思考与写作theamericanscholar.org
把英语作为第二语言写作（2009）
Writing English as a Second Language (2009)
2010 — 2021，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这是 William Zinsser 写给把英语作为第二语言的写作者的写作指南：尽量用短句、常用词和直截了当的表达，避免为了显得正式而堆砌拉丁词源的抽象说法。文章通过改写例子说明清晰、简洁、简短的原则，也引出了关于词源规则是否可靠的讨论。
为什么经久不衰：它把可操作的清晰写作原则讲得直白，而“正式还是清楚”的争论跨语言长期有效，所以每隔几年仍会被重读讨论。
HN 评论精选
词源替换例子自相矛盾；判断用词应看现代用法、清晰、常用和简短，而非拉丁/盎格鲁来源。
有趣的是，在把“Prior to the implementation of the financial enhancement”改成“Before we fixed our money problems”这个例子里，用来替换的所谓坏拉丁词，又被另一些拉丁词替换了（fixed、money、problem 都有拉丁词根）。就连那份盎格鲁-撒克逊词清单里也赫然有个绝非盎格鲁-撒克逊的词（chair，经法语来自拉丁语）。关键不在词源，而在现代用法：表达同一概念时，选能精确传达意思、常用且能让句子更短的说法。所以我同意作者的原则，但不同意他的例子；我觉得全文三原则常被例子本身破坏，也许是有意，但读起来不像。
yorwba查看英文原文
It is amusing that in the example of replacing "Prior to the implementation of the financial enhancement.” by “Before we fixed our money problems.” the bad Latin words are replaced by other Latin words. ("fixed", "money", "problem" all have Latin roots.) Even the list of Anglo-Saxon words has a decidedly non-Anglo-Saxon word ("chair", via French from Latin). What matters is not the origin of a word, but its modern usage. When you consider alternative ways to express a concept, use the words that a. convey the intended meaning with the necessary precision (Clarity), b. are commonly used (Simplicity) and c. result in short sentences (Brevity). So I agree with the principles the author recommends, but I disagree with the examples. I find all three principles broken throughout the text, and although that might have been deliberate, it certainly doesn't feel like it.
清楚表达并非普遍标准；英语学术圈把“尽量易懂”当作贡献，反衬某些法语哲学对晦涩的崇拜。
还有法语！例如 John Searle 评论 Michel Foucault 时大意说：清楚、简洁、有条理、避免晦涩是四项方式准则，但有些哲学流派会系统性地违反它们。一位法国哲学家朋友曾说，如果他写得像 Searle 一样清楚，巴黎人就不会认真对待，会觉得幼稚天真；在法国得有点不可理解，别人才觉得深。我认为英语学术圈的一大贡献，就是主张尽量让人容易理解。
vilhelm_s查看英文原文
And French! E.g. John Searle's comment on Michel Focault, > 'Don't be ambiguous', 'don't be too wordy, be brief', 'be orderly' and 'avoid obscurity' are the four Maxim's of manner. And I think those are frequently violated. In fact, there are certain schools of philosophy---not once I'm sympathetic with---where they are more or less systematically violated. I don't know if I've told you this story but I once had a conversation with a famous French philosopher who's a friend of mine and I said to him "Why the hell do you write so badly, pourquoi écris-tu si mal", and he said, "Look, if I wrote as clearly as you do people in Paris wouldn't take me seriously. You know, they would think it's childlike and naive." [...] In France you got to have 10% incomprehensible otherwise people won't think it's deep. (http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/jean_searle_on_foucault_and_the_obscurantism_in_french_philosophy.html) I think this is one of the great contributions of the anglophone academic sphere, the idea that you should try to aim to be easy to understand.
不同语言修辞习惯不同；英语写作倾向直接，逐字直译葡语式客套会显得古怪。
朋友曾让我翻译他写给美国公司关于设备维护的信。我很快意识到葡语和英语的主要差别：葡语爱绕圈子，英语直奔主题。如果逐字翻译，开头会像：“尊敬的先生：我谨通过此信，向您告知我所购设备所遭遇之缺陷……”听起来有点中世纪。
forinti查看英文原文
A friend once asked me to translate a letter he had written to a US company about some equipment of his that needed maintenance. I quickly realized the main difference between Portuguese and English: in Portuguese, you write in a very roundabout way and in English you are straight to the point. So, if I had translated that letter word by word, it would go something like this: Dear Sir, I bring to you, by way of this letter, knowledge of the defects that have befallen the equipment I purchased in... Sounds a bit medieval.
把写作等同于口语会忽略文体和词语的微妙语气；用词选择本身携带风格暗示。
“不要在写作中说任何你在对话中不会自然说出的话。写作是在纸上或屏幕上跟别人说话。”这话固然对，但是不是忽略了文体等概念？每个词不都有自己的味道，可能微妙地暗示什么吗？比如强调 individual 一词，可能突出个体性（也许我对英语判断不对，但在我的母语里确实如此）。
drdaeman查看英文原文
> Don’t say anything in writing that you wouldn’t comfortably say in conversation. Writing is talking to someone else on paper or on a screen. While true, doesn't this ignore the concept of styles and related stuff? And doesn't every word has its own distinct flavor, that may subtly imply something? Like saying "individual" with a certain emphasis on the word, may put some stress on the aspect of individuality (maybe I'm wrong about English, but it surely works like this in my native language).
历次讨论
同类还值得读
保持你的身份认同足够小
Keep Your Identity Small (2009)
Paul Graham 2009 年的一篇短文：人一旦把某个话题当成自己身份的一部分（宗教、政治、编程语言皆然），讨论就会退化成站队和争吵，因为此时争论的不再是事实，而是"我是谁…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021paulgraham.com编辑精选苏格拉底式教学法：通过提问而非讲授来教学
The Socratic Method: Teaching by Asking Instead of by Telling
记录了作者用纯提问的方式，引导一群小学生从零推导出二进制计数法的课堂实验，展示了苏格拉底式教学法的惊人效果。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022garlikov.com你不能说的话
What You Can't Say (2004)
Paul Graham 2004 年的经典文章，探讨那些因道德时尚而不能公开说出的观点。
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2014–2022paulgraham.com编辑精选龙暴君的寓言（2005）
The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant (2005)
哲学家 Nick Bostrom 于 2005 年写的一则寓言：一条每天吞噬数千人的巨龙（隐喻死亡与衰老）长期被人类当作不可抗拒的自然规律接受，直到有人提出并最终用导弹将其杀死，…
思考与写作上首页 5 次 · 2009–2021nickbostrom.com编辑精选现实有着惊人的细节量
Reality has a surprising amount of detail (2017)
2017 年的博文指出，现实远比我们以为的充满细节：我们习惯用简化的心智模型看世界，直到真正动手做事（比如作者举的造楼梯例子）才发现处处是未曾预料的细节。
思考与写作上首页 4 次 · 2018–2025johnsalvatier.org编辑精选