2018年1月9日発売予定だったものが、トランプ大統領が販売の差し止めを求めたため、出版社がその動きに対抗して逆に発売日を早めて、1月5日朝9時（アメリカ東部時間）に発売となったようです。
Fire and Furyの著者Michael Wolff が、本の発売に合わせてインタビューを受けた映像。
Michael Wolff interview on the Today Show about Fire and Fury Jan 5, 2017（2018/01/05 に公開）
きになる中身ですが、一部を朗読している音声がありました。
Fire and Fury -Audio Extracts – Michael Wolff the inside Trump White House story
FIRE AND FURY AUDIO BOOK PART 1
遺体を大写しにした動画をアップロードして、大きな非難を浴びた人気ユーチューバー、ローガン・ポール（Logan Paul）氏が謝罪ビデオを公開しました。
YOUTUBEの文字起こしを元にトランスクリプトを作成。日本語は機械翻訳だと意味が不明なので、自分で訳出しました。自動文字起こしの英語は、明らかに間違いと思われるところは、自分に聞こえたように訂正しています。
00:00 I have made a severe and continuous lapse in my judgment. 私は非常に重大な間違った判断をずっとしてしてしまいました。 And I don’t expect to be forgiven. 許されるとは思っていません。I’m simply here to apologise.とにかく謝罪をしたい、ただそれだけです。
00:10 So, what we came across that day in the woods was obviously un-planned. その日にあの森で目撃したことはもちろん想定外のことでした。And the reactions you saw on tape were raw, they were unfiltered. あなたが見た、テープに映った私たちの反応は、そのままのものであり編集されていません。
00:18 None of us knew how to react, or how to feel. 私たちは誰も、どう反応していいのか、どう感じればいいのかがわかりませんでした。
00:23 I should have never posted the video. 私は決してあのビデオを投稿してはいけなかったと思います。I should have put the cameras down, and stopped recording what we were going through. 私はカメラを下ろして、自分たちが目撃したものを録画する行為をやめるべきでした。
00:32 There are a lot of things I should have done differently, but I didn’t. やってはいけない多くの間違いを自分は犯しました。 And for that, from the bottom of my heart, I’m Sorry. それに関して、心からお詫びしたいと思います。
00:40 I want to apologize to the internet, I want to apologize to anyone who has seen the video. 私はインターネットに対して謝りたいし、あのビデオを見た全ての人に謝りたいと思います。
00:44 I want to apologize to anyone who has been affected or touched by mental illness or depression, or suicide. 精神疾患やうつ病、自殺に苦しむ人、みなに謝罪したい。
00:51 But most importantly I want to apologize to the victim and his family. しかし最も重要なことですが、私はあの亡くなられた方および彼の家族に対して謝罪したい。
00:58 For my fans who are defending my actions, please don’t. 私の行為を弁護してくれている私のファンのみなさん、どうかそうしないでください
01:04 They do not deserve to be defended. 私のやったことには釈明の余地はありません。
01:08 The goal with my content is always to entertain, to push the boundaries, to be all-inclusive. 私のコンテンツの目的は常に楽しむこと、限界を押し上げること、全てを取り込むことです。 In the world I live in, I share almost everything I do. 自分が住むこの世界で自分のやることのほとんど全てを、自分は共有します。The intent is never to be heartless, cruel or malicious. その意図は決して心無いものや残酷なもの、悪意のあるものであってはないのです。
01:26 Like I said, I’ve made a huge mistake. I don’t expect to be forgiven. 先ほど述べたように、私はとんでもない間違いを犯しました。許されるとは思っていません。
01:31 I’m just here to apologise. ただ、謝りたいだけです。
01:33 I’m ashamed of myself. 私は自分を恥じています。
01:35 I’m disappointed in myself. And I promise to be better. 私は自分に失望しており、より良い自分になることを約束します。
01:41 I will be better. Thank you. 私は良くなります。ありがとうございました。
トランスクリプト作成において、自分に不明瞭だった点は、下記の報道記事中の書き起こしも参考にしました。
American YouTube star Logan Paul on Tuesday apologized for posting a video of a suicide victim in Japan, saying he had made a “huge mistake” and was ashamed of himself.
