790

日本物理学会誌

第 21 巻第 11 号

Notes on the Writing of Scientific English
for Japanese Physicists
Anthony J. LEGGETT

Introduction
These notes are emphatically not intended as a comprehensive guide to the writingof scientific English; I am sure there alreadyexist many good books devoted to this purpose. However, during my work over the
past year correcting the English of papers
submitted to ʻProgressʼ I noticed that certain patterns of mistake turned up over again;
many of these, it seemed, could be avoided
by the use of a fairly simple rule. These
notes, therefore, are simply an attempt toeliminate some of the more common errors
and sources of obscurity which sometimes
make ʻJapanese Englishʼ difficult to read.
The main guiding principles I have used
are the following. First, it is much more
important that the English written by Japanese authors be clear and easily readable
than that it be elegant. Therefore, in a situation where there is a choice between an
elegant form of expression which, however,may easily lead to confusion if misused anda less elegant but practically ʻfoolproofʼ one,
I have never hesitated to recommend thelatter. Secondly, the importance of avoiding
a mistake is roughly proportional to the amount of misunderstanding it may entail and/or the amount of psychological ʻwear andtearʼ it may cause on the readerʼs nerves.
Accordingly, I have spent a good deal ofspace on ʻmacroscopicʼ points like sentence

construction, and proportionately less onʻmicroscopicʼ ones like the correct use ofʻaʼ and ʻtheʼ; prepositions, which mostJapanese writers seem to consider a major
point of difficulty in writing English, I havescarcely mentioned, not only because this is
the sort of point for which one can easilyrefer to dictionaries but because I believe
the reader can usually correct any mistakefor himself with very little mental effort.
Thirdly, the usefulness of a set of notes suchas this is much reduced if the rules given
become too complicated. Therefore, rather
than give a complicated set of rules which
would ensure correctness 100% of the time,
I have often preferred to give a simple rule
which will be right 95% of the time, provided that in the other 5% of cases it is unlikely to lead to confusion. I do not claimthat anyone who tries to follow the advice
given here will write beautiful or even invariably correct English; but I hope thatwhat he writes will be clear and readable
and that any mistakes he does make will be
minor ones.
The order in which the subject-matteris arranged is, roughly speaking, from ʻmacroscopicʼ to ʻmicroscopicʼ; consequently, thepoints covered in the earlier sections are ofmore fundamental importance but the advice
given is necessarily somewhat general andvague, while the latter sections cover more

Notes on the Writing of Scientific English for Japanese Physicists

detailed points where fairly precise rules canusually be given. I hope any notation usedwill be self-explanatory (ʻA → Bʼ means A
is incorrect and B is the correct replacement). Most of the sentences quoted as examples of typical errors are either entirely myown invention or are substantially changed
from their original forms; it is not claimed
that they necessarily make sense as physics.
I should like to express my gratitude to
Dr. K. Nishikawa, who generously devoted
a good deal of time to constructive criticism
of these notes. The responsibility for theopinions expressed remains of course entirely my own.
§ 1 General
At first sight, it is tempting to thinkthat the problem of writing good English issolved if one can write good Japanese andthen give a perfect translation. I believe
this is not necessarily true. ʻJapanese Englishʼ* has the peculiar property that it canbe grammatically perfect and yet, if notcompletely unintelligible, at least ʻopaqueʼand baffling to the average English reader.
This property is often shared by English
translations (even by expert translators) ofarticles written originally in Japanese; it isclearly, therefore, not due to bad translation.
I believe, therefore, it is necessary to recognize that some patterns of thought which areacceptable in Japanese may be unintelligibleor puzzling in English (and, no doubt, viceversa). Moreover, ways of saying things
which make sense against a Japanese background may either be nonsense or give quite
the wrong impression when interpreted against a Western European one. (For instance, if you state a conclusion tentatively
or indefinitely, a Japanese reader will understand that this is because you do not wish
to be too blunt or assertive, but a European
reader will often conclude simply that you
are not really sure about it). Since, presum-

791

ably, the vast majority of your readers will
share the Western European background, it
is necessary to make allowance for this fact.
Of course, this problem is less important inscientific writing than in some other kinds,
and the vast majority of Japanese physicists
obviously recognize and make allowances forit; however, when it is not recognized theresulting confusion is so deep-seated that it
is worth emphasizing in some detail. Hereare some ways in which I believe acceptablemodes of expression may differ in English
and in Japanese.
1) In Japanese it seems that it is often
legitimate to state a number of thoughts insuch a way that the connection between
them, or the meaning of any given one, only
becomes clear when one has read the wholeparagraph or even the whole paper. This
is not so in English; each sentence should
be completely intelligible in the light onlyof what has already been written. Moreover, the connection between one thought
and the next should be completely clear when
it is read; for instance, if you deviate fromthe ʻmain lineʼ of the thought to explore aside-track, this should be made clear at the
point where the side-track starts, not where
it finishes. Perhaps this is best illustrated
by the following diagram, where the ʻdirection of readingʼ is from left to right:

(A)

(B)

To an English reader, the Japanese patternoften seems to be like (A), whereas only (B)is usually allowable in English. Notice alsothat the tree in (B) has only a few branches;in English it is usually not a good thing towander too far off the ʻmain trackʼ.*2) In English the sequence of thought
should always be made quite explicit, even

* Hereafter abbreviated J. E.
* If you want to make a lengthy excursion, it
is often better to do so in a footnote.

792

日本物理学会誌

when, in Japanese, it would be legitimate
to leave the reader to fill in the connection
for himself. A common vice of J. E. is thewriting of sentences like ʻIt is uncertain
whether this resonance should be assigned
to the (56) or (82) representation, though
Jones has suggested that its spin is 1/2ʼ(where the reader is left to fill in ʻwhich,
if true, would force us to assign it to the(56) representationʼ). Of course, to someextent what you may safely leave out depends on the degree of background knowledge you are presuming in the reader, but
it is much better to be over-explicit thannot explicit enough. Western readers sometimes compare J. E. to a classical Japanesepainting; the reader has to fill in most of
the picture for himself. If he is used todoing this, of course, it presents no great
difficulty, but most English readers are notand the effect is merely bewilderment.
3) In English it is essential to be precise and unambiguous. You may sometimes
feel that it is advantageous to leave a certain amount of ambiguity in a statement,——a certain amount of ʻroom for manoeuvreʼ
as it were; but this is never allowable in
English. Ask yourself continually ʻwhat
exactly does this sentence mean?ʼ If you
canʼt answer this question, it is usually best
to leave the sentence out altogether. Similarly, when you write an ʻitʼ (or ʻwhich,ʼor ʻthis,ʼ etc.) always ask yourself ʻwhat?ʼ
An ʻitʼ in English should always refer tosomething definite,* and moreover somethingwhich has already been mentioned in the
text (it may of course be something quite
complicated, like ʻthe fact that . . . . ʼ —— inthis case the word ʻfactʼ itself of course
need not have occurred). Too many Japanese writers appear to use ʻitʼ to refer tosomething which they have in their minds
and they expect the reader to have in his!
4) Japanese seems to have a strong
tendency to avoid too definite or assertive* Except of course in certain special grammatical constructions, such as it is clear that . . . .ʼ

