如果不想让那些老顽固们不高兴，尽量避免句子（短语）以to、with、from、at及in这样的介词结尾。"The topics we want to write on,"这样的句子尽量写成"The topics on which we want to write."为好。介词通常放在他们所修饰的词语前。

另一方面，如果以介词结尾的句子更优美的话，那就不必改动了。例如："He gave the public what it longed for"该句即使是以介词结尾，但明了清晰且符合习惯；如果改成："He gave the public that for which it longed"，虽然避免了介词结尾的问题，但看上去又不像英语了。句子中使用诸如："from whoms"、"with whiches"这样的搭配也会造成不必要的晦涩。

通常认为出自邱吉尔的妙语："This is the sort of English up with which I will not put（我是不会容忍这种英语的）"很好的证明了这一点。

接下来有个“译者注”――（按照句子正常的叙述应为：This is the sort of English which I will not put up with。邱吉尔宁愿说成：“This is the sort of English up with which I will not put”也不愿以介词结尾而说成：This is the sort of English which I will not put up with。译者注）

这个译者注把丘吉尔的原意理解反了――“以介词结尾”恰恰是丘吉尔所愿。

首先，前面说丘吉尔的妙语“很好地证明了这一点”，而“这一点”就是上一段所说的“如果以介词结尾的句子更优美的话，那就不必改动了”。丘吉尔的句子若以介词结尾“This is the sort of English which I will not put up with”则优美，若把介词置前“This is the sort of English up with which I will not put”则晦涩，令人难以容忍，这正好说明了死守“不以介词结句”教条的荒唐。

其次，还应注意到丘吉尔这句话的意义，“This is the sort of English up with which I will not put这句就是我不能忍受的那种英语”。“这种英语”是指那种？――就是句子本身这种！丘吉尔按照“不以介词结束句子”的规则造出如此别扭的句子，“以子之矛攻子之盾”，句子形式上遵奉而实意却是反对，这正是语妙所在。我在《矛盾自攻，现身说法――规则表述也幽默》帖子里说到“不以介词结束句子”这一规则时曾提到过这一妙句。William Safire那些规则表述简直就是妙语之林。

如果丘吉尔真的“不愿以介词结尾”而说了这句符合规则的规规矩矩的话，那说它是“妙语（witticism）”又妙在何处呢？

http://b1.s.hjfile.cn/pic/200811/2008112085401343_207_o.jpg
附《英语中10大不是错误的错误》及英语原文：

1762年，主教罗伯特?罗斯在他的《英语语法简介》一书中犯了一个极大的错误。他根据的不是那些受过最好的高等教育英语人士和作家所使用的语法规则，而是武断地选择了拉丁语系为基础。结果导致了英语里大量的现代用法，尤其是数目惊人的规范用法和标准书面英语，均来自于这些当初的错误。 

至今，这些语法规则依然困扰着我们，因为许多现代中学英语课程依然以这些规则作为教学基础。因此，我希望能通过下面的这些例子最终废除这些愚蠢的规则。 

10 Between仅用于两者之间 
"between"中的 "tween"表示数字2，但牛津英语词典解释说： “根据其最早的出现，无论从哪一点来说，between已延伸到表示两个以上” 。许多书呆子依然强调当大于2个以上的群体时，使用“among”。即使是最挑刺的人也不会本能地说：“英、法、德（among）之间已就条约进行了商议” 。 

9 Till与‘til 
因为‘til像是"until"的缩写，因此，有些人认为"until"这个字应始终拼写为：‘til（有些人赞成省略撇号）。不过，"till"在英语中已经使用了800多年了，而且远远长于‘til。英语中使用"till"是完全正确的。 

8 Persuade与convince 
有些人奇怪地认为，一个人必须"persuade"某人去"convince"他们，但你根本不可能"convince"一个人。事实上，persuade是convince的同义词（指同一件事），这种用法可以追溯到16世纪。它既有试图说服之意也有成功说服之意。已经很少有人说： “我相信你是个白痴（be persuaded that）” 虽然这种表达并没错。 

7 Healthy 与 healthful 
把这两个字区别开来虽然符合逻辑与传统，但像“部分健康早餐（part of a healthy breakfast）”这样的词组在今天已非常通用了，也不会有人认为是病句（除非书呆子挑刺）。同样有趣的是，在观众眼里，英语中与感情有关的形容词（如高兴），往往被转换成观众正在观看的物体或事件，例如： “一次愉快的巧合”或“阴沉的景色” 。 

6 Off of 
对于大多数美国人来说，“特斯，把双手举在空中，从那匹马上下来（Climb down off of [发音为：offa] that horse, Tex, with your hands in the air）”是在自然不过的了;但许多英国权威人士极力主张这里的"of"是画蛇添足，应该去掉。在使用英式英语的地方，我们可以省掉"of"。而在美式英语中，虽然一些美国权威人士也主张在正式书面语言中不应使用"of"但"off of"的惯用法被认为是标准的。如果“onto”有道理的话，那么"off of"也应该没有错。然而，在“跟塞莱斯借五元钱（borrow five dollars off of Clarice）”类似的句子中，"off of"的意思是"from"，如果使用“off of”肯定是错误的。 

