Tense webinar 參加者對「現實」vs.「語言」的啟發 💡

A recent joiner of our free “Tense Webinar” wrote to me to say that, more than anything else, the insight he appreciated the most from the webinar was that the same “event” in reality can be expressed in different ways grammatically, depending on what we want to express.

Like many other native Chinese speakers learning the different tense forms of English finite verbs, he had previously thought that each situation in “reality” has one “fixed tense form” that it must be expressed in in order to be “grammatically correct.”

Many students are trapped in this type of narrow prescriptive thinking about different aspects of English grammar, including tense, which, in my view, harms systematic learning.

If we could learn to step back and think about language from a broader, more systematic perspective, we would quickly realize -- even intuitively -- that it can’t be the case that each situation in “reality” has a corresponding “fixed” tense form.

Language is a way for us to “represent” reality verbally -- it is not reality itself. No matter what language it is, how we choose to express “reality” just depends on the our intended meaning and choice of emphasis in a particular context.

The material difference between different languages is only that different languages have different grammatical strategies for expressing those “intended meanings and choices of emphasis regarding reality.”

For example, let’s say the “reality” we are dealing with is “you ate ice-cream at 8pm yesterday.” This is just a fact in reality.

Depending on what you want to express about this “event in reality” right now, you might add different grammatical words to the verb “食.”

For example, if someone found a wrapper in your trash and questioned you now about the “fact” of this event, you might say:

A：你琴日食雪糕啊?

B：噢，係呀，我琴日食雪糕

You might just answer with the form “我琴日食雪糕” -- which expresses this event as a fact that happened.

But, say, if someone asked you if you want ice-cream now, and you don’t because you already had it yesterday, you might say:

A：而家有雪糕，你食唔食？

B：唔食喇，我琴日食咗雪糕喇

You might choose to say “食咗” instead. By adding the grammatical word “咗,” which emphasizes a completed event, you would express that since you just completed this action not longer ago, you don’t wish to do it again so soon.

One more scenario to make the point even clearer: If someone asked you what you were doing last night, you might say:

A：你琴日夜晚 8 點做緊乜？

B：我喺度食緊雪糕

In this context, to express your emphasis on your ongoing action of eating ice-cream at the time, you might say “食緊雪糕,” adding the grammatical word “緊” to indicate continuity.

The point is that we are talking about the same “reality” here, but, depending on what we need to express in a particular context, we would choose to express it differently.

In Chinese, these different points of emphasis regarding the action of eating ice-cream happen to be expressed by grammatical words like “咗” and “緊” (or none), etc.

Do you see how it would be quite unreasonable to tell a foreigner learning Cantonese that, because he/she ate ice-cream yesterday at 8pm, he/she “must” say “食咗雪糕” (or whatever it is), because every scenario in reality has a “fixed” way of being expressed?

It is the same idea in any language, including English. The only difference is that another language would have another grammatical strategy for expressing these different emphases.

Cantonese uses the addition of grammatical words (which is generally considered a relatively “simple” system in this regard); English uses changing finite verb forms that reflect different tenses (times of action) and aspects (states of action).

The grammatical strategies differ, but the fact that “reality” is expressed in different ways depending on what we mean and want to emphasize is the same.

For example, in English, we can also express the same “reality” of eating ice-cream yesterday with different tense and aspect forms.

If someone found the wrapper in the trash and questioned you about it, you might say:

A: Did you have ice-cream yesterday?

B: Yes, I had ice-cream yesterday. (Or: Yes, I did.)

The past tense, simple aspect finite verb form “had” emphasizes the “fact” that this action took place.

But, if someone offered you ice-cream, but you don’t want it because you are on a new diet and you want to limit yourself to one ice-cream a week, you might say:

A: Do you want ice-cream?

B: I have already had ice-cream this week, so no thanks.

The present tense, perfect aspect finite verb form “have had” emphasizes the “completed” nature of the action, which fits here because you want to express that this action has been completed this week and should not happen again so soon.

One more example: If someone asked you what you were doing at 8pm last night, you would probably say:

A: What were you doing at 8 last night?

B: I was having ice-cream.

The past tense, progressive aspect finite verb form “was having” emphasizes the ongoing action, which is fitting for the intended meaning in this context.

So try to step back and understand this point. No matter what language we are speaking, we are always just expressing events in reality in a way that reflects our intended emphases and communicative purposes in a particular context.

The difference between different languages is just that they have different grammatical strategies for expressing these intended meanings and emphases.

So, what you have to do when you learn about different tense forms in English is what each one allows you to express and emphasize about reality -- not which one is “fixed” to which reality.

If you want to understand English grammar more systematically and build a structural framework for more effective learning, check out our foundational course “Core Concepts of English.”

Join before March 31 with the code MARCH15 for a special exclusive discount for subscribers. 💯

---

最近一位加入了我們免費「Tense Webinar」的訂閱者寄 email 給我，說在整個免費課程裡，最令他有啟發的一點，是他終於明白：現實中的同一個「動作」，其實會因為我們要表達的意思不同，而以不同的文法方式表達出來。

和很多其他正在學習英文各種 tense 限定動詞字形的中文母語人士一樣，他以前一直以為：現實中的每一種情況，都有一個對應的、固定的 tense 字形；只要不是那個字形，句子就會是錯。

很多學生在英文文法的不同範疇上 —— 包括 tense 時態 —— 都被這種很狹窄、很規條式的想法困住了；而在我看來，這其實很妨礙系統性的思考和學習。

如果我們能學會退後一步，用一個更宏觀、更有系統的角度去看語言，我們很快就會明白 —— 甚至直覺上也會感覺到 —— 現實中的每一種情況，不可能都各自對應一個「固定」的時態字形。

語言是我們「呈現」現實的一種方式；語言本身不是現實。無論是哪一種語言，我們怎樣去表達「現實」，都只是取決於：在某個具體語境裡，我們想表達甚麼意思，以及我們想把重點放在哪裡。

