Help translate and analyze the sentence structure

That (they will, in all transactions that the parties wish to enter into and do, do their best) to assure the other party that the transaction codes established will not be affected. I’m not sure either. If the subject of assure is the first that, then assure should have a s, right?

That in all the transactions that the parties wish to enter into and carry out, they will, to the best of their ability, assure the other party that the transaction codes established will not be affected. Personal opinion: The subject is \"they\"; the predicate is \"will assure\"; the object is \"the other party\". The green-colored sentence functions as an adverbial phrase, the pink-colored sentence is a that-clause used as an attributive to modify \"transactions\". The blue-colored infinitive phrase serves as an adverbial phrase, and the purple-colored sentence functions as a complement to the object. However, I think the \"not\" after \"will\" is unnecessary; otherwise it doesn’t make sense.

I think the basic structure of the sentence is: The parties are desirous of entering into certain transactions; they will, to the best of their ability, assure the other party that the transaction codes established will not be affected. In other words, since they won’t engage in any such transactions, the parties still wish to do so and make every effort to ensure that the establishment of those transaction codes isn’t impacted. Grammar isn’t my strong point, so I hope others can come up with a better translation: loveliness::loveliness::loveliness: This post was last edited by dongping001 on 2009-3-20 at 19:12

The full original text can be found at http://bbs.fobshanghai.com/viewt ... e=1&authorid=501755, in the 3rd sentence; however, the translation is not entirely complete. Take a look and understand it better. It’s this ‘not’ that’s hard to deal with. It always seems unnecessary just by looking at it. It doesn’t make sense to talk about it either in front of or behind. This post was last edited by echommm on 2009-3-20 19:19]

After reading the full text provided by echo, things are a bit clearer. I still have the same confusion as with echo: what is not used for? It’s really hard to understand once it’s mixed in. Additionally, the \"that\" at the beginning of the sentence can be omitted; it can be ignored when conducting a detailed analysis (as \"that\" refers to the entire sentence). The subject, verb, and object of this sentence are as analyzed in the case of \"echo\": \"They will assure the other that the transaction codes established will not be affected.\" The revised translation is: Both parties should do their best to assure each other that the transaction codes established will remain unaffected in the transactions they intend to carry out. If “not” cannot be removed, then it will have to be translated again; I really doubt there’s an error in the original material. L might also be a characteristic inherent in protocol-related documents. I look forward to experts providing answers. This post was last edited by dongping001 on 2009-3-20 at 19:58.]

I’m wondering too; I don’t know how to analyze the sentence structure, which is why no translation works

The original text provided by the poster was incorrect, which led everyone astray. A lot of things on the Internet are copied from one place to another, which is why there are more and more errors. Here is the correct official version: http://www.acemelontech.com/soft/docs/NCNDA1.doc (it’s a template provided by the International Chamber of Commerce, also known as the ICC version). The original text provided by the poster should read as follows (the parts marked in red are missing; with so little content provided, how can it make any sense?) ): The Parties shall not in any way whatsoever circumvent each other and/or attempt such circumvention of each other and/or any of the parties involved in any of the transactions the parties wish to enter and shall, to the best of their abilities, ensure that the original transaction codes, date and proprietary Information established are not altered.

One must be serious when doing things :L :L :'( :'( The importance of tracing everything back to its source

That they will, in none of the transactions that the parties are desirous of entering into, fail to assure the other party, to the best of their abilities, that the established transaction codes will not be affected. – I’m not sure what others think about this. . . In general, it means that they are not part of the agreement, but want to join it; the best way for them to do so is to ensure that the exchange codes specified in the agreement are not affected. . . (I have no idea what this means at all.) . Anyway, that’s how it translates.) I’m not in this field, so I don’t know how to translate the specialized terms. Generally, such sentences are quite obscure. . Only foreigners, or the Brits and Americans of the early 20th century, could write it... Last edited by iris_zl on 2009-3-26 09:58]