Paul, 22, whose almost daily video blogs on YouTube have over 15 million followers, apologized for laughing with friends about the body they filmed hanging on a tree in Japan’s so-called “suicide forest” and posted to the video-sharing channel.
(引用元の記事 YouTuber Logan Paul says suicide video was ‘huge mistake’ Reuters January 3, 2018 / 3:45 AM / Updated 2 hours ago)
In Paul’s apology video, he solemnly speaks to “the internet” as a whole, and the suicide victim’s family, admitting that there wasn’t an excuse for his actions. He doesn’t explain what he thought the video would achieve. He does say, though, “The goal with my content is always to entertain, to push the boundaries, to be all-inclusive. In the world I live in, I share everything I do.” (Logan Paul Responds to Suicide Forest Video with Second Apology By Emily Gaudette, Newsweek On 1/2/18 at 1:38 PM )
世界的人気ユーチューバー、ローガン・ポール（Logan Paul）さんが、自殺の名所として知られる青木ヶ原樹海で遺体を発見しそれを投稿したため大問題になりました。
動画投稿サイト「ユーチューブ」に動画を投稿して広告収入を得る「ユーチューバー」として若者に人気の米国人男性ローガン・ポール氏が、富士山の北西、山梨県の青木ケ原樹海で自殺したとみられる遺体の動画を投稿して批判が殺到し、謝罪に追い込まれた。動画も削除した。米メディアが２日報じた。
ポール氏は富士山麓の樹海を仲間と散策した際に首をつって自殺したとみられる遺体を発見。一部始終を撮影した動画をユーチューブに一時投稿していた。批判を受け、ツイッターで謝罪した上で「自殺防止の意識を高めようとした」などと釈明した。（米人気ユーチューバー、富士の青木ケ原樹海で自殺遺体の動画投稿 批判殺到で謝罪、削除 sankei.com 2018.1.3 00:26）
【1月3日 AFP】米俳優で、動画共有サイト「ユーチューブ（YouTube）」上で人気の「ユーチューバー」としても知られるローガン・ポール（Logan Paul）さんが、日本の富士山麓の青木ケ原（Aokigahara）樹海で自殺した人の遺体を撮影した動画を投稿して非難が殺到したことを受け、謝罪した。動画は既に削除されているが、それ以前に600万人が視聴していたと報じられている。
報道によると、問題の動画には首をつって自殺した男性の遺体が映っていたとされる。ツイッター（Twitter）では動画に対する批判が殺到。さらに、編集時にカットされたもののツイッター上で拡散したシーンでは、現場で笑い冗談を飛ばすポールさんが映っており、非難の火に油を注いでいる。（afpbb.com 2018年1月3日 4:51）
動画は、本人は削除しましたが、依然としてYOUTUBE上で見ることができるようです。報道では、現場で冗談を言って笑っていたとありますが、一体どのような態度で何を話していたのか非常に気になったっため、会話の部分を見てみることにします。遺体を見つけたときの彼らの反応は、DISRESPECTFULというわけではないように見えます。また、後から、本人は自分の反応について、
Me, smiling and laughing does not, uh, it’s not a portrayal of how I feel about the circumstances. I cope with things with humor, while this is incredibly sad.
