| 单词 | 语法学家 |
| 释义 | 〔so〕Many critics and grammarians have insistedthatso must be followed by that in formal writing when used to introduce a clause giving the reason for or purpose of an action: 很多批评家和语法学家都坚持认为：在正式的写作中，当用来引入一个表示动作的原因或目的的从句时，so 的后面必须跟有 that ： 〔parallel〕In its mathematical usageparallel is an absolute term— two lines either do or do not intersect—and as such does not admit of qualification as to degree.Some grammarians have arguedthat this restriction should apply as well to nontechnical uses of the word.According to this logic,one may not sayThe two roads have been made more parallel, except perhaps as a loose way of saying what is rendered more precisely by expressions such asmore nearly parallel. Like the analogous objection that has been made to the comparison ofequal, the point betrays a misconception about the relation between mathematical concepts and their ordinary-language equivalents.Applied to objects in the world,parallel can only denote a rough approximation to a geometric ideal. A pair of rails or parked cars cannot be truly parallel in the mathematician's sense of the termbut only more or less so,just as a road or shelf cannot be truly straight in the geometric sensebut nonetheless may be described as very straight or relatively straight.The grammarians' compunctions make even less sense when applied to metaphorical uses ofparallel, as inThe difficulties faced by the Republicans are quite parallel to those that confronted the Democrats four years ago, in which the intended meaning has nothing to do with the possibility of intersectionbut instead suggests the structural correspondence of two distinct situations.In this sense, parallelism is clearly a matter of degreeand the wordparallel can be modified accordingly. See Usage Note at equal ,perfect ,unique 在数学用法中，parallel 是一个绝对的表达法—— 两条线要么相交，要么就不相交——它既没有限定性也没有程度差别。一些语法学家曾提出，这种限制也应该适用于该词在非科技方面的用法，按照这种逻辑，人们不能说这两条路已被修得更加平行了， 除非作为用例如更接近于平行 这样的表达方法更精确地表示的东西的不够精确的说出方法。 象对equal 的比较所做的类似反对一样， 这个观点使数学概念与普通用语中等价词之间的关系引起误解。当运用到世间的实物时，parellel 仅能指与几何理想状态大致接近的状况。 一对铁轨或停放的车辆不可能按数学家对于这个术语的理解来真正地相互并行，而不过是大致平行而已，正如公路和架子不可能是真正几何意义上的笔直，但仍可被描绘成很直的或相对而言的笔直。在用到parallel 的比喻用法时，语法学家的不安就更显得意义不大了， 例如：共和党人所面临的重重困难与四年前民主党人遇到的困难十分相似， 在这句话中，该词的引申意义与相交的可能性毫无关系，然而它暗指了两种不同情况结构上的一致。在此意义上，相似性明显是程度的问题，相应地，parallel 一词也能被其它词限定修饰了。 参见 equal,perfect,unique〔Larousse〕French lexicographer, grammarian, and encyclopedist who founded a publishing company (1852) and compiled theGrand Dictionnaire Universel du XIXe Siècle (1866-1876). 拉鲁斯，皮尔·亚大纳西：(1817-1875) 法国词典编纂者、语法学家以及百科全书编纂人。曾于1852年创办出版公司并编辑出版了《19世纪通用大词典》 （1866-1876年） 〔try〕The phrasetry and is commonly used as a substitute for try to, as inCould you try and make less noise? A number of grammarians have labeled the construction incorrect.To be sure, associated with informal style,the usage strikes an inappropriately conversational note in formal writing.In the most recent survey65 percent of the Usage Panel rejected the use in writing of the sentence try and 这一词组通常可用来替代 try to ， 如在你能试着少发出点噪音吗？ 中。 一些语法学家认为这一结构不正确。由于这一用法常用于非正式文体，一旦出现在正式文章中便会产生不相适宜的谈话式情调。在最近的调查中，65%的用法评审委员成员反对它被用于如下的句子： 〔one〕When constructions headed byone appear as the subject of a sentence or relative clause, there may be a question as to whether the verb should be singular or plural.Such a construction is exemplified in the sentenceOne of every ten rotors was found defective. Although the pluralwere is sometimes used in such sentences, an earlier survey found that the singular was preferred by a large majority of the Usage Panel. ·Another problem is raised by constructions such asone of those people who or its variants. In the sentenceThe defeat turned out to be one of the most costly blows that were ever inflicted on our forces, most grammarians would hold that the pluralwere is correct, in as much as the subject of the verb is the plural nounblows. However, constructions of this sort are often used with a singular verb even by the best writers.Note also that when the phrase containingone is introduced by the definite article, the verb in the relative clause must be singular: 当以one 开头的结构作为一个句子或关系从句的主语出现时， 就出现动词用单数还是复数的问题，如用在句子每十个转子中有一个为次品 中的这种结构。 虽然复数were 有时用在这种句子中， 但在一次早期的调查发现用法专题使用小组的大部分成员更倾向于用单数。另一个问题是由象one of those people who 这样的结构及其变化引起的。 在句子The defeat turned out to be one of the most costly blows that were ever inflicted on our forces, 中, 大多数语法学家主张用复数were 是正确的， 以及主要是由于动词的主语是复数名词blow 所致。 然而，这种结构常与单数动词连用，甚至被很有声望的作家采用。