不久之前我看過陶傑說見過兩個中國人為英文文法爭得面紅耳熱。今天無聊讓我找到以下頗為精彩的筆戰。
按:鄧永鏘是世家子,是已故香港慈善家鄧肇堅之長孫。幼年曾在香港接受教育,就讀喇沙書院,其後到英國留學,在劍橋大學取得法律學士學位,再在倫敦大學取得哲學系榮譽碩士,主修邏輯系。並曾在1983年至1984年任教于北京大學,教授英國文學及哲學。
鄧永鏘與英國皇室成員,英、美政治及商界人士關係密切,其好友包括英國保守黨前首相馬卓安、戴卓爾夫人,前港督彭定康、已故戴安娜王妃,安德魯王子、其前妻莎拉、前美國總統克林頓等。其他好友包括英國影帝米高堅伉儷、劇作家安德魯萊韋伯、演員曉格蘭特與女友珍美瑪等。鄧永鏘亦擔任古巴駐香港名譽領事,與古巴政府高層熟悉。
筆戰起因:鄧永鏗批評寫英語專欄的作者古德明的一條例句 “The ship was flying the Union Jack." 有錯,然後就是引發一場筆戰。
古德明回應:和鄧永鏘先生談英文(其一)
七月二十一日拙欄有The ship was flying the Union Jack(那艘船掛英國國旗)例句。論壇版鄧永鏘先生請該版編輯「告訴那個算是要教讀者英文的古先生,那句英文不對。The ship always flies the ensign!」
Ensign是艦旗或商船旗。鄧先生認為船上的旗只可以叫ensign,不可叫flag,船上的英國旗自然不可叫Union Jack /Flag。他反對「憑字典學英文」,但我還是希望他學學Cambridge International Dictionary of English fly字條下的英文:The ship was flying the Spanish flag(那艘船掛西班牙國旗)。這一句的flag不必改做ensign。英文絕對可以說Ships from England fly the Union Jack(英國來的船隻,懸掛英國國旗)。
也許,鄧先生用字要求「精確」。那麼,他用ensign一字就錯了。他說的是甚麼ensign?假如是英國軍艦旗,那該說the White Ensign;是英國商船旗,則該說the Red Ensign,即俗語所謂the red duster(紅色抹布)。鄧先生大可不必教我辨字。
說到辨字,我想到鄧先生七月十九日在論壇版發表的第一篇英文。他鼓吹staccato式寫作,說Staccato is the plucking of a string on the violin(斷音是用手指挑動小提琴弦的聲音)。他不知道用手指挑動小提琴的聲音,叫pizzicato。He played the violin pizzicato即「他用手指挑動小提琴」。你可以用弓在小提琴上奏出staccato,卻不可用手指,不知道鄧先生明不明白。
——————————————————————————–
和鄧永鏘先生談英文(其二)
鄧永鏘先生教讀者用字要準確:Choose the correct word. Never, for example, say to someone: “You smell". As Dr Johnson, who wrote a dictionary, said, “I smell, you stink". I wished he was our Education Minister(用字要準確。比如說,切勿告訴人家:「你有點氣味。」編寫過一本字典的約翰生博士指出:「說自己,是『有點氣味』;說人家,則非用『發惡臭』三字不可。」我希望約翰生博士是我們的教育部長)。鄧先生這短短一段話犯了三個錯誤。
約翰生博士那句話,是說一般人都寬以責己,嚴以責人。氣味在人家身上是「惡臭」,在自己身上則只是「氣味」。鄧先生把反話(ironic remark)當作標準字義,叫讀者用侮辱字眼向人家說話,孔子說:吾不知其可也。
此外,I wished he was our Education Minister一語也錯了。鄧先生要說現在的願望,那wished應改為wish。但他似乎認為過去式動詞可以用來說現在的事,所以還有I wished Lord Denning was our Justice Minister(我希望丹甯勳爵是我們的法律部長)一語。其實這兩句的was改為were,文章會顯得較有學養,但這一點我對鄧先生不會苛求。
第三個錯誤是"I smell, you stink".、"You smell".兩句的句號(full stop),都應置於引號之內。當然,鄧先生是不研究標點的。他那句"I am at……"居然用了中文標點符號。英文刪節號只有三點,其後當然可加一句號。
——————————————————————————–
和鄧永鏘先生談英文(其三)