不同語言之間真正有分別的地方，只是：不同語言會用不同的文法方式，去表達這些「關於現實的意思」和「對現實不同部分的強調重點」。

例如，假設我們面對的「現實」是：你昨天晚上八點吃了雪糕。

但視乎你現在想就這個「現實中的動作」用廣東話表達甚麼，你可能會在動詞「食」後面加上不同的文法字。

例如，如果有人在垃圾桶裡看到雪糕包裝紙，於是現在質問你這件事，你可能會說：

A：你琴日食雪糕啊？

B：噢，係呀，我琴日食雪糕。

你可能只是回答「食雪糕」這個形式 —— 把這個動作強調成發生了的事實。

但如果現在有人問你要不要吃雪糕，而你不想，因為你昨天已經吃過了，你可能會說：

A：而家有雪糕，你食唔食？

B：唔食喇，我琴日食咗雪糕喇。

這時你就可能會選擇說「食咗」。加上文法字「咗」之後，你強調的是這個動作已經完成；而這樣的表達很適合這個語境，因為你想表達的是：自己不久之前才剛完成了這個動作，所以現在不想那麼快又再做一次。

再舉一個情境，令這個重點更清楚：如果有人問你昨天晚上八點正在做甚麼，你可能會說：

A：你琴日夜晚八點做緊乜？

B：我喺度食緊雪糕。

在這個語境裡，如果你想強調的是當時那個正在進行中的吃雪糕動作，你就可能會說「食緊雪糕」，加上文法字「緊」表達持續性。

重點是：我們這裡說的，其實是同一個「現實」，但因為在不同語境裡我們需要表達的意思不同，所以我們會選擇用不同的方式去表達它。

在廣東話裡，這些對「吃雪糕」這個動作的不同強調重點，剛好是透過像「咗」、「緊」這類文法字（或者甚麼也不加）去表達的。

你可以想像一下：如果有人對一個學廣東話的外國人說，因為你昨天晚上八點吃了雪糕，所以你「一定要」說「食咗雪糕」之類 —— 因為現實中的每一種情況都有一個「固定」的表達方式 —— 這樣的說法是不是很不合理？

任何語言其實都是同一個道理，英文也一樣。分別只在於：另一種語言會有另一套文法方式，去表達這些不同的強調重點。

廣東話是靠加上文法字去表達（而這方面一般都被視為一個相對「簡單」的系統）；英文則是靠改變限定動詞字形，去反映不同的tense 時態（動作時間）和 aspect 體貌（動作狀態）。

文法策略可以不同，但那重點是一樣的：現實中的動作，會因為我們想表達甚麼意思、想強調甚麼，而被以不同方式表達出來。

例如，在英文裡，我們也一樣會以不同的時態和體貌字形，去表達同一個「昨天吃雪糕」的現實。

如果有人在垃圾桶裡看到包裝紙，然後質問你，你可能會說：

A: Did you have ice cream yesterday?

B: Yes, I had ice cream yesterday.（或者：Yes, I did.）

這裡的 past tense、simple aspect 限定動詞字形 「had」，強調的是：這個動作曾經發生過這個「事實」。

但如果有人請你食雪糕，而你不想，因為你最近開始節食，想限制自己一星期只食一次雪糕，你就可能會說：

A: Do you want ice cream?

B: I have already had ice cream this week, so no thanks.

這裡的 present tense、perfect aspect 限定動詞字形 「have had」，強調的是這個動作的「已完成」性；這個字形在這個語境裡很合適，因為你想表達的是：這個動作今個星期已經完成了，所以不應該那麼快又再發生一次。

再舉例：如果有人問你昨天晚上八點正在做甚麼，你應會說：

A: What were you doing at 8 last night?

B: I was having ice cream.

這裡的 past tense、progressive aspect 限定動詞字形 「was having」，強調的是那個正在進行中的動作；這種表達很適合這個語境裡你想表達的意思。

所以，大家要退後一步去理解這個重點。無論我們說的是哪一種語言，我們其實都只是在用不同的、能反映特定語境中「想表達的重點」和「溝通目的」的方式，去表達現實中的動作。

不同語言之間的分別，只是它們各自有不同的文法策略，去表達這些意思和重點。

所以，當你學英文不同的時態字形時，你真正要理解的，不是「哪一個時態固定對應哪一種現實」，而是：每一個字形各自容許你就現實表達甚麼、強調甚麼。

如果你想更有系統地理解英文文法，並建立一個更清晰的結構框架去令往後的學習更有效率，可以參考我們的基礎課程《Core Concepts of English》。

在 3 月 31 日之前加入，並使用優惠碼 MARCH15，就可以享有訂閱者專屬特別優惠。💯

英文非正式書寫中標點符號用法習慣和語氣表達的有趣差別 📱👵🏻👧🏻

When I was on the New York Times Learning Network recently--I often go there to look for ideas for non-grammar-related topics to write about in these emails--I came across this article about punctuation use in English texts and the differences in habit between people of different demographic groups, like old people vs. young people, middle-aged people (so-called “Millennials”) vs. teenagers, young men vs. young women etc.

Some examples mentioned in this humorous article include how older people often end texts with periods (full stops) -- and this is often ridiculed by younger people as overly formal and terse, how Millennials (roughly people in their 30s and 40s, like me) often end texts with an emoji or a “lol” (the internet-abbreviated form of the expression “laugh out loud”) to soften their tone, and how some people have the tendency to “overuse” exclamation points in texts in an attempt to convey their enthusiasm, only to have the intended tone backfire on them, haha.

This discussion of how conversational tone is conveyed through punctuation use in informal writing has been very interesting to me ever since I read the fascinating book “Because Internet” by the linguist Gretchen McCulloch.

(The title “Because Internet” is itself interesting—you all know that “because” is, in systematic English grammar, a subordinating conjunction that links a complete clause. However, in internet language and memes, there is a kind of intentionally “funny” grammatical change where people deliberately violate the grammatical role of “because” by putting a noun phrase after it, as if to express that that reason is exceedingly obvious and does not necessitate a full clause for elaboration. The book title imitates this internet usage by putting the noun “internet” after “because.”)

