第二戰場：關於錢老的英文，歡迎來Quora觀戰/繼續撕
- 錢鍾書的英語到底什麼水平？ - Burris Ewell 的回答
- 覺得自己比錢鍾書英文好可以，但拜託你先弄懂什麼叫「維多利亞風格」 （@惡膜的奶爸）
- 炮打裝逼犯——我的第一張大字報（@小狀師張）
- 不要欺負我們不會英語（@bhuztez）
大家撕來撕去，終究隔了一層，畢竟英文不是母語——當然，有一兩個說是英語本土人士的回答，也有答主引用了本土人士的說法，但是好像還是不夠，還吵的更厲害了。有鑒於此，我給大家開闢了第二戰場。我在Quora上提了這個問題：Can any native English speaker tell me if this is good English writing? 邀請native English speaker來回答，問題描述如下：
An old acquaintance [我這樣寫是為了隱藏作者身份以利於客觀評價，不是我要和錢老攀親啊] wrote the following in the 1940s. Some think it』s well written, but other call it unnatural gibberish. Can any native English speaker tell me your opinion and reasons?Here is the link to the writing samples.
然後我在自己的回答下只是貼出了知乎上這位題主給出的選文（因為Quora題注的字數限制），而且請求回答題目的人不要去搜作者是誰，並說明自己的英文水準。具體如下：
There are 4 writing samples, listed below as Book Preface, Letter A, Letter B and Letter C. Please stay focused on the writing itself and don』t Google the writer, which I think might affect your judgement of the writing itself. Also, please specify your education/experience in respect of the English language. Thank you very much.
Book Preface
...原文
Letter A
...原文
Letter B
...原文
Letter C
...原文
Letter D
...原文
我是好幾天前提的問題，現在也有幾個回答了，請大家移步Quora觀戰。但是我也提醒一句：如果你不是native English speaker，最好還是不要答這個題，咱們來觀native English speaker論戰好么？——當然如果你認為自己的英文夠好，一定要答題，我也不會攔你。還有，如果你認為native English speaker也不夠格評價錢老的英文，那就是我這篇文章的底層邏輯也錯了，我認錯先。
好，那麼我來盡量全地@參與了本次知乎大論戰的先生們、女士們：
@三一君@十六月十二日@Larry Wang王承倫@馮東@惡膜的奶爸@Cc CC@書悅@先鋒谷@水氷曱@bhuztez@黃白小貓@公子小白@Zz月光寳盒zZ@駱櫻@呂二@viel gluck@賈斯丁迪斯@修格致@孟小園@挖挖土鬆鬆骨@肖暢@小安@ziji xin@譚樊馬克@顧彤@黃貓@桑迪@TOM1991@萬元虎@Burris Ewell@小狀師張@狂狷@劉曉愷@祝正林@Novacookie@重泉@Hypatia@野渡@海森堡@孔先生@Serena Yu@Kane讀作卡呢@li xu@runner time@Jevon@dududu自己玩@常非常
怎麼才這幾個，肯定有漏的，不是有200多個答主么？歡迎在評論區替我@，謝謝。另外，Quora上只能邀請15個人來回答問題，如果你關注了這個問題，可以邀請更多的人來回答，所以請邀請更多在English之類的話題上有經驗的答主來答題吧。
最後，還是說一句：對於錢老的英文水平，我是中立的啊，我只是願意大家理性客觀地討論，希望看到真理越辯越明。
補充：我把現有的幾個回答貼下來，以饗讀者：
1）Gregory J. Reid, Retired Professor of English and Comparative Literature
You have asked is this is 「good English writing.」 It is, but it is not perfect. For example: 「Thanks to Madame Yang Chiang, who continuously urged me on while holding other matters at bay, I was able through the accumulation of many small moments to find the time to finish it.」 This sentence should be two sentences with a period between 「on」 and 「while.」
Someone has called the writing 「unnatural gibberish.」 This is not the case, but it is probably important for you to realize that the analogies and allusions in the text will be very challenging for an English reader. This dilemma—making the text easy for the target audience versus remaining faithful to the original culture and language—is a typical subject of debate in Postcolonial Studies and in Translation Studies.
Personally, when reading a text that comes from a language and culture different from my own, I want to be challenged. I want to be reminded periodically that there are elements of someone else』s culture and language that I simply don』t understand, and I will have to make a bit more effort to research and study if I want to understand. Unfortunately, I』m afraid the typical English reader can be quite lazy. However, accommodating this laziness will mean translating out some of what is most interesting and distinctive about your text (or, alternatively, providing long, dull and dry annotations). It is an ongoing dilemma.