鄧先生那篇"I Love Plain English",以簡單句子(simple sentence)當做平白英文(plain English),結果是文章了無變化。上乘的平白散文,必須長短句並用,這是中英文都不例外的。鄧先生只要讀讀文筆平白著稱的George Orwell作品,就應明白這道理。他自言簡單的短句有如「美妙的斷音」,但歌曲假如只有斷音,再無其他旋律,效果如何,讀者不妨想想。
當然,只寫簡單句子,文法錯誤應可避免,可是這一點鄧先生卻做不到。
比如說,With 1997, we are all told to learn Mandarin(一九九七年來臨,當局要我們都學國語)、I like to start a campaign in Hong Kong to speak plainly(我要在香港發起平白說話運動)這兩句,應改為From 1997, we were all told to learn Mandarin、I would like to start a campaign in Hong Kong to encourage people to speak plainly;Do not believe that conversation English should not be written(別相信會話英語不可用於書寫)、Tiger Balm is reasonably good for a lot of things, but not good at any one thing(虎標萬金油多方面都有點用處,但沒有任何特別用處)二語,conversation English應改為conversational English,而good at any one thing則應改為good for。Good for、good at的分別,拙欄讀者都會知道,恕我不特別為鄧先生解釋了。
鄧先生的文字,我本來決定視而不見。不料他卻走到門前要教我英文。
================
按:三篇之後,鄧永鏘回應了。
================
鄧永鏘(David Tang)
古先生自以為要改我卷,不過他的英語quali不夠,改到「汙厘單刀」,大錯特錯。
第一個笑話是:古先生叫我用的句子「應改為From 1997, we were all told to learn Mandarin」。幼稚園學生都知道這句子是無grammar的。正確寫法應該是:In 1997, we were all told to learn Mandarin 或 From 1997 we have been told to learn Mandarin 。
其實,我寫的 With 1997, we are all told to learn Mandarin 是有另外的意義,但這個精細的分別,我懷疑很難教曉古先生的。
大家可能會奇怪為甚麼古先生在他三期的專欄(七月二十九至三十一日)內都那麼「勞氣」。
原因是上月我更正他教讀者用的 The ship was flying the Union Jack。 在英文通用口語中,海上行船只可能是flying the ensign,船尾的旗幟一定稱為ensign,不叫Union Jack。基於同一原因,英文船上的廚房是galley,不是kitchen。所以英國人不會說 On board, dinner is cooked in the kitchen , 但用 On board, dinner is cooked in the galley 。
我懷疑古先生英語的流暢度未成熟,只要翻閱他指正我的文章中,就知道他每次都不是「征服」。
(1)我寫的 conversation English 是正確的實用語,與 conversational English不一樣。我想古先生亦聽過 conversation piece 或 conversation painting 或conversation tube 。如果他沒有,他可以翻查字典認識怎樣用conversation這個字。(開券有益!)
(2)我用Tiger Balm 是使用一個隱喻,提醒香港人怎樣講和寫流暢的英文:good at English與古先生說的good for English 的意思當然不同。他誤以為我指的是「虎標萬金油」藥油!(好笑!)
( 3 ) I like to start a campaign in Hong Kong to speak plainly 這句話不只是實用英語,而且意思很明確,與古先生建議的 I would like to start a campaign in Hong Kong to encourage people to speak plainly ,根本是「長氣」到極,精確地犯了簡潔英文的精神。(真悶!)