第 21 巻第 11 号a statement, possibly because it is thoughtpresumptuous to impose oneʼs own views on
the reader without conceding that there arepossible alternatives. This notion is completely foreign to most Western readers, andthey will usually be unable to make theʻmental jumpʼ necessary to appreciate it;
if you state your opinion vaguely because
you want to leave room for various possible
interpretations besides your own, they willoften simply take this as a sign of vague andmuddled thinking. Therefore, try to be as
definite and assertive as possible, even it
feels a little unnatural. If you have definite,
concrete reservations about your views, orconclusions, then state them explicitly (in afootnote if necessary); if not, then donʼt try
to soften the force of your assertion at all.
In particular, it is almost hopeless to try totranslate phrases like “であろう”, “といってよいのではないかと思われる”, “と見てもよい”
etc. into English (see also section 6); if you
find you have to think out your sentence inJapanese and then translate it (a process
which is of course not to be recommended
but may be unavoidable for many people)
then before translating change the first to
である and leave out the second and third
altogether.
5) To an English reader, Japanese (andJ. E.) often seems vague and diffuse——there
seem to be many clauses or sentences which
add nothing substantial to the meaning. In
English, on the contrary, every clause should
ʻpull its weightʼ. In particular, it is a very
bad habit to imply vaguely that there issomething more to be said unless you intend
to say it explicitly. Thus, sentences likethe following should usually be avoided:*ʻThis may give a very definite picture.ʼ
ʻThis may be viewed from the stand-* The isolated examples given here are in fact
unlikely to lead to very serious confusion.
To give an example of a sentence of this typewhich could completely baffle the reader would
require writing out the whole context.

Notes on the Writing of Scientific English for Japanese Physicists

point of various considerations.ʼ
ʻIt will be essential to study the problem
from this point of view.ʼ
ʻThis is useful not only for . . . . but also
for examination of the effect from various sides.ʼ
Such sentences are quite legitimate if they
introduce an explicit discussion; for instance,
the first is all right if you go on to describethe ʻdefinite pictureʼ or the second if you
go on to enumerate the ʻvarious considerationsʼ. However, it is definitely a sign of
bad writing in English to use them in isolation as a substitute for an explicit discussion.
If this were merely a matter of good style
one might afford to neglect it without serious
confusion; however, I believe it is just suchsentences which make a major contribution
to the peculiar ʻopaquenessʼ of some J. E..
The point is that the English reader is not
usually expecting such sentences in isolation,and therefore if you make ʻmicroscopicʼ
(grammatical and other) mistakes in it hewill often be unable to guess the intended
meaning from the context. Therefore, if
you donʼt want to state an idea or set ofideas explicitly, donʼt refer to them at all.
To summarize: make sure that yourargument runs as a logical sequence and thatno essential steps are left unwritten, be as
precise, unambiguous and explicit as you
can, and donʼt hesitate to state your conclusions boldly and definitely. Once this isdone the problem of writing good English
is indeed largely reduced to the problem of
good translation.
§ 2 Sentence Construction
Write short sentences.
This may seem unnecessary advice sincerandom sampling shows that the averagesentence in ʻProgressʼ is already a gooddeal shorter than that in ʻPhys. Rev.ʼ; you
may in fact sometimes hear Westerners criticize J. E. on the grounds that the sentences
are too short and it reads jerkily. To some793

extent this is true, but this is a small defectand it is very much less wearing on thenerves to read a succession of short sentences, with the connection between each
properly indicated, than to have to try tosort out a long and ill-constructed one.* The
shorter the sentence, the less the chances ofserious ambiguity. So, if your sentence ismore than 40 words long, you should think
seriously whether you cannot break it up
with at least a semi-colon (see below); as tothe average length of a sentence,** 20 words
is a good average to aim at and even 15 isprobably not too short. Remember in any
case that the English sentence is a system ofstrictly limited capacity, it can tolerate only
a few subsidiary clauses and these must all
be fitted tightly into the sentence structure.
There is no analogue of the Japanese ʻsuspensiveʼ construction in English. The following points should be given special attention:a) If you have an important idea to express, donʼt put it in a subsidiary clause.
Instead, start a new sentence. For example,
consider the following sentence:ʻCompared with the Nagoya model, thesenewer models seem to be rather moreplausible in explaining the mechanism
binding the baryons and leptons, byintroducing a third quantum number
besides the usual isotopic spin and hypercharge and by considering the existing baryons and bosons to represent
a neutral state of this quantum number,
although they must generally produce
many particles so far undiscovered, as aresult of the increased number of elements and the reduced symmetry.ʼ
This sentence (76 words) is much too long
* To some extent jerkiness can be avoided byreplacing some of the full stops with semicolons (see below).
** That is, (number of words)/(number of periods
plus semi-colons).

