高级英语第一册 11.But What's a Dictionary For?

　　11.But What's a Dictionary For?

　　Bergen Evans

　　The storm of abuse in the popular press that greeted the appearance of Webster's Third New International Dictionary is a curious phenomenon. Never has a scholarly work of this stature been attacked with such unbridled fury and contempt. An article in the Atlantic viewed it as a "disappointment," a "shock," a " calamity ," "a scandal and a disaster. " The New York Times, in a special editorial, felt that the work would " accelerate the deterioration " of the language and sternly accused the editors of betraying a public trust. The Journal of the American Bar Association saw the publication as " deplorable ," "a flagrant example of lexicographic irresponsibility,, " "a ser, ious blow to the cause of good English." Life called it "a non-word deluge " monstrous ", " abominable ," and "a cause for dismay." They doubted that "Lincoln could have modelled his Gettysburg Address" on it – a concept of how things get written that throws very little light on Lincoln but a great deal on Life.

　　What underlies all this sound and fury? Is the claim of the G. R C. Merriam Company, probably the world's greatest dictionary maker, that the preparation of the work cost $3.5 million, that it required the efforts of three hundred scholar s over a period of twenty – seven years, working on the largest collection of citations ever assembled in any language -- is all this a fraud, a hoax ?

　　So monstrous a discrepancy in evaluation requires us to examine basic principles. Just what's a dictionary for? What does it propose to do? What does the common reader go to a dictionary to find? What has the purchaser of a dictionary a right to expect for his money?

　　Before we look at basic principles, it is necessary to interpose two brief statements. The first of these is that a dictionary is concerned with words. Some dictionaries give various kinds of other useful information. Some have tables of weights and measures on the flyleaves . Some list historical events and some, home remedies . And there’s nothing wrong with their so doing. But the great increase in our vocabulary in the past three decades compels all dictionaries to make more efficient use of their space. And if something must be eliminated , it is sensible to throw out these extraneous things and stick to words.

　　The second brief statement is that there has been even more progress in the making of dictionaries in the past thirty years than there has been in the making of automobiles The difference, for example, between the much-touted Second International (1934) and the much-clouted Third International (1961) is not like the difference between yearly models but like the difference between the horse and buggy and the automobile. Between the appearance of these two editions a whole new science related to the making of dictionaries, the science of descriptive linguistics, has come into being.

　　Modern linguistics ge, ts its charter from Leonard Bloomfield's Language (1933). Bloomfield's for thirteen years professor of Germanic philology at the University of Chicago and for nine years professor of linguistics at Yale, was one of those inseminating scholars who can’ t be relegated to any department and don't dream of accepting established categories and procedures just because they're established. He was as much an anthropologist as a linguist, and his concepts of language were shaped not by Strunk's Elements of Style but by his knowledge of Cree Indian dialects.

　　The broad general findings of the new science are:

　　1. All languages are systems of human conventions , not systems of natural laws. The first -- and essential – step in the study of any language is observing and setting down precisely what happens when native speakers speak it.

　　2. Each language is unique in its pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary. It cannot be described in terms of logic or of some theoretical, ideal language. It cannot be described in terms of any other language, or even in terms of its own past.

　　3. All languages are dynamic rather than static, and hence a "rule" in any language can only be a statement of contemporary practice. Change is constant -- and normal

　　4. "Correctness" can rest only upon usage, for the simple reason that there is nothing else for it to rest on. And all usage is relative.

　　From these propositions it follows that a dictionary is good only insofar as it is a comprehensive and accurate description of current usage. And to be comprehensive it must include some indication of social and regional associations.

　　New dictionaries are needed because English changed more in the past two generations than at any other time in its history. It has had to adapt to extraordinary cultural and technological changes, two world wars, unparalleled changes in transportation and communication, and unprecedented movements of populations.

　　More subtly , but pervasively, it has changed under the influence of mass education and the growth of democracy. As written English is used by increasing millions and f-or more reasons than ever before, the language has become more utilitarian and more informal. Every publication in America today includes pages that would appear, to the purist of forty years ago, unbuttoned gibberish . Not that they are; they simply show that you can't hold the language of one generation up as a model for the next.

