| 词组 | both |
| 释义 | both Both is used in a number of idiomatic constructions that have come under attack by usage experts from the 18th century to the 20th. Most of these criticisms occur between 1870 and the 1920s, but a surprising number of them have been repeated right into the 1980s. Here is a representative selection. 1. Redundant (or, in the old days, pleonastic) uses: the censure of uses of both—primarily in mild emphasis— that are held to be pleonastic is a favorite game of usage writers going back to Baker 1770, who finds that this line from an unidentified work of Swift's "seems to make Nonsense": • They both met upon a Trial of Skill. In 1889 William B. Hodgson finds fault with this as pleonastic: • You and I both agree —Matthew Arnold, Literature and Dogma, 1873 He then proceeds to correct some other examples. He takes from a Mary Ann Kelty this sentence: • "I'm sure I would if I could," agreed both of the literary ladies. To correct the pleonasm of both, he revises to "the two literary ladies." What makes two acceptable and both wrong is not explained. The majority of Hodgson's examples combine both with agree. This combination echoes down the ages. Here we have Copperud 1980: "Since both indicates duality, it is redundant with such words as equal, alike, agree, together: ... 'Both agreed.' They agreed." But who has limited agree to an implication of duality that makes both redundant? Not users of English, certainly. Copperud mentions the combinations both alike and both together. These are great favorites; they have been given particular notice by Bernstein 1962, 1977, Freeman 1983, MacCracken & Sandison 1917, Ayres 1881, Vizetelly 1906, Lurie 1927, Jensen 1935, Partridge 1942, Heritage 1982, Richard Grant White 1870, and others. Why this is such an important issue is uncertain. We know that a writer named Shakespeare used these combinations: • That very hour, and in the selfsame inn, A meaner woman was delivered • Of such a burthen, male twins, both alike—The Comedy of Errors, 1593 A look into a Shakespeare concordance will show that he used both alike six times in the plays and both together three times. William Blake used both alike. Probably other poets did too, though it is hard to prove; concordances tend to suppress both. But Hodgson had no examples in his prose collection, and they are rare in our files. We have no citations at all for the constructions the usage books tell you to avoid. Are they then trying to correct some oral use? If so, why? In the end, after two centuries and more of comment, this molehill is still a molehill. It is a trivial matter and not worth worrying about. 2. Both ...as well as. Copperud 1970, 1980 tells us that "Both is also redundant with as well as," whatever that may mean. He then compounds the confusion by recommending that as well as be changed to and. How does that cure redundancy? Bernstein 1977 and Johnson 1982 say the same thing. Chambers 1985 and Partridge 1942 say that as well as is incorrect after both; of course they can't and don't tell us why. As well as is used as a correlative in a manner somewhat like and (see as well as), but how that fact is relevant to either of the foregoing comments is obscure at best. In our files the use of both ... as well as is uncommon, but it does occur: • ... for fear such an impression might produce ill will both in the United States as well as in Formosa and Seoul — N.Y. Times, 9 Aug. 1955 • At later stages in my life, I had opportunity to eat both the presumably very best food in the world, as well as the very worst —Herbert Hoover, Memoirs, 1951 The worst that can be said of these is that they are not very elegant. Since the construction is fairly rare, it doesn't seem worth fussing about. 3. Both ... and. Bernstein 1977, Phythian 1979, Bryson 1984, and Chambers 1985 all stress the necessity of placing the same construction after both and after and for the most pleasingly well-balanced results. This seems sensible enough. Bernstein pulls an example from the N.Y. Times: The Senator said that both from the viewpoint of economics and morality the nation must practice self-denial. He points out that From the viewpoint of economics follows both but only morality follows and. He shows two ways to correct the problem and adds "Logical tidiness is always an asset in the use of language." The point to note here is that the quotation begins with "The Senator said." Presumably the reporter is transcribing very nearly what was said. What is said is spoken English, not written English, a distinction that in this case Bernstein does not take into account. Dean Alford in 1866 had heard all of this before; he traces it back to Lindley Murray's English Grammar of 1795 (there's not much new in the usage game). Alford believes that a statement of the same form as the Senator's is "plain colloquial English"; he finds a revised and entirely parallel construction "harsh and cramped." He quotes a snippet from Shakespeare's The Tempest: Having both the key Of officer and office, set all hearts i' th' state To what tune pleased his ear. The sensible conclusion would seem to be this: when transcribing speech, even indirectly, leave the rhythms and constructions of speech undisturbed. In writing discursive prose, you might do well to seek out parallel constructions. 