794

日本物理学会誌

on general grounds. In addition there arepresumably three different important ideas
in it: 1) The newer models are better thanthe Nagoya model in explaining the binding
mechanism. 2) The origin of this superiority is the introduction of a third quantum
number, etc.. 3) Nevertheless they predict
many particles so far undiscovered. Eachof these ideas deserves a sentence, or atleast a main verb, to itself. Thus,
ʻCompared . . . . leptons. This is because
they introduce . . . . number. However,they must . . . . symmetry.ʼ
This point applies particularly to sentences containing a long relative clause as
the final part. For instance, consider:ʻFrom eq. (3.10) we get the final resultthat the inelastic shadow scattering must
dominate the cross-section above a few
tens of BeV, if we assume SU (6) symmetry and take the parameter  to havea reasonably small value, which is instrong disagreement with the experimental results unless we assume a very
peculiar form for the function f (S), as
was shown by Brown from considerations of crossing symmetry.ʼ
Again this sentence is too long, and in
addition the fact that the result is in disagreement with experiment is an importantnew point. Thus,
ʻFrom . . . . value. This result is . . . . symmetry.ʼ
(Another good reason for breaking up thesentence in this way is that as it stands it
is not clear what the ʻwhichʼ refers to——see also below (section 3)).
b) Donʼt suspend a subordinate clauseor phrase at the end of a sentence when it
is not perfectly clear what it refers to. Be
especially careful with clauses beginning第 21 巻第 11 号

with ʻasʼ ʻsimilarly toʼ or ʻby (in) . . . . -ing.ʼ
A very common and misleading type of caseis the following:ʻWe find that the function F (x) has an
infinite range but the magnetization
below Tc does not tend to a finite value,
as was suggested by Brown.ʼ
From this sentence as it stands the reader who is unfamiliar with Brownʼs work may
draw any one of three conclusions about hissuggestion:
1) The function F has a finite range
and the magnetization does not tend
to a finite value.
2) The magnetization does not tend toa finite value (no conclusion about F)3) The magnetization tends to a finite
value.
It is easy to remove the ambiguity by breaking the sentence up into two, either by afull stop or by a semi-colon (see below).
According as the meaning is 1), 2) or 3) weshould write:1) ʻWe find . . . . value. These results
agree with the suggestion of Brown.ʼ
2) ʻWe find . . . . value. This second result agrees with . . . .ʼ3) ʻWe find . . . . value. This second result conflicts with . . . ʼThis is not necessarily always the mostnatural way of removing the ambiguity but
it is by far the safest. Compare also thesentence:
ʻThis feature seems to be disadvantageous to the collective nature of theexcitation . . . . especially in bringing about a large transition probability.ʼ
As it stands it is not clear whether thismeans that the feature in question does ordoes not bring about a large transition probability (though I think most readers would
assume that it does). Again, a straightforward way of removing the ambiguity is toNotes on the Writing of Scientific English for Japanese Physicists

start a new sentence: ʻIn particular, it
brings about . . . .ʼ or ʻIn particular, it cannot bring about . . . .ʼIn short, whenever you are tempted towrite a subsidiary clause after the main one,ask yourself whether it wouldnʼt be betterto start a new sentence. This may sometimes be the less elegant alternative but,provided it is grammatically possible, it israrely wrong and the gain in intelligibility
usually amply compensates for the loss inelegance!
Use of the semi-colon.
Too many Japanese authors (like many
English ones, unfortunately) seem unawareof the existence of this punctuation mark (;).
Roughly speaking, it is used to break up along sentence when the ideas are too closely
connected to be put in separate sentences;it indicates a break in the thought considerably stronger than that implied by a comma
but weaker than that implied by a full stop
(period). For grammatical purposes it isequivalent to a full stop. Thus, consider
the sentence.
ʻHigh energy scattering above a few
GeV is investigated as the shadow scattering of multiple production, for which
phenomenological, peripheral and uncorrelated jet models are used.ʼ
In this sentence the clause beginning ʻforwhichʼ is important enough to stand byitself, but since it is so short and so closely connected with the rest of the sentencea full stop would give an unnecessarily jerky
effect. Thus, use a semi-colon:
ʻHigh energy . . . . production; phenomenological . . . . used.ʼ
In many other cases, when you are tempted
to start the second part of a sentencewith ʻ. . . . , which . . . .ʼ or ʻ . . . . , and it . . . .ʼ795

it is much better to put a semi-colon: ʻ. . . . ;this (result) . . . .ʼ etc.. In most cases it islargely a matter of taste whether to use asemi-colon or a full stop. (But rememberthat it is unusual for a sentence to containmore than one semi-colon.) However, ample
use of the semi-colon will help to avoid overclumsy sentences while giving a less jerky
effect than a sequence of completely detachedsentences.
Keep qualifying phrases and clauses to what
they qualify.
Consider the sentence:ʻWe investigate the scattering of pions
by protons at a few MeV, paying special
attention to the problem of the imaginary part of the phase shifts, which waspreviously discussed by Jones, who assumed a hard-sphere potential, in theSU3 modelʼ
As it stands it is not clear whether ʻin theSU3 modelʼ refers to ʻdiscussed by Jonesʼ
or to ʻwe investigate.ʼ In either case it
should follow the verb directly ʻdiscussed
in the SU3 modelʼ or ʻwe investigate, in theSU3 model, . . . .ʼ (Actually this sentence
would in any case better be broken up, witha semi-colon after ʻshiftsʼ.)Similarly consider:
ʻThe theory can explain the magnetic
moments of the baryons, the approximate SU (6) symmetry scheme satisfiiedby all lowlying resonances and the factthat the scattering amplitudes appear tobe well predicted by the Smith formulain a unified way.ʼ
Here it looks as if ʻin a unified wayʼ qualifies ʻpredictedʼ whereas it presumably isactually meant to refer to ʻexplain.ʼ Thus
we should write ʻThe theory can explain ina unified way the magnetic moments . . . .
Smith formula.ʼ Try to avoid qualifying a

796

日本物理学会誌

word by more than one phrase or clause; if
this is unavoidable it is generally better to
put the shorter and less important one first.
Thus, e.g. ʻWe can carry out the integration
in a straightforward way by making the substitution x  y 2 and transforming to polar
coordinatesʼ (not ʻwe can . . . integration bymaking . . . . coordinates in a straightforwardwayʼ). Above all, make sure that qualifying clauses and phrases qualify somethingwhich is actually in the sentence, not something in your mind. Typical of a common
fault in J. E. is the sentence ʻThe proton andneutron masses are different by considering
the effect of the pion cloud.ʼ ʻBy consideringʼ here is obviously meant to qualify some
unwritten verb like ʻunderstandʼ or ʻexplainʼ,
but this is not allowable in English, so wemust write, e.g. ʻWe can understand (explain) the fact that the proton and neutron
masses are different by considering . . . .ʼ (or,of course, ʻthe proton are different because of the effect . . . .ʼ) This particular example is fairly easy to disentangle, but I haveread many similar ones where this mistake
could make the sentence quite unintelligible.
In short: remember that in English every subsidiary clause and phrase must havea definite place in the sentence structure,and that as far as possible this place should
be clearly indicated by the sentence order.
Donʼt hang subsidiary clauses on to the endof a sentence if you are not sure just where
they fit in——start a new sentence instead.
§ 3 Relative Clauses (..ʻwhich . . . .ʼ, ʻwho
. . . .ʼ, etc.)
English distinguishes quite sharply between two types of relative clauses (as far
as I know, Japanese does not make this distinction explicitly): those which identify andthose which describe or state a further fact
about the subject of the clause. In the second
type a comma is put before the ʻwhichʼ, inthe first it is omitted. Thus, distinguish thetwo sentences:a) ʻWe find the solution of eqs. (8-10)