　　It's not that you mustn't. You can't. For example, in the issue in which Life stated editorially that it would folly the Second International, there were over forty words constructions, and meanings which are in the Third International but not in the Second. The issue of the New York Times which hailed the Second International as the authority to which it would adhere and the Third International as a scandal and a betrayal which it would reject used one hundred and fifty-three separate words, phrases, and constructions which are listed in the Third International but not g the Second and nineteen others which are condemned in the Second. Many of them are used many times, more than three hundred such uses in all. The Washington Post, in an editorial captioned "Keep Your Old Webster's, " says, in the first sentence, "don't throw it away," and in the second, "hang on to it." But the old Webster's labels don't "colloquial" and doesn't include "hang on to," in this sense, at all.

　　In short, all of these publications are written in the language that the Third International describes, even the very editorials which scorn it. And this is no coincidence , because the Third International isn't setting up any new standards at all; it is simply describing what Life, the Washing-ton Post, and the New York Times are doing. Much of the dictionary's material comes from these very publications, the Times, in particular, furnishing more of its illustrative quotations than any other newspaper.

　　And the papers have no choice. No journal or periodical could sell a single issue today if it restricted itself to the American language of twenty-eight years ago. It couldn't discuss halt the things we are inter ester in, and its style would seem stiff and cumbrous . If the editorials were serious, the public -- and the stockholders -- have reason to be grateful that the writers on these publications are more literate than the editors.

　　And so back to our questions: what's a dictionary for, and how, in 1962, can it best do what it ought to do? The demands are simple. The common reader turns to a dictionary for information about the spelling, pronunciation, meaning, and proper use of words. He wants to know what is current and respectable. But he wants – and has a right to – the truth, the full truth. And the full truth about any language, and especially about American English today, is that there are many areas in which certainty is impossible and simplification is misleading.

　　Even in so settled a matter as spelling, a dictionary cannot always be absolute. Theater is correct, but so is theatre. And so are traveled and travelled, plow and plough, catalog and catalogue, and scores of other variants The reader may want a single certainty. He may have taken an unyielding position in an argument, he may have wagered in support of his conviction and may demand that the dictionary "settle" the matter. But neither his vanity nor his purse is any concern of the dictionary's; it must record the facts. And the fact here is that there are many words in our language which may be spelled, with equal correctness, in either of two ways.

　　So with pronunciation. A citizen listening to his radio might notice that James B. Conant, Bernard Baruch, and Dwight D. Eisenhower pronounce economics as ECKuhnomiks, while A. Whitney Griswold, Adlai Stevenson, and Herbert Hoover pronounce it EEKuhnomiks. He turns to the dictionary to see which of the two pronunciations is "right" and finds that they are both acceptable.

　　Has he been betrayed‘? Has the dictionary abdicated its responsibility? Should it say that one must speak like the president of Harvard or like the president of Yale, like the thirty-first President of the United States or like the thirty-fourth? Surely it's none of its business to make a choice. Not because of the distinction of these particular speakers; lexicography, like God, is no respecter of persons. But because so wide-spread and conspicuous a use of two pronunciations among people of this elevation shows that there are two pronunciations. Their speaking establishes the fact which the dictionary must record.

　　The average purchaser of a dictionary uses it most often, probably, to find out what a word "means." As a reader, he wants to know what an author intended to convey. As a speaker or writer, he wants to know what a word will convey to his auditor s. And this, too, is complex, subtle, and for ever changing.