也要注意当包含one 的短语被定冠词限制时， 相关的从句中的动词一定要用单数： 〔but〕Traditional grammarians have worried over what form the pronoun ought to take whenbut is used to indicate an exception in sentences such as No one but I (or No one but me ) has read it. Some have argued thatbut is a conjunction in these sentences and therefore should be followed by the nominative formI. However, many of these grammarians have gone on to argue somewhat inconsistentlythat the accusative formme is appropriate when the but phrase occurs at the end of a sentence, as inNo one has read it but me. While this treatment of the construction has a considerable weight of precedent on its sideand cannot be regarded as incorrect,a strong case can be made on grammatical grounds for treating this use ofbut as a preposition. For one thing, ifbut were truly a conjunction here, we would expect the verb to agree in person and number with the noun or pronoun followingbut; we would then sayNo one but the students have read it. What is more, ifbut were a true conjunction here we would not expect that it could be moved to the end of a clause, as inNo one has read it but the students. Note that we cannot use the conjunctionand in a similar way, saying John left and everyone else in the class in place of John and everyone else in the class left. These observations suggest thatbut is best considered as a preposition here and followed by accusative forms such asme and them in all positions: No one but me has read it. No one has read it but me. These recommendations are supported by 73 percent of the Usage Panel when thebut phrase precedes the verb and by 93 percent when thebut phrase follows the verb. · But is redundant when used together with however, as in But the army, however, went on with its plans; one or the other word should be eliminated. ·But is generally not followed by a comma. Correct written style requiresKim wanted to go, but we stayed, not Kim wanted to go, but, we stayed. · But may be used to begin a sentence at all levels of style. See Usage Note at and ,cannot ,doubt ,however ,I 1传统的语法学家考虑当but 用于表示例外的意思时应该用什么形式的代词，比如 No one but I （或者 No one but me ) has read it 。 有人认为but 在这种句子中是个连词， 因此应该使用主格I。 然而许多语法学家接下来的讨论有些不一致，即当but 短语出现在句子末尾时用宾格 me 比较合适， 如No one has read it but me（除我以外没有人读过它）。 同时这种结构前置处理的重要性是值得考虑的，并且不会被认为是不正确的，一个有力的例子在语法范畴内，认为but 在这里作介词使用。 首先如果but 在此真是一个连词的话， 我们会期望同名词或代词在人称和数上保持一致的动词跟在but 后面； 我们会说No one but the students have read it（除学生以外没有人读过它）。 再者，如果but 在此真是连词的话，我们不希望它被放在句子末尾， 如在句子No one has read it but the students 中。 注意我们不以类似的方式来使用连词and ，说 John left and everyone else in the class 来代替 John and everyone else in the class left。 这些发现表明but 在此最好被当作介词， 在任何位置后面都应跟宾格形式如me 和 them ： No one but me has read it. No one has read it but me（除了我没人读过它）。 当but 短语放在动词之前时，有百分之七十三的用法专题使用小组成员支持这些提议； 而当but 短语放在动词之后时，得到百分之九十三的小组成员的支持。 But 在同 however 一起使用时是多余的，如 But the army, however, went on with its plans； 这两个词必须去掉其中一个。But 通常后面不加逗号。 正确的写法是Kim wanted to go, but we stayed, 而不是 Kim wanted to go, but, we stayed 。 But 可以放在所有文体标准的句子开头 参见 and,cannot,doubt,however,I1〔and〕It is frequently asserted that sentences beginning withand or but express "incomplete thoughts" and are therefore incorrect. But this rule was ridiculed by grammarians like Wilson Follett (who ascribed it to "schoolmarmish rhetoric") and H.W. Fowler (who called it a "superstition"),and the stricture has been ignored by writers from Shakespeare to Virginia Woolf.Members of the Usage Panel were asked whether they paid attention to the rule in their own writing:24 percent answered "always or usually,” 36 percent answered "sometimes,” and 40 percent answered "rarely or never.”See Usage Note at both ,but ,try ,with 通常认为用and 或 but 开始的句子表达“不完整的思想”，因而是不正确的。 但这条规则被一些语法学家所嘲弄，如威尔逊·弗莱特（称之为“古板的修辞”），和H·W福勒（称之为“迷信”），从莎士比亚到弗吉尼亚·沃尔夫之间的作家都忽视了这条规定。当用法专题小组的成员被问到在他们的自己写作中是否也注意到这条规则时：24%的人回答“一直是这样或一般是这样”，36%的人回答“有时这样”，40%的人回答“很少或从来没有” 参见 both,but,try,with〔people〕Used as a pluralpeople is a form with no exactly corresponding singular. (English is not odd in this respect:the equivalent word is anomalous in Spanish, Italian, Russian, and many other languages.)In the past, grammarians have sometimes insisted thatpeople is a collective noun that should not be used as a substitute forpersons when referring to a specific number of individuals, as inSix people were arrested. Butpeople has always been used in such contexts, and the distinction is now so widely ignored in general writingthat it seems pedantic to insist on it.Persons is still preferred in quasilegal contexts, however, as inVehicles containing fewer than three persons may not use the left lane during rush hours. Only the singularperson is used in compounds involving a specific numeral: People 用做复数时无确切的单数形式。 （在此方面英语是不固定的：在西班牙语、意大利语和许多其它语言中相应的词是不规则的。）过去，语法学家曾坚持说people 是集合名词， 不能替代描述特定数量个体的persons ， 如在六个人被捕了 中。 但是people 常用在这样的上下文中， 其区别在一般的书面语中被大大忽略了，再坚持其区别则显得多余。Persons 仍多被用在法律性的语境中， 例如在交通高峰期容纳少于三个人的汽车不允许使用左单行道。 只有单数person 用在与具体数目有关的复合词中： 〔however〕Although some grammarians have insisted thathowever should not be used to begin a sentence, this rule has been ignored by a number of reputable writers.See Usage Note at but ,whatever 虽然有些语法学家坚持认为however 不应用在句首， 但有相当一部分知名作家不理会这条规则 参见 but,whatever〔can〕Generations of grammarians and schoolteachers have insisted thatcan should be used only to express the capacity to do something, and thatmay must be used to express permission. Technically, correct usage therefore requires 好几代的语法学家们和中学教师们主张can 只应用于表示做某事的能力， 同时may 必须用于表示许可。 因此，在学术上纠正其用法要求 〔than〕Since the 18th centurygrammarians have insisted thatthan should be regarded as a conjunction in all its uses, so that a sentence such asBill is taller than Tom should be construed as an elliptical version of the sentence Bill is taller than Tom is. According to this view,the case of a pronoun followingthan is determined by whether the pronoun serves as the subject or object of the verb that is "understood.” Thus, the standard rule requiresPat is taller than I (not me ) on the assumption that this sentence is elliptical forPat is taller than I am but allowsThe news surprised Pat more than me, since this sentence is taken as elliptical forThe news surprised Pat more than it surprised me. However,than is quite commonly treated as a preposition when followed by an isolated noun phrase, and as such occurs with a pronoun in the objective case:John is taller than me. Though this usage is still widely regarded as incorrect,it is predominant in speechand has reputable literary precedent.It is also consistent with the fact thatthan is clearly treated as a preposition in the than whom construction, as ina poet than whom (not than who ) no one has a dearer place in the hearts of his countrymen. Still, the writer who risks a sentence such asMary is taller than him in formal writing must be prepared to defend the usage against objections of critics who are unlikely to be dissuaded from their conviction that the usage is incorrect. · Comparatives usingas . . . as can be analyzed in a parallel way to those using than. Traditional grammarians insist thatI am not as tall as he is the only correct form, and though both literary precedent and syntactic arguments can be marshaled in support of the analysis of the secondas as a preposition (which would license I am not as tall as him ), one should treat this use ofas as a conjunction in formal writing. See Usage Note at as 1自18世纪以来，语法学家坚持以为than 在其所有用法中均应被看作连词， 因此，在诸如Bill is taller than Tom 的句子中应解释为句子 Bill is taller than Tom is 的省略说法。 根据这一观点，than 后跟随代词的情况取决于该代词作为所“理解”的动词的主语还是谓语。 这样，标准规则要求Pat is taller than I （而不是 me )， 考虑到这个句子是Pat is taller than I am 的省略， 但允许The news surprised Pat more than me ， 因为这个句子被认当是The news surprised Pat more than it surprised me 的省略。 然而，当than 跟随一个独立名词短语时常被看作是介词， 如代词用于宾语的情况：John is taller than me 。 尽管这种用法仍然被广泛认为是错误的，但它仍在口语中占主要地位，并且有著名的文学先例。它也符合than 在 than whom 结构中显然被认为是介词的事实， 就象在a poet than whom （而不是 than who ) no one has a dearer place in the hearts of his countrymen 。 然而，冒险在正式写作中应用诸如Mary is taller than him 的作者必须准备针对那些不可能被劝服放弃坚信这种用法是错误的批评家们的反对意见而对此种用法进行辩护。 用比较级as…as 可以用与 than 相同的方式进行分析。 传统的语法学家坚持认为I am not as tall as he 是唯一正确的形式， 尽管文学先例和语法规则都能支持第二个as 作为介词（即允许 I am not as tall as him )的分析， 我们仍应该把这个as 作为正式写作中的连词 参见 as1〔couple〕Although the phrasea couple of has been well established in English since before the Renaissance, it has been criticized on several grounds.Grammarians used to insist thata couple of should be used only to refer to things closely linked to one another and so was improperly used in phrases such asa couple of years ago. This objection has not been heard in some time and was never well supported.Modern critics have sometimes maintained thata couple of is too inexact to be appropriate in formal writing. But the inexactitude ofa couple of may serve a useful communicative purpose, suggesting that the writer is indifferent to the precise number of items involved.Thus the sentenceShe lives only a couple of miles away implies not only that the distance is short but that its exact measure is unimportant. Furthermore,a couple of is different from a few in that it does not imply that the relevant amount is relatively small. One might say admiringly of an exceptional center fielder thathe can throw the ball a couple of hundred feet, but not, except ironically,a few hundred feet, which would suggest that such a throw was unremarkable. The usage should be considered unobjectionable on all levels of style.