日语高手请进，帮忙将以下中文翻译成日文。 ！！！！ 感激不尽。 跪谢。_百度知道
日语高手请进，帮忙将以下中文翻译成日文。 ！！！！ 感激不尽。 跪谢。
佐藤君谢谢你和我做朋友。能认识你，真好。你可以用日语给我发送邮件。我会想办法弄懂你的意思的。我正在学习日语，为了我们能更好的交流。以后还请多多关照了。
提问者采纳
佐藤君： 友达になってくれて、ありがとうございました。 佐藤君と知り合って、よかったです。 日本语でメールを送ってくれても大丈夫です。 私は何とかして、佐藤君の言いたい意味を理解します。 私は今日本语を勉强しているのは、私たちはよく交流できるためです。 今后はよろしくお愿いいたします。
提问者评价
其他类似问题
为您推荐：
其他6条回答
佐藤君佐藤君谢谢你和我做朋友。私と友达にして、ありがとうございました。能认识你，真好。佐藤さんにあえては本当にうれしいです。你可以用日语给我发送邮件。日本语でメールを送ってくださっていいでしょう。我会想办法弄懂你的意思的。私はできるだけ佐藤さんのメールの意味が分かります。我正在学习日语，为了我们能更好的交流。私たちはもっとよく交流できるように私は日本语を勉强しています。以后还请多多关照了。これからよろしくお愿いします。
佐藤君友达になってくれたありがとうございます、佐藤君と知り合って、本当に良かったと思います。私に日本语のメールを送っても大丈夫です、ちゃんと私も意味を理解できるように努力します。我々のコミュニケーションをうまく出来るために、私は今日本语を勉强しています。またこれからも、宜しくお愿いします。
藤さん友达になれて、ありがとう。君は日本文のメールを送ってくれてもいいです。ご意思を分かるように力を尽くします。 よりよく交流できるために日本语を勉强しています。これからどうぞよろしくお愿いします。仅供小小的参考
佐藤さんありがとうございます私と友达をします。あなたを知るのは本当に良いです。あなたは日本语で私にメールを発送することができます。私は方法がいじってあなたの意味のをわかると思っています。私は日本语を学んで、私达もっと良い交流のため。后でどうぞよろしくお愿いします下さい！
佐藤君友达になってくれて有难う。お会いできてよかったです。日本语でメールしていいです。何とか分かるようにします。うまく交流できるように日本语を勉强してます。これからもよろしくお愿いいたします。
最后は「これからよろしくお愿いします」かな
中文翻译的相关知识
等待您来回答
下载知道APP
随时随地咨询
出门在外也不愁&& 查看话题
帮忙翻译感激不尽
各位兄台美女，我是超级英文菜鸟，帮我翻译下这些ABC，我感激不尽，定当论功行赏
Yes it is.
--Printing quality: we should add in labelling printing quality on CB:
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& - Readable barcode
Already put
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& - Quality of test/ font size of label on CB vs pack-original or original labels.
We believe this is already described in P-0010 quite clearly. We will revise that if there are more feedback on this point after pilot.
--LB gluing (PP) defect: please specify what is OK/Not Ok for this defect.
All the points mentioned in right column is not OK, unless specially description.
--Review with package specialists of Trading is needed, since they know well about the quality situation of suppliers, and also review with NPS, to better align the understanding of defects and remarks.
All reviewed
Should define both defects and remarks.
Some defects requirement could be remark. So far there are only acceptable/unacceptable, we will revise that if there are more feedback on this point after pilot.
Description of some defects and remarks need to be clearer and specific. We have a we will revise that if there are more feedback on this point after pilot.
Suggest internal ‘process control’ at NPS, to secure the quality before delivery to suppliers. This is part of quality system control which IKEA C packaging technicians are doing with NPS in daily business.
What is used for NPS internally needs to be marked in the handbook.
In Q hand book, all the points are used for whole IKEA supply chain.
Detail pls. see the attachment
--It is also important to define the ownership so that it is updated regularly, as it is a living document. The worst thing that can happen is that there is a lot of energy in this the first 6 months and then it is decreasing.