　　An illustration is furnished by an editorial in the Washington Post (January 17, 1962). After a ringing appeal to those who "love truth and accuracy" and the usual bombinations about "abdication of authority" and " barbarism ," the editorial charges the Third International with " pretentious and obscure verbosity " and specifically instances its definition of "so simple an object as a door.” The definition reads:

　　a movable piece of firm material or a structure supported usu. along one side and swinging on pivots or hinges , sliding along a groove , roiling up and down, revolving as one of four leaves, or folding like an accordion by means of which an opening may be closed or kept open for passage into or out of a building, room, or other covered enclosure or a car, airplane, elevator, or other vehicle. Then follows a series of special meanings, each particularity defined and, where necessary, illustrated by a quotation Since, aside from roaring and admonishing the "gentle men from Springfield" that "accuracy and brevity are virtues,” the Post's editorial tails to explain what is wrong with the definition, we can only infer from "so simple" a thing that the writer takes the plain, downright, man-in-the street attitude that a door is a door and any damn fool knows that.

　　But if so, he has walked into one of lexicography's biggest booby traps: the belief that the obvious is easy to define. Whereas the opposite is true. Anyone can give a fair description of the strange, the new, or the unique. It's the commonplace, the habitual, that challenges definition, for its very commonness compels us to define it in uncommon terms. Dr. Johnson was ridiculed on just this score when his dictionary appeared in 1755. For two hundred years his definition of a network as "any thing reticulated or decussated , at equal distances, with interstices between the inter sections” has been good for a laugh. But in the merriment one thing is always overlooked: no one has yet come up with a better definition! Subsequent dictionaries defined it as a mesh and then defined a mesh as a network. That's simple, all right.

　　Anyone who attempts sincerely to state what the were door means in the United States of America today can't take refuge in a log cabin. There has been an enormous proliferation of closing and demarking devices and structure in the past twenty years, and anyone who tries to thread his way through the many meanings now included under door may have to sacrifice brevity to accuracy and even have to employ words that a limited vocabulary may find obscure.

　　Is the entrance to a tent a door, for instance? And What of the thing that seals the exit of an air plane‘? Is this a door? Or what of those sheets and jets of air that are now being used, in place of old-fashioned oak and hinges, to screen entrances and exists? Are they doors? And what of that accordion-like things that set off various sections of many modern apartments? The fine print in the lease takes it for granted that they are door s and that spaces demarked by them are rooms -- and the rent is computed on the number of rooms.

　　Was I gypped by the landlord when he called the folding contraption that shuts off my kitchen a door? I go to the Second Inter national, which the editor of the Post urges me to use in preference to the Third International. 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. This is only forty-six words, but though it includes the cellar it excludes the barn door and the accordion-like thing

　　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. 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.” The thing is a door, and my landlord is using the word in one of its currently accepted meanings.

　　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. There can be linguistic objection to the eradication of proper names. The removal of guides to pronunciation from the toot of every page may not have been worth the valuable space it saved. The new method of defining words of many meanings has disadvantages as well as advantages. And of the half million or more definitions, hundreds, possibly thousands, may seem inadequate or imprecise. To some (of whom I am one) the omission of the label "colloquial" will seem meritorious ; to others it will seem a loss.

　　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.

　　(from The Play of Language, 1971)

　　第十一课 词典的用途究竟何在?

　　(节选)

　　伯根?伊凡斯

　　《韦氏新国际英语词典》(第三版)刚一问世，便遭到许多有名的报刊连篇累牍的攻击，这真是一个奇怪的现象。以前还从来没有哪一部像这样有学术价值的鸿篇巨著遭到过如此肆无忌惮的攻击和侮蔑。《大西洋》杂志上刊载的一篇文章评价这部词典"令人失望"，"令人震惊"，是"一大不幸"，"耻辱和灾难"。《纽约时报》则发表一篇专论，称这部词典将"加速英语的退化进程"，并严厉指责词典编者们有负众望。《美国律师学会学刊》认为该词典的出版是"令人遗憾的事件"、"词典编者不负责任的杰出典范"、"对英语规范化事业的一记沉重打击。"《生活》杂志上的文章则称这部词典为"无用的词海"，说它"荒谬可笑"、"糟糕透顶"、"让人痛心"。文章作者们还说他们怀疑"林肯在写葛底斯堡演说时是否会参考这部词典。这种观点并没有很清楚地说明林肯的写作方式，却很能说明《生活》杂志上的那些文章是怎样写出来的。

　　究竟是什么导致了这场喧嚣与愤怒呢?出版这部词典的麦里姆出版公司也许称得上是全球最大的词典出版商，该公司声称他们为筹划这部词典的出版工作耗资三百五十万美元，动员了三百名专家学者花费二十七年的心血才完成了世界上任何语言中词汇量最大的词库。难道这一切都是骗人的把戏吗?