( 4 ) 我舉 Dr. Johnson對話的例子中I smell, you stink , 沒有古先生指出的反話。古先生意會不到Dr. Johnson的幽默,而誤會「惡臭」與「氣味」的分別,對Dr. Johnson用smell這個字的目的不瞭解。英文寫you smell是個「指示」動詞,要你去嗅,不是當形容詞,「你很臭」的意思。(收到嗎?)
( 5 )我寫I wished Lord Denning was our Education Minister 亦是正確英文。但古先生說我應寫I wish Lord Denning were our Education Minister ,英國人實際會話中不會這樣說。(多與英國人溝通吧!)
(6)至於staccato是指音樂的「聲音」(musical sound),不是奏音樂的「指示」(musical instruction)。如果連音樂語彙也要教導古先生的話,我想我連上廁所也沒有時間了!
————————————————
古德明:鄧永鏘不愧文「獻世」家(其一)
鄧永鏘先生又說拙欄英文「大錯特錯」了。他說我「資格不夠」,叫我「多與英國人溝通」,論據顯然是:他「曾在北京大學教導博士生英文」,所辦英語學習中心「由查理斯王子揭幕」、「由戴卓爾夫人揭幕」。我當然沒有這些資格。我的資格只有三個字:古德明。古德明說鄧先生With 1997, we are all told to learn Mandarin一語錯了,應改為From 1997, we were all told to learn Mandarin。鄧先生說這一句「笑死他」,說From應改為In;假如不改,were就應改為have been。這裏且再給鄧先生一些笑料。Michael Swan Practical English Usage第一版指出:From is used if we do not say when the action or situation finishes。例句是:He studied the piano from the age of three。鄧先生一定會說studied須改為have studied,或from須改為at。他有資格,Michael Swan沒有。古德明說,The ship was flying the Union Jack一語沒錯。鄧先生又笑道:「船的旗幟一定要稱為ensign。」拙欄曾引Cambridge International Dictionary of English例句證明他錯了,但鄧先生既然顧左右而言他,這裏不妨再引Newbury House Dictionary of American English Union Jack條下例句供他笑個飽:A ship flies the Union Jack to show that it is from England。也許,這本字典也不夠資格:編者沒有請查理斯王子揭幕。古德明還有兩篇笑料,鄧先生準備笑死吧。
——————————————————————————–
古德明:鄧永鏘不愧文「獻世」家(其二)
拙欄曾經指出,鄧先生I wished Lord Denning was our Education Minister一語,至少wished應改為現在式wish。鄧先生譏笑道:「英國人實際會話中不會這樣說,你多與英國人溝通吧!」
查Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English,wish條下有I wish I didn’t have to go to work today例句。我希望鄧先生不要又告訴讀者「英國人實際會話中不會這樣說,wish實際會話中應說wished」。同是說現在的事,「書面英語用現在式動詞,實際會話用過去式動詞」這條原則,我沒有聽過。鄧先生假如有所據而言,敬希明示出自何經何典。《蘋果日報》是社會公器,請鄧先生不要當做私家溺器才好。
也許,我和鄧先生論英文,是自討苦吃。例如他最初說:「Choose the correct word. Never, for example, say to someone : “You smell." As Dr Johnson said, “I smell, you stink."」他分明以為smell(有點氣味)一字應用於自己,stink(發惡臭)一字則應用於別人。但現在他又說:「you smell是個指示動詞,要你去嗅,不是『你很臭』的意思。」他究竟在說甚麼,保證沒有人明白,包括他自己、讀者以至本報任何一位編輯。