尽管a couple of 这个短语在文艺复兴之前就已在英语中形成， 它仍受到多方面批评。语法学家过去坚持认为a couple of 应该只用于指互相之间紧密相连的东西， 所以在a couple of years ago 这样的短语中用是不适当的。 这样的反对意见长时间没有人提起了，也从未受到太多支持。现代批评家有时也认为a couple of 太不精确，不能很恰当地用于正式的写作中。 但a couple of 的不精确性也有一种很有用的传达交流的意图， 表明作者对于所涉及的事物的精确数目并不太关心。因此她住的只有几英里远 这个句子不仅表明距离很远，同时也表明精确测量是不重要的。 另外a couple of 与 a few 的不同还表现在它不表示有关的数量是相对来说小的。 如果夸赞一个优秀的中外野球手，可以说他能把球抛几百英尺远 ， 若非如此的话，排除反意的可能，a few hundred feet 指抛这么远并没什么稀奇之处。 这种用法在各种文体上都是无可辩驳的〔unique〕Over the course of the centuryunique has become the paradigmatic example of the class of terms that do not allow comparison or modification by an adverb of degree such as very, somewhat, or quite. Thus, most grammarians believe that it is incorrect to say that something isvery unique or more unique than something else, though phrases such asnearly unique and almost unique are acceptable. In the most recent survey the sentenceHer designs are quite unique in today's fashion scene was unacceptable to 80 percent of the Usage Panel. · Critical objections to the comparison and degree modification of absolute terms date to the 18th centuryand have been applied to a wide group of adjectives includingequal, fatal, omnipotent, parallel, perfect, and unanimous. According to the standard argument, such words denote properties that a thing either does or does not have but cannot have to a qualifiable degree.Thus ifunique is properly used to mean "without equal or equivalent,” something either is unique or it isn't, and phrases such asvery unique and more unique can only betray a weakening of the sense to mean something like "unusual" or "distinctive.” It is true that comparison and modification ofunique are often associated with the style favored by copywriters, as in the advertisement announcing thatOmaha's most unique restaurant is now even more unique or in the claim that a new automobile is So unique, it's patented. But modification ofunique is also found in the work of reputable writers, where it may lack any connotations of hyperbole.A painting is described asthe most unique of Beckman's self-portraits, and a travel writer states thatChicago is no less unique an American city than New York or San Francisco. The relative acceptability of these usages reflects the semantic subtlety ofunique itself. If we were to useunique only according to the strictest criteria of logic, after all, we might freely apply the term to anything in the worldsince nothing is wholly equivalent to anything else.Clearly, then, when we say that a restaurant or painting is unique,we mean that it is worthy of inclusion in a class by itself according to certain implicit but generally accepted criteria.Thus a legitimately unique painting might be one that realizes an unparalleled aesthetic vision,but not one that is rendered only in pigments whose names begin with the lettero; and a legitimately unique restaurant might be one that serves 18th-century French cuisine according to the original recipes,not one that has been installed in a converted sardine cannery.Given this understanding, it is not inherently impossible to think of uniqueness as a matter of degree,in the sense that one painting or restaurant may be more or less worthy of inclusion in a class by itself than some other. ·What is troubling about the copywriters' use ofunique is not that the word has become a synonym for unusual. Rather, it is the copywriters who are using the word in conformity with strict logic.Uniqueness is claimed for a restaurant in virtue of some trivial properties of its decor or menu,or for a resort hotel that simply happens to have a singularly picturesque view of the bay.Though it may be true that such properties render these thingslogically unique, they do not constitute legitimate grounds for putting the things into a class by themselves according to the criteria ordinarily invoked when things are sorted into classes.In fact, the abuse ofunique can be cloying even when no modification or comparison is involved; when we read an advertisement for a line of sportswear that featuresa unique selection of colors, we may suspect that the distinctive properties of the color selection are not so remarkable as the advertiser would have us believe. But it is not surprising that these uses ofunique should lend themselves to promiscuous modification and comparison; for once it is granted that uniqueness can be claimed for any product or service that is somehow distinctive from all its competitors,it is inevitable that an increase in uniqueness will be seen in every minor innovation.See Usage Note at equal ,infinite ,parallel ,perfect 在本世纪整个过程中unique 已成为不能由程度副词，例 very、somewhat 或 quite， 比较或修饰的一类术语的例证。 