這個回答裡面說「Thanks to…finish it」這個句子語法是錯誤的，我進行了反駁：
Also, I think the sentence 「Thanks to…finish it」 is one sentence, the grammatical analysis of which might go like this: 「Thanks to sb, who did sth while (she was also) doing sth, I was able to do sth.」 I think the subject of 「while holding」 is Madame Yang Chiang.
然後答主表示同意：
Ah. In that case, the new sentence begin with 「I was able . . .」
然後又有一位別的讀者表示反駁：
I don』t think so! You begin one sentence with 「thanks to M…」 - that same sentence needs to tell us what happened thanks to M. Another way of shortening the sentence is: 「Thanks to sb, I was able to do sth.」 All the other information is extra detail, but it must be plopped right in the middle of that sentence, so it』s as close as possible to the person it』s describing (Madame Yang Chiang).
我再次替錢老這個句子進行了辯護：
Maybe it would be clearer if it goes like this: 「I was able to do sth. thanks to Madame Yang, who did sth while doing sh.」
I think the original sentence is not grammatically wrong per se, but it surely is not clear. This might be the problem with his writing: grammatically correct per se, but not clear or natural.
最後，這位表示贊同：
you』re right - I re-read the sentence, and although it is grammatically correct, it does contain too many ideas.
2）Mark Jones, I studied translation to and from English and have a good sense of how it works.
Two things strike me about these samples.
First, there are some word choices that are unusual but it is difficult to know if they are errors or deliberate twisting of language for effect. The writer clearly has ability. A speaker from an anglophone country can detect a non-native speaker from the style that and this is validated by the setting references.
Second, there are a few syntax and grammar errors, but frankly no more frequent than committed by many native speakers. Keep in mind these are letters, so there was likely no opportunity for editing and it is possible transliteration from cursive may have missed items such a apostrophes.
3）Celia C.S. Friedman, Novelist and writing instructor
Wow, those are some weird writing samples. I would definitely not use these to learn writing from. Bearing in mind I was not around in the 40』s and may not be familiar with some of the slang from then, this is my response:
First, there are some grammatical and stylistic issues in several samples. I see missing commas, a really bad preposition error, and many sentences in which the word order, while not technically incorrect, is not the way I would expect an average native speaker to write,
Second, there are phrases in here that are oddly worded. English speakers don』t talk about 「holding other matters at bay」. 「Have smiting of conscience」 is blatantly incorrect use of the word. 「It』s almost literally 「a day at the fair」 「 is so twisted in linguistic logic I can』t even make sense of the intent.
Lastly, these passages are all rather pretentious in flavor. Parts of them read like someone sat down with a thesaurus looking for the biggest, most complicated words he could find, and then tried to get as many of them in each sentence as possible. 「Never use a small word if a big one will suffice」. It renders some sentences hard to read without stopping to analyze what on Earth the writer is trying to say. The PS line after the closing (I think it』s in sample B, but I』m not looking at them as I write) is so extreme in this regard is so bad it』s almost a spoof of that style. These were not written by someone who wants his meaning to be understood, but by someone who wants you to admire his skill with language. In the preface this is marginally forgivable, as the writer really is showing off. 「」Ingenious disingenuousness」 is actually a clever phrase. But you don』t usually write letters like that.
I will hazard a guess this is a translation of foreign text. I do not know the nationality of the writer, but if you gave this to me with no other information, I would guess Chinese. There are sentiments here I would never think to put in a letter, that seem to have an echo of another language behind them, as if someone tried to express in English the kinds of things that are said in another culture. In particular, the repeated statements of humility in B would be considered a polite response to a favor in some cultures, but are excessive by Anglo standards.
That said, I do admit I』m not an expert on 40`s writing. If you told me this was from the late 19th century I would be a lot less critical of the style, because it was customary then to write long, flowery sentences with labyrinthine structure and pretentious vocabulary. I would expect a phrase such as 「imgenious disingenuousness」 to come out of that period. Letter writing was considered an art form back then, and writing in this style was not uncommon; the goal was to be artistic rather than concise. But for the 40』s it seems a bit odd.
By modern standards, this is not good writing. The contemporary goal in English is to communicate clearly and concissly, and while there are times and places one might indulge in more poetic prose, that still needs to be in proper English.
So since you asked we not look up the author, here is what I would guess
Excluding a few odd phrases, it』s not gibberish, just overwritten.
This was not written by a native speaker.
