| 词组 | firstly |
| 释义 | firstly Two objections have been lodged against this word. The first is a 19th-century prejudice against firstly on the grounds of propriety. Thomas De Quincey, for instance, said in 1847 that he detested the pedantic neologism firstly. Ayres 1881 seems to agree, although he does mention the approbation of Moon 1864; both Ayres and Gould 1870 note that Webster 1864 called it improper (and it was rare for Gould to agree with Webster). Later commentators who are lined up against firstly include Vizetelly 1906 and Bierce 1909. All this criticism involved a certain amount of misunderstanding, however. De Quincey thought firstly a neologism, but it had been in use for more than 300 years when he wrote. Moon seems to have approved firstly because he thought first wasn't an adverb; but it is. Fowler 1926 pooh-poohed the whole fuss as "one of the harmless pedantries." Fowler thought that only pedants would insist on beginning a list with first, for no one did it naturally. But here Fowler was off base, for enumerations beginning first and going on with secondly, etc., can be found in the writings of such literary men as Thomas Gray (in 1758) and William Hazlitt (in 1808) well before there was a controversy. Fowler's dismissal of the objections to firstly rather took the wind out of the sails of the controversy, though, and it gradually drifted to a stop, although Bernstein 1971 (agreeing with Fowler and Evans 1957, 1961) found one mid-20th-century American commentator still leery of it (as are Harper 1985 and Montgomery & Stratton 1981 more recently). Evans, in support of Fowler, lists such well-known 19th-century writers as Dickens, Scott, Gladstone, Byron, Thackeray, and Kingsley as users of firstly. This list makes it probable that the cause of the firstly fuss was the simple objection to what is perceived as new and popular—the cause of many another usage issue chronicled in this book. Since Fowler took the original objection away from the commentators, they have come up with a second one. Almost universally they admit that firstly is all right, but they still prefer that you not use it. They want you to use first instead because it is shorter. Whether or not the commentators' advice has had any effect, first is a much more common and much more generally useful word than firstly, which is almost never used except to begin an enumeration. Our evidence also suggests that firstly is more frequent in British English than in American English. All of this brings us to a final point. A good many recent handbooks feel you should be consistent in your enumerations. They prefer first, second, third, etc., but will allow you firstly, secondly, thirdly, etc. if you really favor those. Now there is nothing wrong with consistency—it is desirable—but it is only fair to note that writers and speakers have often played fast and loose with these enumerators. President Carter, for instance, used first of all, secondly, third. But that was in speech, you object. True. But Thomas Gray in 1758 used first, 2dly, idly, up to 6thly. And William Hazlitt in 1808 used first, secondly, etc., up to eighthly, then lastly. And Fitzedward Hall 1873 used first of all, secondly, in the third place. And the English novelist Colin Maclnnes in about 1957 used firstly, next, thirdly. So while we do not suggest you be purposely inconsistent, it does appear that consistency in this specific usage has not always had a particularly high priority with good writers. |
| 随便看 |
英语用法大全包含2888条英语用法指南，基本涵盖了全部常用英文词汇及语法点的翻译及用法，是英语学习的有利工具。