第 21 巻第 11 号

which remains finite as x → 0.ʼ
b) ʻWe find the solution of eqs. (8-10),
which remains finite as x → 0.ʼ
Sentence (a) implies that there are (or atleast may be) other solutions which do not
remain finite; it identifies the solution which
we find. Sentence (b) on the other hand
implies that the solution is unique (otherwise the ʻtheʼ would be replaced by ʻaʼ (seesection 9)) and, further, states that it remains
finite. In this case and in many similar ones
we could rewrite (b) as:
ʻWe find the solution of eqs. (8-10); thisremains finite as x → 0.ʼ
In fact it is probably better to rewrite it
this way whenever it is grammatically possible. But, in any case, remember that theinsertion or omission of a comma can change
the meaning entirely.
Generally speaking, a relative pronoun(in either of the senses a) or b) ) should immediately follow the noun to which it refers.
(This is always true for type-b sentences)ʻSome solutions were obtained by Jones
which satisfy (3.9.)ʼ is best avoided;* andʻthe pion parity which is emitted in thereactionʼ is never allowable (it is the pion
which is. emitted, not the parity). A common case in which this rule does not apply
is when the noun is qualified by some otherphrase as well as by the relative clause: e.g.
ʻthe solution of eqs. (8-10) which remains
finiteʼ [type (a)],ʻthe solution found by Smith, which remains finiteʼ [type (b)].
Be very careful to avoid ambiguity, however,in this kind of sentence; in the above examples
both grammar and sense tells us thatʻwhichʼ must refer to ʻsolutionʼ and not toʻeqs. (8-10)ʼ or to ʻSmithʼ, but in other cases
it may not be obvious. Consider for instance:* This construction is sometimes legitimate but
it is difficult to give a general rule.

Notes on the Writing of Scientific English for Japanese Physicists

797

ʻLet us consider the solutions of theequations which were found by Jonesʼ
[type (a)]ʻOne then gets periodic solutions to the
dynamical equations, which agree withthose found by Jonesʼ [type (b)].

ʻwhichʼ as referring to the last noun to whichgrammar and sense permits it to refer (thatis, to ʻequationsʼ and ʻspaceʼ in the examples
given above). Remember that the use ofʻthatʼ and ʻthoseʼ in conjunction with ʻwhichʼ
is confined to type-a relative clauses.

Did Jones find the equations or the solutions ?
A reader with a detailed background knowledge of the subject may know, but you
should never take such background knowledge for granted if you can possibly avoid
it by rewriting the sentence in an unambiguous form. In a type-b sentence this is very
easily done by starting a new sentence afterʻequationsʼ: ʻ. . . . equations; these equations
agree . . . .ʼ or ʻ. . . . equations; these solutions
agree . . . .ʼ as the case may be. Case (a) israther more difficult; a somewhat inelegant
but foolproof way of removing the ambiguity is to replace the ʻtheʼ in front of thenoun to which the ʻwhichʼ refers by ʻthoseʼ:

Make sure ʻwhichʼ actually refers to something.
A type-b relative clause occasionally appears not to refer to any noun which actually appears in the sentence, as in:ʻLet us consider those solutions of theequations which were found by Jonesʼ
orʻLet us consider the solutions of thoseequations which were found by Jones.ʼ
Again, the sentenceʻWe consider the irreducible subspacesof the space to which P and Q belongʼ
may be ambiguous under certain circumstances; it can be made unambiguous by
rewriting it, according to the meaning,
either as
ʻWe consider those irreducible subspacesof the space to which P and Q belongʼor asʻWe consider the irreducible subspacesof that space to which P and Q belong.ʼ
If you do not do this, then generally speaking an English reader will tend to take theʻThis argument predicts that the spinof U is 3/2, which is in contradiction
with experiment.ʼ
Here the ʻwhichʼ actually refers to ʻ[theprediction] that the spin is 3/2ʼ. However,this kind of usage is full of pitfalls and I
would therefore advise Japanese writers not
to use it if they can possibly avoid it; oneof the most widespread vices of J.E. is thewriting of relative clauses which apparently
do not refer to anything. It is almost always possible to avoid this by beginning a
new sentence and referring to the noun explicitly: e.g.
ʻThis argument predicts that the spinof U is 3/2; this prediction is in contradiction with experiment.ʼ
(The same warning, incidentally, applies
equally to ʻthisʼ and ʻitʼ——see section 1)§4 ʻAnyʼ and ʻAllʼ especiallyin Negative Sentences
Consider the following two cases:(a) 1  0,  2  0,  3  0,  4  0(b) 1  0,  2  0,  3  0,  4  0
We can describe each, of these cases in a
number of ways: ((3)-(5) would of course becorrect only in an appropriate context)(a)1) ʻAll of the ʼs are different from zero.ʼ

798

日本物理学会誌

第 21 巻第 11 号

2) ʻNone of the ʼs are equal to zero.ʼ
3) ʻWe have set all of the ʼs different fromzero.ʼ4) ʻWe have set none of the ʼs equal tozero.ʼ
5) ʻWe have not set any of the ʼs equal tozero.ʼ(b)1) ʻSome of the ʼs are different from zero.ʼ
2) ʻNot all of the ʼs are equal to zero.ʼ
3) ʻWe have set some of the ʼs different
from zero.ʼ
4) ʻWe have not set all of the ʼs equal tozero.ʼʻThis series never convergesʼ is much morenatural. On the whole it is better to replaceʻnot . . . . anyʼ by ʻnoneʼ or ʻnoʼ whenever
you can;* thus 4a) is preferable to 5a) undermost circumstances.