This book came out during the pandemic and became a bestselling “pop Linguistics” book. You might have heard of the term “pop science book” before -- the term refers to a genre of non-fiction that is about scientific topics but is written for the general public without background knowledge in that area. “Pop” stands for “popular.”

In the same way, a “pop (popular) Linguistics” book is a book that is about a Linguistics topic but is written for the general public. You can see why this book appealed to me! Haha. There are usually not many of these on bestseller lists.

Anyway, the book is about the interesting linguistic changes in English since the advent of the internet and a new genre of writing -- “informal writing” that imitates speech and conversational tone-- became its own thing.

As the book points out, prior to the internet, texting, and emails, “writing” was by definition always “formal,” because there were no media for “informal writing” that imitated speech. Even personal letters were treated as pieces of formal writing.

Since texting became a new technology, however, “informal writing” has evolved as a completely separate register of writing, one whose purpose is to imitate speech and to capture the tones, emotions, and subtleties that we normally convey through non-verbal signifiers in conversation, like intonation, facial expression, body language, etc.

Because of this, we needed to find a way in informal writing to convey conversational tone, and punctuation use became one of the main tools to do this in place of intonation and other non-verbal cues.

I won’t repeat all the points in the book, obviously, since I read it long ago and can’t remember everything anyway, but reading the recent article in the New York Times made me think of it again.

Specifically, it reminded me of how the book pointed out that the reason why many older people end texts with ellipses (“...”) is because, prior to texting, the closest thing to “informal writing” that existed was postcard writing.

Because postcards have limited physical space, it was a punctuation convention in postcard writing to put ellipses (“...”) after sentences to convey a sense that there is more to say, only no space.

As such, when older people started texting, they carried this punctuation convention from postcard writing -- their closest prior experience to informal writing -- to texts.

I thought that was fascinating! It explained why so many of my older bosses when I was younger did this in texts. Haha.

This deeply-researched book also explains many other linguistic changes and phenomena (like emojis!) regarding informal writing with explanations that non-linguists can easily understand. I highly recommend it if you are looking for a reading challenge!

If you want to learn more about how to apply Linguistics concepts to your English learning:

---

最近我在瀏覽《紐約時報》Learning Network 的網站時——我經常去那裡找一些與文法無關、可以在較輕鬆的電郵裡寫的題材——看到一篇關於英文短訊和電郵中標點符號使用、以及不同族群（例如年長人士 vs 年輕人士、三四十歲的「千禧世代」人士 vs 青少年、年輕男性 vs 年輕女性等）之間使用習慣差異的文章。

這篇幽默的文章舉了幾個例子，如：年長者經常在短訊結尾加上句號——而這常常被年輕人嘲笑為太正式、太冷硬；又例如千禧世代（大概三、四十歲的人，像我）經常在訊息最後加上一個 emoji 或「lol」（「laugh out loud」的網絡縮寫）來柔化語氣；還有一些人喜歡在訊息裡「過度使用」驚嘆號，試圖表達熱情，但往往反而造成反效果，哈哈。

自從我幾年前讀過語言學家 Gretchen McCulloch 那非常有趣的書《Because Internet》之後，就一直對「在非正式寫作裡，標點符號怎樣傳達對話語氣」這件事特別有興趣。

（《Because Internet》這書名已很有趣--「Because」大家知道本在英文文法中是一個連接完整子句的附屬連接詞，但是，在網絡用語和迷因 memes 中，有一種為了「搞笑」的文法變化，是故意違反「because」的文法角色，在它後面加一個名詞組，如「internet」，去表達「就是因為這原因，不用再以一個子句去解釋了，已經很明顯了」這情感。這書名就是模仿了這個故意違反「because」的文法角色的網絡語言。）

這本書是在疫情期間出版的，並成為一本非常暢銷的「流行語言學（pop Linguistics）」書。你可能聽過「pop science book（科普書）」這個詞——指的是以科學主題為內容，但寫給一般大眾閱讀的非小說類書籍。「Pop」就是「popular（大眾化）」的意思。

同樣地，「pop（popular） Linguistics」書就是講語言學主題、但寫給一般讀者看的書。你應該可以想像為什麼這本書那麼吸引我！哈哈。這類書在暢銷書榜上其實不多見。

總之，這本書談的是自從互聯網出現後，英文的各種有趣變化，尤其是一種新的書寫風格——「模仿口語的非正式書寫」——如何逐漸變成獨立的文體。

正如書中指出，在互聯網、短訊和電郵出現之前，「書寫」本身一定是「正式」的，因為那時根本沒有任何模仿口語的「非正式書寫」媒介。就算是私人信件也是正式書寫。

但隨著短訊技術的出現，「非正式書寫」演變成一種完全獨立的寫作類型，其目的是模仿口語溝通，捕捉我們在對話中依靠「非語言」訊號（如語調、表情、肢體語言等）來傳達的語氣、情感與意思上的細微差別。

正因為如此，我們在非正式書寫中也必須找到「書面」的方法來傳達口語語氣，而標點符號就成為替代語調和其他非語言線索的主要工具之一。

我當然不會在這裡細講書中的所有內容，畢竟我很久以前讀完，也不太記得全部細節了，但最近讀到《紐約時報》的這篇文章，又讓我想起那本書。

特別是，它讓我想起書中提過的一點：為什麼很多年長者在短訊裡習慣用刪節號（「…」）結尾——因為在短訊出現之前，他們唯一接觸過最接近「非正式書寫」的形式，就是明信片。

由於明信片空間有限，當時的書寫慣例是在句子後加上刪節號（「…」），表示「還有話沒說完，但沒空間了」。

因此，當年長者開始使用短訊時，他們就把這種從明信片寫作延續下來的標點習慣——也是他們過去唯一接觸過的「非正式書寫」模式——帶入了短訊中。

我覺得超有趣！這完全解釋了為什麼我年輕時的一些年長上司在傳訊息時常常這樣做！

這本研究非常深入的書還解釋了許多與非正式寫作相關的語言變化與現象（包括 emoji 😁），並以一般人容易理解的方式呈現。我非常推薦這本書——如果你想挑戰一下自己的英文閱讀的話！

如果你想了解怎樣把語言學知識融入英文學習中：

Happy Hump Day! 🐪

In English internet slang, “Hump Day” refers to Wednesday -- because Wednesday is the middle of the week, and, past this mid-week “hump,” you are closer to the end of the work week.