IKEA C packaging team (technicians) is the owner of this document
--Regarding the content, I think it is important to also think about “what good looks like”. There are several pictures of “no good” but do they show the worst case, or.…? What if there are slightly less bubbles for example? Is it then considered as ok? I think that pictures of the lowest level of OK should also be there. Some of the deviations can be measured and then it is a little bit easier to determine what’s good and what’s not good but that is not always the case.
So far there are only acceptable/unacceptable, we will revise that if there are more feedback on this point after pilot.
--You may also consider quality control for: 1)total weight example every 10cm x 10cm and 2)Corrugation patterns of how many corrugation/10cm.& 3)Corrugation shape. (Worn out corrugation roller or partial damage roller will cause deviation in compression strength.
Weight assessment is already included in P-10, so we didn’t make double work
“Corrugation pattern” is actually flute rate (according to your description). But it’s too technical to be checked in IKEA suppliers or other receivers’ side.
“Corrugation shape” is mentioned into different defect. We try to make this document simple and easy understandable for all the readers who are not packaging experts.
--Are we using “0” defects to judge the whole batch? Because in the package special process appendix says all the package materials in the packing area should pass the receiving inspections and the quality should be good. So the judgement level on this should be “0”.
This document doesn’t change any quality judgment way. It should always be zero tolerance according to IKEA concept, before and after.
The feet gluing strength I think it would be good we add here according to P10, because most of the package problems we have had is the feel fall off. And also maybe some CTQ check points we need the trading suppliers to implement with some special tools.
The gluing strength we mention here is mainly about foot itself, not foot with load bearer. The strength between foot and LB is called shearing test which is already mentioned clearly in P-0010.
--I would suggest add first information about good standard, and then what is the defect.
This will give better understanding about requirements and standard
“Good standard” should be according to customer experience and function. But we will revise that if there are more feedback on this point after pilot.
--should also be not able to read the barcode (and check that the barcode is correct)Already put
This&&way&&decisions&&are sought&&that&&give&&the&&most&&positive&&effects&&for&&the&&largest&&group&&of&&people. Although&&‘most&&positive’&&could&&be&&taken&&in&&an&&economic&&sense,&&this&&is certainly not the atmosphere from which the idea of technology assessment emerged.
A quick survey of those will make clear that not all of those guidelines are of an a in other words, offer a clear&&sequence&&of&&actions&&that&&can&&only&&be&&interpreted&&in&&one&&unique&&way.
对于这些的核心调查将澄清：不是所有此类指南都具有算法特性，即为动作提供只有唯一解读方式的一个清晰序列。
But in situations in which a patient inhales an anesthetic gas mixture one does not find periods without respiration, and a laminar flow is dominant.
The separation efficiency of the column used can be adjusted to the validated separation system by modifying the mobile phase mixing ratio .
通过调整流动相混合比，可将所使用的色谱柱的分离效率校正使之适应已验证的分离系统。
Carbon nanofiber composites as cathode materials for li-ions batteries
LiFePO4---3D纳米碳纤维
The laboratory testing of the melting of fluxed and unfluxed concentrates on an inclined refractory plaque has been used as an aid in optimizing wet charge smelting at one Canadian smelter.
The modular design consists of individual thin film composite membranes
cushioned between hydraulic cover disks, stacked, and assembled about a center tension rod and effectively sealed between metal end flanges.
模块设计由单层复合薄膜组成，这些薄膜垫在液压罩盘之间间，堆积、安装在中心拉杆周围及有效地密封在金属端法兰环之间。
--Printing quality: we should add in labelling printing quality on CB:
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& - Readable barcode
Already put
-打印品质：应在CB上添加标记性的打印品质
&&&&&&&&&&&&&& - 可读条形码
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& -检测质量/CB标签字体大小VS 原包装或原标签
We believe this is already described in P-0010 quite clearly. We will revise that if there are more feedback on this point after pilot.
我们相信，P-0010中已对此经行了清晰地描述。试行后若对此有更多反馈，我们将进行修订。
--LB gluing (PP) defect: please specify what is OK/Not Ok for this defect.
--LB粘合（PP）缺陷：请明确对于此缺陷，什么可行/什么不可行。
All the points mentioned in right column is not OK, unless specially description.
除有特别说明，右列所提到的所有点都是不可行的。
--Review with package specialists of Trading is needed, since they know well about the quality situation of suppliers, and also review with NPS, to better align the understanding of defects and remarks.