However, We can never say*have a similar but not identical meaning, a)
Implies that higher-order terms certainly exist; b) makes no such implication, but simply
says that if they do exist, they may be neglected. ʻAnyʼ is especially common before a
relative clause, e.g.:ʻAny of the ʼs are not equal to zeroʼorʻAll of the ʼs are not equal to zeroʼIt is best to use the rule that ʻanyʼ can neverdirectly precede a negative, though it canfollow it (as in (5a)). If you are tempted towrite, e.g., ʻAny mesons are not stable,ʼthink carefully whether you mean ʻʼNo mesons
are stableʼ (= ʻall mesons are unstableʼ) orʻNot all mesons are stableʼ (= ʻsome mesons
are unstableʼ). In my experience, Japanesewriters who write ʻany . . . . are not ʻusuallymean ʻnone . . . . areʼ; on this assumption thefollowing replacements should be made:ʻAny problems . . . . do not occurʼ → ʻnoproblems . . . . occurʼʻAnything . . . .cannot be doneʼ → ʻnothing . . . . can be doneʼ' We can do nothing'( or 
)' We cannot do anything'ʻAnyone . . . . has not provedʼ → ʻno-one
has proved.ʼ
ʻThis series does not ever convergeʼ is not
actually wrong, since the ʻeverʼ (which is analogous to ʻanyʼ) follows the negative, but* ʻAll . . . . are notʼ occurs occasionally in spoken
English in sense (b). However, it is practicallyunknown in written English.

ʻAnyʼ and ʻallʼ in positive sentences.
The sentencesa) ʻAll higher-order terms may be neglectedʼ andb) ʻAny higher-order terms may be neglectedʼ

ʻAny interaction which breaks the symmetry will change the resultsʼ
The rule about ʻanyʼ not preceding a negative does not apply, of course, if the negativeis in the relative clause; thus the above example could be rewritten.
ʻAny interaction which does not conserve
the symmetry will change the results.ʼ§ 5 ʻOnlyʼ, ʻMainlyʼ, ʻNot OnlyʼThe positioning of ʻonlyʼ is very important.** Contrast the three sentences:
1) ʻOnly the spin-orbit interactions renormalize the lifetimeʼ (i.e. other interactions do not renormalize it).
2) ʻThe spin-orbit interactions only
renormalize the lifetimeʼ (i.e. they
have no other effect).
* In this respect usage is different in spoken andwritten English.
** Here I discuss only the adverbial use of ʻonlyʼ.
The adjectival use does not usually give trouble.

Notes on the Writing of Scientific English for Japanese Physicists3) ʻThe spin-orbit interactions renormalize only the lifetimeʼ (i.e. they do
not renormalize anything else).
It is best to try always to put ʻonlyʼ immediately before the word which it qualifies.
Thus, if f  x, y   x 2  y 2 , g  x, y   y 2 writeʻonly f is a function of xʼ while if f  x, y   x 2 ,write ʻf is a function only of xʼ Avoid ʻfʼ isonly a function of xʼ or ʻf only is a functionof xʼ which are often ambiguous. If in doubt,
it is often possible to rewrite the sentence tomake the point quite clear: e.g. we could rewrite 1), 2) and 3) above respectively as1) ʻIt is only the spin-orbit interactions
which renormalize the lifetime.ʼ
2) ʻThe only effect of the spin-orbit interactions is to renormalize the lifetime.ʼ
3) ʻThe only thing renormalized by the
spin-orbit interactions is the lifetime.ʼ
Very similar remarks apply to ʻmainlyʼ(or ʻchieflyʼ ʻprincipallyʼ etc.) In sentences
2) and 3) ʻonlyʼ could be replaced by ʻmainlyʼ
with the analogous meaning in each case. In
sentence 1) this is also grammatically possible but for some reason it sounds rather
odd and 1) would usually be rewritten ʻIt ismainly the spin-orbit interactions which . . . .ʼʻNot onlyʼ: Like ʻonlyʼ, this refers to theword which it directly precedes. Thus, e.g..
ʻNot only x but [also] y is divergent.ʼ
ʻx is not only divergent but [also] meaningless.ʼ
ʻx not only diverges but [also] contains afactor T -1ʼ
If the ʻnot onlyʼ refers to the whole clause it
is usually necessary to invert the order, e.g..
ʻNot only does x diverge but x contains afactor T -1ʼ
(However, ʻnot only x divergesʼ, though in-799

correct, is unlikely in practice to lead to serious misunderstanding.)
Finally (a somewhat disconnected point):ʻWe have introduced only one free parameterʼ but ʻx is introduced as the only freeparameterʼ (not ʻonly oneʼ). Also note ʻThe
only free parameters are x and yʼ (not ʻThe
free parameters are only x and yʼ).
§ 6 ʻMay beʼ/ʻCan beʼ/ʻIsʼʻMay beʼ is not the equivalent of ʻであろうʼ, which indeed is practically untranslatable
into English (cf. section 1). The sentence ʻymay be a function of xʼ implies that you (thewriter) donʼt know whether y is a function ofx or not; if you use ʻmay beʼ merely because
you think ʻy is a function of xʼ sounds too
blunt, the average English reader will becompletely baffled. ʻMayʼ in English has two
main uses: 1) to indicate uncertainly, e.g.
ʻthis series may not convergeʼ ʻthe experimental data may be erroneousʼ 2) to indicate
permissibility (in this sense it is often replaceable by ʻcanʼ), e.g. ʻWe may approximate
this term by . . . .ʼ ʻthis term may not be neglectedʼ. ʻMayʼ is never used in English justto make a sentence sound more polite (theconnection between politeness and vaguenessis completely unknown in English); so, if
your sentence does not fit either of the above
cases, donʼt use it. If you feel you must findan equivalent for であろう at all costs, probably the best is ʻwe may say that . . . .ʼ(sense (2)of ʻmayʼ); but it is much better to be bluntand have done with it (cf. section 1) (ʻwe may
say that y is a function of xʼ sounds odd since
this is presumably not a matter of opinion !).
Note also that although ʻit may be interesting/plausible/possible that . . . .ʼ is not wrong, it
is more usual to replace the ʻmay beʼ by ʻisʼ.
ʻIt is shown (proved, demonstrated)ʼ almost always refers to a definite occasion, very
rarely to the fact that something can be proved, has been proved at some indefinite timein the past, or has been proved by the author
but not published. Thus, ʻIt is (was, has been)shown in ref. (6) that Z3 is finiteʼ or ʻIt is.

