評論
打印
Was I gypped by the landlord when he called the folding contraption that shuts off my kitchen a door?
房東把隔開我的廚房的那個可以折疊的新奇玩意兒稱作門，是不是在欺騙我?
I go to the Second Inter national, which the editor of the Post urges me to use in preference to the Third International.
于是，我便去查第二版，因為《郵報》的編輯敦促我不要用第三版而要用第二版。
Here I find that a door is the movable frame or barrier of boards, or other material, usually turning on hinges or pivots or sliding, by which an entranceway into a house or apartment is closed and opened; also, a similar part of a piece of furniture, as in a cabinet or book case.
我在第二版中查到門的定義是用木板或其它材料制成的可移動的框架結構或障礙物。
This is only forty-six words, but though it includes the cellar it excludes the barn door and the accordion-like thing.
通常繞著鉸鏈或軸轉動，或者滑動，通過這種東西，一所房子或公寓的入口處得以關閉和打開;另外，也指一件家俱如衣柜或書柜等的與此相似的部分。
So I go on to the Third International. I see at once that. the new definition is longer. But I'm looking for accuracy,and if I must sacrifice brevity.
因此，我接著又去查第三版，馬上便發現，門的新定義要長一些，但我所求的是準確，如果為了準確必須犧牲簡潔的話，我也愿意這樣做。
To get it, then I must. And sure enough, in the definition which raised the Post's blood pressure, I find the words "folding like an accordion.”
果然。在這個使《郵報》血壓升高的定義中，我找到了"像手風琴一樣可以折疊這幾個字。
The thing is a door, and my landlord is using the word in one of its currently accepted meanings.
那種東西的確也算是門，我的房東使用的是"門"這個詞現在人們所接受的各種意義當中的一種。
The new dictionary may have many faults. Nothing that tries to meet an ever-changing situation over a terrain as vast as contemporary English can hope to be free of them and much in it is open to honest and informed, disagreement.
這個定義總共只有四十六個詞，但盡管它包含了地下室的門，卻沒能包括倉庫的門和那像手風琴一樣的東西。
There can be linguistic objection to the eradication of proper names.
這部新詞典也許有不少缺點。
The removal of guides to pronunciation from the toot of every page may not have been worth the valuable space it saved.
這部詞典的許多地方有待于人們提出公允的、有眼光的批評意見。
The new method of defining words of many meanings has disadvantages as well as advantages.
任何一部詞典要想適應當代英語這樣一個廣闊領域里的日益變化著的情況就不可能沒有缺點。
And of the half million or more definitions, hundreds, possibly thousands, may seem inadequate or imprecise.
有幾百條，甚至是幾千條可能有些欠當或不夠準確;刪掉"口語用法，
To some (of whom I am one) the omission of the label "colloquial" will seem meritorious ; to others it will seem a loss.
這種語體說明標志的做法，在有些人(包括我)看來是值得稱道的，但在另一些人看來，卻可能是一個損失。
But one thing is certain: anyone who solemnly announces in the year 1962 that he will be guided in matter s of English usage by a dictionary published in 1934 is talking ignorant and pretentious nonsense.
然而，有一點是確定無疑的：如果有人在1962年的今天競鄭重其事地宣布在英語用法問題上要以1934年出版的詞典為指南的話，那他就是愚昧無知、狂妄自大，是在胡說八道了。
