原文: Top 10 Errors in English that Arent Errors

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?]

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.”

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”.

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.

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”.

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.

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!

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’?”

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.

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.”

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)

Granted, 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.

Source: Common Errors in English Usage

译文: 英语中10大不是错误的错误

      主教罗伯特·洛兹于1762年出版的《英语语法简介》对英语造成了恶劣的影响。他武断地选择将其语法规则建立于拉丁语体系之上，而不从那些受过最好教育的说英语、写英语的人的用法出发。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。

      而由于许多现代学校英语课程依然以这些规则作为教学基础，使得这些错误的用法被沿用至今并困扰着我们。因此，我希望通过以下的列举，来给这些愚蠢的用法画上一个休止符，免得再贻害人间。

      10  "between"只能用于两者之间

      between中的"tween"表示数字2，但根据牛津英语词典的说法，从任何意义上来说，"between"的词意已经从其最初仅能形容“两者之间”的词意，引申至“两者以上的物体之间”了。许多卖弄学问的人想强行贯彻以"among"来表达“三者及三者以上之间”的用法，然而，即便是对于措辞最考究的人，也不见得把“英国、法国及德国这三者或三者以上之间正商讨着一份条约”(been negotiated among England, France, and Germany)这句话说得多溜。

      9  "Till"与"'til"

      因为"'til"看似"until"的缩写，所以有些人就以为"'til"就该这么拼写（也有人赞同把省略符号省去）。然而，"till"先于"'til"在英语中被作为正规用法，至今已有800多年的历史了。在英语中用"till"完全是正确的。

      8  "persuade"和"convince"

      有些人有一种奇怪的观点，就是认为你只有先"persuade"别人，才能再"convince"别人，而你不能直接"convince"某人。但是事实上，"persuade"和"persuade"自16世纪以来就是一对同义词。"persuade"既表示“尝试去劝说别人”，也有“成功地使别人信服”之意。尽管这也是一句正确的句子，但是英语中已经不再经常说“我已被别人劝说，从而觉得你是个白痴”(be persuaded that)了。

      7  "healthy"与"healthful"

      尽管从逻辑和传统上来说，不得不承认区分这两个词有一定的合理之处，但是诸如“部分健康早餐”(part of a healthy breakfast)的短语因为已经显得过于常用，从而也很难认定这种用法是错误的（学者除外）。此外，还值得一提的是在英语中，那些修饰感受者感情（譬如高兴）的形容词常常被转而沿用至感受者正在感受的对象身上，例如：“一个（令人）愉快的巧合”(a happy coincidence)或“一处（令人）阴郁的风景”(a gloomy landscape)。

      6  off of

      对于大多数美国人而言，说“泰克斯，把手举在空，从那匹马上下来”(Climb down off of that horse）很顺口，但是许多英国权威人士迫切要求将多余的"of"省略。在英式英语盛行的地方，你也许会想将多余的"of"省去，而尽管有些美国权威人士也主张在正式书面语中避免"off of"的用法却收效甚微，那是因为在日常美语中"off of"用得非常自然，以至于这些呼吁常常未被得到重视。可是，如果"onto"这个词有意义，"off of"就也有存在的意义。然而，虽然"off of"作为词组时意为“from”，但就譬如“从克拉丽丝那借5美元”(borrow five dollars off of Clarice)这种用法，显然是不正规的。

      而在新西兰，使用"off of"也同样比较普遍，大概是由于新西兰建国时使用帝国英语的原因。

      5  none是单数还是复数？

      有些人坚称，因为"none"源自于"no one"，所以"none"应该一直被用作单数。譬如说：“我们没人在吃甜点”(none of us is having dessert)。但是，在标准英语中，大多数时候"none"又被用作复数，譬如“我们没人在吃甜点”(None of us are having dessert)的表达就相当恰当。我曾经花了数日，通过电子邮件的方式与我的古希腊语导师就"none"到底是单数还是复述的问题进行了激辩，而我引用了"none"的复数用法来加以论证自己的看法（我的导师认为"none"只能被用作单数）。虽然我们谁也没能说服谁，但我坚信"none"既可以用作单数，也可以用作复数。假如是！(注：原文为希腊语εστω!)

      4  who和that

      事实上，很多时候保守的用法是将"that"而不用"who"来指代人。譬如说，“当晚所有参加宴会的政客后来都否认与主人认识”(All the politicians that...)。"politicians that"的用法实际上比"politicians who"更传统。看来，这个问题主要是来源于一种政治上的正确立场，也就是认为用"that"而不是"who"来指代人，是贬低其身份的。而在许多句子中，用"that"显然就好很多，譬如“她是我唯一知道的喜欢把搅拌过的奶油和麦片一起吃的人”(...person I know of that prefers...)在下列情况下，用"that"而非"who"就会显得很滑稽：“是谁说‘离开男人的女人就像离开自行车的鱼’的？”(Who was it that said...)

      3  以连接词开始的句子

      作家时常把"and"和"but"用在句首，这对于那些希望把英语用法限制在合乎逻辑束缚中的人来说着实有些令人不快。诚然，人们应该注意到，在复合句中，许多这样以连接词开头的句子会因成为从句而得到改进。但是，也有许多以连接词为首的实际而传统的同法。例子之一就是对先前对话中某主张的回答："但是，我亲爱的沃森，那个罪犯很显然穿着一双昂贵的皮靴，不然也不会花那么大的劲把它们刷干净"(But,...)。对于是否连接词将前一句字更自然地连接了起来或是由于被移离了原先在句首的位置而失去了重点，如果有一个规则来加以确定，不失为一个明智之举。

      2  以介词结尾的句子

      如果你不想惹得那些老顽固不高兴，就别把such as to,with,at,and in之类的介词放在句子（以及从句）的结尾。要考虑用“我想写的题目”(The topics on which we want to write),而不要用把介词放在最后的“我想写的题目”(The topics we want to write on)。介词应该置于其所修饰的词之前。

       但从另一方面来说，倘若把介词放在最后能使得句子更优美的话，就别管那么多了。譬如，尽管以介词结尾，“他满足了公众的渴望”(...what it longed for)就显得清晰而合乎语言习惯，而“他给了公众那些长期以来他们所渴望的东西”虽然避免了介词后置的问题，却看起来不像一句英语。使用"from whoms"和"with whiches"会导致句子变得没必要的晦涩难懂。

      那句通常认为是丘吉尔的妙语很好的说明了这个观点：“我没法忍受这种英语！”(...with which I will not put.)

      1  分裂不定式

         吹毛求疵的人认为“大胆地尝试人类之未曾尝试”(to boldly go where no man has gone before)应该改为“大胆地尝试人类之未曾尝试”"to go boldly…"。但严格来说，在"to"和动词之间插入一个以上的词并没有错，而且和把插入部分移到其他地方相比，往往更使得表述有效而优美。然而，还是有非常多的人讨厌分裂不定式，认为除非其他的选择使得句子实在造作和蹩脚，否则最好不用分裂不定式。

        这是一些分裂不定式远远好于其他用法的例子：

       "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）"（分裂不定式）

        "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）"（完整不定式）

       当然，你也可以说"Murders are expected to increase by more than double next year"，但是上面那个分裂不定式的例子显然也没错。

      来源：英语中的常见错误（Common Errors in English Usage）