Dr Johnson的話,我只有一個解釋:「諷刺一般人寬以責己,嚴以責人。氣味在人家身上是惡臭,在自己身上則只是氣味。」但鄧先生說:「古先生以為smell是形容詞,完全意會不到Dr Johnson的幽默。」
給這位文「獻世」家子弟纏上了,算我倒楣。因為他可以利用公器信口雌黃。
——————————————————————————–
古德明:鄧永鏘不愧文「獻世」家(其三)
鄧先生曾說: Staccato is the plucking of a string on the violin (斷音是用手指挑動小提琴弦)。我告訴他:用手指撥動小提琴弦,叫pizzicato。Macmillan Contemporary Dictionary pizzicato 條下解釋就是:(of a stringed instrument, as a violin)played by plucking the strings with the finger 。然則誰對誰錯,應該很清楚。
但鄧先生現在譏笑我說:「Staccato是指音樂的聲音,不是奏音樂的指示。如果連音樂語彙也要教導古先生,我連上廁所也沒有時間了!」他以為憑「鄧先生亦是鋼琴家,數度與香港管弦樂團合作表演」兩句自我介紹,就能證明他沒有誤解staccato。
不怕鄧先生笑死,我碰他,只能歎句「我高一尺,他高一丈」。例如拙欄根本沒寫過good for English 三字,他卻可以批評「古先生說的good for English 」;我說conversation English 應改為 conversational English , 他卻說兩者「不一樣」,哪「不一樣」又說不出;我說他那句 I like to start a campaign in Hong Kong to speak plainly 必須改寫,他當然更不同意。
這樣吧,我和鄧先生共討論了八個問題。假如鄧先生同意,我和他每題賭一萬港元,由精通英文的中間人評定勝負。鄧先生是富家子弟,又有「查理斯王子揭幕」這個高深學歷,大概不怕跟窮稿匠小賭一局。否則請不要再指鹿為馬褻瀆公器。我沒有興趣和駡街者糾纏。
——————————————————————————–
古德明:由一九九七年開始
With 1997, we are all told to learn Mandarin、In 1997, we were all told to learn Mandarin、From 1997, we have been told to learn Mandarin、From 1997, we were all told to learn Mandarin四句,是不是都正確?
這裏前三句是鄧永鏘手筆,第四句是我寫的,意思是「由一九九七年開始,當局就要我們學國語」。「由過去某個時候開始」,英文可用from字來說,配過去式動詞,但這不表示事情已成過去。Macmillan English Dictionary from字條下有例句I lived with him from the age of twenty(我二十歲開始和他同居),附注說同居關係「仍在繼續」(starting at a particular age and continuing),不是已告結束。這一點鄧永鏘不知道,所以他說:「幼稚園學生都知道(古德明)這句子是無grammar的。」
至於第一句,鄧永鏘自言「另有意思」,其實意思不知所謂,文法不成體統。他錯了,要自辯,那不要緊,但不應教讀者跟他錯。第二句文法正確,但句子所述限於一九九七年,不是「由一九九七年開始」。第三句以現在完成式動詞配from,嚴格的英文學者會視為錯誤,會把from改為since;隨便一點的,則會視為「也無不可吧」的別格。
有讀者囑我「繼續糾正鄧氏英文」。我不打算這樣做。事實上,不是見他忽然向編輯告我一狀的傲慢語氣,我根本不會理會這個人。最後,我要感謝讀者的愛護。有一封短簡令我尤其感動:「古先生,我支持你,但和富豪作對,小心毀了前程。」我一生都跟權貴作對,前程哪里還能管得。
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
鄧永鏗回應:
古德明先生在他近四期的專欄(八月十一至十四日)中繼續對我大肆攻擊,睇來一定過「熨斗」。現在居然還提議以金錢為賭注,離開討論學識的原旨,讓人以為這是澳門大三巴(是他的老家,不是我的)。他如果要找「精通英文的中間人」為他撐腰,不妨請他們在他的專欄發表,毋須提出庸俗的賭氣。我只想再次解釋一個基本的語文原則:通用的標準英語有別于課本英文和字典,尤其是發黴的!