　　既然毁誉之间的差别是如此之大，我们就有必要首先探讨一下词典编纂工作的基本原则。词典的意义究竟何在?词典的任务是什么?一般读者查词典的目的是什么?人们花钱买词典后有权期望从词典中得到些什么?

　　在探究词典编纂的基本原则之前，我们有必要先作两点说明。需要说明的第一点是，词典所涉及的是词。有些词典除收词之外还提供多种多样其他方面的有用资料：有的在衬页上附有度量衡换算表，有的列出主要历史事件年表，还有的词典附有一些家用医方。这种作法当然也无可厚非。但是，最近三十年来英语词汇量的猛增迫使所有的词典都必须尽量提高篇幅利用率。假如要从词典中删去什么内容的话，合理的做法是首先删去这些附加的内容，而以收词为主。

　　需要说明的第二点是，近三十年来词典编纂方面所取得的进展要超过汽车制造方面发展的步伐。可以打个比方，受到广泛赞扬的《韦氏国际英语词典》(第二版)(1934)和受到猛烈攻击的《韦氏新国际英语词典》(第三版)(1961)之间的差别不是类似于上一年推出的车型和下一年推出的车型之间的差别，而更像是马车和汽车之间的差别。就在第二版问世后至第三版问世前这段时间里，一门与词典编纂相关的全新学科--描写语言学诞生了。

　　现代语言学的奠基之作是伦纳德?布龙菲尔德的《语言论》(1933)。布龙菲尔德曾在芝加哥大学担任日尔曼语文学教授达十三年，又在耶鲁大学任语言学教授达九年。他是那种开创性的、不仅只属于某一学科领域的大学者之一，这类大学者从不人云亦云，亦步亦趋，对于一些广为接受的思想观念和行事方法绝不因其已广为大多数人接受便盲目地接受下来。布龙菲尔德既是语言学家，又是人类学家，他对语言的认识不是根据斯特兰克的那本《风格的基本要素》形成的，而是在他本人对克里印第安人的方言进行考察研究的基础上形成的。描写语言学的主要研究成果有如下几项：

　　一、所有的语言都只是人为习俗的体系，而不是自然法则的体系。不论是研究何种语言，第一步～一也是最根本的一步--就是观察并准确无误地记录以该语言为母语的人使用语言的情况。

　　二、每种语言的语音、语法和词汇都有其与众不同的特点。任 21 0何语言都不能通过逻辑或从某种理论上的、理想化的语言的角度来进行描述，也不能从任何别的语言的角度来描述，甚至不能用其自身的早期形式来描述。

　　三、一切语言都是发展的，而不是静止不变的。因此，任何语言的"规则''都只能说明其现阶段的用法情况。规则发生变化是经常性的--也是正常的现象。

　　四、语言使用的"正确性"只能根据习惯用法来评判，原因很简单，除此而外别无其他评判标准。而所有的习惯用法都是相对的。 根据以上这些观点应该可以得出这样的结论：一部词典只有当它能全面而准确地描述语词的现时用法时才算是好词典，而要做到全面，它就必须包含对一些社会性和区域性等方面情况的描述。

　　人们需要新词典是因为英语在过去这两代人的时间里所发生的变化比以往任何时期都要大。新词典必须使自己适应以下新时代的情况：文化与科技的突飞猛进、两次世界大战、交通运输和通讯方面的无比巨大的发展变化以及规模空前的人口流动。

