• Unit 8 -But What's a Dictionary For? But What's a Dictionary For? Bergen Evans The storm of abuse in the popular press that greeted the appearance of Webster's Third New International Dictionary is...
Unit 8 - But What's a Dictionary For?
But What's a Dictionary For?
Bergen Evans
The storm of abuse in the popular press that greeted the appearance of Webster's Third New International Dictionary is a curious phenomenon. Never has a scholarly work of this stature been attacked with such unbridled fury and contempt. An article in the Atlantic viewed it as a "disappointment," a "shock," a " calamity," "a scandal and a disaster. " The New York Times, in a special editorial, felt that the work would " accelerate the deterioration " of the language and sternly accused the editors of betraying a public trust. The Journal of the American Bar Association saw the publication as " deplorable," "a flagrant example of lexicographic irresponsibility,, " "a serious blow to the cause of good English." Life called it "a non-word deluge " monstrous ", " abominable" and "a cause for dismay." They doubted that "Lincoln could have modelled his Gettysburg Address" on it-a concept of how things get written that throws very little light on Lincoln but a great deal on Life.
What underlies all this sound and fury? Is the claim of the G. R C. Merriam Company, probably the world's greatest dictionary maker, that the preparation of the work cost \$3.5 million, that it required the efforts of three hundred scholars over a period of twenty-seven years, working on the largest collection of citations ever assembled in any language-is all this a fraud, a hoax?
So monstrous a discrepancy in evaluation requires us to examine basic principles. Just what's a dictionary for? What does it propose to do? What does the common reader go to a dictionary to find? What has the purchaser of a dictionary a right to expect for his money?
Before we look at basic principles, it is necessary to interpose two brief statements. The first of these is that a dictionary is concerned with words. Some dictionaries give various kinds of other useful information. Some have tables of weights and measures on the flyleaves. Some list historical events and some, home remedies. And there's nothing wrong with their so doing. But the great increase in our vocabulary in the past three decades compels all dictionaries to make more efficient use of their space. And if something must be eliminated , it is sensible to throw out these extraneous things and stick to words.
The second brief statement is that there has been even more progress in the making of dictionaries in the past thirty years than there has been in the making of automobiles The difference, for example, between the much-touted Second International (1934) and the much-clouted Third International (1961) is not like the difference between yearly models but like the difference between the horse and buggy and the automobile. Between the appearance of these two editions a whole new science related to the making of dictionaries, the science of descriptive linguistics, has come into being.
Modern linguistics gets its charter from Leonard Bloomfield's Language (1933). Bloomfield's for thirteen years professor of Germanic philology at the University of Chicago and for nine years professor of linguistics at Yale, was one of those inseminating scholars who can't be relegated to any department and don't dream of accepting established categories and procedures just because they're established. He was as much an anthropologist as a linguist, and his concepts of language were shaped not by Strunk's Elements of Style but by his knowledge of Cree Indian dialects.
The broad general findings of the new science are:
1. All languages are systems of human conventions, not systems of natural laws.
The first-and essential-step in the study of any language is observing and setting down precisely what happens when native speakers speak it.
2. Each language is unique in its pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary.
It cannot be described in terms of logic or of some theoretical, ideal language.
It cannot be described in terms of any other language, or even in terms of its own past.
3. All languages are dynamic rather than static, and hence a "rule" in any language can only be a statement of contemporary practice. Change is constant-and normal
4. "Correctness" can rest only upon usage, for the simple reason that there is nothing else for it to rest on. And all usage is relative.
From these propositions it follows that a dictionary is good only insofar as it is a comprehensive and accurate description of current usage.
And to be comprehensive it must include some indication of social and regional associations.
New dictionaries are needed because English changed more in the past two generations than at any other time in its history.
It has had to adapt to extraordinary cultural and technological changes, two world wars, unparalleled changes in transportation and communication, and unprecedented movements of populations.