在新西兰英语中，使用“off of”也相当普遍的，估计是新西兰建国时使用帝国英语的原因。 

5 None: 单数还是复数? 
有些人坚持认为，因为"none"源自"no one"，应该始终为单数： “我们都没有甜点（none of us is having dessert）” ，然而，在标准用法中，该词常被视为复数。 “我们都没有甜点（None of us are having dessert）”是最准确的表达。我用了很多天，通过电子邮件与我的古希腊语导师争论，我提出了许多作为复数用法的例子（导师认为就是单数）。我们双方谁也说服不了谁，但我坚定地坚持我的观点：“none”既可以用作复数也可以用作单数。 Ε σ τ ω ！ 

4 Who 和 That 
在很多实例中，指一个人时，保守的用法是使用"that"而不是"who"：“到会的所有政客后来甚至都否认他们认识主持人（All the politicians that were at the party later denied even knowing the host）”句子中的这种表示要比"politicians who"更传统。看来这个问题主要源于政治上的正确想法，即把一个政客贬称为"that"而不用"who"。一些句子中使用"that"显然比较合适：“她是我知道得唯一喜欢把搅拌过的奶油放在麦片粥里的人”。在下列情况下，该用"who"的时候而使用"that"会很荒唐的：是谁说的“没有男人的女人就如同没有自行车的鱼/女人不需要男人就像鱼儿不需要自行车（直译）”？ 

（译者注：鱼儿不需要自行车，女人也不见得需要男人。进一步意译为：鱼儿没有自行车可以活得很自在，女人没有男人照样可以活得很滋润） 

3 以连接词开始的句子 
作家常使用"and"或"but"开始的句子，对于希望把英语限制在合乎逻辑的束缚中的人来说，着实令 
这些人不快。确实是这样，人们应该认识到，在复合句中，很多这样的句子会因为成为子句而得到改进;但也有很多在句子开始前使用连接词的实际和传统的用法。例如，在一段对话中答复前面的断言时：“但是，亲爱的华信，即使罪犯穿着昂贵的靴子也不会不厌其烦地把靴子擦干净的”。是否将连接词与前面的句子更为自然、贴切地连接起来或在开始一个新句子的时候是否会因其连接的位置而失去了重点，如果把这些连接的用法制定出规则，不失为明智之举。 

2 以介词结尾的句子 
如果不想让那些老顽固们不高兴，尽量避免句子（短语）以to、with、from、at及in这样的介词结尾。"The topics we want to write on,"这样的句子尽量写成"The topics on which we want to write."为好。介词通常放在他们所修饰的词语前。 

另一方面，如果以介词结尾的句子更优美的话，那就不必改动了。例如："He gave the public what it longed for"该句即使是以介词结尾，但明了清晰且符合习惯；如果改成："He gave the public that for which it longed"，虽然避免了介词结尾的问题，但看上去又不像英语了。句子中使用诸如："from whoms"、"with whiches"这样的搭配也会造成不必要的晦涩。 

通常认为出自邱吉尔的妙语："This is the sort of English up with which I will not put（我是不会容忍这种英语的）"很好的证明了这一点。 

（按照句子正常的叙述应为：This is the sort of English which I will not put up with。邱吉尔宁愿说成：“This is the sort of English up with which I will not put”也不愿以介词结尾而说成：This is the sort of English which I will not put up with。译者注） 

1 分离不定式 
对那些吹毛求疵的人来说，“to boldly go where no man has gone before”应为：“to go boldly…”。在介词“to”和动词之间插入一个或多个单词，严格说并没有什么错，而且往往比随意插入更优美、表达更充分，但很多人对分离不定式大为不满，认为除非更改会造成牵强附会和蹩脚，否则避免使用分离不定式可能会更好。 

“Murders are expected to more than double next year（预计到明年，谋杀案要比以前翻一倍多）”（分离不定式）。 

“Murders are expected more than to double next year（预计到明年，谋杀案要比以前翻一倍多）”（完整不定式）。 

不过，也许你会说：“Murders are expected to increase by more than double next year”，这种表示法同上面的分离不定式的例子一样，绝对没错。

In 1762, Bishop Robert Lowth did a grave disservice to the English language when he published his Short Introduction to English Grammar. Rather than basing his grammatical rules in the usage of the best educated speakers and writers of English, he arbitrarily chose to base them on the Latin grammatical system. The result is that many modern usages in English, particularly an alarming number of rules of normative usage and Standard Written English, are based upon those false origins. 

These very rules continue to plague us to this day as they are still used as the foundation of many modern school English curriculums. And so, with this list, I hope to finally put an end to many of these foolish rules. [Did you see what I did?] 