--需要贸易包装专家的审核，因为他们深刻了解供应商的质量状态，并且需要NPS审核，以便对缺陷和备注的理解一致。
All reviewed
Should define both defects and remarks.
全部审核了。
应对缺陷和备注进行定义。
Some defects requirement could be remark. So far there are only acceptable/unacceptable, we will revise that if there are more feedback on this point after pilot.
有些缺陷的要求可以备注。目前仅有可接受/不可接受，试行后若对此有更多反馈，我们将进行修订。
Description of some defects and remarks need to be clearer and specific. We have a we will revise that if there are more feedback on this point after pilot.
有些缺陷和备注需要更清晰明确的描述。我们已改进了一些。试行后若对此有更多反馈，我们将进行修订。
Suggest internal ‘process control’ at NPS, to secure the quality before delivery to suppliers.
建议在NPS进行内部‘过程控制’，以便在交付给供应商之前，确保质量。
This is part of quality system control which IKEA C packaging technicians are doing with NPS in daily business.
这是日常事务中，IKEAC包装技术员与NPS所做的质量系统控制的一部分。
what is used for NPS internally needs to be marked in the handbook.
哪些是NPS内部使用的，应在使用说明书中备注。
In Q hand book, all the points are used for whole IKEA supply chain.
Detail pls. see the attachment
Q使用说明书中，所有部分都用于IEKA供应链。
详细信息见附件。
--It is also important to define the ownership so that it is updated regularly, as it is a living document. The worst thing that can happen is that there is a lot of energy in this the first 6 months and then it is decreasing.
--明确所有权也是重要的，以便定期更新，因为这是一个动态文件。可能发生的最糟糕的事情是，前六个月投入大量精力，而以后慢慢减少。
IKEA C packaging team (technicians) is the owner of this document
IEKAC包装团队（技术员）是此文件的所有者。
--Regarding the content, I think it is important to also think about “what good looks like”. There are several pictures of “no good” but do they show the worst case, or.…? What if there are slightly less bubbles for example? Is it then considered as ok? I think that pictures of the lowest level of OK should also be there. Some of the deviations can be measured and then it is a little bit easier to determine what’s good and what’s not good but that is not always the case.
--关于内容，我想考虑一下“好的长什么样”也是重要的。有几幅“很糟”的图片，但他们呈现了最糟的状况，还是…？例如，假如略微有些气泡情况怎样呢？认为可行？我认为应该有“可行”的最低限度的照片。可以检测某些偏差，而且更便于决定哪些好，哪些不好，尽管不总是如此。
So far there are only acceptable/unacceptable, we will revise that if there are more feedback on this point after pilot.
目前仅有可接受/不可接受，试行后若对此有更多反馈，我们将进行修订。
--You may also consider quality control for: 1)total weight example every 10cm x 10cm and 2)Corrugation patterns of how many corrugation/10cm.& 3)Corrugation shape. (Worn out corrugation roller or partial damage roller will cause deviation in compression strength.
Weight assessment is already included in P-10, so we didn’t make double work
--你也应考虑如下质量控制：1）总重量，如每10cmX10cm 以及2）每10cm有多少波纹的波纹模型3）波纹形状。（破旧的制波辊筒或局部损坏的辊筒将造成压缩强度的偏差。9-10中已包含重量评估，因此我们没有重复做。）
“Corrugation pattern” is actually flute rate (according to your description). But it’s too technical to be checked in IKEA suppliers or other receivers’ side.
“Corrugation shape” is mentioned into different defect. We try to make this document simple and easy understandable for all the readers who are not packaging experts.
波纹模型实际上是flute rate（ 依据您的描述）。但这太有技术性，对于IEKA的供应商或者其他接收方来说，不能检测。
波纹形状在不同的缺陷中提到。我们尝试使此文件对于非包装专家的读者来说简单且便于理解。
--Are we using “0” defects to judge the whole batch? Because in the package special process appendix says all the package materials in the packing area should pass the receiving inspections and the quality should be good. So the judgement level on this should be “0”.