More subtly, but pervasively, it has changed under the influence of mass education and the growth of democracy.
As written English is used by increasing millions and for more reasons than ever before, the language has become more utilitarian and more informal. Every publication in America today includes pages that would appear, to the purist of forty years ago, unbuttoned gibberish. Not that they are; they simply show that you can't hold the language of one generation up as a model for the next.
It's not that you mustn't. You can't. For example, in the issue in which Life stated editorially that it would folly the Second International, there were over forty words constructions, and meanings which are in the Third International but not in the Second. The issue of the New York Times which hailed the Second International as the authority to which it would adhere and the Third International as a scandal and a betrayal which it would reject used one hundred and fifty-three separate words, phrases, and constructions which are listed in the Third International but not in the Second and nineteen others which are condemned in the Second. Many of them are used many times, more than three hundred such uses in all. The Washington Post, in an editorial captioned "Keep Your Old Webster's, " says, in the first sentence, "don't throw it away," and in the second, "hang on to it." But the old Webster's labels don't "colloquial" and doesn't include "hang on to," in this sense, at all.
In short, all of these publications are written in the language that the Third International describes, even the very editorials which scorn it.
And this is no coincidence, because the Third International isn't setting up any new standards at all;
it is simply describing what Life, the Washing-ton Post, and the New York Times are doing.
Much of the dictionary's material comes from these very publications, the Times, in particular, furnishing more of its illustrative quotations than any other newspaper.
And the papers have no choice. No journal or periodical could sell a single issue today if it restricted itself to the American language of twenty-eight years ago.
It couldn't discuss halt the things we are inter ester in, and its style would seem stiff and cumbrous.
If the editorials were serious, the public-and the stockholders-have reason to be grateful that the writers on these publications are more literate than the editors.
And so back to our questions: what's a dictionary for, and how, in 1962, can it best do what it ought to do? The demands are simple.
The common reader turns to a dictionary for information about the spelling, pronunciation, meaning, and proper use of words.
He wants to know what is current and respectable.
But he wants-and has a right to-the truth, the full truth.
And the full truth about any language, and especially about American English today, is that there are many areas in which certainty is impossible and simplification is misleading.
Even in so settled a matter as spelling, a dictionary cannot always be absolute. Theater is correct, but so is theatre.
And so are traveled and travelled, plow and plough, catalog and catalogue, and scores of other variants The reader may want a single certainty.
He may have taken an unyielding position in an argument, he may have wagered in support of his conviction and may demand that the dictionary "settle" the matter.
But neither his vanity nor his purse is any concern of the dictionary's; it must record the facts.
And the fact here is that there are many words in our language which may be spelled, with equal correctness, in either of two ways.
So with pronunciation. A citizen listening to his radio might notice that James B. Conant, Bernard Baruch, and Dwight D. Eisenhower pronounce economics as ECKuhnomiks,
while A. Whitney Griswold, Adlai Stevenson, and Herbert Hoover pronounce it EEKuhnomiks.
He turns to the dictionary to see which of the two pronunciations is "right" and finds that they are both acceptable.
Has he been betrayed? Has the dictionary abdicated its responsibility?
Should it say that one must speak like the president of Harvard or like the president of Yale, like the thirty-first President of the United States or like the thirty-fourth?
Surely it's none of its business to make a choice.
Not because of the distinction of these particular speakers; lexicography, like God, is no respecter of persons.
But because so wide-spread and conspicuous a use of two pronunciations among people of this elevation shows that there are two pronunciations.
Their speaking establishes the fact which the dictionary must record.
The average purchaser of a dictionary uses it most often, probably, to find out what a word means.
As a reader, he wants to know what an author intended to convey. As a speaker or writer, he wants to know what a word will convey to his auditors.
And this, too, is complex, subtle, and for ever changing.
An illustration is furnished by an editorial in the Washington Post (January 17, 1962).