因此，多数语法学家认为说某事是very unique 或 more unique than 是不正确的， 虽然短语例如nearly unique 和 almost unique 是可接受的。 在最近的调查中，句子Her designs are quite unique in today's fashion scene （她的设计在现今流行样式的场面中是很独特的） 对用法专题使用小组的百分之八十成员是不可接受的。 对纯粹术语的比较和程度修饰的主要异议可追述到18世纪，并已广泛用到许多形容词中，包括equal, fatal, omnipotent, parallel, perfect 和 unanimous。 根据标准论据，这些单词表示一事有或没有但不能有可修饰的程度的性质。于是如果unique 适当地用于表示“没有相等或相当的”，则某事是唯一的或不是唯一的， 而短语像very unique 和 more unique 仅能表露出说明某事像“不寻常的”或“独特的”的意义的减弱。 的确，unique 的比较和修饰常与撰稿人喜欢的文体相联系， 如在广告中称Omaha's most unique restaurant is now even more unique（奥马哈城的最独特的餐馆现在甚至是更加独特） 或声称新汽车是 So unique, it's patented（如此独特，它取得了专利权）。 但是unique 的修饰也在著名作家的作品中发现， 那里可能缺乏夸张法的任何涵义。描述一张油画为the most unique of Beckman's self-portraits（最独特的贝克曼的自画像）， 一位旅游作家叙述Chicago is no less unique an American city than New York or San Francisco（芝加哥比纽约或旧金山是不逊独特的美国城市）。 这些用法的相对可接受性反映unique 自身语义的巧妙。 如果我们仅按照逻辑的严格标准使用unique ， 则我们终于会自由地把此术语使用于世界上的任何事，因为没有完全等同于另一事的事。于是，显然当我们说餐馆或油画是独特的时，我们意味着根据某种隐含的但可普遍接受的判据它是值得包含在一个等级内的。于是合理独特的油画可能是实现空前未有的审美型的，而不是仅给予名字以字母O开始的颜料； 合理独特的餐馆可能根据原来的食谱提供18世纪法国菜肴的餐馆，而不是配备转换的沙丁鱼罐头食品的餐馆。按这样了解，将独特性视为程度问题不是本来就不可能的，在这个意义上一张油画或一个餐馆或多或少可能是极好的有价值的内涵物而不是其他。关于撰稿人使用unique 的困惑不是此单词已成为 unusual 的同义词。 相反地，正是撰稿人使用此单词与严密的逻辑相一致。对餐馆声称独特性是由于它的布置或菜单的某些不重要的性质，或者对于人们常去的旅馆仅因为有海湾的独一无二地别致的景象。虽然这样的性质使得这些事logically 独特的可能是真实的， 但是当事情进行了分类，根据平常实行的判据把这些事情自身放到一类，他们不组成正常的基础。事实上unique 的滥用会使人发腻，即使在没有涉及修饰或比较的时候； 当我们读运动服装的unique selection of colors（颜色的独特选择） 的一行广告时， 我们会怀疑颜色选择的独特性质并非广告商希望我们所认为的那么明显。但不必惊讶于unique 的这些用法应当适用于杂乱的修饰和比较； 就这一次可以承认，独特性能用来指任何产品或服务，它们与所有的竞争者相比较有某种程度的特色，在每一小的创新中可以看到独特性的增加是必然会发生的 参见 equal,infinite,parallel,perfect〔Priscian〕Latin grammarian at Constantinople whose textInstitutiones Grammaticae was used throughout medieval Europe. 普里西安：康斯坦丁堡的拉丁语语法学家，其著作《语法基础》 在中世纪的整个欧洲普遍使用 〔that〕The standard rule isthatthat should be used only to introduce a restrictive (or "defining") relative clause, which serves to identify the entity being talked about;in this useit should never be preceded by a comma.Thus, we sayThe house that Jack built has been torn down, where the clausethat Jack built tells which house was torn down, orI am looking for a book that is easy to read, wherethat is easy to read tells what kind of book is desired. Onlywhich is to be used with nonrestrictive (or "nondefining") clauses, which give additional information about an entity that has already been identified in the context;in this use,which is always preceded by a comma. Thus, we sayThe students in Chemistry 10 have been complaining about the textbook, which (not that ) is hard to follow. The clausewhich is hard to follow does not indicate which text is being complained about; even if it were omitted,we would know that the phrasethe textbook refers to the text in Chemistry 10. The use ofthat in nonrestrictive clauses like this, though once common in writing and still frequent in speech,is best avoided in formal style. ·Some grammarians have argued that symmetry requires thatwhich should be used only in nonrestrictive clauses, asthat is to be used only in restrictive clauses. Thus, they suggest that we should avoid sentences such asI need a book which will tell me all about city gardening, where the clausewhich will tell me all about city gardening indicates which sort of book is needed. Such use ofwhich is useful where two or more relative clauses are joined by and or or, as inIt is a philosophy in which the common man may find solace and which many have found reason to praise. Which is also preferred to introduce a restrictive relative clausewhen the preceding phrase itself contains athat, as inI can only give you that which I don't need (not that that I don't need ) or We want to assign only that book which will be most helpful (preferred tothat book that will be most helpful ). · That may be omitted in a relative clause when the subject of the clause is different from the referent of the phrase preceding the clause. Thus, we may say eitherthe book that I was reading or the book I was reading, where the subject of the clause (I ) is not the referent of the phrase the book. Omission ofthat in these cases has sometimes been described as incorrect, but the practice is extremely common and has ample precedent in reputable writing. ·There have also been occasional objections to the omission ofthat in its use to introduce a subordinate clause, as inI think we should try again. But this usage is entirely idiomatic and is in fact favored with some of the verb phrases that can introduce such clauses:thus, one would more normally write 标准规则中，that 应只被用于引导限定性（或“确定的”）关系从句， 这些从句用于明确正被谈论的实体；在这种情况下，前面决不能有逗号。