800

日本物理学会誌

shown in the Appendix that . . . . ʼ, butʻ It canbe shown that Z3 is finite [but we shall not
bother to do so here]ʼ. If this remark precedes a proof, then use ʻcan beʼ: e.g. ʻIt canbe shown as follows that Z3 is finite: . . . .ʼSimilarly ʻThe cross-section can be calculated
as follows: . . . .ʼ Also note ʻ f  x  can be rewritten in the form . . . .ʼ (ʻis rewrittenʼ is sometimes allowable but ʻcan beʼ is hardly everwrong.*)
ʻIt is thought (believed) that . . . .ʼ almost
always means ʻit is thought by people (physicists) in general that . . . .ʼ not ʻI believethat . . . .ʼ. Thus ʻit is believed that the nucleus consists of protons and neutronsʼ but ʻThe
present author believes that this result is incorrectʼ. Similarly ʻV is regarded as an effective fieldʼ means it is so regarded byphysicists in general; if, on the contrary,
this is a view which you are proposing, say
ʻV may be regarded as an effective fieldʼ
(sense (2) of ʻmayʼ).
Other common errors of this type:ʻis notedʼ→ʻis to be notedʼ or ʻmay be
notedʼ or ʻshould be notedʼ
ʻis desired (that) . . . .ʼ → ʻis to be desiredʼ
or ʻis desirableʼ**ʻis emphasizedʼ → ʻis to be emphasizedʼ
or ʻshould be emphasizedʼʻis hopedʼ → ʻmay be hopedʼ or ʻis to be
hopedʼ
With regard to the last, however, distinguishʻit is to be hoped that this question will be
investigatedʼ (= I hope someone else will investigate it) from ʻit is hoped to investigate
this questionʼ (= I intend to investigate it
myself).
§7 Qualified Adjectives etc.
If an adjective or participle is qualified
by a phrase, it must immediately precede it.
* ʻWe rewrite f(x) in the form . . . .ʼ is of course
equally good.
** However, note ʻit is desired to express y interms of xʼ (= we wish to express . . . .)第 21 巻第 11 号

Examples:ʻinverse relation of eq. (7)ʼ → ʻrelation
inverse to eq. (7)ʼ
ʻexchanged particles between themʼ →ʻparticles exchanged between themʼʻisobaric state of the initial oneʼ → ʻstate
isobaric to the initial oneʼ
ʻidentical equations with (3.7)ʼ → equations identical with (to) (3.7)ʼ
ʻrelative order of magnitude toʼ → ʻorderof magnitude relative toʼʻan intermediate stage of the first twoʼ→ ʻa stage intermediate between thefirst twoʼBe specially careful not to write, e.g.
ʻtheir intermediate stageʼ instead of ʻthestage intermediate between them.ʼ or its
identical equationʼ for ʻan equation identicalwith itʼ. Always think twice before translating その by ʻitsʼ or ʻtheirʼ. ʻItsʼ, ʻtheirʼ
etc. can replace only ʻof it (them)ʼ and eventhen the replacement is not always correct.
In particular, if the ʻofʼ is directly connected to an adjective or adverb, as in ʻindependent ofʼ the replacement is never correct; thus, ʻthe independent solutions of the
wave equationʼ can be replaced by ʻits independent solutionsʼ, (or, though less naturally, ʻthe independent solutions of itʼ), butʻthe solutions which are independent of x,
cannot be replaced by ʻits (i.e. xʼs) independent solutionsʼ——we must write ʻthesolutions independent of itʼ. When in doubt
it is probably safer on average to write ʻofit (them)ʼ.
An even more misleading type of error is
one like the following:ʻthis is a gauge-transformation invariantof the electron operators.ʼ
Here ʻof the electron operatorsʼ qualifies
ʻgauge-transformationʼ; we must therefore
rewrite the clauseNotes on the Writing of Scientific English for Japanese Physicists

ʻthis is an invariant with respect to gaugetransformation of the electron operatorsʼ.
§ 8 ʻAʼ vs ʻTheʼ vs Nothing
Probably this is one of the most difficult
points in the whole of the English language
for most foreigners (not only for Japanese!).
Luckily it does not usually cause serious confusion if you get it wrong, so I only mentiona few points.
ʻTheʼ usually implies in some sense theuniqueness of the object you are talking about, while ʻaʼ (or in the case of the plural,
the absence of an article) implies its nonuniqueness. Thus,
ʻThe solution of (3.9) is given by (3.10)ʼ
implies that this solution is unique, while ʻA
solution of (3.9) is given by (3.10)ʼ implies
at least that there may be other solutions.
Compare the following pairs of sentences:' f  x  is an analytic function of x.'
' f  x  is the function of x defined by (3.11.)'

' f x  is a Bessel function' (there are many Bessel functions but only one
 Airy function.)' f x  is the Airy function.'' Two components of the momentum
 commute with H.' (assuming the sys  tem is three - dimensional).
' The three components of the momen  tum commute with H.'' Very small values of t are unphysical'
' The very small values of t given by eq. (6) are unphysical.'' We regard x and y as quantities inde  pendent of R'
' We regard x and y as the only unknown quantities in this equation.'
The fact that the noun in question is qualified
by a type-a relative clause (section 3) does
not necessarily imply that it must take ʻtheʼ:e.g.
' We must look for the metal which has the highest transition temperature.'

801

' We must look for a metal which has a high transition temperature.'ʻX theoryʼ vs ʻThe X theoryʼ. This is not
an important point but a fairly definite rulecan be given. If X is the subject-matter of
the theory, then ʻX theoryʼ: e.g. ʻsolid-state
theoryʼ ʻelectromagnetic theoryʼ ʻsuperconductivity theoryʼ. When X describes thepostulates or methods of the theory, or names
its author (s), then ʻthe X theoryʼ: e.g. ʻthequark theoryʼ ʻthe BCS theoryʼ ʻthe quantum
theory of radiationʼ. Thus, Professor Yukawa formulated ʻthe meson theory [of nuclear forces]ʼ but Schweber et al.ʼs book deals
with ʻmeson theoryʼ. Possibly in 1976 there
will be ʻquark theoryʼ but at present there is
only ʻthe quark theoryʼ!
In general, however, I would advise authors not to worry overmuch about ʻaʼ andʻtheʼ; there are many other points which
deserve more attention.
§ 9 Singular vs Plural
The following nouns are never or very
rarely used in the plural.*Nature, character, behaviour, notation,knowledge, information, (experimental) support, agreement,** emission, scattering, advice, encouragement.
In general abstract nouns describing aprocess or action are used in the singular unless you are referring to a number of different
occasions on which the action took place. A
very common example is ʻdiscussionʼ: thus.