　　更加微妙，但却非常普遍的是，教育的普及和民主的发展也给英语带来一些影响，由于使用书面英语的人数急剧增长以及前所未有的诸多原因，英语已倾向于更加实用，更加通俗。今天美国所出版的每一种书刊都有一些版面在四十年前喜欢咬文嚼字的人看来满纸尽是信口胡言。可事实上它们并非毫无意义的胡言乱语，它们的存在只不过表明，我们不能把上一代人所使用的语言当作下一代人必须遵守的样板。

　　这并不是说你不应该这样做，而是你根本不可能这样做。比如，《生活》杂志曾在某一期中发表一篇社论，声明它要以《韦氏国际英语词典》(第二版)为准，可就在这一期的《生活》杂志上却出现了四十多个见之于第三版却未见于第二版的词汇、结构与意义。有一期《纽约时报》上高喊第二版是它坚决拥护的权威，而第三版则是它要摒弃的愚弄和骗人之作。可这一期的《纽约时报》上却用了一百五十三个收录于第三版却未收进第二版的单词、短语和句法结构，另外还用了十九个受到第二版指责的词语。这些单词和词组有的重复出现多次，因此在一期《纽约时报》上出现的这类词语共达三百余处。《华盛顿邮报》在一篇标题为"留着你的老韦氏"的社论中，开宗明义第一句话就说，"don't throw it away(别扔掉它)"，第二句又说，"hang on to it(紧紧抱住它)"。然而，在老韦氏词典中，don't被标注为"口语用法"，而"hang on to"的这个意义则根本没有收录。

　　总而言之，所有这些报刊上的文章都是用第三版所描写的语言写成的，连那些攻击侮蔑第三版的社论本身也不例外。这不是什么偶然的巧合，因为第三版压根儿没有订立什么新的语言使用标准，它所作的只不过是对《生活》、《华盛顿邮报》和《纽约时报》等报刊所使用的语言进行描写而已。该词典的许多内容恰恰取材于这些报刊，尤其是《纽约时报》，它为该词典提供的例证比任何一家别的报纸都多。

　　这些报刊也别无选择余地。今天的任何报刊，如果限制自己只使用二十八年前的美国语言的话，那它可能连一期也卖不出去；对于我们所关心的事物，它就会连一半也讨论不了；它的文风也一定会显得刻板呆滞。假如那些社论对第三版的评论不是开玩笑的话，广大读者--还有报纸的股东们--就有理由感激这些报刊的撰稿人，他们的文化水平比编辑老爷们高一些。 让我们再回到该讨论的问题上来：词典的用途何在?在1962年的今天，词典怎样才能最有效地执行自己的使命?人们的要求其实也很简单。一般读者查词典的目的是为了弄清词语的拼写、发音、词义和正确用法。他想了解什么是通用的，什么是正确的。他想了解--他也有权利知道--真实情况，绝对的真实情况。然而任何语占，尤其是今日的美国英语中的真实情况就是，许多语言现象要想说得确切明白是不可能的，而过分简单化的说明又易引起误解。

　　即便在拼写这样较为确定的问题上，词典都不能给予绝对权威的说明。Theater的拼法是正确的，但theatre的拼法也同样正确。类似的情况还有traveled和travelled，plow，plough和catalon：和catalogue等以及其他数十上百种异体拼法的例子。读者可能想得到一个唯一的毫无疑义的答案。他可能坚信某一种拼法是正确的并因此与人争辩，他甚至可能为此而同别人打赌而要让词典来"裁定"这个问题。然而，词典既没有义务去满足他的虚荣心，也没有义务去关心他的钱包。词典的任务是记录事实，而与此有关的事实是，我们的语言中有许多词可以用两种方法拼写，而两种拼法都同样正确无误。

　　发音方面的情形也是如此。有的人在听广播时可能注意到詹姆斯?B?科南特、班纳德?巴鲁奇和德怀特?D?艾森豪威尔将economics一词的音念成ECKuhnomiks，而A?怀特尼?格里斯沃尔德、阿德莱?E?史蒂文森和赫伯特?胡佛则将它念成EEKuhnomiks，于是他就去查词典，想看看究竟这两种读音中的哪一种才是正确的，而结果呢，他发现两者都是可行的。

