-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
SCOTT SIMON, HOST:
Harold Evans sees a lot of fog all around us - a fog of murky1 words, qualifiers and subordinate clauses that clog2 a sentence and route an expression into obscurity - puffed3 up phrases, passive voices, misused4 words and words with no meaning, verbs twisted into nouns, buzz words, and hackneyed terms that make the language we use to deliver news, exchange opinions, trade stories, give direction and declare love into a pea soup of imprecision and cliche5. Sir Harold Evans, who's edited The Sunday Times of London, several U.S. publications, editor at large of Reuters and the author of many bestsellers, has written "Do I Make Myself Clear?: Why Writing Well Matters." He joins us from New York. Thanks so much for being with us.
HAROLD EVANS: Delighted.
SIMON: Aren't we writing more than ever?
EVANS: Yes because the Internet makes it so easy. And that's why you get so much garbage. And sentences run on and on. And new words are introduced, some of which are intelligible6, many of which are not.
SIMON: Yeah.
EVANS: You have to be 15, really, to have a complete vocabulary. The two things which have happened to the English language since we were taken over by the United States...
SIMON: (Laughter) I'm sorry, go ahead. We got the blame for this. I do that, yes. Go ahead.
EVANS: ...But what's happened is not only are we writing more, the velocity7 and the volume combined are adding confusion more than they're adding enlightenment. And so the simple Anglo-Saxon sentence that Churchill so revered8 - he called it a noble thing - tends to get lost in mush. And I've - in my book, I've given so many examples. I almost went hysterical9 with confusion and rage about what passes through this wonderful medium of radio and print, which is actually confusing people.
SIMON: Yeah. Can I enlist10 you in a difference of opinion I have with some of our daughter's teachers?
EVANS: Yes, oh, sure.
SIMON: Thank you.
EVANS: I will get a safe escort out of this building.
SIMON: (Laughter) All right. Thank you. You want to abolish - I think Theodore Bernstein of The New York Times called - monologophobia.
EVANS: Yes.
EVANS: What is that?
EVANS: Well, monologophobia, in Theodore Bernstein's definition, is a man who would rather be caught naked in Fifth Avenue in front of Saks than use the same word or the same name twice in a paragraph.
SIMON: Yeah.
EVANS: There is no shame, madam teacher, in using the same word twice. The important thing in all these issues about language is, is the meaning clear?
SIMON: Yeah.
EVANS: Know what you want to say and steer11 (ph) to the meaning of what you want to say and cling to that as fast as you can. And then read it again because you're bound to have introduced some non sequitur. Excuse me, that's Latin, of course.
(LAUGHTER)
EVANS: So you can see I've got some weaknesses in my defense12.
SIMON: What effect, Harry13, do you think text messages and emojis may have on language or are already having?
EVANS: Well, I think it's not too - we don't worry too much about that. I think much more concerning is passive voice, abstractions, zombie words, flesh-eaters. I would like all school teachers to make war on the zombies, to make war on the flesh-eaters, to make war on the predatory clauses that introduce so many paragraphs - with good writers as well as school kids.
SIMON: Yeah. Zombies are, I believe, a noun devoured14 by a verb, as you put it.
EVANS: Exactly right. We used to call it nominalization, which is a horrible zombie in itself.
SIMON: Yeah.
EVANS: A zombie is very often revealed by the ending, I-O-N. So you get I authorize15 this statement, OK? That's the verb - I authorize. It comes out - the statement was - authorization16 was signed by so-and-so. You've turned the active verb, authorize, into a zombie, authorization. Same as participate - participation17. And you've drained the sentences of vigor18 and immediacy. It's like a virus. Once it enters the system, whether through a school, more often through business - business is the great corrupter19 of language, you know, because they don't say it was decided20 that coffee would not be served any longer over the break. Who decided that?
SIMON: (Laughter).
EVANS: That was passive voice, you know.
SIMON: Yeah.
EVANS: If you said Joe Smith decided there would be no coffee. OK, where is Joe Smith hanging out this morning? We can go and deal with him straight away.