4. Both of. Evans 1962 writes: "Many correspondents have timidly asked if it is permissible to say both of them and many more have roundly asserted that it is not permissible...." This issue seems to have been current before the turn of the century; Hall 1917 notes that a rhetorician named Quackenbos objected to it in an 1896 textbook. Utter 1916 found it acceptable: "No one, not even the most careful speaker, need avoid this phrase." But we have later books denouncing it as well as Dean Alford's muddled 1866 defense. The objection appears to have been centered in obscure and specious reasoning, to judge from Hall's epitome of Quackenbos, and the exact reasons were early discarded in favor of simple imperatives: • Say, "I saw them both," not "I saw both of them." — Frederic J. Haskin, The Word Book, no date (before 1934) Both of is just like all of (which see). The of after both can be omitted before a plural noun (although it need not be), but it must be kept before a pronoun in the objective case. Evans points out that the construction is as old as Shakespeare; it occurs 11 times in his plays, and in works of Christopher Marlowe and George Herbert as well. Evans also instances the King James Bible. This appears to have been a perfectly standard idiomatic construction all along that was fixed on by someone during the 19th century as a solecism. It is entirely blameless. • That was a new experience for both of us —Lewis Carroll, letter, 26 Jan. 1883 • Therefore she was equally concerned about both of them —James Stephens, The Crock of Gold, 1912 • It is only false if both of its terms are false —Robert W. Marks, The New Mathematics Dictionary and Handbook, 1964 • ... both of whom insisted —David A. Stockman, Newsweek, 28 Apr. 1986 • ... both of whom now dance the ballet more often —Arlene Croce, New Yorker, 4 Aug. 1986 5. The both. Correspondents more recent than Evans's have written to ask about the propriety of such expressions as the both of you which, they aver, are in constant use on television. The both has been occasionally sniped at in a few of the more obscure handbooks, such as Morrow's Word Finder (1927) and Whitford & Foster's American Standards of Writing (1937), but most commentators and handbooks do not notice it. Theodore Bernstein found an example for treatment in a 1969 Winners & Sinners: • Mr. Epstein has two choice offerings to himself, 'Mack the Knife' and 'September Song,' lovely the both of them, in the writing and the doing —N. Y. Times, 17 June 1969 As this seems a little more elegant than the usual review, Bernstein found fault with it, calling the both "catachres-tic"—an unusual and none too clear application of that sesquipedalianism, which is ordinarily applied to a word wrong for its context or to a forced figure of speech. Perrin & Ebbitt 1972, on the other hand, note that the both is a fairly common spoken idiom, usually avoided in writing. This observation may be reasonably accurate: we have no great deal of evidence for it in print. • He found it impossible to earn a living, and Alice's private income could not support the both of them —Andrew Raeburn, Boston Symphony Orchestra Program, 21 Oct. 1972 E. L. Doctorow puts it into the mouth of Emma Goldman in one of his novels: • You would sit across the dinner table from each other in bondage, in terrible bondage to what you thought was love. The both of you —Ragtime, 1975 All of our other evidence is from speech. The expression appears to be an Americanism, at least as far as we can tell from the evidence we now have. There is no reason you should avoid it if it is your normal idiom. 6. Possessive. A couple of dictionaries, Longman 1984 and Heritage 1982, mention the formation of the possessive with both. Evans 1957 notes that the 's genitive can be used but that the of genitive is more common: "the fault of both of us" being more common than either "both our faults" or "both's faults." 7. Both of more than two. Chaucer in The Knight's Tale has these lines: • O chaste goddesse of the wodes grene, To whom bothe hevene and erthe and see is sene. The lines were reprinted in more modern spelling in one of the editions of Richard Grant White's Words and Their Uses (apparently not the 1870 edition), and they appear to have upset him, because he says "it is impossible that the same word can mean two and three." Fitzedward Hall in Modern English (1873) solved the problem. White, he said, had befuddled himself by confounding the conjunction both with the pronoun both. Hall goes on to point out that the pronoun is not used of three, but the conjunction, which is used in much the same way as either, neither, and whether are, can be used of two or more. The OED shows examples from Chaucer's in 1386 to 1839. Vizetelly 1906 comments that the usage has been challenged but has abundant literary authority and antedates Chaucer. Here are three examples; all are in the OED, a couple in briefer form: • ... they answered that they would take better advice and so return again, both prelates, bishops, abbots, barons and knights —Lord Berners, translation of Froissart's Chronicles, 1523 • My dwelling is but melancholy. Both Williams and Desmoulins and myself, are very sickly —Samuel Johnson, letter, 2 Mar. 1782 • He prayeth well, who loveth well Both man and bird and beast—Samuel Taylor Coleridge, "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner," 1798 Our recent evidence for this construction is sparse. You might have thought Hall and Vizetelly had laid this question to rest, but no, Partridge 1942 complains about this line: • ... whilst still permitting her to give full run to minor eccentricities, both in speech, deed and dress —R. B. Cunninghame Graham, "Aunt Eleanor," 1914 Bernstein 1977 also insists on reference to two only. Neither Partridge nor Bernstein seems to have noticed the difference between conjunction and pronoun. The construction has reached at least to the middle of the 20th century: • ... is both a musician, an archaeologist, and an antiFascist —Cyril Connolly, Horizon, March 1946 |
| 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。