Let’s just take it easy this “Hump Day” and look at this expression.

A “hump” is a noun that means a raised mound or bump. It usually refers to bumps (like traffic bumps) on the road or to the raised parts on a camel’s back.

In this slang term “Hump Day,” “hump” refers to the hump on a camel’s back. The imagery is that starting the work week on Monday is like going up the hump, and Wednesday is like the top of the hump. Once you are past this “Wednesday hump” in the middle, you go back down, and it is downhill smooth sailing until the end of the work week, onto the long-awaited weekend.

Well, the funny thing to me about this expression and the imagery it evokes is that only the “Dromedary” type of camel works. 😆

I don’t know if you know this, but there are two main types of camels in the world. In English, these two types are called “Dromedary” camels and “Bactrian” camels. These are relatively commonly known terms in English rather than super obscure scientific terms.

“Dromedaries” have one hump and live in hot deserts, whereas “Bactrians” have two humps and live in cold deserts.

Well, the expression “Hump Day” only works with “Dromedaries.” If we were talking about “Bactrians,” with two humps, the imagery would kind of be reverse, because Wednesday would be at the trough between the two humps, haha. 😆

The majority of the world’s camels are “Dromedaries” -- perhaps that’s why the expression draws on them.

But, at least to people living in Asia like us, we often also default to thinking about Bactrian camels because they live in Central Asia (like in Mongolia) and are so close to our imagination.

Anyway, don’t be confused by the expression “Hump Day” -- it only works with one-humped camels. 😆🐪

Start building your vocabulary web systematically here:

---

Happy Hump Day! 🐪

在英文網絡用語裡，“Hump Day” 指星期三 —— 因為星期三正好在工作週的中間，而過了這個「週中駝峰」，就更接近週末了。

我們今個 Hump Day 就輕鬆一點，來看看這個 expression。

英文字 “hump” 是名詞，意思是「隆起的小土丘或凸起」。它通常指馬路上的減速丘，或者駱駝背上的那個隆起的駝峰。

在這個 expression “Hump Day” 中，「hump」指的是駱駝背上的駝峰。想像一下：星期一開始上班就像在往駝峰的坡往上爬，星期三就像到達駝峰的頂端。過了星期三這個「駝峰」，就一路往下、越來越靠近週末。

不過，這個表達方式在想像上有個好笑的地方 —— 它只適用於「單峰駱駝」(Dromedary camels)。😆

我不知道你是否知道，世界上主要有兩種駱駝。

在英文，它們的名稱是：Dromedary camels（單峰駱駝）和 Bactrian camels（雙峰駱駝）。

這兩個字在英文裡算是常見的名稱，不是那種非常專業的科學詞。

單峰駱駝 (Dromedary camels) 住在熱沙漠，有一個駝峰；而雙峰駱駝 (Bactrian camels) 則住在冷沙漠，有兩個駝峰。

但你想想 —— “Hump Day” 的意象只適用於單峰駱駝。

如果套在雙峰駱駝身上，用兩個駝峰來比喻星期三，那星期三反而是兩個駝峰中間的「谷底」，整個比喻完全反轉了，哈哈。😆

世界上大多數的駱駝其實是單峰駱駝 —— 或許這就是為什麼這個expression 會以它們為基礎。

但對我們住在亞洲的人來說，腦海裡容易浮現的反而是雙峰駱駝，因為它們生活在中亞（例如蒙古），離我們的想像更近。

總之，看到 “Hump Day” 不要困惑 —— 那個意象只是關於長著一個駝峰的駱駝。😆🐪

如果你喜歡這種把英文生字背後的意象、聯想、和意思網絡串連起來的方式 ——

可以看看我的《Boost Your Vocabulary》課程。

我們會用更多這類有趣但脈絡清晰的方法，讓你更有系統地建立自己的英文生字網絡：

你試過聯絡作者嗎？✍🏻💻

I just want to share something random today (but still tangentially related to learning, of course 😄).

I have shared many times before that I read a lot, and getting an e-reader (my first!) early last year really supercharged my reading habit even more. That’s why I picked the e-reader I use as the lucky draw prize for this Chinese New Year sale, haha. (If you are in the lucky draw - good luck! 🌸)

After reading a book that I really like, I often try to contact the author and tell her/him about what I think of the book and what delighted or inspired me in particular. Have you ever done that?

Book authors are often very happy to receive messages from their readers. This is especially true with authors of non-fiction books, many of whom are journalists or academics. (Novelists or fiction writers, on the other hand, if they are literary stars of any fame, can of course be as “out of reach” as other celebrities, haha).

Non-fiction writers usually write books on a topic because they really care about it and want more people to learn about it, so they are often very open to sharing more when contacted.

I wrote in the email on January 30th that I was reading an interesting book about “rogue archaelogists” -- or people trained in archaeology who try to recreate the actual lived experiences of ancient people through unconventional experimentation (like making a tattoo on themselves with ancient tools).

This book (called “Dinner with King Tut”) is by a science writer called Sam Kean. In the acknowledgements section at the end of the book, he mentioned specifically that he really appreciates readers reaching out to him for any reason -- so I did!

I wrote to him about the fact that I have a folder in my phone’s album called “LOL moments from reading” and that I saved multiple things from his book in it. (In this album, I save screenshots of lines from books or articles that made me really laugh out loud, literally, when I was reading.)

I also told him that I learnt a lot of interesting things from the book.

For example, one of the chapters was about eunuchs in ancient China. We are all of course familiar with eunuchs in Chinese history and literature (and media), but did you know that eunuchs were particularly tall because their lack of testosterone meant that their growth plates did not fuse together at the end of puberty like in other men? I never knew that, but that makes sense, because eunuchs are so often portrayed as formidable in appearance.

