by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts,

最高法院首席法官約翰-羅伯茨（John Roberts）、

who is known for being a stickler for correct grammar.

他以堅持正確的文法而聞名。

So much so that he decided to change the wording of the oath from,

以至於他決定將誓詞的措辭從、

“I solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President

"我莊嚴宣誓，我將忠實履行總統職務

of the United States,”

美國"。

to, “that I will execute the office of President to the United States faithfully.”

到 "我將忠實地履行美國總統的職責"。

That I will execute...

我將執行...

The grammar crime that Roberts believed the Founding Fathers had committed

羅伯茨認為國父們犯下的文法罪行

was splitting a verb phrase, “will execute,” with an adverb,

是用副詞拆分動詞短語 "將執行"、

“faithfully”.

"忠實"。

This is similar to the popular rule

這與流行的規則相似

against not splitting infinitives like “to eat,” “to run” or “to think.”

反對不拆分不定式，如 "吃"、"跑 "或 "想"。

Which means Captain Kirk should have said “to go boldly

也就是說，柯克船長應該說 "大膽地去"。

where no man has gone before.”

前人未走過的地方"。

Doesn't quite have the same ring, does it?

感覺不太一樣，不是嗎？

Turns out that just unilaterally deciding

原來只是單方面決定

to change the wording of the Constitution isn't a good idea.

修改憲法措辭並不是一個好主意。

Some legal scholars worried that if the oath wasn't recited

一些法律學者擔心，如果不背誦誓言

verbatim, Obama might not actually be president.

逐字逐句地說，奧巴馬實際上可能當不了總統。

Just to be safe, the two men repeated the ceremony later as written.

為了安全起見，兩人後來又按照書上寫的重複了一遍儀式。

This is an extreme example of how being a grammar cop can get you into trouble.

這是一個極端的例子，說明文法警察會給你帶來怎樣的麻煩。

But besides the social and cultural downsides of trying to police how others

但是，除了在社會和文化方面的弊端之外，試圖監督他人如何

talk, there are some persuasive arguments that many of the grammatical errors

有一些有說服力的論點認為，許多語法錯誤

that are frequently called out might not be errors at all.

經常被指出的錯誤可能根本不是錯誤。

I'm Dr. Erica Brozovsky

我是 Erica Brozovsky 博士

and it's time to boldly break some grammar rules

是時候大膽打破一些文法規則了

on Otherwords.

on Otherwords.

Have you ever corrected someone's grammar and gotten the response,

你是否曾經糾正過別人的文法，並得到過這樣的迴應？

“Wow. Thank you so much for pointing out my foolish mistake.

"哇，非常感謝你指出我愚蠢的錯誤。

Please let me know if I make any others in the future.”

如果今後我還能做出其他產品，請告訴我。

Yeah, not likely.

是的，不太可能。

Being told that you speak wrong is uniquely insulting

被人說你說錯了是一種獨特的侮辱

because it's so tied to perceptions of class, education and intelligence.

因為它與人們對階級、教育和智力的看法息息相關。

The wealthy and educated have good grammar and the poor and uneducated

富人和受過教育的人文法好，窮人和沒受過教育的人文法差

have bad grammar.

文法不正確。

Believing in good grammar is inherently prescriptive.

相信良好的文法本身就是一種規定。

It's concerned with how things ought to be.

它關注的是事情應該是怎樣的。

But linguistics, like most sciences, is descriptive.

但語言學和大多數科學一樣，是描述性的。

It tries to describe the way things actually are.

它試圖描述事物的真實面貌。

Just as it would be ludicrous for a biologist to say

正如生物學家說

that a species of bird doesn't fly the way it ought to,

一種鳥飛不起來了、

it's equally nonsensical for a linguist to say that certain groups of people

語言學家說某些群體的人

don't talk the way they should. Instead of correct speech versus incorrect speech,

說話方式不正確。而不是正確的講話與不正確的講話、

what linguists observe in the real world is a bunch of different dialects

語言學家在現實世界中觀察到的是一堆不同的方言

with different sets of rules.

