昨日匿名君在唐英年的Completely Rubbish一文留言，認為rubbish可以是形容詞，所以用副詞completely來修飾，合乎文法規則。讀者Tony君給我發電郵，引用昨天蘋果日報古德明的評論，支持我的看法。
...I think that is completely rubbish that we have violated civil rights, nor have we violated freedom of speech。一句話，嚴重文法錯誤就有兩個。第一，completely是副詞（adverb），副詞怎可以修飾名詞rubbish？「簡直廢話」英文可說complete / utter / absolute / pure rubbish等，即「形容詞＋名詞」。當然，說completely / utterly nonsensical等也可以，但那是「副詞＋形容詞」。這一點，無非小學英文常識，唐英年請不要再搞錯了。第二，用nor（也不）帶出的子句（clause），前面那子句必須有neither、not等否定詞，例如：We have not violated civil rights, nor have we violated freedom of speech。唐英年那一句，前半截沒有否定詞，怎可以用nor？這一點，是中學英文常識，唐英年的確不容易掌握，但可能的話，以後最好也不要再搞錯。 I think that is completely rubbish that這句式當然也不是英文。英文會說：I think it is complete rubbish to say that we have violated civil rights or freedom of speech。(2011年08月23日 蘋果副刊節錄)
我當初評論時，無心講文法，只像判辭中的obiter dictum，岔開一筆的評論。古德明說有關文法「無非小學英文常識」，標少赧顏羞愧，答不上嘴。匿名君把rubbish視為形容詞，我唯一同意的情況是，譬如聽了唐司長那番話，以"Rubbish" 或"Stupid"來評論，這rubbish的單字，可以視作形容詞，但要進一步修飾，恐怕要切合基本文法。讀者如果想對有關課題作進一步討論，寫信給古德明教授好了。這個不認識我的中學及大學的師兄，語文知識比標少好千百倍。
唐司長既無大將之風，又非大將之才，正是「又唔睇得，又唔打得」，突然變成唐吉訶德(Don Quixote)，幻想自己是英明神武的騎士。不如急流勇退，免卻罵名。特首難當啊！權利慾難耐啊！求之不得，輾轉反側。可惜欠缺自知之明的人太多，具領導才能的人太少。
又是中五英語文法水平的我,希望你不介意:
回覆刪除"...that is completely rubbish that...." 我也覺得沒有大問題:
依我以前中學英語老師所教, 有一些句子為免太clumsy,會用preparatory subject(通常用"it")來寫. 例如:
That we have violated civil right is completely rubbish....
會改成:
It is completely rubbish that we have violated civil right......
但傳統上會用"it",用"that"作preparatory subject當然沒有那麽好,但以口語來説,說他文法錯就未免有點吹毛求疵.
Jon
另外，neither ... nor 的說法也不敢苟同。
回覆刪除我是寫電腦程式的，如果這是電腦語言的規則，我一定會守。但是對人的語言來説，一般都很靠語言
意識(language sense). 既然前面的子句(clause)已經有一個很明顯的否定意思。勉強要加否定詞在前面(像芝麻開門般的magic word)就顯得畫蛇添足！
如有錯誤，請見諒！
Jon
Jon,
回覆刪除多謝閣下教誨，標少一向成績差，大學畢業，中學程度。英文文法，學的時候胡裡胡塗，吸收得到的又忘過精光。有心討論，卻力有不逮，自知淺陋，只好嗚金收兵。
還有一點completely 這個詞是用於正面的東西,不應用於rubbish,應用utter,更符合罵人的音節和勁度
回覆刪除Language is a means of communication. We all understood what Tong meant. Why are we picking so much on the gramma.....?
回覆刪除Language is a means of communication and is dynamic. I do not cast any doubt on that. There are of course different schools of thoughts about its transformation and the acceptance of change. Given the respectable position of the Chief Secretary, we have more expectations of him when he makes comment on current affairs. As I said in the blog, my remark was only an obiter. I did not intend to trigger a discussion on the correct usage of grammar.
回覆刪除I am not a columnist of any kind. I opened the blog to enjoy the freedom to comment, especially legal issues. I do not normally repeat what people have said. I try to be as insightful as can be to see things from different angles. You can see my disagreement with a lot of lawyers when I see reports from the media. I give reasons for my demurred views.
I cultivate my own piece of land without publicizing my blog. I write to share with my friends. Incidentally, other readers pitch in when they bump into my blog.