He replied with a lot of new insight about different parts of the book and suggested other related reading material to me, so it ended up being a fun and insightful exchange.

If you are a reader and haven’t tried reaching out to authors before, I really recommend it. 💻

Ms. Charlotte

---

今天想跟大家分享輕鬆點的（但還是和學習多少有點關係 😄）。

我之前分享過很多次，我平時看很多書，而去年年初買了我人生第一部電子閱讀器之後，我的閱讀習慣又被推上了一個新高度。所以這次農曆新年的優惠活動裡，我才會把我自己正在用的這款電子閱讀器選作抽獎禮物，哈哈。

（如果你有參加抽獎 —— 祝你好運！🌸）

每次讀完一本我很喜歡的書，我常常會主動去聯絡作者，告訴他／她我對這本書的想法，以及哪些地方特別啟發或打動了我。你們有試過這樣做嗎？

其實，作者通常都很樂意收到讀者的訊息。非小說類作家尤其如此，因為很多作者本身是記者或學者。（小說作者或文學作家如果稍微有名氣，就可能像其他名人一樣比較「離地」，哈哈。）

非小說類作家往往是因為非常關心某個主題、希望更多人了解，才會寫書，所以當讀者主動聯絡，他們通常都非常願意分享更多。

我在 1 月 30 日的電郵裡提過，我最近在讀一本很有趣的書，講的是「反正統考古學家」（rogue archaeologists）—— 也就是那些受過考古訓練，但會用非常特別的實驗去重建古人真實生活經驗的學者（例如用古代工具和方法在自己身上刺青）。

這本書叫《Dinner with King Tut》，作者是科學寫作者 Sam Kean。他在書末的致謝裡特別寫到，他非常歡迎讀者因任何原因寫信給他 —— 所以我就寫了！

我告訴他，我手機相簿裡有一個文件夾叫「LOL moments from reading」，裡面存的是我讀書時看到、會讓我真的在當下笑出聲的句子，而他的書就貢獻了好幾張截圖。（LOL 是「laugh out loud」，即「笑出聲」，的網絡用語。）

我也跟他分享，我從這本書裡學到很多有趣的事。

例如，其中一章講到中國古代的太監。我們對太監的歷史與文化形象當然十分熟悉，但你知道嗎 —— 太監通常都特別高，因為缺乏睪固酮會讓他們在青春期結束時，骨骼生長板不像普通男性那樣會及時閉合。我以前完全不知道這點，但仔細想想就很合理，因為太監在文學或影視裡經常被描繪成氣勢很強大的人物。

他回信給我時，分享了更多書裡不同部分的延伸背景，也推薦了其他相關的閱讀材料，結果整個交流變得既有趣又很長知識。

如果你平時也愛讀書，但還沒試過主動聯絡作者，我真的非常推薦你試試看。💻

Ms. Charlotte

NYT 每日一字：benevolent 🧚🏻‍♀️

Let’s look at another “Word of the Day” from the New York Times Learning Network together today. These articles really are fun bite-sized vocabulary learning resources.

You can really learn a lot from just a few minutes a week of actively engaging with these articles, especially if you know how to make meaningful connections between words in the way we discuss in our “Boost Your Vocabulary” course.

From the most recent articles (it’s a word of the “day,” so there is a fresh daily article -- you should check them out yourself), I picked this word for today: “benevolent.”

I think “benevolent” is a good anchor word to have in your mental vocabulary web (if you don’t already know it) because it has a Latinate root “bene-,” meaning “good,” which crops up in a lot of common English words today.

Remember from a recent email I wrote about learning “fixed expressions” that, even when we are learning groups of words that express a fixed meaning as a whole unit, we need to be cognizant of their structural characteristics in order to express meaning with them accurately.

This of course applies to individual words as well. We should always approach vocabulary learning systematically and not just memorize words without analyzing and consolidating them in our overall grammatical framework. Doing so is the only way for us to really internalize how to express meaning with old and new words structurally accurately, in real phrases or sentences.

So, the word “benevolent” -- what is its structural characteristics? We can just take the example sentence quoted in the article and analyze it simply:

Thanks in large part to this group of Gen Z stars, the nostalgic specter of Spears seemed to hover over the pop world this year like a glittering, benevolent fairy godmother.

（在這群 Z 世代明星的很大程度推動下，今年流行樂壇上似乎一直籠罩著 Spears 那種帶著懷舊氣息的身影，就像一位閃閃發光、仁慈的仙女教母般盤旋其上）

The simplest analysis of this sentence reveals to us that the word “benevolent” is inside the noun phrase “a glittering, benevolent fairy godmother,” acting as an adjective to “fairy godmother.” So, “benevolent” is a single-word adjective meaning “wanting to do good.” Its structural role is to modify nouns.

From this, we can immediately make the connection that, for example, the “-ent” ending is a common adjective ending in English words. If you can quickly think of other adjectives you know that have this ending, it would be helpful to recall them and make a connection at this point -- for example, “different,” “recent,” “excellent,” etc.

Now, let’s move on to the word meaning. Like I mentioned above, “bene-” is a Latinate word root meaning “good” that is found in many English words, so there are many etymological and also semantic connections with other “bene-” words that we can make.

For example, the noun “benefit” easily comes to mind as a common word that you probably know already. “Benefit” of course means “something good” or an “advantage.”

From “benefit,” you might think of “beneficial,” another common adjective which means “resulting in something good” or “having a good effect.”

You can go further if you know other “bene-” words, of course, but even if you just made the simplest connections that immediately spring to mind, you can already firmly anchor this word “benevolent” (meaning “willing to do good” or “well-intentioned”) in your mental vocabulary web.

Making these connections not only helps with consolidating these words in your mental web -- it helps you learn new words with “bene-” that have meanings related to “good” in the future also.

