should it be該怎麼解釋?

Question

使用翻譯軟體的我又有問題了
我用軟體翻的沒辦法變成通順的句子= ="
請英文達人再幫我一把吧><
這兩段的意思~還有

I suspect most if not all the projects referred to were conceived to be the product of either good aesthetic design thinking or good ecological thinking but not both. The hope for pleasing aesthetics and a sound ecological plan was not really the primary goal of these works. I think the critic is asking the question, “should it be?”.


If what we promoted to the RNRF is based on fact then the statement, “…with the concerns for resource conservation to the end that the resultant environment serves useful and enjoyable purpose,” ( RNRF, 1987) should translate to “Yes aesthetics,” “Yes ecological concerns” but first get the ecology right.

還有以個問題想請問

Dr. Ming Han Li's work on streambank stabilization can serve as an example of the complexities involved in accomplishing the task of producing design's that are ecologically appropriate and aesthetically pleasing.

這一句的streambank指的又是什麼呢?

Answer 1

我懷疑是否全部被歸類構想的產品，不論是藝術美感的設計或是自然生態的想法，這希望滿足了藝術美學和自然生態學，但都不是最原始目的工作，我想評論家正問這行得通嗎?
如果我們推廣RNRF是建立事實，這說法 "由於關切資源保護區，到最後這後來的環境提供既有用
且值得享受的目的"(RNRF的理論，在1987提出)會被解釋為 "是的這是有美學的"，"是的這是自然關切的"但首先還是以自然生態為優先。




歡迎發問!!

2007-03-28 00:22:05 補充：
林漢民(翻的名字)在做streambank的安定性這項工作，可以視為一種複雜相當高的試範，這工作不但可以製造出一項設計，既可適用於生態上也可滿足於美感的層面



streambank查一下結果好像跟水力工程有關係，如果要深入了解，我明天再查查看~~sorry!!!

2007-03-29 00:23:25 補充：
http://tw.search.yahoo.com/language/translatedPage?tt=url&text=http%3a//www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ahg/strmbank.htm&lp=en_zt&.intl=tw&fr=fp-tab-web-t
這邊有說明喔~~!!
水生棲所指南: 對海洋, 淡水, 和岸邊的棲所保護和恢復的一種聯合方法