10 
Between is for two only 
The “tween” portion of “between” is a reference to the number 2, but the Oxford English Dictionary says this: “In all senses, between has, from its earliest appearance, been extended to more than two.” Many pedants try to enforce the use of “among” when speaking of groups larger than two. Even the pickiest speaker does not naturally say, “A treaty has been negotiated among England, France, and Germany.” 

9 
Till versus ’til 
Because ’til looks like an abbreviation for “until”, some people believe that this word should always be spelt ’til (some don’t object to leaving off the apostrophe). However, “till” has been in regular use in English for over 800 years, longer than ’til. It is completely correct English to say “till”. 

8 
Persuade versus convince 
Some people have the strange belief that you must “persuade” someone to “convince” them, but you cannot “convince” a person. In fact, persuade is a synonym (means the same thing) for convince - and this usage goes back to the 16th century. It can mean both to attempt to convince, and to succeed in convincing. It is not common anymore to say things like “I am persuaded that you are an idiot” - though this is also correct English. 

7 
Healthy versus healthful 
While it is admittedly logical and traditional to make the distinction between these two words, but phrases such as “part of a healthy breakfast” have become so common nowadays that they can not be considered wrong (except by pedants). It is also interesting to note that in English, adjectives connected to a sensation in the viewer (such as happy) are often transferred to the object or event they are viewing, for example: “a happy coincidence” or “a gloomy landscape”. 

6 
Off of 
For most Americans, the natural thing to say is “Climb down off of [pronounced “offa”] that horse, Tex, with your hands in the air”; but many U.K. authorities urge that the “of” should be omitted as redundant. Where British English reigns you may want to omit the “of” as superfluous, but common usage in the U.S. has rendered “off of” so standard as to generally pass unnoticed, though some American authorities also discourage it in formal writing. But if “onto” makes sense, so does “off of.” However, “off of” meaning “from” in phrases like “borrow five dollars off of Clarice” is definitely nonstandard. 

It is also quite common in New Zealand to use “off of” as well - presumably as a result of the English being spoken in the Empire at the time of New Zealand’s founding. 

5 
None: singular or plural? 
Some people insist that since “none” is derived from “no one” it should always be singular: “none of us is having dessert.” However, in standard usage, the word is most often treated as a plural. “None of us are having dessert” is perfectly fine. I spent many days debating this point with my Ancient Greek tutor via email quotations of its use as a plural (my tutor believed it to be singular only). Neither of us could convince the other but I firmly stand by my belief that it can be used as both plural and singular. εστω! 

4 
Who and That 
There are actually many instances in which the conservative usage is to refer to a person using “that” rather than “who”: “All the politicians that were at the party later denied even knowing the host”. This phrase is actually more traditional than “politicians who”. It appears that this issue has sprung mostly from the politically correct idea that it is demeaning to refer to a person as “that” rather than “who”. In some sentences it is clearly better to use “that”: “She is the only person I know of that prefers whipped cream on her cereal.” And in the following case, it would be ridiculous to use “that” for “who”: “Who was it that said, ‘A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle’?” 

3 
Sentence Starting with a Conjunction 
It offends those who wish to confine English usage in a logical straitjacket that writers often begin sentences with “and” or “but.” True, one should be aware that many such sentences would be improved by becoming clauses in compound sentences; but there are many effective and traditional uses for beginning sentences in this way. One example is the reply to a previous assertion in a dialogue: “But, my dear Watson, the criminal obviously wore expensive boots or he would not have taken such pains to scrape them clean.” It would be wise to make it a rule to consider whether your conjunction would sound more natural in the previous sentence or whether it would lose its emphasis by being demoted from its place at the start of a new sentence. 

2 
Sentence Ending in a Preposition 
If you want to keep the crusty old-timers happy, try to avoid ending written sentences (and clauses) with prepositions, such as to, with, from, at, and in. Instead of writing “The topics we want to write on,” where the preposition on ends the clause, consider “The topics on which we want to write.” Prepositions should usually go before (pre-position) the words they modify. 

On the other hand, if a sentence is more graceful with a final preposition, leave it that way. For instance, “He gave the public what it longed for” is clear and idiomatic, even though it ends with a preposition; “He gave the public that for which it longed” avoids the problem but doesn’t look like English. A sentence becomes unnecessarily obscure when it is filled with “from whoms” and “with whiches”. 

The famous witticism usually attributed to Winston Churchill makes the point well: “This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.” 

1 
Split Infinitives 
For the hyper-critical, “to boldly go where no man has gone before” should be “to go boldly…” It is good to be aware that inserting one or more words between “to” and a verb is not strictly speaking an error, and is often more expressive and graceful than moving the intervening words elsewhere; but so many people are offended by split infinitives that it is probably better to avoid them except when the alternatives sound strained and awkward. 

There are some very obvious times that the split infinitive is far superior: 

Murders are expected to more than double next year. (split infinitive) 
Murders are expected more than to double next year. (intact infinitive)

However, you could say: “Murders are expected to increase by more than double next year” - but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the split infinitive example above.

罗百辉   2008-05-06