世人皆知的10大錯誤語法規則(下)

Really My Style

5.不是我的風格

In the middle of our list, we must address a more universal issue than simply how to use "hopefully" or sentence-starting conjunctions. As we've said, English grammar rules are unruly. While we (mostly) agree to follow a (mostly) set list of how to write or speak, we can't discount the myriad exceptions.

在這10個語法規則名單的中間位置，我們列出一個更普遍的問題，這一點要比前面我們提到的“如何使用'有希望地（hopefully）'這個詞”或者“以連詞開頭造句”這種簡單問題更普遍。正如我們所說，英語語法規則是難以駕馭的。儘管我們都認可沿用一系列的規則“如何寫或說”，但也不得不考慮無數的例外。

Even more troubling: sometimes the exceptions are even accepted and standardized, becoming ... rules. How many times have you fought tooth and nail to prove that correct usage calls for the Oxford (or serial) comma? That's the one that puts a comma after every item in a list, including the one before "and." We hope never. Surely there's something on TV you could watch instead of picking grammar fights. But it's not just a waste of time; it also isn't wrong. The Chicago Manual of Style (which is commonly used in academics and publishing) says serial all the way, but the Associated Press Stylebook (used in journalism or Web copy) says to take that final comma out. The point is that sometimes we confuse "grammar rules" with the style we prefer. If you want to make a scene with someone about their usage, just make sure you're not simply imposing your personal favorite on your adversary.

更麻煩的是：有時候這些例外其實是被允許的或者標準化的，也變成了規則。有多少次你竭盡全力去證明使用“牛津（或系列）逗號”纔是正確的語法？“牛津語法”指的是在英語中列舉多個對象時，在最後的“和（and）”前也加上一個逗號。我們希望你永遠都不要去證明這個問題。電視裏總有精彩節目可看，你不一定非要“打語法戰”。但是周旋於語法問題也不是純粹浪費時間，更沒什麼不對。學術和出版業普遍使用的《芝加哥格式手冊》支持使用“系列逗號”，而新聞報道或者網頁文案普遍使用的《美聯社寫作指南》則認爲應該把最後一個逗號去掉。關鍵是,有時我們會把“語法規則”和“語法風格”搞混。如果你想和某個人因爲語法問題當衆爭論，那麼請儘量保證不要將自己的個人喜好強加在對方身上。

4.I Could Care Less About Grammar

4.不必那麼在意語法

Oh, to be at the grocery store with grammar jerks. Not only are they frowning at every handwritten sign to suss out split infinitives in the weekly sales, but they also refuse to use the express lane. "Ten items or less," they sniff. "Incorrect. Should be 10 items or fewer. Let's get in the other line to protest." You're pretty sure you heard that rule as well, so you hang your head in shame and follow your friend to the next line, behind the guy with 70 coupons and a checkbook. Not anymore. Centuries ago it started to become accepted that less would be used for items that couldn't be counted ("I ate less food," "There should be less contempt for my greed") and that fewer applied to countable objects ("I ate fewer cakes," "There should be fewer mean looks from people about the cakes I did eat"). Unfortunately, this has less to do with an actual "rule" and more to do with the preference of an author, one Robert Baker, that became widely disseminated. So go ahead and jump lines again to get out of the store as fast as possible. Try to lose the rude friend while you're at it.

嘿，跟你的“語法混蛋”朋友去逛超市吧！他們不僅會對“每週特價”標語裏被拆分的不定式嗤之以鼻，而且還會拒絕使用超市的快速結算通道。在表達“購買十件商品以內”這句話時，超市會用“less”來形容商品，這些朋友就會抱怨道，“這是錯誤的，應該是用'fewer'來形容商品，我們去另外一條通道結算以示抗議吧。”你也知道有這麼一條語法規則，所以你會羞愧地低下頭，跟着朋友排到另一條結賬隊伍裏、排到一個手拿着七折優惠券和支票簿的人後面。可是這樣的事情不會再發生了。很久之前，“less”這個詞用來形容不可數名詞，比如“I ate less food”、“There should be less contempt for my greed”（譯爲“我飯量變小了”、“人們不該因爲我貪食就如此鄙視我”）；而“fewer”是用來形容可數名詞，比如“I ate fewer cakes”、“There should be fewer mean looks from people about the cakes I did eat”（譯爲“我很少吃蛋糕”、“人們不該因我愛吃蛋糕就投來如此多的白眼”）。遺憾的是，這已經跟真正的“語法規則”相差甚遠，而是跟作家“羅伯特·貝克”的偏好有關，這已經被傳得家喻戶曉了。所以走吧，重新換一條結賬隊伍，儘快付錢離開超市吧！如果你也有那種粗魯的“語法混蛋”朋友，那麼甩掉他吧！

's the Sound, Not the Letter

3.是發聲導致的錯，並不是字母的錯

If you're feeling a little shell-shocked about all the grammar rules you thought you knew but don't really, things are looking up: You probably know half of what you should about when to use "a" versus "an."