鄧永鏘
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
古德明回應
【代郵】文「獻世」家鄧先生永鏘鈞鑒:八月廿一日大函敬悉。僕建議八萬元與先生一賭英文正誤,不意竟遭峻拒,殊為可惜。昔秦相呂不韋「一字千金」之賞,萬世嗟稱;今僕「一題萬元」之議,實乃古風,先生以「庸俗賭氣」為詞推託,未免貽笑大方之家。又八萬元先生賭應必贏,持作公益,惠加社會之餘,更享令譽,何舍此不為,而效阿Q勝利,望望然自言自語「標準英文有別于課本英文和字典,尤其是發黴的」?未免貽笑三尺小童。僕不惜大破慳囊成就先生大名,先生自不敢取,先生休矣。多行無禮必自及,幸無怪僕咄咄逼人也。端此奉覆,順祝學業進步。
古德明
鄧永鏘的文章一般,但口語好掂。
至於,無意見。
其實佢口語只係扮ACCENT.
但係扮得唔似, 講真
同果D叫自己做CORPORATE COMMUNICATION OFFICER 既ON9港女差唔多
古德明是真學者, 香港人DUP佢即係DUP自己D港寶
Wow, David Tang ought to study English 101 again, and stop misleading readers with his half-baked Chinglish.
David’s English is beyond you.
How interesting if you think English 101 will make you a good English speaker!
David Tang may not be good in English, but that Ku is even shameless publish book teaching English like the difference between everyday and every day…my! a low-brow city abound with lowbrows.
“but that Ku is even shameless publish book teaching English like the difference between everyday and every day”. Very Bad English.
“but that Ku is even shameless publish book teaching English like the difference between everyday and every day". Bad English.
These exchanges are pathetic. Maybe we should just use a language as it is–and stop bullshitting about it.
Ku has won a good fight! When the rich bullies you, facing the rich straight makes you a man.
The poor fighting the rich?
What are we talking about here?
I haven’t read all of the content yet as I sense that some irrational chi was fired between both who were supposed to share their own view while also intending to “offer" their own version of perspective to “enlighten" each other. Meaning that the underlying intent was PERFECT. However, the presenting exchanges was distorted their own latent intention.
I don’t mean to say who is better than the other. I just want to lightly mention what if I were one of them, I would definitely keep in mind – what is more crucial (i.e. in terms of meaning) to me. I once had a similar “discussion" (from my point of view) with a “friend" I knew for over thirty something years. The “argument" (from his point of view) tied between “right and wrong." However, this is not my way to see most things though. His reaction told me the type of “friendship" we shared. By my own understanding on human nature (I have been working quite closely with individuals, couples, groups, and folks in community for years – I don’t mean to say that due to my “hand-on experience with people and “you" have to listen), how we usually respond/react really shows who we are in a particular stage of our spiritual stage. Most of the time, our spiritual maturity that we have earned thru lives after lives “made" a presence quite beyond our own awareness. Thus, I would rather look at what is more meaningful to me while there are so many beautiful things that I could be doing and admiring in the pretty short period of human life.
Tammy
I’m sorry that I have to say I haven’t read all of the content yet right before I share some of my “feedback." Meaning that my “feedback" might be a little “too early." In my own profession, we would say it might be “immature."
Well, I’m currently using public computer and I posted my comment before reading what I shared. I’m glad I still have some space (due to no one was waiting behind my back) to re-read my own writing. I therefore edited my previous writing and I post it again.
While reading what “you" shared, I sensed that some irrational chi was firing between both of you when two of you were supposed to share your own views. In fact, both of you intended to “offer" your perspective to “enlighten" each other. Meaning that the underlying intent was PERFECT. However, the presenting interaction was distorted when a hind of “irrational chi" was being stirred up.