After a ringing appeal to those who love truth and accuracy and the usual combinations about abdication of authority and barbarism , the editorial charges the Third International with pretentious and obscure verbosity and specifically instances its definition of so simple an object as a door.”
a movable piece of firm material or a structure supported usu. along one side and swinging on pivots or hinges , sliding along a groove, roiling up and down, revolving as one of four leaves, or folding like an accordion by means of which an opening may be closed or kept open for passage into or out of a building, room, or other covered enclosure or a car, airplane, elevator, or other vehicle.
Then follows a series of special meanings, each particularity defined and, where necessary, illustrated by a quotation Since, aside from roaring and admonishing the gentle men from Springfield that accuracy and brevity are virtues,” the Post's editorial tails to explain what is wrong with the definition,
we can only infer from so simple a thing that the writer takes the plain, downright, man-in-the street attitude that a door is a door and any damn fool knows that.
But if so, he has walked into one of lexicography's biggest booby traps: the belief that the obvious is easy to define.
Whereas the opposite is true. Anyone can give a fair description of the strange, the new, or the unique.
It's the commonplace, the habitual, that challenges definition, for its very commonness compels us to define it in uncommon terms.
Dr. Johnson was ridiculed on just this score when his dictionary appeared in 1755.
For two hundred years his definition of a network as "any thing reticulated or decussated, at equal distances, with interstices between the inter sections” has been good for a laugh.
But in the merriment one thing is always overlooked: no one has yet come up with a better definition!
Subsequent dictionaries defined it as a mesh and then defined a mesh as a network. That's simple, all right.
Anyone who attempts sincerely to state what the word door means in the United States of America today can't take refuge in a log cabin.
There has been an enormous proliferation of closing and demarking devices and structure in the past twenty years,
and anyone who tries to thread his way through the many meanings now included under door may have to sacrifice brevity to accuracy and even have to employ words that a limited vocabulary may find obscure.
Is the entrance to a tent a door, for instance? And What of the thing that seals the exit of an air plane?
Is this a door? Or what of those sheets and jets of air that are now being used, in place of old-fashioned oak and hinges, to screen entrances and exists? Are they doors?
And what of that accordion-like things that set off various sections of many modern apartments?
The fine print in the lease takes it for granted that they are doors and that spaces demarked by them are rooms-and the rent is computed on the number of rooms.
Was I gypped by the landlord when he called the folding contraption that shuts off my kitchen a door?
I go to the Second Inter national, which the editor of the Post urges me to use in preference to the Third International.
Here I find that a door is the movable frame or barrier of boards, or other material, usually turning on hinges or pivots or sliding, by which an entranceway into a house or apartment is closed and opened; also, a similar part of a piece of furniture, as in a cabinet or book case.
This is only forty-six words, but though it includes the cellar it excludes the barn door and the accordion-like thing.
So I go on to the Third International. I see at once that. the new definition is longer. But I'm looking for accuracy, and if I must sacrifice brevity.
To get it, then I must. And sure enough, in the definition which raised the Post's blood pressure, I find the words "folding like an accordion.”
The thing is a door, and my landlord is using the word in one of its currently accepted meanings.
The new dictionary may have many faults. Nothing that tries to meet an ever-changing situation over a terrain as vast as contemporary English can hope to be free of them and much in it is open to honest and informed, disagreement.
There can be linguistic objection to the eradication of proper names.
The removal of guides to pronunciation from the toot of every page may not have been worth the valuable space it saved.
The new method of defining words of many meanings has disadvantages as well as advantages.
And of the half million or more definitions, hundreds, possibly thousands, may seem inadequate or imprecise.
To some (of whom I am one) the omission of the label "colloquial" will seem meritorious; to others it will seem a loss.
But one thing is certain: anyone who solemnly announces in the year 1962 that he will be guided in matter s of English usage by a dictionary published in 1934 is talking ignorant and pretentious nonsense.
参考译文——词典的用途究竟何在？
词典的用途究竟何在？
伯根伊凡斯
《韦氏新国际英语词典》（第三版）刚一问世，便遭到许多有名的报刊连篇累牍的攻击，这真是一个奇怪的现象。以前还从来没有哪一部像这样有学术价值的鸿篇巨著遭到过如此肆无忌惮的攻击和侮蔑。《大西洋》杂志上刊载的一篇文章评价这部词典"令人失望"，"令人震惊"，是"一大不幸"，"耻辱和灾难"。《纽约时报》则发表一篇专论，称这部词典将"加速英语的退化进程"，并严厉指责词典编者们有负众望。《美国律师学会学刊》认为该词典的出版是"令人遗憾的事件"、"词典编者不负责任的杰出典范"、"对英语规范化事业的一记沉重打击。"《生活》杂志上的文章则称这部词典为"无用的词海"，说它"荒谬可笑"、"糟糕透顶"、"让人痛心"。文章作者们还说他们怀疑"林肯在写葛底斯堡演说时是否会参考这部词典。这种观点并没有很清楚地说明林肯的写作方式，却很能说明《生活》杂志上的那些文章是怎样写出来的。