因此，我们说杰克建的房子已经拆毁了 ， 在这里，从句杰克所建的 指明哪幢房子被拆毁了， 或者我正在找一本易读的书 ， 在这里，易读的 指明哪类书是需要的。 只有which 用于非限定性（或“不确定的”）从句中， 为已经在上下文中定义的实体提供附加信息；在此用法中，which 之前总有逗号。 因此，我们说化学10班的学生一直在抱怨这课本，实在 （不是 that ) 是太难懂了 。 从句which is hard to follow 并不指明哪一课本被抱怨； 即使它被省略，我们也知道the textbook 指化学10班的课本。 That 象这样用于非限定性从句中， 虽然在写作中曾很普遍而且在口语中依然频繁出现，但在正式文体中最好避免使用。一些语法学家认为对称性要求which 应只用于非限定性从句中， 就象that 只用于限定性从句中。 因此，他们建议我们应该避免诸如我需要一本关于城市园艺的书 这样的句子， 这里从句which will tell me all about city gardening 指明需要何种书。 当两个或多个关系从句被and 或 or 连接时， which 的这种用法很有用， 如是哲学使普通人找到慰藉并使许多人有理由去称颂。 Which 也用作引导限定性关系从句，在当前置短语中含有that 时， 如我只能给你我不需要的东西 （不是 that that I don't need )或 我们只想分发那本最用的书 （好于that book that will be most helpful )。 当从句主语与从句前短语所指不一致时，that 在关系从句中可以省略。 因此，我们可以说the book that I was reading 或者 the book I was reading 。 在这里，从句主语(I )和短语 the book 的主语不同。 在这些情况下，that 的省略有时被认为是错误的， 但是这在实际中极普遍而且在规范写作中有充分的先例。对于that 用于引导从句时被省略偶然持有异议， 如在我认为我们应该再试一次 中。 但这种用法完全符合语法而且实际上有一些引导这样从句的短语支持；因此，可以正常应用 〔Murray〕American grammarian who wrote several widely used schoolbooks, includingGrammar of the English Language (1795). 默里，林德利：(1745-1826) 美国语法学家，曾编过几本广泛使用的教学书包括《英语语法》 （1795年） 〔of〕Grammarians have sometimes condemned categorically the so-called double genitive construction,as ina friend of my father's; a book of mine. The construction is well supported by literary precedent,however, and serves a useful purpose.Thus there is no substitute for the double genitive in a sentence such asThat's the only friend of yours that I've ever met, since sentences such asThat's your only friend that I've ever met and That's your only friend, whom I've ever met are obviously impossible. 语法学家有时谴责这种范畴上的双重所有格形式，如我父亲的朋友；我的一本书 。 这种结构为许多文学先进所支持，认为它们是很有用的。在一个如那是我曾经遇到的你唯一的朋友 的句子中双重所有格是没有替代式的， 因为句子如那是我曾遇到的你唯一的朋友 和 那是唯一一个我曾遇到的你的朋友 显然是完全不一样的 〔only〕Though strict grammarians insist that the rule for placement ofonly should always be followed, there are occasions when placement ofonly earlier in the sentence seems much more natural. In the following exampleonly is placed according to the rule: 虽然严格的语法学家主张应该遵循only 位置的用法规则， 但有时only 放在的句子开头，看起来十分自然。 下面例子中only 的位置是按规则安排的： 〔or〕Other grammarians, however, have argued that such constructions must be avoided and that substitutes be found in which the problem of agreement does not arise: 但是，另有些语法学家却主张避免使用这种结构而使用不发生主谓不一致问题的替代结构： 〔who〕The traditional rules that determine the use ofwho and whom are relatively simple: who is used for a grammatical subject, where a nominative pronoun such as I or he would be appropriate, andwhom is used elsewhere. Thus, we writeThe actor who played Hamlet was there, sincewho stands for the subject of played Hamlet; andWho do you think is the best candidate? where who stands for the subject of is the best candidate. But we writeTo whom did you give the letter? sincewhom is the object of the preposition to; andThe man whom the papers criticized did not show up, sincewhom is the object of the verb criticized. ? Considerable effort and attention are required to apply the rules correctly in complicated sentences.To produce correctly a sentence such asI met the man whom the government had tried to get France to extradite, we must anticipate when we writewhom that it will function as the object of the verb extradite, several clauses distant from it.It is thus not surprising that writers from Shakespeare onward should often have interchangedwho and whom. And though the distinction shows no signs of disappearing in formal style,strict adherence to the rules in informal discourse might be taken as evidence that the speaker or writer is paying undue attention to the form of what is said, possibly at the expense of its substance.In speech and informal writingwho tends to predominate over whom; a sentence such asWho did John say he was going to support? will be regarded as quite natural, if strictly incorrect. By contrast, the use ofwhom where who would be required, as inWhom shall I say is calling? may be thought to betray a certain linguistic insecurity. ? When the relative pronoun stands for the object of a preposition that ends a sentence,whom is technically the correct form: the strict grammarian will insist onWhom (not who ) did you give it to? But grammarians since Noah Webster have argued that the excessive formality ofwhom in these cases is at odds with the relative informality associated with the practice of placing the