If you want to know more about learning and expanding your English vocabulary systematically, you can always check out our “Boost Your Vocabulary” course:

今天又和大家一起看看另一個《New York Times Learning Network》的 Word of the Day。這些文章短短一篇，但確實是很不錯的詞彙學習資源。

如果你每星期花幾分鐘主動閱讀這樣的免費資源，並且懂得像我們在《Boost Your Vocabulary》課程中所講的那樣，把生字放進一個有系統的詞彙網絡去理解，其實可以學到很多。

在最近的篇章中，我選了這個字今天跟大家談：「benevolent」。（這些文章是每天都有更新的，因為是「Word of the Day」—— 你可以自己去看看）

「Benevolent」這個字值得放進你的詞彙網絡作「anchor」（錨點)。原因很簡單：它帶有拉丁字源字根「bene-」（意思是「好」），而這個字根出現在大量常見英文單字中。

在之前談「學習固定表達方式」的電郵裡我提到：即使是在學習一整組表達固定意思的組合，也必須清楚當中各部分的結構角色和特徵，才能準確地以它們表達意思。

同樣道理也要應用到單字學習中；若只背單字意思，而不把它們放在整體文法框架裡分析和理解，就無法真正在真實詞組或句子中結構正確地以它們表達意思。

那麼「benevolent」的結構特徵是甚麼？我們直接簡單分析文章中的例句即可：

Thanks in large part to this group of Gen Z stars, the nostalgic specter of Britney Spears seemed to hover over the pop world this year like a glittering, benevolent fairy godmother.

（在這群 Z 世代明星的很大程度推動下，今年流行樂壇上似乎一直籠罩著 Spears 那種帶著懷舊氣息的身影，就像一位閃閃發光、仁慈的仙女教母般盤旋其上）

最簡單的結構分析以告訴我們，「benevolent 仁慈的」在名詞組「a glittering, benevolent fairy godmother」中，是修飾「fairy godmother」的形容詞。換言之，「benevolent」結構角色是單字形容詞，意思是「仁慈的」，會在句子中修飾名詞組。

由此我們立即能連結到「-ent」這個英文常見的形容詞字尾；如你能夠迅速想到其他帶「-ent」的形容詞（different, recent, excellent 等），此刻就可以把它們串連起來鞏固這新字的結構角色。

再說「benevolent」的意思。「Bene-」是表達「好」的拉丁字根，跟它相關的英文字有很多。最容易想到的有例如名詞「benefit（好處/得益）」，以及由此衍生的形容詞「beneficial（有益/有好處的）」。即使只聯想到這些最簡單直接的字，你已可把「benevolent」（樂善好施、出於善意的、仁慈的）穩穩地錨定在自己的詞彙網絡中。

這種連結不只能助你鞏固現有詞彙，亦令你日後遇到其他含「bene-」的新字時，更易記得它們與「好」相關的意思。

如果你想更系統地擴展英文詞彙，歡迎參考我們的《Boost Your Vocabulary》課程 💯

AI 令我的教學工作變得過時？

Friends often ask me whether I’m scared that AI is making — or will soon make — my work obsolete.

The supposed “threat” of AI to foreign language teaching is usually framed as two-pronged.

The first argument is that learning foreign languages will become unnecessary because instant translation will handle everything.

Why learn English at all, the argument goes, when you can use an app as an instant interpreter, or let AI write everything for you?

My view is that, in any realistic present or near-future timeline, this simply is not true.

If you are a student or a working adult, you cannot rely on AI blindly.

Even if AI is extremely useful — for example, in writing essays, drafting proposals, or helping with workplace emails — you still need to understand what it has produced. You need to check, edit, verify, and make sure the meaning, tone, or style in the AI output is right for your purposes. You cannot outsource understanding.

Sure, in some distant future, if all cross-linguistic communication (spoken and written) becomes fully AI-mediated, then I suppose foreign language learning will become obsolete. If that world comes, then yes — all language teaching, including my work, would disappear! Haha.

The second side of the “threat” is the idea that human teachers themselves will become obsolete because AI will take over all foreign language instruction.

A friend recently told me that several universities in Hong Kong are planning to cut first-year foreign language courses and replace them with AI-based instruction. This, admittedly, hits closer to home.

But, even here, I am not existentially worried.

The reason is simple: the core of my work is not just “teaching English content.”

It is the development of a deep, systematic, Linguistics-based paradigm for understanding English — or creating a bridge between formal Linguistics and mass adult language learning, in a way that hasn’t really been done before.

AI, by virtue of massive data access, is excellent at teaching English with volume — with endless examples, scenarios, exercises, and formats that already exist in the ecosystem – but it cannot create a coherent system for learners. It cannot discover or articulate the structural logic of English in a way that transforms how adults understand the language at a fundamental level.

AI can scale patterns, but it cannot originate a paradigm.

And this is where my work lives — in building the paradigm itself, in giving learners a clear, unified way to understand English structure that they have never been offered before.

So, no, I am not worried that AI will erase what I do.

AI may change many aspects of foreign language learning, but the creation of a conceptual framework — a deep structure — still requires a human mind, human insight, and human clarity.

And honestly, the more AI fills the world with “volume,” the more valuable my paradigm becomes. 😌

If you want to learn English with an actual system – one created through human insight, linguistic analysis, and years of work – you are welcome to start with my courses. They’re made for learners who want a framework and not just endless examples:

---

朋友常常問我，我是否害怕 AI 正在（或即將）令我的工作變得過時。

AI 對外語教學所構成的「威脅」，一般被分成兩大方向。

第一個方向是：既然 AI 翻譯可以處理所有事情，學外語便會變得不必要。

反正有翻譯 app 做即時口譯；反正寫甚麼英文都可以交給 AI；那為甚麼還需要學英文作外語呢？

但我覺得在任何現實的、可預見的時間線裡，這其實都不成立。

如果你是學生，或是需要用英文工作的成年人，你都不能盲目倚賴 AI。即使 AI 在寫作文、寫 proposal、甚至在工作上草擬英文電郵時非常有用，你仍然需要明白它為你產生了甚麼內容。你需要檢查、編輯、確認，並確保 AI 生產出的意思、語氣和風格是適合你的目的。你不能把直接把「理解」外判出去。