Since I usually look at “how to make things possible," Therefore, I would rather not to say whoes version of “truth" is better than the other in this particular situation. However, if I were one of “you," I would definitely keep in mind while sharing my point of view – what is more crucial (i.e. in terms of meaning/the purpose of my spending – time) to me. I once had a similar “discussion" (from my point of view) with a “friend" I knew for over thirty something years. The “argument" (from his point of view) tied between “right and wrong," pretty tightly. Anyhow, this is not my way to see most things though. I remained in silence pretty soon after recognizing his “type" of reaction. His reaction told me the type of “friendship" we shared.
According to my own understanding on human nature (I have been working quite closely with individuals, couples, groups, and folks in community for years – I don’t mean to say that due to my “hand-on experience with people and “you" have to listen), how we usually respond/react really show who we really are in our own spiritual stage. Most of the time, our spiritual maturity that we have earned thru lives after lives “made" a presence quite beyond our own awareness. Thus, I would rather look at what is more meaningful to me when there are so many beautiful things that I would like to engage with and to admire in the pretty short period of human life.
Tammy
I’m pretty OUT in terms of using the so-called “technology" as I know only how to manage the micro-soft words to write essay + using email.
However, I feel fine to my “level" of commuter knowledge until lately that I have been being interfered while using the web. I’m still not sure how I could keep my own privacy (I value this personal space very much.) while being opened to the world. On the other hand, I also want to know how to protect my “insights" (I could sell them for money) while using the web to communicate with others. Regardless of my age, I have a beginner’s mind. If you guys and gals would like to teach me, I would be grateful. Thanks in advance.
One more thing, I was forced to be hospitualized in the psychiatric ward in Hk for almost five months. Couldn’t you believe that?
In fact, I’m a trained Mental Health Professiional from the United States. During those few months, I have already proven that no one should have any kinds of mental illness unless one is giving up oneself and or one intends to manipulate others by using this label to get advantage. Read my writing and tell yourself who you should believe in. Even today, I was stalked by two guys, one was holding a camera. I asked the one who didn’t if he was the CID? He denied. I then told him that I might need to call police. My being forced to accept the label of having a mental illness merely because I love and care our beautiful and authentic Confucian culture + my faith in human nature.
I haven’t completed my last writing when the web “stops" me from only sending the bottom part of this page.
(Con’t)
In human lives, we have tons and tons things to learn and to share before we would find meaning in life and to see from the bright side in the appears to be daunting and challenging life aspects. I was born to have a strong faith in human nature. Therefore, although folks around me keep imposing me with various mental illness labels (they in fact intend to stop others listen to me), I ponder what are their latent motives. Hong Kong and the world is at a HUGE daunting stage as most folks become either superficial, immature, calculating, illerature, i.e. ways and ways far away from able to think and express properly – ie in a moderate mature way. I have a gift in Knowing what is going on in the pretty early stage before a problem is formed. Therefore, I encourage all of you go back to where you feel lost from within and or at the stage you feel inadequate while having to compare yourself with others to feel good about yourself. Start from these places and work on them, diligently, you will before much more mature and capable “pretty soon" (meaning that after a period of time, due to we reap to what we sow, how “soon" differs from one another. The cafe is closing. (The time of the clock on the page was inaccurate. Right now is almost 12 am.
last two AA mails were mine. Again, the computer stops me from writing down the last part, ie my name.
Good night. All of us are crucial to each other and to the world. keep learning and sharing in whatever means except thus wicked means like selling our souls.
Tammy
I respect Ku. He is a man of integrity and Tsang is a playboy only. His communication is no problem, same as my Cantonese but I can’t teach Cantonese definitely only becasue I speak fluently. You must know everything about the function of that language! Ku can do that but Tang can’t!
What are you talking about here? we do not need to look at their personal lives.
we are discussing English and the use of English here.
There is more than speaking flently here and if you read properly.
Tammy Lo
I tried to send a mail out by using my Yahoo.com email a/c at the Central library but I was denied.
Ku’s English sucks…
comment with no point, you suck
Its not that bad but he is good for teching in high school and nothing more
i support ku.