preposition in final position and that the use of who in these cases should be regarded as entirely acceptable. ? The relative pronounwho may be used in restrictive relative clauses, in which case it is not preceded by a comma, or in nonrestrictive clauses, in which case a comma is required.Thus, we may say eitherThe scientist who discovers a cure for cancer will be immortalized, where the clausewho discovers a cure for cancer indicates which scientist will be immortalized, orThe mathematician over there, who solved the four-color theorem, is widely known, where the clausewho solved the four-color theorem adds information about a person already identified by the phrase the mathematician over there. ? Some grammarians have argued that onlywho and not that should be used to introduce a restrictive relative clause that identifies a person. This restriction has no basis either in logic or in the usage of the best writers;it is entirely acceptable to write eitherthe man that wanted to talk to you or the man who wanted to talk to you. ? The grammatical rules governing the use ofwho and whom apply equally to whoever and whomever. See Usage Note at else ,that ,whose 确定用法的传统规则who 和 whom 相对简单： who 语法上用作主语，同 I 或 he 等主格代词的位置相同， 而whom 用于别处。 这样，我们写The actor who played Hamlet was there （演哈姆雷特的演员在那边）， 因此who 代表的是 played Hamlet 的主语。 在句子Who do you think is the best candidate? （你认为谁是最好的候选人?）中 who 代表 is the best candidate 的主语。 但是我们说To whom did you give the letter? （你把信给谁了?）， 因为whom 是介词 to 的宾语； 在句子The man whom the papers criticized did not show up, （报纸上批评的那个人没有来）， 因为whom 是动词 criticized 的宾语 。在复杂的句子里，正确应用这些规则需要相当的努力和注意。正确地造出如I met the man whom the government had tried to get France to extradite （我遇到了政府曾努力让法国引渡的那个人）这样的句子， 在写whom 之前我们必须预知它将作动词 extradite 的宾语， 尽管两个词离得很远。这也就难怪自莎士比亚以来的作家经常把who 和 whom 交换使用了。 尽管在正式文体中两者区别仍然存在，但如果在非正式的交谈中严格地遵守这些规则会被认为说话者或作者可能不顾内容而过分注视说话的形式。在口语和非正式书面语中，who 趋向于代替 whom; 人们会认为象Who did John say he was going to support? （约翰说他将支持谁?）这样句子很自然，尽管严格来说它是不正确的。 相反，在应该用who 的地方用 whom 则显出一种语言上的不稳定， 如Whom shall I say is calling? （我说是谁在打电话?）。 当关系代词替代句尾的介词宾语时，whom 在理论上是正确的形势： 严格的语法坚持Whom （而不是 who ) did you give it to?（你把它给谁了？） 但从诺·韦伯斯特以来的语法学家认为whom 在这种情况下过分正式，而把介词放在句尾相对来说又不正式，这就有了矛盾，所以在这种情况下用 who 完全可以接受。 关系代词who 可以用在限定关系从句中，前面不要加逗号， 也可用在非限定关系从句中，则需要加逗号。所以我们既可以说The scientist who discovers a cure for cancer will be immortalized （发现治愈癌症的方法的科学家将会因此而不朽）， 在此处从句who discovers a cure for cancer 指这样的科学家将会不朽， 也可以说The mathematician over there, who solved the four-color theorem, is widely known （在那边的数学家非常出名，他解决了四色定理）， 从句who solved the four-color theorem 给已经由短语 the mathematician over there 确定了的人增加了一些有关他的信息。 有些语法学家认为只有who 而不是 that 可以连接表示人的限定性关系从句。 这种限制在逻辑上没有根据，在最优秀作家的用法中也未有根据；无论说the man that wanted to talk to you （想要跟你说话的那个人）或 the man who wanted to talk to you 都是完全可以接受的。 有关who 和 whom 的语法规则同样适用于 whoever 和 whomever 参见 else,that,whose〔preposition〕The doctrine that a preposition may not be used to end a sentence was first promulgated by Dryden, probably on the basis of a specious analogy to Latin,and was subsequently refined by 18th-century grammarians.The rule has since become one of the most venerated maxims of schoolroom grammatical lore.But sentences ending with prepositions can be found in the works of most of the great writers since the Renaissance.In fact, English syntax allows and sometimes requires final placement of the preposition.Such placement is the only possible one in sentencessuch asWe have much to be thankful for or That depends on what you believe in. Efforts to rewrite such sentencesto place the preposition elsewhere will have comically stilted results;for example:We have much for which to be thankful or That depends on that in which you believe. · Even sticklers for the traditional rule can have no grounds for criticizing sentencessuch asI don't know where she will end up or It's the most curious book I've ever run across. In these examples,up and across are used as adverbs, not prepositions, as demonstrated by the ungrammaticality of sentencessuch asI don't know up where she will end and It's the most curious book across which I have ever run. 介词不能用来结束句子这一理论最先是由德莱顿可能基于与拉丁语的一个似是而非的类比而提出的，接着又由18世纪语法学家加以改善琢磨，从此这一规则便作为学校语法教育中神化般的至理名言，但是用介词结尾的句子可以在文艺复兴以来大多数名家的作品中找到，事实上，英语句法中有时允许，甚至要求把介词放在最后这种放置。只有在下列句子中才是唯一可能的：We have much to be thankful for 或 That depends on what you believe in 。 要改写这种句子，如把介词放在别处则会产生做作的滑稽效果；例如:We have much for which to be thankful 或 That depends on that in which you believe · 即使是那些拘泥于传统规则的人也找不出理由去批评这样的句子，如I don't know where she will end up 或 It's the most curious book I've ever run across 。 