當然，若在遙遠的未來，所有跨語言的交流（無論說話或書寫）都會完全由 AI 介入，那麼外語學習或許真的會變得過時。若那一天真的到來，那的確所有語言教學，包括我的工作，都會消失吧！

然後，第二種「威脅」的方向，是認為人類外語老師本身會變得過時，因為 AI 會接管所有外語教學。

我有朋友最近告訴我，香港有不少大學正打算削減第一年（初級）的外語課程，把這些初級課替換為 AI 教學或 AI 資源。這個確實比較貼近我自己的領域。

但即便如此，我也沒有擔憂。

原因很簡單：我的工作從來不只是教英文內容。

我的工作核心，是建立一套深層、全面、系統性、並基於語言學的「paradigm」—— 一套將語言學知識和大眾成人英文學習連接起來的框架。這其實在市場上從未真正被建立或普及過。

AI 憑藉龐大的數據量，確實能做到「以大量例子」來教授英文——大量的例句、大量的場景、大量的練習、大量已存在的教學模式——但它不能為學生創造一個連貫和完整的系統。它不能自行發現或闡明英文結構的核心邏輯，也不能以真正改變成人學生理解的角度出發，建構出一個深層的分析框架。

AI 能夠擴散和大量複製既有的教學模式和資源，但它沒法自己創造出一套新的框架。

而我的工作正正在這裡展開——去把整套概念框架建立起來，並讓學生第一次擁有一個清晰而統一的方式去理解英文的結構。

所以，我並不擔心 AI 會抹去我所做的事情。

AI 或許會改變外語學習的很多層面，但要建立一套真正的概念框架——一套深層的結構框架——始終需要人的頭腦、人的洞察力、和人的清晰度。

其實 AI 越是為世界提供大量的內容，就對我建立的框架越有用，因為學生可以在這系統的框架中不斷鞏固和學習無限例子。😌

如果你想用一套真正的系統來學英文——一套由人的洞察、語言學的分析、和多年經驗而建立的系統——那歡迎你參加我的課程：

我高中化學老師給我的一個實用寫作貼士 🧪

I recently – and rather coincidentally – reunited with my chemistry teacher from high school. Having dinner with him reminded me of something that he told me after class once afternoon.

I was having trouble answering a question in a practice exam paper that involved defining some sort of industrial chemical process (I forgot which one exactly.) I asked him whether the answer I came up with would get all 3 points (or however many it was) that the question was worth.

After he read what I showed him, he told me that it was a good and adequate answer – but that there is actually an “easier” way to approach the task of “defining” something in a sentence.

What he said next was a very good piece of practical writing advice – one that I have remembered all these years and continues to serve me well now that I have a constant need to “define” things – like grammatical or Linguistics concepts – for students. 😅

The advice is this:

Instead of mentally cornering yourself by starting off a “definition” by saying “XXX is __________,” which often forces you to use a lot of modifiers to modify a noun phrase, not to mention to think hard to avoid repetitions, you can just go directly into what the “XXX” “does” or “functions as” as the core content of the sentence.

It sounds abstract and complicated like this, so let’s look at a simple example (with our grammatical framework as a basis).

Let’s say we have to define a “sewing machine.”

The instinctive way we would start this definition is like this:

A sewing machine is…

However, once you start, you would quickly find out that it is hard to continue after “is.” A “sewing machine” is “what”? Clearly, it’s a type of “machine,” so we would probably say:

A sewing machine is a machine…

But here, we already encounter the problem of repeating the noun “machine” twice in such a short space, which you probably wouldn’t need me to tell you is stylistically not the best. So, to “solve” this problem, you might try to think of (or find) a synonym for “machine” to avoid this repetition, something like:

A sewing machine is a device…

The word “machine” happens to have a synonym – “device” – that works fine here because it is also a common word that means pretty much the same thing, but there is not always an easy alternative with other nouns.

Anyway, even after you find the workable alternative of “device,” you then need to use a relative clause to modify what the device does – because, obviously, we need to incorporate a full embedded clause’s content to explain its function. So then we write something like:

[ A sewing machine is a device [ that sews fabric together. ] ]

縫紉機是一種把布料縫合在一起的裝置

The relative clause [ that sews fabric together ] modifies the noun phrase “a device.” (I am using [ ] to show clause boundaries like in my course framework.)

This is of course fine, but, even here, we have to repeat the word “sew” – which already appears in the participle form “sewing” within the noun phrase we are trying to define in the first place. If we were to avoid this repetition, we would have to think hard again to come up with an alternative – perhaps something like:

[ A sewing machine is a device [ that joins pieces of fabric together with thread. ] ]

縫紉機是一種用線把一塊塊布料連接起來的裝置

In going about this definition in this instinctive way, you have “cornered” yourself into coming up with a viable synonym for the “type of thing” that a “sewing machine” is, and then into modifying this synonym with a relative clause.

By far an “easier” way of approaching this definition would just be to plunge right into what the “sewing machine does.” For example:

[ A sewing machine joins pieces of fabric together with thread. ]

縫紉機會用線把一塊塊布料連接起來

Here, the sentence is just one clause. The subject is “a sewing machine,” and the finite verb is “joins” – as in, the core action/content of this clause is exactly “what the sewing machine does.”

This way, the definition is just a straightforward and direct one-clause sentence that serves the purpose equally well (with the added bonus of clarity.)

Of course, the previous version of the definition is completely fine too, because “sewing machine” happens to not be extremely hard to define in words either way, but I have found that this simple advice works very well especially with more abstract definitions.

Anyway, see if you can apply this to your own “definition writing” in the future! Haha.

Incidentally, I am currently working on a short, webinar-style course called “10 Practical Writing Tips from Ms. Charlotte” – in which I will share 10 practical ideas you can keep in mind to add more substance, variation, and style to your everyday English writing.