--我们是否使用“0”缺陷来评判整个批次？因为在包装中，特殊工艺附件提到所有的包装区的包装材料都应满足接收指标，且质量都应是好的。因此，对于此的判定水平应为“0”。
This document doesn’t change any quality judgment way. It should always be zero tolerance according to IKEA concept, before and after.
The feet gluing strength I think it would be good we add here according to P10, because most of the package problems we have had is the feel fall off. And also maybe some CTQ check points we need the trading suppliers to implement with some special tools.
The gluing strength we mention here is mainly about foot itself, not foot with load bearer. The strength between foot and LB is called shearing test which is already mentioned clearly in P-0010.
此文件没有变更任何质量判定方式。依据IEKA过去和将来的概念，一贯是零允差。
我认为依据P10，在此加入feet粘合强度是有益的，因为我们所遇到的大部分包装问题是feet下降。我们可能也需要交易供应商用一些特殊的工作完成有些关键质量特性检查点。此处提到的粘合强度主要是针对foot本身，而不是有承重木的foot。Foot与LB之间的强度称作剪力测试，这一点已在P-0010中清晰提出。
--I would suggest add first information about good standard, and then what is the defect.
This will give better understanding about requirements and standard
--我建议添加关于良好标准及什么是缺陷的第一手资料。这将帮助我们更好的理解要求与标准。
“Good standard” should be according to customer experience and function. But we will revise that if there are more feedback on this point after pilot.
“良好标准”应依据顾客体验及故能。试行后若对此有更多反馈，我们将进行修订。
--should also be not able to read the barcode (and check that the barcode is correct)
--依然无法读取条形码（并检查条形码是否正确）
Already put
做问卷的么？亲！
仅供参考！ Yes it is
--Printing quality: we should add in labelling printing quality on CB:
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& - Readable barcode
Already put
-打印品质：应在CB上添加标记性的打印品质
&&&&&&&&&&&&&& - 可读条形码
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& -检测质量/CB标签字体大小VS 原包装或原标签
We believe this is already described in P-0010 quite clearly. We will revise that if there are more feedback on this point after pilot.
我们相信，P-0010中已对此经行了清晰地描述。试行后若对此有更多反馈，我们将进行修订。
--LB gluing (PP) defect: please specify what is OK/Not Ok for this defect.
--LB粘合（PP）缺陷：请明确对于此缺陷，什么可行/什么不可行。
All the points mentioned in right column is not OK, unless specially description.
除有特别说明，右列所提到的所有点都是不可行的。
--Review with package specialists of Trading is needed, since they know well about the quality situation of suppliers, and also review with NPS, to better align the understanding of defects and remarks.
--需要贸易包装专家的审核，因为他们深刻了解供应商的质量状态，并且需要NPS审核，以便对缺陷和备注的理解一致。
All reviewed
Should define both defects and remarks.
全部审核了。
应对缺陷和备注进行定义。
Some defects requirement could be remark. So far there are only acceptable/unacceptable, we will revise that if there are more feedback on this point after pilot.
有些缺陷的要求可以备注。目前仅有可接受/不可接受，试行后若对此有更多反馈，我们将进行修订。
Description of some defects and remarks need to be clearer and specific. We have a we will revise that if there are more feedback on this point after pilot.
有些缺陷和备注需要更清晰明确的描述。我们已改进了一些。试行后若对此有更多反馈，我们将进行修订。
Suggest internal ‘process control’ at NPS, to secure the quality before delivery to suppliers.
建议在NPS进行内部‘过程控制’，以便在交付给供应商之前，确保质量。
This is part of quality system control which IKEA C packaging technicians are doing with NPS in daily business.
这是日常事务中，IKEAC包装技术员与NPS所做的质量系统控制的一部分。
what is used for NPS internally needs to be marked in the handbook.
哪些是NPS内部使用的，应在使用说明书中备注。
In Q hand book, all the points are used for whole IKEA supply chain.
Detail pls. see the attachment
Q使用说明书中，所有部分都用于IEKA供应链。
详细信息见附件。
--It is also important to define the ownership so that it is updated regularly, as it is a living document. The worst thing that can happen is that there is a lot of energy in this the first 6 months and then it is decreasing.