在这些例子中up 和 across 被用作副词， 而不是象以下句子中的违反语法现象所显示的那样是介词：如I don't know up where she will end 和 It's the most curious book across which I have ever run 〔hardly〕The use ofhardly with a negative is avoided in Standard English. Some critics have been puzzled that adverbs such ashardly, rarely, and scarcely should be treated as negatives in the traditional strictures against double negation, which tars sentences likeI couldn't hardly see him with the same brush as I didn't get none. After all, they argue, the sentenceMary hardly laughed entails that Mary did laugh, not that she didn't,and therefore does not express a negative proposition.Buthardly and scarcely occur with other negative expressions in a number of ways. For one thing, they combine with items such asany and at all, which are characteristically associated with negative contexts: we sayI hardly saw him at all or I never saw him at all but notI occasionally saw him at all; we sayI hardly had any time or I didn't have any time but notI had any time, and so on. Like other negative adverbs,hardly triggers inversion of the subject and auxiliary when it begins a sentence. Thus we sayHardly had I arrived when she left, on the pattern of Never have I read such a book or At no time has he condemned the movement. Such inversion is not used with other adverbs:we would not sayOccasionally has he addressed this question or To a slight degree have they changed their position. The fact is that adverbs such ashardly are semantically negative in that they qualify a state or an event relative to the limiting case of nonoccurrence.Thus the meaning ofhardly is, roughly, "almost not at all"; the meaning ofrarely is "practically never"; and so forth. These adverbs are felt to have a negative component in their meaning,and it should not be surprising that grammarians have reacted to combinations ofhardly with negatives in the same way that they have reacted to combinations of pairs of negatives such as not and none. See Usage Note at double negative ,rarely ,scarcely Hardly 和一个否定词在一起的用法在标准英语中应尽量避免， 一些批评学家一直怀疑象hardly，rarely 和 scarcely 这样的副词在传统的双重否定的句中应被视为否定词， 这样的词使句子象I couldn't hardly see him 和 I didn't get none 一样被弄糟了， 他们争论说，毕竟句子Mary hardly laughed 的意思是玛丽的确笑了， 而不是她没笑，所以不表示否定的建议。但是hardly 和 scarcely 和其他的否定表示一起在许多方面出现， 举例说，他们和象any 和 at all 这样独特的和否定上下文联系的条目组合在一起， 我们说I hardly saw him at all 或 I never saw him at all , 但并不是I occasionally saw him at all； 我们说I hardly had any time 或 I didn't have any time 但不是I had any time 等。 象其它否定副词，hardly 在句子开头时引起主语和助动词的倒装， 于是我们说Hardly had I arrived when she left， 和 Never have I read such a book 或 At no time has he condemned the movement. 等同样的句型。 别的副词并不用这样的倒装：我们不能说Occasionally has he addressed this question 或 To a slight degree have they changed their position 。 事实是象hardly 这样的副词语义上是否定的， 他们限定修饰了与不发生有关的状态或事件。于是hardly 的意思大概是“几乎根本不”； rarely 的意思大概是“实际上没有”；等等。 这些副词在他们的意思里留有否定的成分，语法学家们对hardly 和否定词组合的反应和对一对否定词如 not 和 none组合的反应一样是不足为奇的 参见 double negative,rarely,scarcely〔consensus〕Many grammarians have maintained that the expressionconsensus of opinion is redundant, inasmuch asconsensus itself denotes a judgment about which there is general agreement. Consensus of opinion has often been used by reputable writers, however, and has sometimes been defended on the grounds that a consensus may involve attitudes other than opinions;thus, one may speak of aconsensus of beliefs, or a consensus of usage. Nonetheless, the qualifying phrase can usually be omitted with no loss of clarity.The sentenceIt was the consensus of opinion among the sportswriters that the game should not have been played says nothing that is not said by 许多语法学家都认为短语consensus of opinion 这个说法是罗唆的， 因为consensus 本身就表示一种得到大多数同意的意见。 然而consensus of opinion 仍常常被知名作家所使用， 并且有时人们会辩解说它除了意见上的一致外可能还包括态度上的一致；因此，我们可以说consensus of beliefs（信仰一致） 或 consensus of usage（用法一致）。 尽管这样，限定性短语通常可以被省略而不会使表达不清楚。如体育新闻记者们的一致意见是这场比赛本不应该进行的 这个句子并不比 〔or〕When all the elements are plural,the verb is plural.When the elements do not agree in number,some grammarians have suggested that the verb be governed by the element to which it is nearer: 当所有各项均为复数形式时，动词亦采用复数形式。当事物数量不统一时，有些语法学家主张动词形式由离它最近项（的单复数形式）决定： 〔Panini〕Indian grammarian. HisAshtadhyayi, one of the first works of descriptive linguistics, presents grammatical rules for Sanskrit. 帕尼尼：印度语法学家。他的《八章书》 是首先叙述语言学的著作之一，是梵语的语法规则 〔teach〕Some grammarians have objected to the use ofteach as a transitive verb when its object denotes an institution of learning, as in 一些语法学家反对teach 在它的宾语表示学习的机构时它作为及物动词的用法， 如在 |
| 随便看 |
|
英汉汉英双解词典收录301015条英汉双解翻译词条，可根据汉字查询相应的英文词汇，基本涵盖了全部常用汉字的英文读音、翻译及用法，是英语学习及翻译工作的有利工具。