接上期：

譯者：finerain

To begin with it has nothing to do with archaism, with the salvaging of obsolete words and turns of speech, or with the setting up of a 'standard English' which must never be departed from. On the contrary, it is especially concerned with the scrapping of every word or idiom which has outworn its usefulness. It has nothing to do with correct grammar and syntax, which are of no importance so long as one makes one's meaning clear, or with the avoidance of Americanisms, or with having what is called a 'good prose style.' On the other hand, it is not concerned with fake simplicity and the attempt to make written English colloquial. Nor does it even imply in every case preferring the Saxon word to the Latin one, though it does imply using the fewest and shortest words that will cover one's meaning. What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around. In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them. When yo think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualizing you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning. Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. Afterward one can choose -- not simply accept -- the phrases that will best cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impressions one's words are likely to mak on another person. This last effort of the mind cuts out all stale or mixed images, all prefabricated phrases, needless repetitions, and humbug and vagueness generally. But one can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails. I think the following rules will cover most cases:

這與復(fù)古主義、拯救廢棄的詞語和用法，或是建立“標(biāo)準(zhǔn)英語”都毫不相干。相反，它主要想清理那些本身已經(jīng)被用濫了的詞語。這與正確的語法和句法、是否避免了美國英語的特殊用法或是擁有優(yōu)美的散文風(fēng)格都關(guān)涉甚少，并且，一旦人們能夠清晰的表達(dá)意義，語法句法本身就沒有太大的重要性。另一方面，這與虛假的簡單明了和力圖使書面英語口語化的工作也不相干。這也并非暗示在任何情況下都熱衷于撒克遜詞而非拉丁詞，即時它確實暗示了用最少、最小的詞語來表達(dá)人們的想法。如上所述，我們的全部工作僅只是由意選詞，而不是相反。在散文寫作中，最糟糕的事情無異于向文字繳械投降。當(dāng)你默默地思考一個具體的物體，并且，如果你想要描述出腦海中浮現(xiàn)的這個物體，或許你會冥思苦想，直到找到確切的詞語為止。而當(dāng)你思考一些抽象的事物時，一開始你就更傾向于就使用現(xiàn)成的詞語，除非你能有意識的阻止這個過程，否則現(xiàn)成的措辭就會一擁而入，替你完成由意選詞的工作，取而代之的，則是意義的含混不清甚至改變原意?；蛟S，人們應(yīng)該盡可能的不急于選詞，只要能用圖片或是感覺將意義表達(dá)清楚就行。從今以后，你應(yīng)該選擇——而不是簡單的接受——最能達(dá)意的詞語，將其相互調(diào)換、對比，并且應(yīng)當(dāng)考慮自己選用的詞會給別人造成什么印象。頭腦中最后的這道工序，能將所有陳腐的表述、混雜的意象、現(xiàn)成的詞語、不必要的重復(fù)、各式的花招謊言和模糊不清，從總體上得到削減。人們經(jīng)常會懷疑一個詞或是一個短語的效果，并且需要一些規(guī)則來遵守，以應(yīng)對本能控制失效的情況。我想下面的規(guī)則涵蓋了大部分的情況：

Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

1. 不要使用隱喻、明喻，以及其他你從報刊上看到的比喻手法。

Never us a long word where a short one will do.

2. 在能用小詞的地方絕不使用大詞。

If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

3. 如果可以剔除一個詞，剔除之。

Never use the passive where you can use the active.

4. 能用主動語態(tài)的不用被動語態(tài)。

Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

5. 如果你能從日常英語中找到合適的對應(yīng)的詞，絕不使用外國短語、科學(xué)詞語和一些專門的行話。

Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

6. 如果按規(guī)則會說出粗野的話，立即打破上述規(guī)則。

These rules sound elementary, and so they are, but they demand a deep change of attitude in anyone who has grown used to writing in the style now fashionable. One could keep all of them and still write bad English, but one could not write the kind of stuff that I quoted in those five specimens at the beginning of this article.

這些規(guī)則聽起來比較初級，他們確實如此，不過對于那些已經(jīng)習(xí)慣于風(fēng)靡當(dāng)下的寫作風(fēng)格的人來說，在態(tài)度上的確需要一場深刻的改變。你可以遵守這些規(guī)則，而糟糕的英語卻不改往日，但不應(yīng)該寫出我在本文最開始給出的五種樣本的文章。

I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. Stuart Chase and others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don't know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase -- some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse -- into the dustbin, where it belongs.

此處，我并非是在考慮語言的文雅用法，只是在考慮語言作為表情達(dá)意、且不隱瞞或是阻止思考的工具而已。司徒·蔡司（Stuart Chase）和其他一些人最近宣稱，所有抽象詞匯都是沒有意義的，并以此作為鼓吹一種沉默政治的借口。他們可能會說，既然你連法西斯主義是什么都不知道，反抗法西斯主義又從何談起呢？你大可不必輕信此種荒謬論調(diào)，但你應(yīng)該認(rèn)識到，當(dāng)下混亂的政治處境與語言的衰敗是緊密相連的，你很可能通過注重語言的使用而帶來一些改進(jìn)。如果你能將自己的英語簡明化，你將避免正統(tǒng)派最糟糕的錯誤。你不會講任何一種必需的方言，當(dāng)你做出一個愚蠢的評論時，甚至連你自己都會覺得它愚蠢的如此顯而易見。政治語言，以及他的各式變種，都企圖使謊言聽起來跟真的一樣，他不僅扼殺那些我們向來尊敬的東西，并且使可靠性成為完全空洞的修辭。一個人不能在瞬間改變這一切，但他至少可以改變自己的習(xí)慣，并且一次又一次地通過大聲的嘲笑，將那些過時的和沒用的短語，諸如some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno 之類，以及其他的語言垃圾，一起扔進(jìn)本就屬于他們的垃圾筒。