如果你正被上述這些本以爲了解、但事實上不了解的語法規則弄得頭暈腦脹，那麼現在情況會有所改善：你可能大概瞭解什麼時候該使用“a”和“an”。

Most of us learned (or at least have the vague memory) that we use the article "a" before a consonant and "an" before a vowel. If you're a native English speaker, this probably comes naturally to you, so naturally that you are wondering why it's even on this list. Again, we harken back to exceptions. Sure, when you walk into a restaurant you're going to have to wait "an" hour for a table, but you're going to hear that from "a" hostess. What in the world? It's not the vowel itself that makes the difference; it's the vowel sound. If the word starts with a vowel sound, add an "n" to that "a." If it's a consonant sound, it's an easy "a."

很多時候我們知道（或至少有一個模糊概念）在輔音單詞前使用冠詞“a”，在元音前使用冠詞“an”。如果你母語是英語，這對你來說是一件很自然的事情，自然到你想知道本文爲什麼會列出這一條語法規則。那就讓我們再來看一下這種特例。當你走進一間餐廳，你必須要等一個小時纔能有空位子，但是你需要一個服務員來通知你。這究竟是爲什麼？並不是因爲元音本身導致了這種區別，而是因爲發元音的音標。如果一個單詞的首字母發元音，就要加“an”，如果首個字母發輔音，那就是一個簡單的“a”。

Infinitives and Between

2.不定式和中間插入語

While "splitting infinitives" sounds like something Superman would do to save Metropolis, our English teachers might've had us believe that it was only fit for villains.

雖然“分裂不定式”聽起來很像是超人拯救城市時會做的偉大舉動，但是英語老師讓我們相信它只適用於反派人物。

The full infinitive is the "true" form of the verb; that is, the verb without conjugation. To go, to eat, to do, to split an infinitive -- you get the idea. When we talk about splitting infinitives, we mean we stick an adverb in the middle of the full infinitive. To bravely ask. To boldly go. To tediously list. Scandalized, aren't you? How dare we ... put those adverbs there. Exactly. It doesn't sound wrong. But in the 19th century, an English grammar book argued that it wasn't common usage. In addition, you can't split infinitives in Latin since they're one word (currere) rather than two (to run), and Latin was still a big deal back then. Accordingly, people went along with the decree forbidding split infinitives . But it didn't entirely catch on because pesky "common usage" really did win out. We split infinitives, with perfect comprehension, all the time. Now we can choose to keep them together or to split them smugly, knowing we're on the right side of grammar.

帶to的不定式是動詞的“真正”形式，是沒有詞形變化的動詞。去（某個地方），去吃，去做，去分裂一個不定式——你知道這些不定式的意思。當我們說到分裂不定式時，我們的意思是將一個副詞插入到帶to的不定式之中。“To bravely ask”、“ To boldly go”、“ To tediously list”（譯爲“去勇敢地問”、“向前大膽地走”、“沉悶地列出來”），這些表述讓人覺得反感，不是嗎？我們怎麼能把這些副詞放在那裏呢？的確，它聽起來沒有什麼錯誤。但是19世紀的一本英語語法書中曾指出，分裂不定式不是習慣用語。此外，拉丁語裏的不定式不可分裂，因爲在拉丁語中不定式是由一個單詞（currere）構成而不是兩個單詞(to run)。而在那個時代，拉丁語的地位非常重要。因此，人們遵守着禁止分裂不定式這個規則。由於煩人的“習慣用語”說法真的勝出了，分裂不定式沒有完全流行起來。但是，我們一直都運用着完美的理解能力來分裂不定式。現在我們知道，不管選擇把它們放到一起還是得意地將它們分裂開來，在語法上都沒有錯。

't Preposition Me

1.不要用介詞難倒我

This is a grammar myth that won't die. More specifically, it's a grammar myth that a billion well-meaning know-it-alls won't let die. Ending a sentence with a preposition -- something like "She's not someone I would go to the batting cage with" -- is perfectly fine. The sentence is clear, and no one would argue its structure. (Although why you wouldn't go to the batting cage with someone is more of a mystery. What will she do to you?!)

這是永遠不會消失的語法傳奇。更具體地說，這是十億善意的萬事通們都不願讓之消失的語法傳奇。用一個介詞來結束一句話——比如“She's not someone I would go to the batting cage with（譯爲我不會跟她一起去打棒球的）”——這樣是很好的。句子清晰，沒有人會質疑它的結構。（儘管爲什麼你不會和某人去打棒球更像是個謎。她會對你怎樣啊？！）

So why do we have this idea that ending a sentence with a preposition makes for an inexpert turn of phrase? It makes sense if you're Julius Caesar but probably doesn't apply to you or me. In Latin, ending a sentence with a preposition really was incorrect. In 1762, an Anglican bishop printed a book of grammar and basically co-opted the Latin rule for English. A good try, but English-speaking peoples had been ending sentences with prepositions for ages, and the practice persisted.

所以，爲什麼我們會認爲用介詞結尾的句子看起來很笨拙呢？如果你是凱撒大帝，那麼確實會有這樣得的想法，但是顯然它並不適合你我。在拉丁語裏，用一個介詞來結束一句話確實是錯誤的。1762年，英國的聖公會主教出版了一本關於語法的書籍，併爲英語制定了拉丁語語法規則。雖然這是一個很好的嘗試，但是說英語的人們已經用介詞結束句子太久了，他們現在依然延續着這種慣例。

審校：Freya然 編輯：Freya然 來源：前十網