究竟是什么导致了这场喧嚣与愤怒呢？出版这部词典的麦里姆出版公司也许称得上是全球最大的词典出版商，该公司声称他们为筹划这部词典的出版工作耗资三百五十万美元，动员了三百名专家学者花费二十七年的心血才完成了世界上任何语言中词汇量最大的词库。难道这一切都是骗人的把戏吗?
既然毁誉之间的差别是如此之大，我们就有必要首先探讨一下词典编纂工作的基本原则。词典的意义究竟何在？词典的任务是什么？一般读者查词典的目的是什么？人们花钱买词典后有权期望从词典中得到些什么？
在探究词典编纂的基本原则之前，我们有必要先作两点说明。需要说明的第一点是，词典所涉及的是词。有些词典除收词之外还提供多种多样其他方面的有用资料：有的在衬页上附有度量衡换算表，有的列出主要历史事件年表，还有的词典附有一些家用医方。这种作法当然也无可厚非。但是，最近三十年来英语词汇量的猛增迫使所有的词典都必须尽量提高篇幅利用率。假如要从词典中删去什么内容的话，合理的做法是首先删去这些附加的内容，而以收词为主。
需要说明的第二点是，近三十年来词典编纂方面所取得的进展要超过汽车制造方面发展的步伐。可以打个比方，受到广泛赞扬的《韦氏国际英语词典》(第二版)(1934)和受到猛烈攻击的《韦氏新国际英语词典》(第三版)(1961)之间的差别不是类似于上一年推出的车型和下一年推出的车型之间的差别，而更像是马车和汽车之间的差别。就在第二版问世后至第三版问世前这段时间里，一门与词典编纂相关的全新学科——描写语言学诞生了。
现代语言学的奠基之作是伦纳德·布龙菲尔德的《语言论》(1933)。布龙菲尔德曾在芝加哥大学担任日尔曼语文学教授达十三年，又在耶鲁大学任语言学教授达九年。他是那种开创性的、不仅只属于某一学科领域的大学者之一，这类大学者从不人云亦云，亦步亦趋，对于一些广为接受的思想观念和行事方法绝不因其已广为大多数人接受便盲目地接受下来。布龙菲尔德既是语言学家，又是人类学家，他对语言的认识不是根据斯特兰克的那本《风格的基本要素》形成的，而是在他本人对克里印第安人的方言进行考察研究的基础上形成的。
描写语言学的主要研究成果有如下几项：
一、所有的语言都只是人为习俗的体系，而不是自然法则的体系。不论是研究何种语言，
第一步，也是最根本的一步，就是观察并准确无误地记录以该语言为母语的人使用语言的情况。
二、每种语言的语音、语法和词汇都有其与众不同的特点。
任何语言都不能通过逻辑或从某种理论上的、理想化的语言的角度来进行描述，
也不能从任何别的语言的角度来描述，甚至不能用其自身的早期形式来描述。
三、一切语言都是发展的，而不是静止不变的。因此，任何语言的"规则''都只能说明其现阶段的用法情况。规则发生变化是经常性的，也是正常的现象。
四、语言使用的"正确性"只能根据习惯用法来评判，原因很简单，除此而外别无其他评判标准。而所有的习惯用法都是相对的。
根据以上这些观点应该可以得出这样的结论：一部词典只有当它能全面而准确地描述语词的现时用法时才算是好词典，
而要做到全面，它就必须包含对一些社会性和区域性等方面情况的描述。
人们需要新词典是因为英语在过去这两代人的时间里所发生的变化比以往任何时期都要大。
新词典必须使自己适应以下新时代的情况：文化与科技的突飞猛进、两次世界大战、交通运输和通讯方面的无比巨大的发展变化以及规模空前的人口流动。
更加微妙，但却非常普遍的是，教育的普及和民主的发展也给英语带来一些影响。
由于使用书面英语的人数急剧增长以及前所未有的诸多原因，英语已倾向于更加实用，更加通俗。今天美国所出版的每一种书刊都有一些版面在四十年前喜欢咬文嚼字的人看来满纸尽是信口胡言。可事实上它们并非毫无意义的胡言乱语，它们的存在只不过表明，我们不能把上一代人所使用的语言当作下一代人必须遵守的样板。
这并不是说你不应该这样做，而是你根本不可能这样做。比如，《生活》杂志曾在某一期中发表一篇社论，声明它要以《韦氏国际英语词典》(第二版)为准，可就在这一期的《生活》杂志上却出现了四十多个见之于第三版却未见于第二版的词汇、结构与意义。有一期《纽约时报》上高喊第二版是它坚决拥护的权威，而第三版则是它要摒弃的愚弄和骗人之作。可这一期的《纽约时报》上却用了一百五十三个收录于第三版却未收进第二版的单词、短语和句法结构，另外还用了十九个受到第二版指责的词语。这些单词和词组有的重复出现多次，因此在一期《纽约时报》上出现的这类词语共达三百余处。《华盛顿邮报》在一篇标题为"留着你的老韦氏"的社论中，开宗明义第一句话就说，"don't throw it away(别扔掉它)"，第二句又说，"hang on to it(紧紧抱住它)"。然而，在老韦氏词典中，don't被标注为"口语用法"，而"hang on to"的这个意义则根本没有收录。
总而言之，所有这些报刊上的文章都是用第三版所描写的语言写成的，连那些攻击侮蔑第三版的社论本身也不例外。
这不是什么偶然的巧合，因为第三版压根儿没有订立什么新的语言使用标准，
它所作的只不过是对《生活》、《华盛顿邮报》和《纽约时报》等报刊所使用的语言进行描写而已。
该词典的许多内容恰恰取材于这些报刊，尤其是《纽约时报》，它为该词典提供的例证比任何一家别的报纸都多。
这些报刊也别无选择余地。今天的任何报刊，如果限制自己只使用二十八年前的美国语言的话，那它可能连一期也卖不出去;
对于我们所关心的事物，它就会连一半也讨论不了，它的文风也一定会显得刻板呆滞。
假如那些社论对第三版的评论不是开玩笑的话，广大读者，还有报纸的股东们，就有理由感激这些报刊的撰稿人，他们的文化水平比编辑老爷们高一些。
让我们再回到该讨论的问题上来：词典的用途何在？在1962年的今天，词典怎样才能最有效地执行自己的使命？人们的要求其实也很简单。
一般读者查词典的目的是为了弄清词语的拼写、发音、词义和正确用法。他想了解什么是通用的，什么是正确的。
他想了解，他也有权利知道，真实情况，绝对的真实情况。
然而任何语言，尤其是今日的美国英语中的真实情况就是，许多语言现象要想说得确切明白是不可能的，而过分简单化的说明又易引起误解。
即便在拼写这样较为确定的问题上，词典都不能给予绝对权威的说明。Theater的拼法是正确的，但theatre的拼法也同样正确。
类似的情况还有traveled和travelled，plow，plough和catalog和catalogue等以及其他数十上百种异体拼法的例子。
读者可能想得到一个唯一的毫无疑义的答案。他可能坚信某一种拼法是正确的并因此与人争辩，他甚至可能为此而同别人打赌而要让词典来“裁定”这个问题。
然而，词典既没有义务去满足他的虚荣心，也没有义务去关心他的钱包。
词典的任务是记录事实，而与此有关的事实是，我们的语言中有许多词可以用两种方法拼写，而两种拼法都同样正确无误。
发音方面的情形也是如此。有的人在听广播时可能注意到詹姆斯B科南特、班纳德巴鲁奇和德怀特D艾森豪威尔将economics一词的音念成ECKuhnomiks，
而A怀特格里斯沃尔德、阿德莱E史蒂文森和赫伯特胡佛则将它念成EEKuhnomiks，
于是他就去查词典，想看看究竟这两种读音中的哪一种才是正确的，而结果呢，他发现两者都是可行的。
是他被词典欺骗了吗？是词典失职了吗？
词典是否应该指出，人们说话必须模仿哈佛大学校长，或是模仿耶鲁大学校长，以美国第三十一任总统的发音为准，抑或是以第三十四任美国总统的发音为准？
无疑地，作出决择可不是词典的事儿。
这倒并不是因为对这些特殊人物的崇高的社会地位有所顾忌。词典编纂学，像上帝一样，是不会趋奉任何人的。
词典不作出取舍决择的真正原因乃是因为在社会地位这样高的人们当中竟然如此广泛而显著地使用着两种发音，这事实就足以说明的确存在着两种发音。
他们的说话方式就构成了词典必须记录的事实。
一般购买词典的人使用词典时恐怕多半是为了查找一个词所表达的是什么意思。
作为读者，他想了解作者要表达的是什么意思;作为讲话者或作者，他想知道一个词会将什么样的意思传达给他的听者或读者。
这方面的情况也是复杂的、微妙的，而且总是在变。
《华盛顿邮报》的一篇社论(1962年元月17日)为我们提供了一个说明问题的例证。
这篇社论在对那些热爱真实性与准确性的人们发出强烈的呼吁并照例发出一通丧失权威性和用词不规范的抱怨声之后，接着便指责第三版矫揉造作、晦涩难懂、繁冗累赘，还特地援引该词典给门这么一个简单的物体所下的定义来作为说明的例子。
该词的定义如下：
用坚实材料制成的可移动的板或一种构造物，通常有一侧是固定着的，可以绕着轴和铰链转动，或沿一道凹槽滑动，或上下卷动，或作为一四叶物体旋转，或像手风琴一样可以折叠。
通过这些方法，开口处得以关闭或打开，从而进出一建筑物、房间、或其他有顶的围墙、或汽车、飞机、电梯或其他运载工具。
接下来是一系列特殊的含义，每种含义都作了具体的界定，必要的地方还引用了有来源的例证加以说明。
如果真是这样，那他就步入了词典编纂学的一个最大的陷阱，即认为显而易见的事物容易下定义。
实际情况却恰恰相反，对于那些新奇或独特的事物，倒是人人都能给以恰当的描述，
而真正难于下定义的倒是那些普通而常见的事物，正因其普通才迫使我们不得不用不普通的词语去给它们下定义。
约翰逊博士在他的词典于1755年问世时，也正是由于这一原因才受到人们嘲笑的。
两百年来，他给network(网络)一词下的定义"任何以同等距离呈网状或交叉成X状，并在交叉线之间留有空隙的物体"一直是人们的笑料。
但在笑声中，有一件事却总是被忽略了：至今也没有任何人提出比这更好的定义来!
后来的词典把network(网络)解释为mesh(网状结构)，然后又把mesh解释为network。这种处理方法倒的确是够简单的!
在今日的美利坚合众国，任何真诚地想要说明"门''这个词的含义的人都不可能躲避到小木屋里去。
近二十年来，用于关闭和打开的装置和结构花样百出，种类剧增。
因此，任何人若是想弄清"门"这一词现在所包含的许多种意义，那他就可能不得不牺牲简洁以求准确，甚至还可能不得不使用一些在词汇量有限的人看来可能是晦涩难懂的词语。
举例来说，帐篷的入口算不算是门？还有那把飞机的出人口封闭起来的东西叫什么？那算不算是门？还有那些现在已经开始用来代替老式的橡木折叶门遮蔽出入口的布帘或喷气帘呢？它们算是门吗？
还有许多现代化公寓里用来将屋子的各个部分隔开的那种像手风琴似的东西又是什么？
租房契约书上的条款不容分说地把它们算作是门，由它们隔成的空间便是房间，房租便是按房间数来计算的。
房东把隔开我的厨房的那个可以折叠的新奇玩意儿称作门，是不是在欺骗我?
于是，我便去查第二版，因为《邮报》的编辑敦促我不要用第三版而要用第二版。
我在第二版中查到门的定义是用木板或其它材料制成的可移动的框架结构或障碍物。
通常绕着铰链或轴转动，或者滑动，通过这种东西，一所房子或公寓的入口处得以关闭和打开。另外，也指一件家具如衣柜或书柜等的与此相似的部分。
因此，我接着又去查第三版，马上便发现，门的新定义要长一些，但我所求的是准确，如果为了准确必须牺牲简洁的话，我也愿意这样做。
果然。在这个使《邮报》血压升高的定义中，我找到了"像手风琴一样可以折叠这几个字。
那种东西的确也算是门，我的房东使用的是"门"这个词现在人们所接受的各种意义当中的一种。
这个定义总共只有四十六个词，但尽管它包含了地下室的门，却没能包括仓库的门和那像手风琴一样的东西。
这部新词典也许有不少缺点。
这部词典的许多地方有待于人们提出公允的、有眼光的批评意见。
任何一部词典要想适应当代英语这样一个广阔领域里的日益变化着的情况就不可能没有缺点。
有几百条，甚至是几千条可能有些欠当或不够准确。
删掉口语用法，这种语体说明标志的做法，在有些人（包括我）看来是值得称道的，但在另一些人看来，却可能是一个损失。
然而，有一点是确定无疑的：如果有人在1962年的今天竞郑重其事地宣布在英语用法问题上要以1934年出版的词典为指南的话，那他就是愚昧无知、狂妄自大，是在胡说八道了。