The letters reflect an attempt to translate documents from another language, rather than to write something original
This was done by someone who believes that English is most impressive when using big words and complicated sentences . Which in today』s world is simply not true. It may have come from an earler period.
Given the nature of some of the stylistic quirks in these passages , I would not be surprised if you told me that some of this came from a very sophisticated computer translation program. It』s got the odd flavor of 「almost but not quite right」 that such programs can produce.
4）Sara Matthews, Native speaker, Teacher, Language Arts/Literature/ ELL
There are grammatical errors - and there is a tone to each that would give all away as the writing of a non-native speaker - even if the topics did not make that clear.
That said, its not unnatural gibberish by any means - Im surprised that someone would deem it so. Unnatural - that might only mean that its clear this is not the work of a natural English speaker. Regardless of the grammatical errors and the odd sentence structure here and there - the meaning is clear and thus it cant be called gibberish. Gibberish means it cant be understood.Its also an older style of writing - this was over 70 years ago. Theres a formality - a stiffness - to the writing that was common then. If someone is unaware of that - if someone is unaware of the changes in language from then till now - that someone might be inclined to call this writing gibberish for that reason.
5）Keith Derrick, I speak three languages: English-, Australian- and American-English
None of the pieces are gibberish. The final letter is the least grammatical (「I have smiting of conscience」).
All are in a somewhat stilted manner, which I would associate more closely with the era of sailing ships. They are also clearly either written by someone who is not a native English speaker .. or by someone who *is* a native speaker and is trying to make it clear that their characters (the authors of the letters etc) are **not**.
This is more down to the circuitous and over-polite style of discourse in the letters. Also, the cultural references make it seem strange to western Europeans.
My education is 「some college」, but my job often requires me to write extensively. I also went to school at a time before computers (or even home typewriters), when **every** teacher felt it was their responsibility to ensure their students used correct grammar and spelling.
I also read many emails from people around the world each day, and thus see a broad range of writing styles and degrees of English fluency from people for whom it is not their native language.
6）Angus Freeman, Studied English language at A-level and was bookish as a child
It』s excellent English.
Since it was written in the 1940s, it』s a little archaic, which is probably why some call it 「unnatural gibberish」, but at the time it would have been natural.
I』m a native english speaker
7）Nandan Choksi, Words, like crystals, have many facets.
The writing is somewhat unnatural. However, it is far from being gibberish. On the other hand, the level of writing is awful, overall. One or more of the samples MAY earn a passing grade if the writer is a student in a US middle-school. In any grade higher than that, this level of writing would earn a failing grade, assuming the teacher to be a fully-qualified and competent English teacher.
8）Doug Smith, Life long college educated native English speaker.
First I』m a native English speaker with a community college degree and some additional courses beyond that. I』m 56 years old. My father and mother were born in 1914 and 1921 respectively while my grandparents were born between 1892 and 1900. This means that I had regular contact with people that lived in and grew up in this era.
Let』s discuss this in two pieces, the preface and separately, the 3 letters. In the preface the author indicates this is a work of fiction so I will take the preface to be his best effort. It is generally well written with odd idioms in it. I do not know if these were were common to the place he was in or not. I』m assuming he in Chinese, but I don』t know what audience he was writing for. If he was writing for an English speaking audience in Hong Kong his idiom may be appropriate for that. To me it doesn』t feel right for the 1940s American.
Since the letters are apparently works of fiction it is harder to judge him as a writer. They definitely read like there were written by a non-native speaker. The idiom in them sounds like direct translations from another language which I assume to be Chinese. For example 『This is not 「flannel」 nor 「butter」 but my sincere opinion (my hand upon my heart!).』 makes me shake my head and go huh. I can figure it out from context but there is nothing similar that I』ve ever read in English. Whether it』s a direct translation from some Chinese idiom, a mistranslation of some Chinese idiom or written to sound like a direct translation of some Chinese idiom I can not say. When I Google 『flannel nor butter』 only get hits to this passage.
Given this is a work of fiction and from what I』ve seen I would not read it. It would be very tough reading. Likely reading it would entail a lot of backing up and rereading because I misinterpreted something previously. I WOULD NOT take this as an example of how English should be written.
推薦閱讀：
※求一個完整詳細的托福複習計劃？
※我們上學接受的英文書寫訓練是否是正確的？外國人手寫的英文都非常幼稚，很少有連筆等等。
※「film」、「movie」和「cinema」等英文詞之間的區別是什麼？
※如何用英文翻譯「漂亮得不像實力派」？
※如何使學習英語變得有趣？
TAG:英语 |