the culture of any body fluid when the infant was
admitted,although it was
recognized that
virtually all infant colonization,andtherefore all infections,are nosocomial.

[B] In this sentence from a Methods
section,two acts of judgment are described:defining and recognizing.But who was
making these judgments is not stated.Moreover,the author has gone out of his
way to write the second point in a stiff,awkward,inelegant way: “itwas recognized that.”

Answer 1

Most readers agree that much of the
biomedical literature is badly written (Woodford, 1967). The problem with most
biomedical research papers is that they lose the forest for the trees. The
extreme example is a paper that gives overwhelming details about what others
have found (“review of the literature”); exhaustive lists of variables measured
(generally written as an alphabet soup of abbreviations); a blizzard of data in
the form of means, standard errors, and P values; and
a meandering “discussion” of the data. No story is told; no message emerges.
But science is not data. Data are the raw material of science. It is what you
do with data that is science—the interpretation you make, the story you tell.
大多读者都觉得很多生物医学论文写的很烂。问题出在他们只见树木，未见森林。一个极端的例子比如一篇论文举了无数细节来阐述别人的发现；列一堆实验结果；一堆数据（means, standard errors, P values应该是本专业相关的分析手法之类的楼主请自己斟酌）；然后东拐西绕地分析数据。没有story（story就是interpretation，这是作者的idea就保留了）；没有有效信息。科学不只是数据而已。数据是原始材料。关键是你如何用这些数据：你如何解读，你如何阐述。

[A] A nosocomial infection was defined as one that was
clearly not present in the culture of any body fluid when the infant was
admitted,although it was
recognized that
virtually all infant colonization,andtherefore all infections,are nosocomial.
Nosocomial Infection定义为一种感染，这种感染在初期接触前不存在体液中。虽然可以认为几乎所有的感染都是NI。（这句话怎么不大看懂呢，不好意思；呵呵，难怪要用这个做反例，小自恋一下）
[B] In this sentence from a Methods
section,two acts of judgment are described:defining and recognizing.But who was
making these judgments is not stated.Moreover,the author has gone out of his
way to write the second point in a stiff,awkward,inelegant way: “itwas recognized that.”
在这个句子中（就是指A句子）做了两个judgments，一个是定义，一个是辨别。但是谁定义的NI，文中没有说。另外，作者偏题地去做了第二个点阐述，结果这个judgment也写得死板和无趣。肿么写的？it was recognized that . . .

Answer 2

第一篇:大多数读者认为大部分的生物医学文献写得很糟糕(伍德福德,1967)。这个问题与大多数生物医学研究论文一样,就像他们是失去了森林而孤立存在的树木。这个极端的事例给我们描述,一个别人已经发现的(重新审视文献后),有详尽列表描述变化过程的(一般编写为一个字母的缩写);及有暴雪数据,错误标准,P值,一个曲线变化所“形成”的数据。有数据支持是事实并不是在讲故事.但严格意义上将科学又并不是数据,但源于数据。科学就是这是你掌握了数据,你就能随你所愿并给出恰如其分的解释。
hereby submitted, please accept and confirm

追问

翻译的很棒啊 下面的第二部分也拜托啦

追答

第二篇：A在婴儿出生前,清楚的规定婴儿培养液(这里你可以理解为类似于羊水,按你的理解更正)不能出现医院内感染,尽管被一致认可,但事实上所有婴儿团体被感染都发生在医院内.

追问

不好意思啊 给了赞 前面的朋友提前都翻译完毕 先来后到 不好意思啊
B部分 拜托了

追答

Most readers agree that much of the biomedical literature is badly written (Woodford, 1967). 大部分读者认可多数生物学著作都写得语无伦次。（伍德福特）The problem with most biomedical research papers is that they lose the forest for the trees. 大部分生物学研究论文的症结在于他们只见树木不见森林（或者可以转译为“一叶障目，不见泰山”）
The extreme example is a paper that gives overwhelming details about what other shave found (“review of the literature”); 一个很极端的例证是通篇文章对于别人发现了什么（论述的回顾）都给出了大量事无巨细的细节材料。
exhaustive lists of variables measured(generally written as an alphabet soup of abbreviations);形形色色的不厌其烦的衡量（通常被写成一堆字母的简写）
a blizzard of data in the form of means, standard errors, and P values;（以方法、典型失误和P价值为形势的大量数据） and a meandering “discussion” of the data（和漫无边际的数据讨论）.
No story is told; no message emerges（没有讲述任何事情，没有显示任何信息）.But science is not data. Data are the raw material of science（但是科学不只是数据，数据只是科学的原始材料）.
It is what you do with data that is science—the interpretation you make, the story you tell.（你对数据所进行的处理才是科学——你做的阐释，你讲的事情）
第二篇:B在这个来自方法论部分的句子中描述了两种判断形式：定义和认证。但是却没有提及是谁提出的这些判断。而且，作者故意地用一种呆板的，僵硬的，不雅的方式来描写第二种观点“它被认定为是”

Answer 3

最便捷的方法，去有道上翻译后自己整理下语句吧 ：）

追问

网络上各种在线翻译已经统统都尝试过 没有用 自己也翻译了 同僚也翻译了 可就是对不上 还很变扭 所以来这里求助的

追答

Most readers agree that much of the biomedical literature is badly written (Woodford, 1967). The problem with most biomedical research papers is that they lose the forest for the trees. The extreme example is a paper that gives overwhelming details about what other shave found (“review of the literature”); exhaustive lists of variables measured(generally written as an alphabet soup of abbreviations); a blizzard of data inthe form of means, standard errors, and P values; anda meandering “discussion” of the data. No story is told; no message emerges. But science is not data. Data are the raw material of science. It is what youdo with data that is science—the interpretation you make, the story you tell.
大多数读者认为大部分的生物医学文献写得很糟糕(伍德福德,1967)。大多数生物医学研究论文都有这样的问题，为了一棵树而失去了一片森林。一个极端的例子是一篇论文给了压倒性的细节却是谈论其他的东西(“文献之回顾”);详尽的列表变量的测量(通常编写为一个字母的缩写);暴风雪形式的数据意味着,标准错误,P值和一个曲折的“讨论”的数据。没有事实叙述,没有信息表达。但科学不是数据。数据是科学的原材料。你所做的科学的数据就是你的理解，你的经历。

我只是大概的把第一段给你整理了一下，有点匆忙，所以有点地方不是很到位，上面有许多英文单词是连在一起的，所以网上的翻译器翻译出来的不会很准，可以自己整理一下