SIMON: What's a pleanista? And what's your problem with them?
EVANS: It's repetition. George Bernard Shaw - youth is too good to waste on the young. Or one I - David Letterman had a good one some years ago in which he said a new survey has found that three-quarters of the people constitute 75 percent of the population.
SIMON: Yeah.
EVANS: That's a pleonasm. Most pleonasms are a waste of time.
SIMON: For phrases like root cause or consensus21 of opinion or...
EVANS: That's exactly right...
SIMON: ...Yeah.
EVANS: ...Consensus of opinion. Or 35 acres of land - oh, hello - razed22 to the ground, resigned the position of, succumbed23 to his injuries, and so on.
SIMON: Yeah.
EVANS: So all these are barnacles on the English language. Strangled to death - there is another one, which I thought of because I'm feeling my lethal24 tendencies arriving in me as I talk to you here. Strangled to death - well, you can't strangle somebody unless you kill them.
SIMON: (Laughter).
EVANS: You can throttle25 them.
SIMON: Yeah.
EVANS: So if you have any of these lethal thoughts in your mind, dear listeners, and if - you can't speak in...
SIMON: Oh, my.
EVANS: ...These languages without having a whole posse after you. So sufficient enough - enough is a wonderful word. Why sufficient?
SIMON: I think that's enough. Sir Harold Evans - his book...
EVANS: (Laughter).
SIMON: ..."Do I Make Myself Clear?" Harry, thanks so much for being with us.
EVANS: Thank you - a great pleasure. Thank you.
(SOUNDBITE OF FILM, "MY FAIR LADY")
JEREMY BRETT: (As Freddy Eynsford-Hill, singing) The heavens tumble, darling, and I'm...
AUDREY HEPBURN: (As Eliza Doolittle, singing) Words, words, words - I'm so sick of words. I get words all day through, first from him, now from you. Is that all you blighters can do? Don't talk of stars, burning above. If you're in love, show me.
1 murky | |
adj.黑暗的,朦胧的;adv.阴暗地,混浊地;n.阴暗;昏暗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 clog | |
vt.塞满,阻塞;n.[常pl.]木屐 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 puffed | |
adj.疏松的v.使喷出( puff的过去式和过去分词 );喷着汽(或烟)移动;吹嘘;吹捧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 misused | |
v.使用…不当( misuse的过去式和过去分词 );把…派作不正当的用途;虐待;滥用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 cliche | |
n./a.陈词滥调(的);老生常谈(的);陈腐的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 intelligible | |
adj.可理解的,明白易懂的,清楚的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 velocity | |
n.速度,速率 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 revered | |
v.崇敬,尊崇,敬畏( revere的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 hysterical | |
adj.情绪异常激动的,歇斯底里般的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 enlist | |
vt.谋取(支持等),赢得;征募;vi.入伍 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 steer | |
vt.驾驶,为…操舵;引导;vi.驾驶 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 defense | |
n.防御,保卫;[pl.]防务工事;辩护,答辩 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 harry | |
vt.掠夺,蹂躏,使苦恼 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 devoured | |
吞没( devour的过去式和过去分词 ); 耗尽; 津津有味地看; 狼吞虎咽地吃光 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 authorize | |
v.授权,委任;批准,认可 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 authorization | |
n.授权,委任状 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 participation | |
n.参与,参加,分享 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 vigor | |
n.活力,精力,元气 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 corrupter | |
堕落的,道德败坏的; 贪污的,腐败的; 腐烂的; (文献等)错误百出的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 decided | |
adj.决定了的,坚决的;明显的,明确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 consensus | |
n.(意见等的)一致,一致同意,共识 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 razed | |
v.彻底摧毁,将…夷为平地( raze的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 succumbed | |
不再抵抗(诱惑、疾病、攻击等)( succumb的过去式和过去分词 ); 屈从; 被压垮; 死 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 lethal | |
adj.致死的;毁灭性的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 throttle | |
n.节流阀,节气阀,喉咙;v.扼喉咙,使窒息,压 | |
参考例句: |
|
|