と述べており、日本人からするとおちゃらけていて非常に不愉快に受け取れなくもないのですが、新聞の記事から受けた印象とは異なっていたようです。しかし遺体を映したという行為は許されるものではないでしょう。しかもこのYOUTUBERのファンは若い世代、少年少女が多いらしいので、なおさらです。本人は、動画をあげた行為に関して、謝罪をしています。
So sorry. pic.twitter.com/JkYXzYsrLX
— Logan Paul (@LoganPaul) 2018年1月2日
【炎上動画】世界的人気ユーチューバーが自殺名所『青木ヶ原樹海』で死体を発見、大問題になった動画（この動画は第三者の手によるものであり、問題の場面は黒く加工されていて映っていません。2：02～が問題のビデオ。問題の場面は７：４３～）
元タレントの野沢直子の長女で、父がアメリカ人、アメリカ育ちの真珠「ジュジュ」野沢オクレアーのデビュー戦の映像。
Shinju “Juju” Nozawa-Auclair (debut) vs Larkyn Dasch – (Impact Fight League 66) – (2017.02.04)
YOUTUBEの文字起こしを元にしたトランスクリプト。
真珠・野沢オークライヤーは女性の格闘家で、元タレントの野沢直子さんの長女です。父親はアメリカ人。アメリカ育ちなので、アメリカ人。日本語もしゃべりますが。
Shinju “Juju” Nozawa-Auclair – Interview – /r/WMMA
YOUTUBEの自動文字起こしを元にしたトランスクリプト
トランプ米大統領がエルサレムをイスラエルの首都と正式認定した問題で、国連総会（193カ国）の緊急特別会合は21日、米政府を批判し、認定の撤回を求める決議案を賛成多数で採択した。賛成は128、反対が９、棄権が35だった。（国連総会が米批判決議 エルサレム首都 孤立鮮明 産経ニュース 2017.12.22 10:21）
アメリカの横暴ぶりに呆れるばかりですが、このニュースを見ていて気になったこと。それは英語報道と日本語報道との温度差です。投票に先立って、アメリカは自分の側につかない国には制裁を加えると明らかな脅迫をしました。BBCでも、「エルサレム問題に関する国連の投票：トランプ大統領がアメリカの経済援助国を脅迫」という出だしで報道しています。
Jerusalem UN vote: Trump threatens US aid recipients (BBC NEWS 20 December 2017)
ところが、BBC日本語版では同じ記事の日本語訳にもかかわらず、
トランプ氏、エルサレム首都認定に反対する国への援助停止を警告（BBC NEWS JAPAN 2017年12月21日)
と、しています。threatenは「脅迫する」という意味であって、「警告する」はwarnです。英語にせよ日本語にせよ、どちらの言葉を選ぶかで、受ける印象が全く変わってきます。手元の辞書（研究社中辞典）を見てもthreatenに警告するという訳語は載っていません。なぜthreatenという単語のもつ過激さをトーンダウンする必要があるのでしょうか？こんなことでは、日本語で世界の記事を読んでいる限り、世界で起きていることを肌で感じることは不可能です。
President Reagan’s Farewell Address to the Nation — 1/11/89
My fellow Americans:
This is the 34th time I’ll speak to you from the Oval Office and the last. We’ve been together 8 years now, and soon it’ll be time for me to go. But before I do, I wanted to share some thoughts, some of which I’ve been saving for a long time.
It’s been the honor of my life to be your President. So many of you have written the past few weeks to say thanks, but I could say as much to you. Nancy and I are grateful for the opportunity you gave us to serve.
One of the things about the Presidency is that you’re always somewhat apart. You spend a lot of time going by too fast in a car someone else is driving, and seeing the people through tinted glass—the parents holding up a child, and the wave you saw too late and couldn’t return. And so many times I wanted to stop and reach out from behind the glass, and connect. Well, maybe I can do a little of that tonight.
People ask how I feel about leaving. And the fact is, “parting is such sweet sorrow.” The sweet part is California and the ranch and freedom. The sorrow—the goodbyes, of course, and leaving this beautiful place.
You know, down the hall and up the stairs from this office is the part of the White House where the President and his family live. There are a few favorite windows I have up there that I like to stand and look out of early in the morning. The view is over the grounds here to the Washington Monument, and then the Mali and the Jefferson Memorial. But on mornings when the humidity is low, you can see past the Jefferson to the river, the Potomac, and the Virginia shore. Someone said that’s the view Lincoln had when he saw the smoke rising from the Battle of Bull Run. I see more prosaic things: the grass on the banks, the morning traffic as people make their way to work, now and then a sailboat on the river.
I’ve been thinking a bit at that window. I’ve been reflecting on what the past 8 years have meant and mean. And the image that comes to mind like a refrain is a nautical one—a small story about a big ship, and a refugee, and a sailor. It was back in the early eighties, at the height of the boat people. And the sailor was hard at work on the carrier Midway, which was patrolling the South China Sea. The sailor, like most American servicemen, was young, smart, and fiercely observant. The crew spied on the horizon a leaky little boat. And crammed inside were refugees from Indochina hoping to get to America. The Midway sent a small launch to bring them to the ship and safety. As the refugees made their way through the choppy seas, one spied the sailor on deck, and stood up, and called out to him. He yelled, “Hello, American sailor. Hello, freedom man.”