不同的規則。

These rules can shift or change, but they're always internally consistent.

這些規則可以轉變或改變，但始終保持內在一致。

If a group of teenagers, for example, were just speaking a degraded

例如，如果一群青少年只是說著有辱人格的

or sloppy form of English, then it should be easy for an adult to imitate.

或馬虎的英語形式，那麼成人應該很容易模仿。

Of course we know it isn't.

我們當然知道不是這樣。

Their dialect has rules and they know instantly when they're broken.

他們的方言是有規則的，一旦被破壞，他們馬上就會知道。

Perhaps the most denigrated of dialects is African-American English

也許最受詆譭的方言是非裔美國人英語

or Black English.

或黑人英語。

Many features of the dialect, like negative concord and zero copula

該方言的許多特點，如負協和和零協詞

are common grammatical practices across many languages.

是許多語言中常見的文法用法。

Yet some continue to use them as examples of bad grammar.

然而，有些人仍然把它們當作糟糕文法的例子。

Throughout much of the 20th century,

在 20 世紀的大部分時間裡

many educational psychologists thought that low income black kids

許多教育心理學家認為，低收入黑人兒童

spoke a stunted or inferior version of English, and some believed

有些人認為，他們說的是不流利或低級的英語。

that they had virtually no language at all.

他們幾乎沒有任何語言。

Then, in the late sixties, a linguistic study of children in Harlem

六十年代末，一項針對哈萊姆區兒童的語言學研究發現

found that the grammar they used was, in fact, rich and consistent, capable

發現他們使用的文法實際上是豐富而一致的，能夠

of just as much nuance and precision as any other English dialect.

其細微差別和精確度不亞於任何其他英語方言。

This was an important step in academics acknowledging that the disproportionately

這是重要的一步，使學術界承認，在教育領域中，有太多的人在 "不公平 "的情況下，被認為是 "不公平的"。

poor school performance of Black children was due in part to the fact that,

黑人兒童學習成績差的部分原因是：

unlike their white, middle class counterparts, they were being asked

與白人中產階級不同，他們被要求

to learn in a different dialect than the one they were raised in.

用不同於他們成長環境的方言學習。

The study also found that when compared with upper middle class

研究還發現，與中上層階級相比

speakers of so-called Standard English, speakers of AAE tended

說所謂標準英語的人，說 AAE 的人傾向於

to commit fewer grammatical mistakes, mismatches and redundancies. Why?

減少語法錯誤、錯位和冗餘。為什麼？

Possibly because what we call Standard English doesn't come very naturally.

可能是因為我們所說的標準英語並不是很自然的。

It contains a lot of arbitrary rules made up hundreds of years ago,

它包含了許多幾百年前制定的任意規則、

which most of us have had to learn by force in school

我們大多數人在學校裡被迫學到的東西

rather than naturally with friends and family.

而不是自然而然地與朋友和家人在一起。

Take Captain Kirk's supposed mistake: the split infinitive.

就拿柯克船長的所謂錯誤來說：分詞不定式。

The foundation for this rule dates back to the 19th century

這一規則的基礎可以追溯到 19 世紀

suggestion by the scholar Henry Alford:

學者亨利-阿爾福德（Henry Alford）的建議：

The safest choice is to avoid splitting infinitives.

最安全的選擇是避免拆分不定式。

Somehow, this morphed into a hard rule

不知何故，這變成了一條硬性規定

by the middle of the 20th century, with some arguing that since

到 20 世紀中葉，有些人認為自

Latin never splits infinitives, neither should English.

拉丁語從不拆分不定式，英語也不應該。

But you can't split Latin infinitives because they're always just one word,

但拉丁語的不定式不能拆分，因為它們總是隻有一個單詞、

like amare.

像阿瑪雷一樣

English infinitives are two words,

英語不定式是兩個詞、

and there's no good reason why you can't split them.