Key Words:
dismay   [dis'mei]
n. 沮丧，绝望

flagrant   ['fleigrənt]

extraneous     [eks'treiniəs]

unprecedented     [ʌn'presidəntid]

folly ['fɔli]
n. 愚蠢，荒唐事 (复)follies: 轻松歌舞剧

obscure  [əb'skjuə]

pretentious    [pri'tenʃəs]

参考资料：
高级英语第一册(MP3+中英字幕) 第8课:词典的用途(1)_品牌英语听力 - 可可英语高级英语第一册(MP3+中英字幕) 第8课:词典的用途(2)_品牌英语听力 - 可可英语http://www.kekenet.com/Article/201510/40367shtml高级英语第一册(MP3+中英字幕) 第8课:词典的用途(4)_品牌英语听力 - 可可英语高级英语第一册(MP3+中英字幕) 第8课:词典的用途(5)_品牌英语听力 - 可可英语高级英语第一册(MP3+中英字幕) 第8课:词典的用途(6)_品牌英语听力 - 可可英语http://www.kekenet.com/Article/201510/40532shtml高级英语第一册(MP3+中英字幕) 第8课:词典的用途(8)_品牌英语听力 - 可可英语高级英语第一册(MP3+中英字幕) 第8课:词典的用途(9)_品牌英语听力 - 可可英语
展开全文
• had爆破辅音/d/结尾，the辅音开头，爆破遇见辅音失去爆破，所以这里d不发音. ~follow it   [ ˈ fɑlo] [ ɪ t] 当前面一个单词的结尾发音是元音 /u/,/ ʊ /,/ ə u/ , /au/ 的任何一个时，后一个...


音标复习

绿色：连读；                  红色：略读；               蓝色：浊化；               橙色：弱读

口语蜕变(2017/6/24)  If your dream was big enough and you had the guts to follow it, there was truly a fortune to be made. [ɪf] [jʊr] [drim] [wɒz] [bɪɡ] [ɪˈnʌf] [əndˌ ən] [ju] [hæd] [ðə] [gʌts] [tuˌtə] [ˈfɑlo] [ɪt] , [ðɛr] [wɒz] [ˈtruːli] [e] [ˈfɔrtʃən] [tuˌtə] [bi] [med] .  如果你的梦想足够远大，你又有勇气去追随它，财富便唾手可得.

~big enough [bɪɡ] [ɪˈnʌf]  big爆破辅音/g/结尾，enough元音开头，辅元连读.  ~had the  had爆破辅音/d/结尾，the辅音开头，爆破遇见辅音失去爆破，所以这里d不发音.  ~follow it  [ˈfɑlo] [ɪt]  当前面一个单词的结尾发音是元音/u/,/ʊ/,/əu/,/au/的任何一个时，后一个单词发音元音开头，这两个元音需要一个滑音即半元音/w/将这两个元音连起来.  ~truly a [ˈtruːli] [e]  当前面一个单词的结尾发音是元音/i/,/l/,/e/,/al/的任何一个时，后一个单词发音开头，这两个元音需要一个滑音即半元音/j/将这两个元音连起来  ~was，and，to [wɒz],[əndˌ ən] ,[tuˌtə]  弱读  Gut [gʌt]   （1）、gut adj.直觉的；出于本能的 Eg. I guess, his gut reaction is to have a fight with Tom. 我猜他的本能反应是要和Tom打一架。 （2）、gut n.勇气，魄力，决心 Eg. My boss is a man with plenty of guts.  Fortune [ˈfɔrtʃən]  Fortune n. 大笔的钱，巨款；运气；命运 Eg. This car must have cost him a fortune. 这辆车一定花他不少钱。 Eg. Good fortune will follow you, both in this world and the next. 无论今世还是来生，好运都伴随着你。
学以致用：没有人敢告诉保罗他这是在犯什么样的错。（have the guts to do something ） Nobody have the guts to tell Paul what a mistake he was taking. 这里注意红色标记的用法

晨读(2017/6/24)  When it comes to family , we are still children at heart, no matter how old we get, we always need a place to call home. [wɛn] [ɪt] [kʌmz] [tuˌtə] [ˈfæməli] , [wi] [ɑr] [stɪl] [ˈtʃɪldrən] [æt; ət] [hɑrt] , [no] [ˈmætɚ] [haʊ] [old] [wi] [ɡɛt] , [wi] [ˈɔlwez] [nid] [e] [ples] [tuˌtə] [kɔl] [hom] .  面对家人的时候，在我们内心深处我们始终觉得自己还是个孩子，不管我们年龄多大，我们总是需要一个称之为家的地方.