A small moment with a big meaning, a moment the sailor, who wrote it in a letter, couldn’t get out of his mind. And, when I saw it, neither could I. Because that’s what it was to be an American in the 1980’s. We stood, again, for freedom. I know we always have, but in the past few years the world again—and in a way, we ourselves—rediscovered it.
It’s been quite a journey this decade, and we held together through some stormy seas. And at the end, together, we are reaching our destination.
The fact is, from Grenada to the Washington and Moscow summits, from the recession of ’81 to ’82, to the expansion that began in late ’82 and continues to this day, we’ve made a difference. The way I see it, there were two great triumphs, two things that I’m proudest of. One is the economic recovery, in which the people of America created—and filled—19 million new jobs. The other is the recovery of our morale. America is respected again in the world and looked to for leadership.
Something that happened to me a few years ago reflects some of this. It was back in 1981, and I was attending my first big economic summit, which was held that year in Canada. The meeting place rotates among the member countries. The opening meeting was a formal dinner for the heads of government of the seven industrialized nations. Now, I sat there like the new kid in school and listened, and it was all Francois this and Helmut that. They dropped titles and spoke to one another on a first-name basis. Well, at one point I sort of leaned in and said, “My name’s Ron.” Well, in that same year, we began the actions we felt would ignite an economic comeback—cut taxes and regulation, started to cut spending. And soon the recovery began.
Two years later, another economic summit with pretty much the same cast. At the big opening meeting we all got together, and all of a sudden, just for a moment, I saw that everyone was just sitting there looking at me. And then one of them broke the silence. “Tell us about the American miracle,” he said.
Well, back in 1980, when I was running for President, it was all so different. Some pundits said our programs would result in catastrophe. Our views on foreign affairs would cause war. Our plans for the economy would cause inflation to soar and bring about economic collapse. I even remember one highly respected economist saying, back in 1982, that “The engines of economic growth have shut down here, and they’re likely to stay that way for years to come.” Well, he and the other opinion leaders were wrong. The fact is, what they called “radical” was really “right.” What they called “dangerous” was just “desperately needed.”
And in all of that time I won a nickname, “The Great Communicator.” But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: it was the content. I wasn’t a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn’t spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation—from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I’ll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscovery of our values and our common sense.
Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will produce less of it. So, we cut the people’s tax rates, and the people produced more than ever before. The economy bloomed like a plant that had been cut back and could now grow quicker and stronger. Our economic program brought about the longest peacetime expansion in our history: real family income up, the poverty rate down, entrepreneurship booming, and an explosion in research and new technology. We’re exporting more than ever because American industry became more competitive and at the same time, we summoned the national will to knock down protectionist walls abroad instead of erecting them at home.
Common sense also told us that to preserve the peace, we’d have to become strong again after years of weakness and confusion. So, we rebuilt our defenses, and this New Year we toasted the new peacefulness around the globe. Not only have the superpowers actually begun to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons—and hope for even more progress is bright—but the regional conflicts that rack the globe are also beginning to cease. The Persian Gulf is no longer a war zone. The Soviets are leaving Afghanistan. The Vietnamese are preparing to pull out of Cambodia, and an American-mediated accord will soon send 50,000 Cuban troops home from Angola.
The lesson of all this was, of course, that because we’re a great nation, our challenges seem complex. It will always be this way. But as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours. And something else we learned: Once you begin a great movement, there’s no telling where it will end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world.
Countries across the globe are turning to free markets and free speech and turning away from the ideologies of the past. For them, the great rediscovery of the 1980’s has been that, lo and behold, the moral way of government is the practical way of government: Democracy, the profoundly good, is also the profoundly productive.
When you’ve got to the point when you can celebrate the anniversaries of your 39th birthday you can sit back sometimes, review your life, and see it flowing before you. For me there was a fork in the river, and it was right in the middle of my life. I never meant to go into politics. It wasn’t my intention when I was young. But I was raised to believe you had to pay your way for the blessings bestowed on you. I was happy with my career in the entertainment world, but I ultimately went into politics because I wanted to protect something precious.
Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: “We the People.” “We the People” tell the government what to do; it doesn’t tell us. “We the People” are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world’s constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which “We the People” tell the government what it is allowed to do. “We the People” are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I’ve tried to do these past 8 years.
But back in the 1960’s, when I began, it seemed to me that we’d begun reversing the order of things—that through more and more rules and regulations and confiscatory taxes, the government was taking more of our money, more of our options, and more of our freedom. I went into politics in part to put up my hand and say, “Stop.” I was a citizen politician, and it seemed the right thing for a citizen to do.
I think we have stopped a lot of what needed stopping. And I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.
Nothing is less free than pure communism-and yet we have, the past few years, forged a satisfying new closeness with the Soviet Union. I’ve been asked if this isn’t a gamble, and my answer is no because we’re basing our actions not on words but deeds. The detente of the 1970’s was based not on actions but promises. They’d promise to treat their own people and the people of the world better. But the gulag was still the gulag, and the state was still expansionist, and they still waged proxy wars in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Well, this time, so far, it’s different. President Gorbachev has brought about some internal democratic reforms and begun the withdrawal from Afghanistan. He has also freed prisoners whose names I’ve given him every time we’ve met.
But life has a way of reminding you of big things through small incidents. Once, during the heady days of the Moscow summit, Nancy and I decided to break off from the entourage one afternoon to visit the shops on Arbat Street—that’s a little street just off Moscow’s main shopping area. Even though our visit was a surprise, every Russian there immediately recognized us and called out our names and reached for our hands. We were just about swept away by the warmth. You could almost feel the possibilities in all that joy. But within seconds, a KGB detail pushed their way toward us and began pushing and shoving the people in the crowd. It was an interesting moment. It reminded me that while the man on the street in the Soviet Union yearns for peace, the government is Communist. And those who run it are Communists, and that means we and they view such issues as freedom and human rights very differently.
We must keep up our guard, but we must also continue to work together to lessen and eliminate tension and mistrust. My view is that President Gorbachev is different from previous Soviet leaders. I think he knows some of the things wrong with his society and is trying to fix them. We wish him well. And we’ll continue to work to make sure that the Soviet Union that eventually emerges from this process is a less threatening one. What it all boils down to is this: I want the new closeness to continue. And it will, as long as we make it clear that we will continue to act in a certain way as long as they continue to act in a helpful manner. If and when they don’t, at first pull your punches. If they persist, pull the plug. It’s still trust but verify. It’s still play, but cut the cards. It’s still watch closely. And don’t be afraid to see what you see.
I’ve been asked if I have any regrets. Well, I do. The deficit is one. I’ve been talking a great deal about that lately, but tonight isn’t for arguments, and I’m going to hold my tongue. But an observation: I’ve had my share of victories in the Congress, but what few people noticed is that I never won anything you didn’t win for me. They never saw my troops, they never saw Reagan’s regiments, the American people. You won every battle with every call you made and letter you wrote demanding action. Well, action is still needed. If we’re to finish the job, Reagan’s regiments will have to become the Bush brigades. Soon he’ll be the chief, and he’ll need you every bit as much as I did.
Finally, there is a great tradition of warnings in Presidential farewells, and I’ve got one that’s been on my mind for some time. But oddly enough it starts with one of the things I’m proudest of in the past 8 years: the resurgence of national pride that I called the new patriotism. This national feeling is good, but it won’t count for much, and it won’t last unless it’s grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge.
An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn’t get these things from your family you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed you could get a sense of patriotism from the popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-sixties.
But now, we’re about to enter the nineties, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren’t sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven’t reinstitutionalized it. We’ve got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom-freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It’s fragile; it needs production [protection].
So, we’ve got to teach history based not on what’s in fashion but what’s important-why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, 4 years ago on the 40th anniversary of D-day, I read a letter from a young woman writing to her late father, who’d fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, “we will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did.” Well, let’s help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won’t know who we are. I’m warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let’s start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual.
And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven’t been teaching you what it means to be an American, let ‘em know and nail ‘em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.
And that’s about all I have to say tonight, except for one thing. The past few days when I’ve been at that window upstairs, I’ve thought a bit of the “shining city upon a hill.” The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we’d call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.