--明确所有权也是重要的，以便定期更新，因为这是一个动态文件。可能发生的最糟糕的事情是，前六个月投入大量精力，而以后慢慢减少。
IKEA C packaging team (technicians) is the owner of this document
IEKAC包装团队（技术员）是此文件的所有者。
--Regarding the content, I think it is important to also think about “what good looks like”. There are several pictures of “no good” but do they show the worst case, or.…? What if there are slightly less bubbles for example? Is it then considered as ok? I think that pictures of the lowest level of OK should also be there. Some of the deviations can be measured and then it is a little bit easier to determine what’s good and what’s not good but that is not always the case.
--关于内容，我想考虑一下“好的长什么样”也是重要的。有几幅“很糟”的图片，但他们呈现了最糟的状况，还是…？例如，假如略微有些气泡情况怎样呢？认为可行？我认为应该有“可行”的最低限度的照片。可以检测某些偏差，而且更便于决定哪些好，哪些不好，尽管不总是如此。
So far there are only acceptable/unacceptable, we will revise that if there are more feedback on this point after pilot.
目前仅有可接受/不可接受，试行后若对此有更多反馈，我们将进行修订。
--You may also consider quality control for: 1)total weight example every 10cm x 10cm and 2)Corrugation patterns of how many corrugation/10cm.& 3)Corrugation shape. (Worn out corrugation roller or partial damage roller will cause deviation in compression strength.
Weight assessment is already included in P-10, so we didn’t make double work
--你也应考虑如下质量控制：1）总重量，如每10cmX10cm 以及2）每10cm有多少波纹的波纹模型3）波纹形状。（破旧的制波辊筒或局部损坏的辊筒将造成压缩强度的偏差。9-10中已包含重量评估，因此我们没有重复做。）
“Corrugation pattern” is actually flute rate (according to your description). But it’s too technical to be checked in IKEA suppliers or other receivers’ side.
“Corrugation shape” is mentioned into different defect. We try to make this document simple and easy understandable for all the readers who are not packaging experts.
波纹模型实际上是flute rate（ 依据您的描述）。但这太有技术性，对于IEKA的供应商或者其他接收方来说，不能检测。
波纹形状在不同的缺陷中提到。我们尝试使此文件对于非包装专家的读者来说简单且便于理解。
--Are we using “0” defects to judge the whole batch? Because in the package special process appendix says all the package materials in the packing area should pass the receiving inspections and the quality should be good. So the judgement level on this should be “0”.
--我们是否使用“0”缺陷来评判整个批次？因为在包装中，特殊工艺附件提到所有的包装区的包装材料都应满足接收指标，且质量都应是好的。因此，对于此的判定水平应为“0”。
This document doesn’t change any quality judgment way. It should always be zero tolerance according to IKEA concept, before and after.
The feet gluing strength I think it would be good we add here according to P10, because most of the package problems we have had is the feel fall off. And also maybe some CTQ check points we need the trading suppliers to implement with some special tools.
The gluing strength we mention here is mainly about foot itself, not foot with load bearer. The strength between foot and LB is called shearing test which is already mentioned clearly in P-0010.
此文件没有变更任何质量判定方式。依据IEKA过去和将来的概念，一贯是零允差。
我认为依据P10，在此加入feet粘合强度是有益的，因为我们所遇到的大部分包装问题是feet下降。我们可能也需要交易供应商用一些特殊的工作完成有些关键质量特性检查点。此处提到的粘合强度主要是针对foot本身，而不是有承重木的foot。Foot与LB之间的强度称作剪力测试，这一点已在P-0010中清晰提出。
--I would suggest add first information about good standard, and then what is the defect.
This will give better understanding about requirements and standard
--我建议添加关于良好标准及什么是缺陷的第一手资料。这将帮助我们更好的理解要求与标准。
“Good standard” should be according to customer experience and function. But we will revise that if there are more feedback on this point after pilot.
“良好标准”应依据顾客体验及故能。试行后若对此有更多反馈，我们将进行修订。
--should also be not able to read the barcode (and check that the barcode is correct)
--依然无法读取条形码（并检查条形码是否正确）
Already put
做问卷的么？亲！
仅供参考！
楼主请忽略2楼 : Originally posted by woaichenog at
--Printing quality: we should add in labelling printing quality on CB:
&&&&&&&&&&& ... 雷锋哥你好 : Originally posted by hlhl1993 at
雷锋哥你好}