When It  when辅音/n/结尾，it元音开头，辅元连读；同理need a  at heart  at 爆破辅音/t/结尾，heart辅音开头，爆破遇见辅音失去爆破  matter  爆破辅音/t/浊化为/d/  to  弱读[tə]  come  1、dome，表示方向——来 Come in /come on in 进来 Come up 上来   2、come on （1）表示加油 Come on! You are gonna to win! 你一定会赢的. （2）表示快一点 Hey guys, come on. 伙伴们，快点. （3）表示不相信 Oh man. Come on. Seriously? 真的吗？   3、come again 你说什么/再说一遍 Come again? I don't quite understand what you said. 你说什么？你刚说的话我不明白.  call  1、call 表示称呼 Hey, just call me Wendy. 叫我Wendy就好了. 2、call 表示打电话 Call me tomorrow. / give me a call tomorrow. 明天给我打个电话 3、call 表示决定 It's my call. 这事由我决定. 4、call off表示取消 I have to call off the meeting. 我必须取消会议. 5、句子 Call it a day. 今天就到这吧. Call it a night.. 今晚就到这吧. 6、call the shots.说的算，做主，发号施令 Hey guys, this is my place, I call the shots. 这是我的地盘，我做主.
当提到钱的时候，他保持沉默。（when it comes to…） When it comes to money, he keeps silent.

转载于:https://www.cnblogs.com/thescentedpath/p/7074010.html
展开全文
• A grammar is a series of productions that generate the valid “words” of a language. It is a way to specify the syntax of a language. Another way to specify the syntax would be using plain English, ...
在English中 grammar包括Grammar deals with syntax, morphology, and semantics.其中while syntax studies sentence structures。 sentence structures 的最好的理解是word order。 the English grammar follows the structure of a subject, verb, object ate the dog the bone, its syntax is wrong(syntax 错了 语法自然就错了。). the right order is the dog ate the bone..
syntax只关注 a sentence 是由NP(名词短语)和VP(动词短语构成) 但是syntax并不关心动词verb，名词noun等具体定义。也不关心word的内部结构比如 bookkeepershas four morphemes （类词根词缀复数）(book, keep, -er, -s) 。
what-is-the-difference-between-syntax-and-grammar-in-compiler
A grammar is a series of productions that generate the valid “words” of a language. It is a way to specify the syntax of a language. Another way to specify the syntax would be using plain English, but that would end up being very verbose for non-trivial languages if you want it to be precise enough to serve as a specification.
As an example consider the following text:
A program is a series of zero or more statements.

A statement is either the keyword "var", followed by an identifier, followed by a semicolon;
an identifier  followed by "++" or "--",   followed by a semicolon; or the keyword "while",
followed by an identifier, followed by the keyword "do", followed by zero or more statements,
followed by the keyword "end".

This describes the syntax of a very simple programming language, but it is not a grammar. Here is a grammar that describes the same language:
program   ::= statement*
statement ::= "var" ID ";"
| ID "++" ";"
| ID "--" ";"
| "while" ID "do" statement* "end"

语法是一系列产生语言的有效“单词”。这是一种指定语言语法的方法。指定语法的另一种方法是使用简单的英语，但如果你希望它足够精确以作为规范，那么对于非平凡的语言来说这将是非常冗长的。
作为示例，请考虑以下文本：
程序是一系列零个或多个语句。

语句是关键字“var”，后跟标识符，后跟分号; 标识符后跟“++”或“ - ”，后跟分号; 或关键字“while”，
后跟一个标识符，后跟关键 字“do”，后跟零个或多个语句，后跟关键字“end”。

这描述了一种非常简单的编程语言的语法，但它不是语法。这是一个描述相同语言的语法：
program   ::= statement*
statement ::= "var" ID ";"
| ID "++" ";"
| ID "--" ";"
| "while" ID "do" statement* "end"