沒有理由不把它們分開。

Another supposed rule based on Latin conventions is not ending a sentence

另一個基於拉丁語習慣的所謂規則是不以句子結尾

with a preposition, like that infamous hack Shakespeare did when he wrote

用一個介詞，就像那個臭名昭著的黑客莎士比亞寫的那樣

We are such stuff as dreams are made on...

我們是夢想的締造者......

Again, in Latin,

還是拉丁語、

prepositions can't be separated.

介詞不能分開。

But that's no reason why we can't do it in English.

但這並不是我們不能用英語來做的理由。

And would anyone really say, “To whom do you think you're talking?”

真的有人會說 "你以為你在跟誰說話？"

instead of “Who do you think you're talking to?”

而不是 "你以為你在跟誰說話？"

Speaking of whom, it is technically the objective case for the nominative who.

說到who，嚴格來說，它是名詞who的客觀格。

But over the last century, it's largely fallen out of usage,

但在過去的一個世紀裡，它基本上已不再使用、

and that's hardly unheard of.

這種情況幾乎聞所未聞。

Plenty of other pronouns use one word for subject and object.

還有很多代詞用一個詞表示主語和賓語。

Like it, that, what, and where.

喜歡它、那個、什麼、在哪裡。

Until relatively recently,

直到最近、

there were four second person pronouns that all collapsed into you.

有四個第二人稱代詞，都坍縮成了你。

It seems pretty clear that whom will someday be as archaic as thee and thou.

很顯然，"誰 "終有一天會像 "你 "和 "你 "一樣過時。

Okay, so what about that most offensive of grammatical transgressions?

好吧，那麼最令人反感的文法過失呢？

Me and Jennifer are going swimming.

我和詹妮弗要去游泳。

We can all agree that's wrong, right?

我們都同意這是不對的，對嗎？

After all, you wouldn't say “Me is going swimming.”

畢竟，你不會說 "我要去游泳"。

Believe it or not, some linguists even think this construction isn't so bad.

信不信由你，有些語言學家甚至認為這種結構還不錯。

The head of a clause is the key word that determines its nature.

分句的標題是決定分句性質的關鍵詞。

So in this noun phrase, the head is man and the verb must agree with it.

是以，在這個名詞短語中，詞頭是人，動詞必須與之一致。

The man is going swimming. But conjunctive phrases,

這個人要去游泳。但是連接短語

those with multiple nouns, are considered headless.

有多個名詞的被視為無頭。

There is no one word that determines case.

沒有一個詞可以決定案件。

Neither noun on its own matches the verb are.

兩個名詞本身都與動詞 are 不匹配。

The individual parts are not required to perfectly agree with the verb.

各個部分不要求與動詞完全一致。

Which of these two sentences are you more likely to say?

您更傾向於說這兩句話中的哪一句？

“Everyone but her won an award.”

"除了她，其他人都得過獎"

Or “Everyone but she won an award.”

或者 "除了她，其他人都得過獎"。

Even though the second is technically correct,

儘管第二種說法在技術上是正確的、

the vast majority of English speakers find it clunky and unnatural.

絕大多數說英語的人都覺得它笨拙而不自然。

Why is that?

為什麼會這樣？

Linguist Joseph Emonds argues that English speakers have

語言學家約瑟夫-埃蒙茲（Joseph Emonds）認為，講英語的人擁有

a natural inclination to use the objective pronoun case in conjunctive clauses.

自然傾向於在連接從句中使用客觀代詞的情況。

This is perhaps because

這或許是因為

we mentally reserve the nominative case for subject heads only.

我們認為只有主語才使用主格。

It just doesn't feel right to say he or she or they,

說 "他"、"她 "或 "他們 "感覺不對、

unless it refers to the sole subject of a sentence.

除非是指句子中的唯一主語。

This is a perfectly consistent and reasonable grammatical rule.

這是一條完全一致且合理的文法規則。

Yet we've had it beaten out of us in favor of one that is no more logical

然而，我們卻被打倒在地，轉而選擇了一個毫無邏輯可言的方案

and a lot less natural.

更不自然。

If this isn't enough for you,

如果這對你來說還不夠

I am even going to defend the figurative use of the word literally.