　　是他被词典欺骗了吗?是词典失职了吗?词典是否应该指出，人们说话必须模仿哈佛大学校长，或是模仿耶鲁大学校长，以美国第三十一任总统的发音为准，抑或是以第三十四任美国总统的发音为准?无疑地，作出决择可不是词典的事儿。这倒并不是因为对这些特殊人物的崇高的社会地位有所顾忌。词典编纂学，像上帝一样，是不会趋奉任何人的。词典不作出取舍决择的真正原因乃是因为在社会地位这样高的人们当中竟然如此广泛而显著地使用着两种发音，这事实就足以说明的确存在着两种发音。他们的说话方式就构成了词典必须记录的事实。

　　一般购买词典的人使用词典时恐怕多半是为了查找一个词所表达的是什么"意思"。作为读者，他想了解作者要表达的是什么意思；作为讲话者或作者，他想知道一个词会将什么样的意思传达给他的听者或读者。这方面的情况也是复杂的、微妙的，而且总是在变。 《华盛顿邮报》的一篇社论(1962年元月17日)为我们提供了一个说明问题的例证。这篇社论在对那些"热爱真实性与准确性"的人们发出强烈的呼吁并照例发出一通"丧失权威性"和"用词不规范"的抱怨声之后，接着便指责第三版"矫揉造作、晦涩难懂、繁冗累赘"，还特地援引该词典给"门这么一个简单的物体"所下的定义来作为说明的例子。

　　该词的定义如下：

　　用坚实材料制成的可移动的板或一种构造物，通常 有一侧是固定着的，可以绕着轴和铰链转动，或沿一道凹槽滑动，或上下卷动，或作为一四叶物体旋转，或像手风琴一样可以折叠。通过这些方法，开口处得以关闭或打开，从而进出一建筑物、房间、或其他有顶的围墙、或汽车、飞机、电梯或其他运载工具。

　　接下来是一系列特殊的含义，每种含义都作了具体的界定，必要的地方还引用了有来源的例证加以说明。

　　由于《邮报》的社论除了吼叫和训诫那些"来自斯普林菲尔德的先生们"，告诉他们"准确与简洁是应该提倡的"之外，并没有说明该定义错在何处，我们只能从"这样简单''的一件事来推断出这样的结论：那篇社论的撰稿人对于词典释义问题采取的是一种简单、直率、普通外行人的态度，认为门就是门，任何该死的白痴都清楚。

　　如果真是这样，那他就步入了词典编纂学的一个最大的陷阱，即认为显而易见的事物容易下定义。实际情况却恰恰相反，对于那些新奇或独特的事物，倒是人人都能给以恰当的描述，而真正难于下定义的倒是那些普通而常见的事物，正因其普通才迫使我们不得不用不普通的词语去给它们下定义。约翰逊博士在他的词典于1755年问世时，也正是由于这一原因才受到人们嘲笑的。两百年来，他给network(网络)一词下的定义"任何以同等距离呈网状或交叉成X状，并在交叉线之间留有空隙的物体"一直是人们的笑料。但在笑声中，有一件事却总是被忽略了：至今也没有任何人提出比这更好的定义来!后来的词典把network(网络)解释为mesh(网状结构)，然后又把mesh解释为network。这种处理方法倒的确是够简单的!

　　在今日的美利坚合众国，任何真诚地想要说明"门''这个词的含义的人都不可能躲避到小木屋里去。近二十年来，用于关闭和打开的装置和结构花样百出，种类剧增。因此，任何人若是想弄清"门"这一词现在所包含的许多种意义，那他就可能不得不牺牲简洁以求准确，甚至还可能不得不使用一些在词汇量有限的人看来可能是晦涩难懂的词语。

　　举例来说，帐篷的入口算不算是门?还有那把飞机的出人口封闭起来的东西叫什么?那算不算是门?还有那些现在已经开始用来代替老式的橡木折叶门遮蔽出入口的布帘或喷气帘呢?它们算是门吗?还有许多现代化公寓里用来将屋子的各个部分隔开的那种像手风琴似的东西又是什么?租房契约书上的条款不容分说地把它们算作是门，由它们隔成的空间便是房间--房租便是按房间数来计算的。