What’s the difference between grammar and syntax? in English
As defined from the NOAD, grammar is, “the whole system and structure of a language or of languages in general, usually taken as consisting of syntax and morphology (including inflections) and sometimes also phonology and semantics.”
It includes the syntax, but it’s not limited to that.
The syntax of a language is, “the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language.” For example, the syntax is about which order subject, verb, and object have in a sentence to form a well-formed sentence. A sentence like “like it I” is not considered a well-formed sentence, basing on the English syntax, even if people would understand that the correct sentence is “I like it.”
它包括语法，但不仅限于此。
语言的语法是“用一种语言创造格式良好的句子的单词和短语的排列”。 例如，语法是关于哪个顺序主语，动词和对象在句子中具有形成格式良好的句子。像“喜欢我”这样的句子不是一个基于英语语法的格式良好的句子，即使人们会理解正确的句子是“我喜欢它”
answer2 As I hear them used, grammar
is usually a subfield of English or any other specific language can be both descriptive and prescriptive seeks to define parameters for use of a specific language whereas syntax
is a subfield of linguistics is descriptive only seeks to describe language use in terms of language-neutral universal parameters Both grammar and syntax are usually focused at the level of words-in-sentences (a level above pronunciation, a level below prose-style) but can spill over into these and other subfields.
正如我听到他们使用的那样，语法
通常是英语或任何其他特定语言的子字段 可以是描述性的和规定性的 寻求定义使用特定语言的参数 而语法
是语言学的一个子领域 只是描述性的 旨在用语言中立的通用参数来描述语言使用 这两种语法和句法，通常都集中在单词功能于句子的水平（高于发音的水平，低于散文式的水平），但可以蔓延到这些和其他子域
Ⅲ What-is-the-difference-between-grammar-and-syntax
Syntax pertains only to the arrangement of words in sentences. Grammar deals with syntax, morphology, and semantics.
Syntax: the grammatical arrangement of words in sentences Grammar: the branch of linguistics that deals with syntax and morphology (and sometimes also deals with semantics) Morphology: studies of the rules for forming admissible words, and sounds in words Semantics: the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text Phonology: the relationships among the speech sounds that constitute the fundamental components of a language
语法仅适用于句子中单词的排列。语法处理语法，形态和语义。
句法：句子中单词的语法排列 语法：处理语法和形态学的语言学分支（有时也涉及语义学） 形态学：研究形成可接受的单词和单词中的声音的规则 语义：单词，短语，句子或文本的含义 音韵学：构成语言基本组成部分的语音之间的关系
Ⅳ/whats-the-difference-between-syntax-and-grammar
Grammar is a very broad term that can roughly be described as
the implicit rules by which speakers intuitively judge which strings are well-formed in a given language.
This includes
syntax: The structure of phrases and sentences - see above. morphology: The internal structure of words. Questions include:
“How can we sort out the word antidenationalization into a meaningful structure?”“What went wrong with the word undeadable, while we can say undead and unbreakable?”“Why do we find un-use-ful okay, but un-ful not?”“How come that it is sing-er-s and not sing-s-er? What is the difference between how a so-called derivational moprpheme -er and an inflectional morpheme like -s work?” phonology: The structure of sounds. Questions include:“Why is it that we say ships, but not fishs and buss, but fishes and busses?”“How do we intuitively know, without ever having heard the word imby-bimby before, that it should be an imby-bimby and not a imby-bimby?” (It has something to do with vowels and consonants.)“Why can a word like rgafmp not exist in English?” Yes, this is actually ungrammatical. Grammar means more than “It’s we swam, not we swimmed”. Sometimes, semantics, i.e. the study of meaning, is seen as a part of grammar:“Why can we read the sentence Every child sings a song both as For every child it holds that it sings some song (not necessarily the same one) and There is (at least) one song which every child sings (this being one and the same song)?”“Why can bow mean both to lean forward and a thing that you use with arrows to shoot?”“In the sentence John seeks a book about Norway, how can we account for the two readings 1) John is looking for a specific book about Norway he has seen the other day vs. 2) John is looking for some book about Norway, but isn’t sure that what he wants exists at all?”
语法是一个非常广泛的术语，大致可以描述为
说话者直观地判断哪些字符串在给定语言中格式良好的隐含规则。
这包括
语法：短语和句子的结构 - 见上文。 形态学：单词的内部结构。 问题包括：
“我们怎样才能将反国际化这个词理清成一个有意义的结构？”“ 不可言喻这个词出了什么问题，而我们可以说亡灵和牢不可破？”“为什么我们发现未使用-FUL不错，但非FUL不呢？”“怎么，这是唱-ER-S ，而不是唱-S-ER？是有什么区别怎么所谓的派生moprpheme -er和屈折语素像-s的工作？” 音韵：声音的结构。 问题包括：“为什么我们说的船舶，但不fishs和巴斯，但鱼和公共汽车？”“我们怎么直觉地知道，以前没有听过imby-bimby这个词，它应该是一个imby-bimby而不是imby-bimby？” （它与元音和辅音有关。）“为什么英语中不存在像rgafmp这样的词？” 是的，这实际上是 不合语法的。语法是指超过“这是我们游泳，不是我们swimmed ”。 有时，语义，即意义研究，被视为语法的一部分：“为什么我们可以读出句子每个孩子唱支歌既是对每一个孩子就认为它唱一些歌（不一定是同一个），并有（至少）一首歌曲，其每一个孩子唱歌（这是一个和同一首歌）？““为什么弓箭意味着向前倾斜和用箭头射击的东西？”“在约翰寻求一本关于挪威的书中，我们如何解释这两本读物1）约翰正在寻找一本关于挪威的特定书籍，他前几天曾见过他们 .2）约翰正在寻找一本关于挪威的书，但是不确定他想要什么存在吗？“
Main Difference – Grammar vs Syntaxhttp://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-grammar-and-syntax/
wike Syntax refers to the linguistic structure above the word level (e.g. how sentences are formed) – though without taking into account intonation, which is the domain of phonology. Morphology, by contrast, refers to structure at and below the word level (e.g. how compound words are formed), but above the level of individual sounds, which, like intonation, are in the domain of phonology.[13] No clear line can be drawn, however, between syntax and morphology. Analytic languages use syntax to convey information that is encoded via inflection in synthetic languages. In other words, word order is not significant and morphology is highly significant in a purely synthetic language, whereas morphology is not significant and syntax is highly significant in an analytic language. Chinese and Afrikaans, for example, are highly analytic, and meaning is therefore very context-dependent. (Both do have some inflections, and have had more in the past; thus, they are becoming even less synthetic and more “purely” analytic over time.) Latin, which is highly synthetic, uses affixes and inflections to convey the same information that Chinese does with syntax. Because Latin words are quite (though not completely) self-contained, an intelligible Latin sentence can be made from elements that are placed in a largely arbitrary order. Latin has a complex affixation and simple syntax, while Chinese has the opposite.
语法是指单词级别之上的语言结构（例如句子是如何形成的） - 尽管没有考虑语调，这是音韵学的领域。相比之下，形态学指的是在单词水平上和下面的结构（例如复合词是如何形成的），但高于单个声音的水平，这与声音一样，在音韵学领域。[13]然而，在语法和形态之间没有明确的界线。分析语使用的语法来传达经由编码信息拐点在综合语。换句话说，词序不重要，形态在纯合成语言中非常重要，而形态学并不重要，语法在分析语言中非常重要。例如，中国人和南非荷兰人是高度分析性的，因此意义非常依赖于语境。（两者都有一些变形，并且在过去有更多的变化;因此，随着时间的推移，它们变得更加合成并且更“纯粹”分析。）拉丁语，高度合成，使用词缀和变形来传达相同的信息，中文用语法做。因为拉丁语单词是完全（虽然不是完全）自足，是一个可理解的拉丁语句子可以由以很大的任意顺序放置的元素构成。拉丁语有复杂的词缀和简单的语法，而中文则相反。

展开全文
• 时间：100分钟 满分：100分 得分： ...找出画线部分发音不同的选项。 ( ) 21. A. bill B. size C. silver ( ) 22. A. huge B. menu C. push ( ) 23. A. warn B. scarf C. hardly
• ## 死磕Java之5个what揭开向对象核心

千次阅读 多人点赞 2020-03-16 09:43:48
）二、What ls a Class?（什么是类？）三、What ls Inheritance?（什么是继承？）四、What ls a Interface?（什么是接口）五、What ls a Package?（什么是包？） 一、What ls an Object？（什么是对象?） 别人问你...