I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it, and see it still.
And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was 8 years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.
We’ve done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for 8 years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it. We weren’t just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger, we made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.
And so, goodbye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. （フルトランスクリプトの出典：Ronald Reagan: “Farewell Address to the Nation,” January 11, 1989. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29650)
YOUTUBEを見ていたら、穴埋め問題で関係代名詞と関係副詞のどちらを選ぶべきかの考え方を解説する動画がいくつかあったので、その題材を借りて、ちょっと考えてみましょう。
関係代名詞と関係副詞の見極め（難問） 木下陽介講師／河合塾アツコウch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfFk3yw_Mvk の例題は、
America is the country, ( ) I wanted to live in for a long time.
1. where 2. in which 3. in where 4. which
【英語】関係代名詞と関係副詞 見分け方｜東大生ならこう解く！赤門English https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3-AZOaKNUc の例題は、
This is the house ( ) I live.
This is the house ( ) I love.
さて、あなたは簡単に正答がわかったでしょうか？
自分が関係代名詞を学校を習ったのは何十年も前のことで、中学3年のときでした。そのときの先生が関係代名詞をどう教えてくれたのかは今でもはっきりと覚えています。非常に簡単なことです。【ステップ１】２つの文に分けて考え、【ステップ２】共通する言葉を関係代名詞に変えて、【ステップ３】関係代名詞を前に持ってきて２つの文をつなぐ。この３ステップ、たったこれだけです。高校になると、関係代名詞に似たものとして、関係副詞が出てきますが、考え方は基本的に同じです。中学のときに習ったこの関係代名詞の文の作り方は、非常に普遍的なので、難関大学の入試問題であっても、わけなく解けます。
上の一つ目の例題。America is the country, ( ) I wanted to live in for a long time.
【ステップ１】２つの完全な文にまず分けます。
America is the country.
I wanted to live in the country for a long time.
【ステップ2】2番目の文で共通する名詞（句）を関係代名詞に変えます。今の場合、the countryが共通するので、２つめの文ではそれを関係代名詞に書き換えます。今は、カンマがあるので「非制限用法」であるからthatではなくwhichを使ましょう。そうすると、途中段階ですが、
I wanted to live in which for a long time. となります。
【ステップ３】関係代名詞which を文頭に持ってきて、前の文と繋げます。すると、
America is the country, which I wanted to live in for a long time. となります。
だから、答えは簡単にwhichだということがわかります。ちなみに前置詞＋名詞をひとまとめにして、
America is the country, in which I wanted to live for a long time. という文にしても構いません。
どうでしょうか？非常に簡単だと思いませんか？
２つめの動画の例も考えてみます。やりかたは全く同じで、２つの文に分けてみます。
This is the house. I live in the house. 共通するthe house をwhichに変えて、文頭に出し、さらに1文めとつなげます。
This is the house in which I live. これで答えがわかります。
This is the house ( ) I love. も同様。
This is the house. I love the house.
This is the house which I love. これで答えがわかります。
いまどきの中学生は、こういうことを全く習わずに関係代名詞をTHATで済ませるようです。ちゃんと関係代名詞の使い方を理解せずに高校に入ると、そこで躓いてしまいます。そこに関係副詞whereとか、in which, of whichなどが出てきて、すっかりこんがらがってしまうのではないでしょうか？
関係代名詞や関係副詞は、もともと２つの文をつなぐための道具でしかないと考えれば、非常にすっきりと理解できて、入試問題でこの手の文法問題が出れば、確実に点が取れることになります。
自分は田舎の公立中学でしたが、英語のこういった文法は普通に授業でやっていました。奇をてらった解法のテクニックも何もありません。どんな難関大学の受験問題でも、中学3年生と同じ考えかたで解けてしまいます。「受験テクニック」というのは幻想にすぎないのです。当たり前のことをごく普通に学べば、大学入試の英語の問題なんてどうってことありません。
The Truth About Popular Music
How to Win an Argument about Pop Music
Why Is Modern Pop Music So Terrible?
インターネットによって、わたしたちの生活をどう変わったのか？
10 WAYS THE INTERNET HAS CHANGED OUR LIVES FOREVER