　　房东把隔开我的厨房的那个可以折叠的新奇玩意儿称作门，是不是在欺骗我?于是，我便去查第二版，因为《邮报》的编辑敦促我不要用第三版而要用第二版。我在第二版中查到门的定义是

　　用木板或其它材料制成的可移动的框架结构或障碍物。 通常绕着铰链或轴转动，或者滑动，通过这种东西，一所 房子或公寓的入口处得以关闭和打开；另外，也指一件家 俱如衣柜或书柜等的与此相似的部分。

　　这个定义总共只有四十六个词，但尽管它包含了地下室的门，却没能包括仓库的门和那像手风琴一样的东西。

　　因此，我接着又去查第三版，马上便发现，门的新定义要长一些，但我所求的是准确，如果为了准确必须牺牲简洁的话，我也愿意这样做。果然。在这个使《邮报》血压升高的定义中，我找到了"像手风琴一样可以折叠，'这几个字。那种东西的确也算是门，我的房东使用的是"门"这个词现在人们所接受的各种意义当中的一种。

　　这部新词典也许有不少缺点。任何一部词典要想适应当代英语这样一个广阔领域里的日益变化着的情况就不可能没有缺点。这部词典的许多地方有待于人们提出公允的、有眼光的批评意见。比如，人们可能从语言学的角度对该词典删除专有名词的作法提出异议；每页下端的发音指南也去掉了，这样做虽说节省了一些宝贵的篇幅，实际上可能还是有点得不偿失；为多义词下定义的新方法虽有其优点，也有其缺点；在该词典所有的五十多万条定义中，有几百条，甚至是几千条可能有些欠当或不够准确；删掉"口语用法，，这种语体说明标志的做法，在有些人(包括我)看来是值得称道的，但在另一些人看来，却可能是一个损失。

　　然而，有一点是确定无疑的：如果有人在1962年的今天竞郑重其事地宣布在英语用法问题上要以1934年出版的词典为指南的话，那他就是愚昧无知、狂妄自大，是在胡说八道了。

　　词汇(Vocabulary)

　　stature ( n.) :a person's bodily height；mental or moral quality，development，growth，or level of attainment，especially as worthy of esteem身高；身材；(道德、精神等的)发展状况(或水平)

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　calamity ( n.) :any extreme misfortune bringing great loss and sorrow；disaster极大的不幸，不幸事件；灾祸

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　deplorable ( adj.) :that can or should be deplored：lamentable；regrettable可叹的；可惜的；令人惋惜的，令人遗憾的

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　flagrant ( adj.) :glaringly bad；notorious；outrageous罪恶昭彰的；臭名远扬的，声名狼藉的

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　deluge ( n.) :an overwhelming，flood-like rush of anything洪水般的泛滥；蜂拥而至

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　monstrous ( adj.) :[colloq．]quite absurd，scandalous[口]极可笑的；极荒谬的

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　citation ( n.) :a passage cited；quotation引文，引语，语录，引句，引文段落

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　fraud ( n.) :criminal deception欺骗，诈骗，欺诈

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　hoax ( n.) :mischievous trick played on sb．for a joke；cheat戏弄，骗局

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　discrepancy ( n.) :1ack of agreement，or an instance of this；difference；inconsistency差异，差别；不一致，不符合

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　interpose (v．) :introduce(a remark，opinion，etc．)into a conversation, debate，etc．；put in as an interruption插(话)；提出(异议等)；打断

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　extraneous ( adj.) :not truly or properly belonging：not essential枝节的；不重要的

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　tout ( v．) :[colloq．]praise or recommend highly; puff[口]高度评价；过分夸奖；吹捧

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　clout ( v．) :[colloq．]strike[口]击；抨击

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　buggy ( n.) :a light carriage pulled by one horse(一匹马拉的)轻便马车