我甚至要為 "字面意義 "這個詞的形象用法辯護。

As in, I am literally starving to death.

就像我真的快餓死了一樣。

This could be called an ironic intensifier, like saying,

這可以說是一種諷刺性的強化語，就像說

Oh, I could definitely use another problem today

哦，我今天肯定還需要一個問題

and the usage isn't even new.

而這種用法甚至都不是新的。

In Nicholas Nickleby, Charles Dickens wrote: “His looks were very haggard and his limbs

查爾斯-狄更斯在《尼古拉斯-尼克貝》中寫道："他的面容十分憔悴，四肢

and body literally worn to the bone.”

"。

At this point, some of you may be literally gasping for breath at these grammatical heresies.

說到這裡，有些人可能已經被這些文法上的異端邪說弄得喘不過氣來了。

So let's say a few things in defense of so-called Standard English.

是以，讓我們為所謂的標準英語辯護幾句。

First of all, it has allowed English grammar

首先，它允許使用英語語法

to stay remarkably unchanged for hundreds of years.

數百年來保持驚人的不變。

That's why Jane Austen sounds more or less modern to our ears.

這就是為什麼簡-奧斯汀在我們聽來多少有些現代感。

Yet Shakespeare would have sounded archaic to her,

然而，莎士比亞的作品在她聽來卻很古老、

even though the two time spans are roughly equivalent.

儘管兩個時間跨度大致相當。

It's also useful in expressing formality. If you're going to speak at a funeral

它在表達正式場合時也很有用。如果您要在葬禮上發言

or go on a job interview,

或去求職面試、

using standard English as a social cue that you take the occasion seriously.

使用標準英語作為社交提示，表明您對這一場合的重視。

And like it or not,

不管你喜不喜歡

Standard English is still associated with proficiency and education.

標準英語仍然與熟練程度和教育相關。

Many career fields require that you be able to speak and write it

許多職業領域都要求您能說能寫

if you want to get far.

如果你想走得更遠

Being proficient in Standard English is a valuable asset, but

精通標準英語是一項寶貴的資產，但是

it's not necessary for everyone or every occasion.

並非每個人或每個場合都需要。

Expecting people to use a formal dialect in casual situations

期望人們在休閒場合使用正式的方言

like a party or comment section is ludicrous.

就像聚會或評論區一樣可笑。

And if the point of language is to facilitate understanding

如果語言的意義在於促進理解

form social bonds, it's almost always counterproductive

形成社會紐帶，幾乎總是適得其反

to correct someone's grammar if they're not asking for it.

糾正別人的文法。

And maybe that's the main argument for not being a grammar cop.

也許這就是不做文法警察的主要理由。

No one likes it.

沒人喜歡

Literally, no one.

從字面上看，沒有人。

History lovers.

歷史愛好者

We need to tell you about a new series from PBS called

我們需要向您介紹美國公共廣播公司（PBS）的一個新系列，名為

The Bigger Picture, hosted by Professor Vincent Brown.

大局觀》，由文森特-布朗教授主持。

It's a show that examines

這是一個探討

famous photographs and unpacks the historical context around them.

名攝影作品，並解讀這些作品的歷史背景。

In doing so,

這樣做

we reveal what these photos

我們揭示了這些照片

can tell us about our history, but also how we view ourselves.

不僅能告訴我們歷史，還能告訴我們如何看待自己。

Check the link in the description and head to the PBS YouTube channel

請查看說明中的鏈接，並訪問 PBS YouTube 頻道

to see it for yourself.

來親眼看看。

Tell them Otherwords sent you

告訴他們是 Otherwords 派你來的

some legal scholars worried

一些法律學者擔心

that if the oath wasn't Oath, oaf I said, oaf, okay.

如果誓言不是 "誓言" 我說 "誓言" 好吧

But that's not no... that's not

但這不是不......這不是

no reason why. It's time to boldly break some of gram--

沒有理由是時候大膽地打破一些克

That was all weird.

這一切都很奇怪。

That was all sorts of not it.

這一切都不是真的。