ʻWe give a discussion of this point in section 5ʼ (not ʻsome discussionsʻʼ),butʻThe discussions of this point given in
refs. (7) and (8) are inadequate.ʼ
(However,ʻthe discussion of this point given
in ref. (7) is inadequateʼ.) It is also conven* On the rare occasions when they can be usedin the plural, the singular is equally correct.
** In physics contexts, at least !

802

日本物理学会誌

tional to thank oneʼs colleagues for ʻhelpful
discussionsʼ.
ʻSituationʼ is used in the plural only when
it refers to two or more distinct cases. Thus,
ʻThis situation is to be expectedʼ (not ʻthesesituationsʼ) but ʻThere is a superficial resemblance between our case and that studied bySmith, but the two situations are really entirely different.ʼ
ʻExperimentʼ: one usually uses the singular if the sense is general, e.g. ʻin agreement with experimentʼ ʻaccording to experimentʼ ʻconflicts with experimentʼ ʻtake thevalues of  from experimentʼ. However, ʻtheexperiments of Jonesʼ ʻhigh-energy p-p scattering experimentsʼ. (Distinguish, incidentally, ʻexperimentsʼ from ʻexperimental dataʼ:One usually says, for instance, ʻthe experimental data are subject to a large errorʼ.)
The following nouns are normally usedin the plural when the sense is general; they
are used in the singular only when you arereferring to one particular property, etc:
Features, properties, aspects, characteristics, circumstances. Thus, e.g.: ʻlet us examine (the properties/some features/various
aspects/the characteristics) of this problem.ʼʻIn these circumstances . . . .ʼ, but, e.g.: ʻThe
solution (2.8) has the peculiar property/feature/characteristic of being invariant under
the interchange of x and y.ʼ ʻA disturbing aspect of this situation is that . . . .ʼ ʻThe unfortunate circumstance that f diverges makes
it impossible to . . . .ʼNotice in particular that one always says
ʻtransformation propertiesʼ ʻsymmetry propertiesʼ but (usually), ʻHermitian propertyʼ(this is the property of being Hermitian,whereas ʻtransformation propertiesʼ does not
simply mean the property of being transformed).
§ 10 Words to Avoid or Use with CareʻImageʼ is practically never used in scientific literature.* ʻConcreteʼ is much less
* Except of course in a technical sense, as inʻthe image of the Fermi surfaceʼ.

第 21 巻第 11 号

common in English than 具体的 in Japanese;
it is best to confine it to phrases like ʻa concrete exampleʼ or ʻwe chose a concrete form
for the potentialʼ. ʻThis may give some very
concrete imagesʼ is typical J. E.:* if you
must say it at all (cf. section 1) say ʻThis may
give a very definite (clear) pictureʼ. ʻStandpointʼ is also much less common in English
than 立場 in Japanese; ʻfrom the standpointof . . . .ʼ is often best replaced by ʻin connection with [the fact that . . . .]ʼ or ʻin the lightof (the fact that) . . . .ʼ Much the same applies
to ʻviewpointʼ. The words aspect, character,nature, characteristics, features, circumstances, situation seem to be particularly troublesome for Japanese authors; I can only recommend you to study their use when you
read English papers, or use a dictionary
which gives a large number of examples.
Here is an example of the correct use of each:ʻThis equation has a Markoffian characterʼʻThe true nature of the forces binding the baryons the random - phase approximation is still not understood.ʼ

ʻThe solution (4.3) has a number of interesting features.ʼ
ʻThe principal characteristics of the solution are as follows.ʼ
ʻVarious aspects of this problem remain
insufficiently explored.ʼʻIn view of the circumstances mentioned above, experimental detection may
prove difficult.ʼ
ʻThe situation here is entirely analogous
to that encoimtered in p-p scattering.ʼ
In certain cases two or three of these words
may be interchangeable (cf. the example insection 9), but it is rash to assume that thisis always so.
* ʻConcrete imageʼ = コンクリートで造った仏像.
In this kind of case there is really no goodtranslation of 具体的.

Notes on the Writing of Scientific English for Japanese Physicists803§ 11 Miscellaneous
Note the following pairs, which are often
confused:

Note the following expressions which arelisted roughly in order of increasing strength:

' Ferromagnetism is usually attributed
 to the electron spins.'
' The electron spins are usually invoked to explain ferromagnetism.'

ʻX is a little larger/somewhat larger/rather larger/considerably larger/a gooddeal larger/very much larger than Y.ʼ
ʻX is fairly large/quite large/rather large/very large.ʼ

' The nucleus consists of protons and neutrons.'
' Protons and neutrons constitute the nucleus.'
If f  x, y   f  x  , then

' f is independent of y .''[The value of] y is irrelevant to f .'(unusual)

If f  x, y   x 2 exp  y 4 , then

' f is sensitive to the value of y .'' The value of y is critical for f . '(unusual)ʻNecessarily does not . . . .ʼ vs ʻdoes notnecessarilyʼ: ʻCPT invariance does not necessarily imply T invarianceʼ but ʻIf the massof the fission fragments is greater than thatof the parent nucleus, then fission necessarily
does not occurʼ (=cannot occur). The second
use is however rare and best avoided.
ʻBothʼ vs ʻthe twoʼ: ʻBothʼ in English
has the sense of 両方とも; thus ʻboth the renormalization constants are equal to unityʼbut ʻthe two renormalization constants cancel
one another.ʼ ʻBoth renormalization constants are equalʼ (i.e. to one another) → ʻthetwo r. cs. are equalʼ.
ʻQuiteʼ vs ʻconsiderablyʼ: The meaningof these two words is often very similar but
ʻconsiderablyʼ is usually used only when acomparison is stated or implied. Thus ʻx
is considerably larger than yʼ ʻx is considerably reduced butʼ ʻx is quite largeʼ.
Actually ʻquiteʼ is a rather ambiguous* word
and it is often safer to replace it by ʻratherʼ.
* ʻThe effect is quite strongly suppressedʼ =ʻsuppreed to a large extent but not completely.ʼ ʻThe effect is quite suppressedʼ = ʻcompletely suppressed.ʼ