The general public does have expectations from the people who intend to run for the CE post. Inappropriate and derogatory comments will flare up criticisms. I do not embroil in unnecessary controversy especially matters I am unfamiliar with. My blog is my turf I use to speak my mind. If there is rippling effect on the grammatical comment, let the linguist or grammarian deal with it. For avoidance of doubt, I pick on Tong in relation to his mediocrity and stupidity. Do not put the cart before the horse. Even though I mentioned his "completely rubbish" remark seems to be an inadvertent slur, there is in fact some suspicion that he was divulging his true feeling instead of an impromptu slip of tongue. I don't really know whether Tong's stern stance meant to please the Chinese Government in order that his ticket to election can be fortified or rather it was only a momentary bizarre innuendo. I say no more.
That's right, so I'm dissatisfied by Tong's comments (which is clear enough). However, Mr. Ku's not-so-convincing (actually I would personally consider them misleading and pointless) but high sounding criticisms annoyed me as well.
回覆刪除Jon
Personally I was more pissed off with the content of his remarks rather than with the grammar. After all, it was spontaneous, unscripted, spoken English.
回覆刪除I couldn't agree with you more, Paul!!!
回覆刪除Jon
rubbish絕對可作adjective,不是拿古德明來說就可以,古氏說得避重就輕,只提出其他說法,但他這些沒有引出甚麽著作證明不可以說completely rubbish,相反,可以翻一翻Cambridge Advanced 和Cobuilds,都寫明rubbish 在口語時可作adjective.但話說回來,完全垃圾唐英年這句話沒有錯,如果有錯,可能是將唐英年和垃圾相比的話,委屈了垃圾.
回覆刪除你會用 "I think she is a very beautifully girl"嗎!?
回覆刪除英文是講給香港人聽嗎?
吹毛求疵!? How can u become a representative of Hong Kong
Eddy, that is completely a bizarre usage of the word "beautifully" in your sentence. If you can explain what "beautifully" is modifying here, you have all the right to write your sentence this way.
回覆刪除Anyway, even if Tong speaks in perfect English grammar, I don't think he can be a good representative of Hong Kong. That's not the point after all.
看來蘋果日報的古德明不太懂英文文法。
回覆刪除第一，"I think that is completely rubbish"是正確的，因為completely是在形容is，而不是rubbish。中文的翻譯為︰「我認為這完全是垃圾」- 英文文法沒有問題。
第二，"nor"前並不必須有"neither"的，有時用了反而會更累贅。
這是中學英文的基本常識。唉，古德明，你的英文學好了未呀?
...I think that is completely rubbish that we have violated civil rights, nor have we violated freedom of speech。一句話，嚴重文法錯誤就有兩個。第一，completely是副詞（adverb），副詞怎可以修飾名詞rubbish？「簡直廢話」英文可說complete / utter / absolute / pure rubbish等，即「形容詞＋名詞」。當然，說completely / utterly nonsensical等也可以，但那是「副詞＋形容詞」。這一點，無非小學英文常識，唐英年請不要再搞錯了。
回覆刪除Obviously, 古德明 doesn't know "rubbish" can be used as an adjective.
第二，用nor（也不）帶出的子句（clause），前面那子句必須有neither、not等否定詞，例如：We have not violated civil rights, nor have we violated freedom of speech。唐英年那一句，前半截沒有否定詞，怎可以用nor？這一點，是中學英文常識，唐英年的確不容易掌握，但可能的話，以後最好也不要再搞錯。
回覆刪除http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nor?s=t&path=/
3. (used after an affirmative clause, or as a continuative, in the sense of and not ): They are happy, nor need we worry.
It seems to me that 古德明 is not so right.
"I think that is completely rubbish that we have violated civil rights, nor have we violated freedom of speech, because every single activity of the Vice-Premier has been covered by the media."
回覆刪除I have found "that is completely rubbish that we have violated civil rights, nor have ..." weird.
1. We have not violated any... (what people are saying is untrue)
2. We have violated civil rights and it is completely rubbish(crappy).
古德明 is right about this part.
My version:
回覆刪除To me, that's nonsensical to say (that) we have violated civil rights or freedom of speech.
It's simply because ...
回覆刪除I think that is completely rubbish that這句式當然也不是英文
古德明 is right about using "to say" to avoid confusion, but
"that is ...THAT" is surely English.
The following clause becomes confusing/ambigious.
1. We have not violated any... (what people are saying is untrue)
2. We have violated civil rights ... and it is completely rubbish(crappy).
If you come up as an expert in tulip bulbs or winter gardening, you will have fewer
回覆刪除visitors to your website, but they will be targeted visitors, people who are looking the exact type of
product you are trying to sell. The above is a good example of fast strategies to grow a business
on the Internet. Marketing and advertising and advertising and marketing
high expense goods and services usually requires a distinct technique than promoting and marketing commodities, and organization to small business advertising and marketing is a great deal much
more specialized.
Stop by my weblog :: gsa post penguin