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　philology ( n.) :the study of written records，esp. 1iterary texts．in order to determine their authenticity，meaning，etc．语言学(尤指原文文学作品的研究)

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　inseminate ( v．) :implant(ideas，etc．)in(the mind，etc．)灌输或传播(思想等)

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　relegate ( v.) :assign to a class，sphere，realm，etc．；classify as belonging to a certain order of things把……归人某类(或某属等)

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　anthropologist ( n.) :a student of or specialist in the study of man. esp．of the variety，physical and cultural characteristics，distributions，customs，social relationships，etc．of mankind人类学者，人类学家

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　unparalleled ( adj.) : 1.that has no parallel，equal，or counterpart；unmatched无双的；无比的 2.having no precedent or parallel；unheard-of前所未有的，无前例的，空前的，闻所未闻的

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　pervasive ( adj.) :spreading through every part遍布的；充满的

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　utilitarian ( adj.) :characterized by usefulness rather than by beauty，truth，goodness实用的；注重实用的

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　unbuttoned ( adj.) :free or uncontrolled随便的；漫不经心的

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　gibberish ( n.) :rapid and incoherent talk；unintelligible nonsense急促而不清楚的话；胡言乱语；莫名其妙的话

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　caption ( v．) :supply a heading or title，as of a newspaper or article在(新闻报导、文章等)上加章节标题

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　coincidence ( n.) :an accidental and remarkable occurrence of events，ideas，etc．at the same time，suggesting but lacking a casual relationship(事件、想法等)巧合，偶合

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　cumbrous ( adj.) :burdensome，；unwieldy；clumsy累赘的；拖累的；麻烦的

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　literate ( adj.) :well-educated；showing extensive knowledge，learning or culture有文化的

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　wager ( v.) :bet打赌

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　vanity ( n.) :the quality or fact of being vain，or excessively proud of oneself or one's qualities or possessions：self-conceit自负；自大；虚夸；虚荣心

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　abdicate ( v．) :give up or neglect one's responsibility；fail to do one's duty放弃(权利、责任等)

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　pretentious ( adj.) :affectedly grand or superior矫饰的；做作的；虚饰的

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　obscure ( adj. ) :not clear；confusing不明白的；难解的；模糊的

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　verbosity ( n.) :wordiness用词过多；罗嗦

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　pivot ( n.) :a point，shaft，pin，etc．on which something turns枢；枢轴；支枢；支点

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　admonish ( n.) :caution against specific faults；warn；advise告诫；警告

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　infer ( v．) :conclude or decide from something known or assumed；derive by reasoning；draw as a conclusion推论，推断，推知

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　booby trap ( n.) :any scheme or device for tricking a person unawares陷阱

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　reticulate ( v．) :divide into small squares or intersecting lines使分成小方格；使呈网状

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　decussate ( v．) :cross or cut so as to form an X(使)交叉成X形；交叉

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　interstice ( n.) :a small 0r narrow space between things or parts间隙，空隙

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　mesh ( n.) :a net or network网；网络

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　proliferation ( n.) :multiplying rapidly，increasing profusely激增；

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　demark ( v.) :set or mark the limits of; delimit 分解，定界，标界

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　gyp ( v．) :[Am．colloq．]swindle；cheat[美口]诈骗；欺骗；哄骗

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　contraption ( n.) :a contrivance，gadget or device，that one does not fully understand奇异的(机械)装置；新发明的玩意儿

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　eradication ( n.) :the act or action of tearing out by the roots根除

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　inadequate ( adj.) :not adequate；not sufficient不适当的；不充分的

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　meritorious ( adj.) :deserving reward，praise，etc．值得奖励的；值得表扬的

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　短语 (Expressions)

　　stick to:   not abandon or change sth．；keep to sth．不放弃，坚持或维持某事物

　　例： We don't want to hear your opinion；stick to the facts!我们不想听你的想法，只讲事实。

　　----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

　　insofar as:   to the extent that到……的程度，在……的范围内

　　例： This is the truth insofar as I know it．就我所知，这是真实情况