(Actually in the second row ʻfairlyʼ ʻquiteʼand ʻratherʼ are almost indistinguishable.)ʻNamelyʼ vs ʻthat isʼ: ʻNamelyʼ is used
when you are about to name or identify
something you have already described: e.g.
ʻUsing the best available data, namely theseof Brown . . .ʼ or ʻThere is one difficulty.
Namely, the integral in (3.1) does not converge.ʼ ʻThat isʼ is used to introduce an
explanation of something you have said, e.g.
ʻRegion II, that is, the region in which theheavy mesons play a dominant role . . . .ʼ orʻThe validity of this procedure is doubtful.
That is, it is not clear that we can replace . . . .ʼIn my experience ʻthat isʼ is right 90% of
the time, especially at the beginning of asentence.
ʻwill be able to be replacedʼ → ʻcan be
replacedʼʻmay have a possibility toʼ → ʻmay beable toʼ or ʻcanʼʻsuggests us thatʼ → ʻsuggests thatʼʻformulae (expressions) for f ʼ (not ʻof f ʼ)ʻconditions (restrictions) imposed on M
by rotational invarianceʼ (not ʻto Mʼ)ʻeffect of the Coulomb terms on Sʼ (notʻto Sʼ)ʻX can be expressed (rewritten) in termsof Yʼ(not ʻby Yʼ)ʻconstruct the wave function from Blochwavesʼ (not ʻwithʼ)ʻX is insensitive in comparison with Yʼ
but ʻX is less sensitive than Yʼʻassociate A with Bʼ (not ʻtoʼ)
ʻThe concerned baryonʼ → ʻThe baryon
concernedʼ is ʻa summation over pʼ (not ʻof pʼ)p

804

日本物理学会誌

ʻour interesting amplitudeʼ → ʻthe amplitude of interest to usʼʻWe pick up the ring graphsʼ → ʻpick outʼor ʻisolateʼ or ʻselect for special treatmentʼʻoperating  X  on   →ʻoperating with X  on   ʼ§ 12 Minor Stylistic Points
Try not to start sentences with ʻandʼ,
ʻbutʼ, ʻsoʼ.* Instead of ʻandʼ use ʻmoreoverʼor ʻfurtherʼ, instead of ʻbutʼ use ʻhoweverʼor ʻneverthelessʼ; instead of ʻsoʼ use ʻthereforeʼ or ʻhenceʼ. Donʼt end sentences with
ʻtooʼ or ʻhoweverʼ (or indeed any conjunction), though ʻhoweverʼ is sometimes allowable at the end of a very short sentence.
Be careful about starting sentences with
ʻThenʼ. It is not legitimate to use this in thesense of ʻthereforeʼ. Japanese authors areprobably confused by sequences like: ʻLet us
suppose the series converges. Then we canreplace . . . .ʼ The ʻthenʼ here does not meanʻthereforeʼ; the sense is ʻwhen (or if) we havesupposed the series to converge, then wecan . . . .ʼ Although the use of ʻthenʼ for ʻthereforeʼ is not a serious mistake, it is very wide
spread and worth watching out for.
ʻEspeciallyʼ usually qualifies an adjective
or adverb (ʻIt is especially important to . . . .ʼ)not a whole clause. At the beginning of asentence it should usually be replaced by ʻInparticularʼ.
ʻSomewhatʼ vs ʻmore or lessʼ: ʻThis is
more or less established experimentallyʼmeans roughly ʻThe experimental evidence
is not completely conclusive but it is very
good.ʼ ʻMore or lessʼ is not the equivalentof 多少. ʻSomewhatʼ is roughly equivalent toʻratherʼ or ʻquiteʼ (see section 11) (e.g. ʻthisis a somewhat doubtful procedure.ʼ)ʻA fewʼ vs ʻsevenalʼ: ʻA fewʼ tends toemphasize the smallness of the number involved, while ʻseveralʼ tends to emphasize its
largeness. Thus, e.g. ʻThe strength of this* This is another point in which spoken and(scientific) written English differ.

第 21 巻第 11 号

interaction cannot be more than a few keVʼ
but ʻDetection of this effect requires a fieldof several million oerstedsʼ. When neither
emphasis is needed ʻa fewʼ is usually used,
e.g.: ʻpp scattering at a few BeV is investigated.ʼʻBased onʼ. This is an adjectival phrase
and as such must qualify a noun. Sentences
like ʻBased on the Landau theory, the magnetic susceptibility is investigatedʼ are very
bad English;* we should write ʻOn the basisof the Landau theory, the m.s. is investigatedʼ. However, ʻwe give a treatment
based on the Landau theoryʼ is correct, sinceʻbased onʼ qualifies ʻtreatmentʼ.
ʻWe had betterʼ sounds very colloquial:
it is best replaced by ʻit is best to . . . .ʼIn the sentence ʻX and Y are equal toeach otherʼ the ʻto each otherʼ can usually
be left out without any danger of ambiguity.
Events ʻtake placeʼ (or ʻoccurʼ) but poles(of propagators etc.) ʻoccurʼ or ʻappearʼ (nottake place).
ʻThe functions Fiʼsʼ → ʻthe Fiʼsʼ or,
better,ʻthe functions Fiʼ.
ʻThe Okubo-Marshak formulaʼ but ʻOkubo and Marshak have shown . . . .ʼ(never ʻOkubo-Marshak have shownʼ.)Of course a few Western names are actually hyphenated (Gell-Mann, Lennord-Jones,
etc.)
あとがき
今回京都大学の小林稔先生から, Leggett 氏の“Notes on the Writing of Scientific English forJapanese Physicists”が送られて来ました。これは同氏がこの一年間京都大学に滞在中 Progress of Theoretical Physics の Language Consultant として英文の校訂をされた経験をもとに, 特に日本の物理学者を対象に書かれたものです。会誌編集委員会で協議したところ, これは会員が英語の論文を書くのにも, 閲* Despite the fact that they occasionally appear
in Phys. Rev.!

Notes on the Writing of Scientific English for Japanese Physicists
読者が英文をなおすのにも非常に役立つと考え, これを掲載することにしました。

805

間 Pines 教授のもとで超流動の研究をし, 65年9月から, 京都大学理学部物理学教室松原研究室に客員研

なお, Anthony James Leggett 氏について簡単に究者として滞在し, その間, 上記プログレスの投稿論紹介します。1961年 Oxford 大学を卒業, 64年
tel Haar 教授の指導のもとで学位をとり, Research
Associate として, Illinois 大学に行き, 64～65年の文の英文校閲をされたわけです。外国語については多くの国語を解し, 日本語も非常に上手です。
(編集委)