|
接上期： 译者：finerain To begin with it has nothing to do with archaism, with the salvaging of obsolete words and turns of speech, or with the setting up of a 'standard English' which must never be departed from. On the contrary, it is especially concerned with the scrapping of every word or idiom which has outworn its usefulness. It has nothing to do with correct grammar and syntax, which are of no importance so long as one makes one's meaning clear, or with the avoidance of Americanisms, or with having what is called a 'good prose style.' On the other hand, it is not concerned with fake simplicity and the attempt to make written English colloquial. Nor does it even imply in every case preferring the Saxon word to the Latin one, though it does imply using the fewest and shortest words that will cover one's meaning. What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around. In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them. When yo think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualizing you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning. Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. Afterward one can choose -- not simply accept -- the phrases that will best cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impressions one's words are likely to mak on another person. This last effort of the mind cuts out all stale or mixed images, all prefabricated phrases, needless repetitions, and humbug and vagueness generally. But one can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails. I think the following rules will cover most cases: 这与复古主义、拯救废弃的词语和用法，或是建立“标准英语”都毫不相干。相反，它主要想清理那些本身已经被用滥了的词语。这与正确的语法和句法、是否避免了美国英语的特殊用法或是拥有优美的散文风格都关涉甚少，并且，一旦人们能够清晰的表达意义，语法句法本身就没有太大的重要性。另一方面，这与虚假的简单明了和力图使书面英语口语化的工作也不相干。这也并非暗示在任何情况下都热衷于撒克逊词而非拉丁词，即时它确实暗示了用最少、最小的词语来表达人们的想法。如上所述，我们的全部工作仅只是由意选词，而不是相反。在散文写作中，最糟糕的事情无异于向文字缴械投降。当你默默地思考一个具体的物体，并且，如果你想要描述出脑海中浮现的这个物体，或许你会冥思苦想，直到找到确切的词语为止。而当你思考一些抽象的事物时，一开始你就更倾向于就使用现成的词语，除非你能有意识的阻止这个过程，否则现成的措辞就会一拥而入，替你完成由意选词的工作，取而代之的，则是意义的含混不清甚至改变原意。或许，人们应该尽可能的不急于选词，只要能用图片或是感觉将意义表达清楚就行。从今以后，你应该选择——而不是简单的接受——最能达意的词语，将其相互调换、对比，并且应当考虑自己选用的词会给别人造成什么印象。头脑中最后的这道工序，能将所有陈腐的表述、混杂的意象、现成的词语、不必要的重复、各式的花招谎言和模糊不清，从总体上得到削减。人们经常会怀疑一个词或是一个短语的效果，并且需要一些规则来遵守，以应对本能控制失效的情况。我想下面的规则涵盖了大部分的情况： Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. 1. 不要使用隐喻、明喻，以及其他你从报刊上看到的比喻手法。 Never us a long word where a short one will do. 2. 在能用小词的地方绝不使用大词。 If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. 3. 如果可以剔除一个词，剔除之。 Never use the passive where you can use the active. 4. 能用主动语态的不用被动语态。 Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. 5. 如果你能从日常英语中找到合适的对应的词，绝不使用外国短语、科学词语和一些专门的行话。 Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. 6. 如果按规则会说出粗野的话，立即打破上述规则。 These rules sound elementary, and so they are, but they demand a deep change of attitude in anyone who has grown used to writing in the style now fashionable. One could keep all of them and still write bad English, but one could not write the kind of stuff that I quoted in those five specimens at the beginning of this article. 这些规则听起来比较初级，他们确实如此，不过对于那些已经习惯于风靡当下的写作风格的人来说，在态度上的确需要一场深刻的改变。你可以遵守这些规则，而糟糕的英语却不改往日，但不应该写出我在本文最开始给出的五种样本的文章。 I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. Stuart Chase and others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don't know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase -- some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse -- into the dustbin, where it belongs. 此处，我并非是在考虑语言的文雅用法，只是在考虑语言作为表情达意、且不隐瞒或是阻止思考的工具而已。司徒·蔡司（Stuart Chase）和其他一些人最近宣称，所有抽象词汇都是没有意义的，并以此作为鼓吹一种沉默政治的借口。他们可能会说，既然你连法西斯主义是什么都不知道，反抗法西斯主义又从何谈起呢？你大可不必轻信此种荒谬论调，但你应该认识到，当下混乱的政治处境与语言的衰败是紧密相连的，你很可能通过注重语言的使用而带来一些改进。如果你能将自己的英语简明化，你将避免正统派最糟糕的错误。你不会讲任何一种必需的方言，当你做出一个愚蠢的评论时，甚至连你自己都会觉得它愚蠢的如此显而易见。政治语言，以及他的各式变种，都企图使谎言听起来跟真的一样，他不仅扼杀那些我们向来尊敬的东西，并且使可靠性成为完全空洞的修辞。一个人不能在瞬间改变这一切，但他至少可以改变自己的习惯，并且一次又一次地通过大声的嘲笑，将那些过时的和没用的短语，诸如some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno 之类，以及其他的语言垃圾，一起扔进本就属于他们的垃圾筒。 |
|
|