文章目录

一、What ls an Object？（什么是对象?）
二、What ls a Class?（什么是类？）
三、What ls Inheritance?（什么是继承？）
四、What ls a Interface?（什么是接口）
五、What ls a Package?（什么是包？）

一、What ls an Object？（什么是对象?）
别人问你什么是对象，你怎么回答？（闭上眼想象一下，当你问一个外行人：什么是对象。然后他或者她说：对象是我的男/女朋友，哈哈）
对象是具有相关状态和行为的。用相应的手段描述日常生活中的现实世界。
有一个很耳熟或者很眼熟的五个字：万物皆对象
那么万物皆对象的来历什么？我谈谈我的看法吧。
谈万物皆对象之前，咱们先看一看万物复苏这个成语：
万物复苏&
展开全文
• first second third fourth fifth sixth[sɪksθ]注意发音 seventh eighth ninth  tenth eleventh twelfth thirteenth fourteenth fifteenth sixteenth seventeenth eighteenth nineteenth twentieth['...
• What’s the Time in English? There are two common ways of telling the time. 告诉时间有两种常见方式。 1. Formal but easier way - 正式但更简单的方式 顺读法 - 先时后分 Say the hours first and then the ...
• Aa发音比较复杂，归纳起来有10种情况： 一．在重读开音节中读[ei]。 　例如： 　plane [plein] radio [ˈreidiəu] wake [weik] paper [ˈpeipə] 　但要记住一个例外：have读做[英][hæv, həv, əv, v]而...
• 英语口语中的音变现象是指再说英语的过程中出于“省力” 的原因，...我们在学习英语的过程中，如果不注重英语发音的音变现象，那么在英语听力中，就不易察觉其中的音变现象，这样对理解听力内容会产生一定影响；同时...
• ## 前端面试题

万次阅读 多人点赞 2019-08-08 11:49:01
以下两个变量a和b，a+b的哪个结果是NaN？ 答案( AC ) 66 var a=10; b=20; c=4; ++b+c+a++ 以下哪个结果是正确的？答案( B ) 66 下面的JavaScript语句中，（ D ）实现检索当前页面中的表单元素中的所有文本框，并...
• What's the time? 时间的读法，past--过 to--差： 4:00 four o'clock 7:30 seven thirty half past seven two quarters past seven half to eight 4:20 ...
• “第一部分：基础知识1....语音：元音的发音五个元音字母：AEIOU12个单元音： 前元音：[i:] [] /e/ []中元音：[:] [] 后元音：[ɑ:] [] [:] [u :] [] [] 双元音(8个) Ⅰ.合口双元音(5个)[ai] [ei] [au] [u]...
• 孩子的英语读音特别有味道呢，呵呵。 美语。
• What Are Acoustic Landmarks, and What Do They Describe? In speech acoustics, landmarks are patterns that mark certain speech-production events. Speechacoustic landmarks come in two classes: peak and a...
• The purpose of raw strings, introduced back in version 1.5, is to counteract the behavior of the special escape characters that occur in strings (see the subsec- tion below on what some of these ...
• 5个元音字母分别为：a[ei]、e[i:]、i[ ai]、o[eu]、u[ju:]; 二、英语48个音素表 三、元音字母发音特点 元音发音时声带震动、气流通过口腔不受阻碍。元音分为单元音和双元音。单元音发音时唇形和...
• ## 字母h的发音音标

千次阅读 2020-12-18 19:33:35
通常情况下，48个音素可分为元音和辅音两大类，其划分依据主要是看发音时气流从肺部呼出时是否受到发音器官的阻碍，以下简要说明之。 什么是元音？ 发音时声带振动，呼出的气流通过口腔时不受阻碍，这样形成的语音...
• 26个英文字母及发音音标如下：A[ei] B[bi:] C[si:] D[di:] E[i:]F[ef] G[d3i:] H[eit∫] I[ai] J[d3ei]K[kei] L[el] M[em] N[en] O[əu]P[pi:] Q[kju:] R[a:] S[es] T[ti:]U[ju:] V[vi:] W[′d∧blju:] X[eks] Y[wai...
• 全文转载自：http://www.cnblogs.com/zxsoft/archive/2008/04/25/1171200.htmlHow do you pronounce IT?最常见的几个：GNOME ...GNU 应该读成 guh-noo (这里 noo 发音是英文单词 new) 普通话接近“葛拗”汉语拼音“...
• 出自-2016年6月听力原文 What motivates employees to do their jobs well? Competition with coworkers, for some. 出自-2016年12月阅读原文 Waiters, keen observers of humanity that they are, are catching on...
• 所以呢，不管是听读还是发音的时候，我们要注意练成“英语式”口语表达，注意英语中的连读和略读。1 连读发音规则一辅音+元音一句话中相邻的两个单词，前一个单词以辅音结尾，后一个单词以元...
• A) 辨音 从A、B、C三个选项中选出划线部分读音与其他不同的选项。（5分） ( )21. A. end B. meter C. else ( )22. A. matter B. date C. shape ( )23. A. climb B. gift C. wind ( )24. A. played B. ...
• 而该词在常用的习语里面出现的时间远比在计算机或计算机编程里面出现的早，“foo” 和 “bar” 成对出现则起源于口语 “FUBAR” 一词（发音和 Foo-bar 一样）。 来自军事世界的传说中，“FooBar” 的含义则是 ...
• 送气音有 p, t, k 和 /tʃ/ (ch的发音) ，发成 p – b t – d 美式英语也常常发d，清音浊化 k– g /tʃ/ – 也发 d 2.词中带有r的一定要发音, r 发成 l ,且不发闪音，发成颤音 3.短元音在词尾往往要重读 ...
• What It Is: YAML is a human friendly data serialization standard for all programming languages. YAML 是所有编程语言的人类友好的数据序列化标准。 官方网址： http://www.yaml.org/ 有趣的是这...
• 查看这些示例以了解文章的使用方式。She's a doctor.I need an umbrella.Have you heard the news?I don't like spiders....JobsWhen we say what people's jobs are, we usually usea/an.He's an ar...
• 英语发音挺难学，音标都有好几套，以前在学校学习的时候还不知道，以前老师也没强调，现在一看还这么复杂。其实有所谓IPA63，IPA88，KK音标，DJ音标，IPA音标就是国际音标，IPA63是1963年出的，现在一般把它叫做传统...
• ## 英语连读及发音

千次阅读 2020-02-21 12:41:58
常见发音现象 连读–辅音+元音 当前一个单词以辅音结尾，后一个单词以元音开头，将前面的辅音与后面的元音自然相连，称为“辅音 + 元音”的连读。我们可以想象这个辅音是后一个单词的词首，自然流畅地将辅音与元音...

...