⊙ By Olivia Goldhill

翻譯：Portia

美式英語：為什么單詞總?cè)盪？

⊙ By Olivia Goldhill

翻譯：Portia

The Case of the Missing “U”s in American English

你學(xué)英語也有些年頭了，有沒有想過為什么英國人用labour而美國人用labor？還有honour與honor、colour與color，等等？過去人們都說這是因為美國人太“懶”，其實是另有原因。一起來探個究竟吧！

When my American editor asked me to research why Brits spell their words with so many extra “u”s, I immediately[馬上]knew he had it all wrong. As a British journalist, it’s perfectly obvious to me that we have the correct number of “u”s, and that American spelling has lost its vowels along the way.

“Color,” “honor,” and “favor” all look quite stubby[短而粗的]to me—they’re positively crying out to be adorned[被裝飾]with a few extra “u”s.

But it turns out that the “o(u)r” suffix[后綴]has quite a confused history. The Online Etymology[詞源]Dictionary reports that -our comes from old French while -or is Latin. English has used both endings for several centuries. Indeed, the first three folios[對開本]of Shakespeare’s plays reportedly used both spellings equally.

But by the late 18th and early 19th centuries, both the US and the UK started to solidify[鞏固]their preferences, and did so differently.

The US took a particularly strong stand[立場]thanks to Noah Webster, American lexicographer[詞典編纂者]and co-namesake[同名物]of the Merriam-Webster dictionaries. Webster was a language reformer and the creator of a dictionary in 1806 that attempted to rectify[糾正]some of the inconsistencies[矛盾之處]he observed in English spelling. He preferred to use the –or suffix and also suggested many other successful changes, such as reversing[倒轉(zhuǎn)]“re” to create “theater” and“center,” rather than “theatre” and “centre.”

However, other Webster proposals[建議], such as changing “tongue” to “tung,”“women” to “wimmen,” “island” to “iland,”and “thumb” to “thum” were finally rejected.

Meanwhile in the UK, Samuel Johnson wrote A Dictionary of the English Language in 1755. Johnson was far more of a spelling purist than Webster, and decided that in cases where the origin of the word was unclear, it was more likely to have a French than Latin root. “We have few Latin words, among the terms of domestic[本國的]use, which are not French,” wrote Johnson. And so he preferred –our to –or.

“I have endeavoured[盡力]to proceed[繼續(xù)]with a scholar’s reverence[敬重]for antiquity[古老的遺物], and a grammarian[文法家]’s regard to the genius[語言特征]of our tongue,”he wrote. As such, he “attempted few alterations[改變].”

So while the UK chose to preserve linguistic[語言學(xué)的]roots, the US opted[選擇]to modernize spelling. And if you’re wondering which country got it right, the answer is, well, neither. Language is constantly evolving, and the US and UK simply went their different linguistic ways.

參考譯文

當(dāng)美國編輯讓我研究一下為什么英國人拼寫的單詞有那么多額外的“u”時，我立刻意識到，他完全搞錯了。身為一名英國記者，我覺得事情再明顯不過了，那就是我們對u這個字母的使用恰如其分，而美國人的拼寫在演化過程中漸漸把這個元音字母給弄丟了。

在我看來，“color”“honor”和“favor”這些單詞的形態(tài)都十分短粗，它們迫切需要添幾個“u”進行修飾。

但事實上，“o(u)r”這個后綴的發(fā)展脈絡(luò)并不清晰。據(jù)“在線詞源詞典”稱，“-our”源自古法語，而“-or”源自拉丁語。英語使用這兩個后綴都已有幾百年歷史。實際上，據(jù)說在莎士比亞戲劇集的前三個對開版本中，這兩種拼寫出現(xiàn)的頻率是一樣的。

但在18世紀末至19世紀初期間，美國和英國都開始強化其語言偏好，并且努力方向并不相同。

因為美國詞典編纂者諾厄?韋伯斯特（《梅里厄姆-韋伯斯特》詞典就部分得名于他）的緣故，美國的立場尤其鮮明。韋伯斯特是一位語言改革家，他注意到英語中有拼寫不一致的情況，便嘗試在其編纂并于1806年出版的一本詞典中進行修正。韋伯斯特更喜歡使用“-or”這個后綴，還提出了許多其他被廣泛采納的建議，例如將“re”改為“er”，由此將“theatre”和“centre”分別變?yōu)椤皌heater”和“center”等。

但韋伯斯特的另一些建議最終并沒有被采納，例如將“tongue”改為“tung”，將“women”改為“wimmen”，將“island”改為“iland”，以及將“thumb”改為“thum”等。

與此同時，在英國，塞繆爾?約翰遜于1755年編纂了《英語詞典》。在追求拼寫的純正性方面，約翰遜的要求遠高于韋伯斯特。他認為，一個單詞在詞源不明的情況下，源于法語比源于拉丁語的可能性更大。約翰遜寫道：“就國內(nèi)使用的詞匯來說，源自拉丁語而不是法語的詞匯并不多?！彼?，他更喜歡使用“-our”這個后綴，而不是“-or”。

他曾寫道：“我努力以學(xué)者對古文字的敬畏和語法學(xué)家對我們語言特征的尊重來進行這項工作?！币虼耍氨M量不作改變”。

就這樣，英國選擇了保留語言的起源，美國則選擇了對拼寫進行現(xiàn)代化改造。如果你想知道哪個國家做得對，答案是，此事沒有對錯之分。語言在不斷演變，美國和英國只是選擇了不同的語言發(fā)展道路罷了。

相關(guān)鏈 接

英語our和美語or的常見單詞

armo(u)r behavior(u)r cando(u)r colo(u)r favor(u)r harbor(u)r hono(u)r humo(u)r labo(u)r neighbor(u)r rumo(u) splendor(u)r tumo(u)r