“其實,我寫的 With 1997, we are all told to learn Mandarin 是有另外的意義,但這個精細的分別,我懷疑很難教曉古先生的。"
This sentence really means: With the change of sovereignty in 1997, we are all told to learn Mandarin. The meaning here has little to do with time, when and for how long, it has to do with what happens in 1997.
With 1997, In 1997, From 1997 are all correct, but they just means different things.
Ku never knows the difference
👍yes indeed!
The problem with Ku is everything is by the book and he forgets who wrote the books.
the beauty of language is not to intrepet it directly by the dictionary. Very often we laugh our socks off when we read the subtitles which are translated directly from word to word.
Ku may win a lot of points using dictionary and from those who have never lived in England.
Its their language and why argue.
你英文很好,更難得的是保有中國人傳統的「差不多先生」的德行。
如果英文無需咬文嚼字,鄧生就無必要挑古生的毛病。如果有一定標準,就一定係要翻讀有關典故。如果英國生活就大X哂,就更加無必要筆戰了,鄧生只要講一句「我喺倫敦住左幾十年,英文我話乜就乜」,咁就贏哂了。
Heya i’m for the first time here. I found this board and I in finding It truly helpful & it helped me out much. I am hoping to give something again and aid others such as you helped me.
古德明與鄧永鏘較量英文,鄧某顯然輸了。
古德明把鄧某的錯句 “Do not believe that conversation English should not be written” 譯為「別相信會話英語不可用於書寫」,稍嫌詞費。
「我手寫我口」,是五四那幫闖將發明的,恕我保守,不能接受。落花水面皆文章,白開水則否。中外一理。不朽盛事,休得兒戲。
Sorry could someone initiated please enlighten me – which part of Tang’s sentence is wrong?
“conversation English"
It is interesting if not sad that so many would, on the face of Ku’s allegation, jump to the conclusion without introspection that one of Financial Times’ finest and most widely followed columnists would have mistaken glaringly the difference between conversational and conversation. The mishap of Tang if I may was his snob that prevented him from giving his readers a good English lesson but unworthily brushed away Ku altogether.
At this time it appears like Expression Engine is
the preferred blogging platform out there right now. (from what I’ve read) Is that what you are using on your blog?
尊敬的古德明老師:
‘自反而不縮, 雖千萬人, 吾往矣.’ 用來鼓勵和支持老師最好不過. 幸好老師不是生長在文字獄的朝代, 與權貴相爭, 命桀矣. 夏蟲不可與語冰者, 篤於時也; 曲土不可以語道者, 束於教也.
上海灘既是華洋雜處之地, 出產當然是混種. 如果以他的思維和學養, 肯定不知道為什麼美貌與身段都超班的戴妃與被一個年老貌不驚人的卡米拉破壞家庭, 就是因為卡小姐說一口流利的 Estuary/Cockney English Accent and mixed with foul language. 已故連任兩屆美國總統的朗奴列根曾拍三級片, 上任後政績彪炳; 名譽古巴大使起底指老師源自澳門大三巴, 品德低劣. (racial and origin discrimination)
Plainly speaking, I would like to use the plain language to describe the difference between two linguistic teachers, one of them falls into this category.
“Not that we know what we don’t know a problem, what we don’t know what we don’t know is."
繼續做你該做而正確的事, 發黴的是不飲水思源的人, 就讓他隨性地傳播他的
‘I smell. You Stink.’吧. 在澳洲隨處都會有人問 ‘Wat die is todie mite?’ (What day is today mate?’ 都是conversation English. 起碼我們知道他們的源頭就是.
Joe Lamb
Cus most English speaks fluently but writes rather poorly … :> 特別系文法!
咁講,一個可以喺金融時報寫專欄任人評論,一個我真係搵唔到佢寫嘅英文文章。調轉頭講,中文寫得好嘅人,你真係逐粒音捉,實有唔少所謂錯嘅中文