But, of course, the basis of all good writing is sentences that express their intended meanings in a grammatically accurate way. As I have said in another email after a non-student asked me about the “style guide” in the DSE Writing exam, “style” is completely beside the point if you can’t yet produce sentences to express your meanings both structurally accurately and with appropriate vocabulary.

Once you can form structurally correct sentences to express your intended meanings accurately (or know how to use reliable tools to help yourself do so), you can go on to advanced topics like how to enrich your writing in different ways. Only then would you have the proper structural scaffolding in place to understand how to improve your writing at that higher level systematically.

As such, the upcoming course on practical writing tips will be primarily for students who have finished or are enrolled in our foundational course on English structure, Core Concepts of English – because a lot of the content will draw directly on an existing overall grammatical understanding of how English sentences work.

If you are interested in getting an early-bird discount for the course later, sign up here: https://www.mscharlotteacademy.com/10-practical-writing-tips-course-earlybird-interest

We will send you more information when it is available. ✍🏻

---

我最近——亦算是相當巧合地——和我高中時的化學老師重聚了。和他一起吃晚飯，令我想起某一天下午下課後，他曾經跟我說過的一件事。

當時我正在做一份模擬試卷，有一條題目要我為某種工業化學程序下定義（我已經忘了具體是哪一種）。我問他，我想出來的答案，能不能拿到那條題目值的全部 3 分。

他看完我給他看的答案後，跟我說，那是一個不錯而且足夠詳盡的答案——但其實有一個更「容易」的方法，去寫出內容是「定義」的句子。

他接下來給了我一個非常好的實用寫作貼士——這些年來我一直記得，而且直到現在仍然很有用，因為我現在經常都需要為學生「定義」各種東西——例如文法概念或者語言學概念。😅

那個寫作貼士是這樣的：

與其一開始就說「XXX is __________」，在腦中把自己逼進死角——因為這樣往往會迫使你用很多修飾語去修飾一個名詞組，更不用說你還要很努力去避免重複字——你其實可以直接說「XXX」本身是「『做』甚麼」的，去作整個「定義」句子的核心內容。

這樣說起來聽上去有點抽象又有點複雜，所以我們來看一個簡單例子（當然也是以我們的文法框架為基礎）：

假設我們要為「sewing machine （縫紉機）」下定義。

我們直覺上或習慣上會這樣開始這個定義：

A sewing machine is…

可是，你一開始之後，很快就會發現，「is」後面其實很難接下去。A sewing machine 是「甚麼」？很明顯，它是一種 machine，所以我們大概會說：

A sewing machine is a machine…

但到這裏，我們已經遇到一個問題：在這麼短的距離內，把名詞 「machine」 重複了兩次。這種寫法在風格上不算最好，這一點我應該不用特地告訴你。所以，為了「解決」這個問題，你可能就會嘗試去想（或者去找）一個 「machine」 的同義名詞，好避開這個重複，例如：

A sewing machine is a device…

「Machine」 這個字剛好有一個同義詞——「device」——在這裏沒有問題，因為它也是一個常見名詞，而且意思差不多；但其他名詞未必每次都有這樣容易找到的替代字。

無論如何，就算你找到了這個可行的替代字 「device」，你接下來仍然需要用一個關係子句去修飾這個裝置所做的事——因為很明顯，我們需要把一個完整嵌入子句的內容放進去，才能解釋它的功能。所以，接下來我們就會寫出類似這樣的句子：

[ A sewing machine is a device [ that sews fabric together. ] ]

縫紉機是一種把布料縫合在一起的裝置

關係子句 [ that sews fabric together ] 是修飾名詞組 「a device」的形容詞子句。 （我這裏用 [ ] 來顯示子句分界，就像我在課程框架裏所用的方式一樣。）

這當然是完全可以的，但即使在這裏，我們也要重複用到 「sew」 這個字——而它其實已經以分詞字形「sewing」 出現在我們本來要定義的那個名詞組裏。如果我們想避開這個重複，就又要再努力想一個替代寫法——可能會像這樣：

[A sewing machine is a device [ that joins pieces of fabric together with thread. ]]

縫紉機是一種用線把一塊塊布料連接起來的裝置

當你用這種直覺式的方法去處理這個定義時，你其實就是把自己「逼進死角」：先要想出一個可行的同義名詞，來替代 「sewing machine」 所屬的那種「東西類型」，然後再要用一個關係子句去修飾這個同義名詞。

相比之下，一個容易得多的方法，就是直接跳進 「sewing machine 是做出甚麼功能」 這內容本身。例如：

[ A sewing machine joins pieces of fabric together with thread. ]

縫紉機會用線把一塊塊布料連接起來

這裏，整句只是單一子句。主語是 「a sewing machine」，限定動詞是 「joins」——也就是說，這個子句的核心動作／內容，正正就是 「sewing machine 會做甚麼功能」。

這樣一來，這個定義就變成一句直接、簡單、只有一個子句的句子，同樣能夠達到目的（而且還多了一個清晰度上的額外好處）。

當然，前面那個版本的定義也是完全沒有問題的，因為 「sewing machine」 這個名詞組本身無論用哪一種方式，都不算特別難用文字去定義。不過，我發現這個簡單貼士，特別是在面對一些更抽象的定義時，真的非常有用。

看看你將來能不能把這個方法應用到你自己的「定義寫作」裏吧！Haha.

順帶一提，我最近正在做一個短小、webinar 形式的課程，叫做 「10 Practical Writing Tips from Ms. Charlotte」——在這個課程裏，我會分享 10 個實用概念，讓你在日常英文寫作時，可以記住它們，從而令自己的寫作增加更多內容、變化和風格。

不過，當然，所有寫作的基礎，都是句子本身能夠以文法正確的方式，表達出要表達的意思。正如我之前在另一封 email 裏，回覆一位並不是學生的訂閱者問我 DSE Writing 考試裏的 「style guide」 時所說的那樣：如果你還未能組成在結構上準確地表達你想表達的意思的句子，那麼所謂 「style」 根本完全不是重點。

當你能夠組成在結構上正確的句子，準確表達你想表達的意思（或者你知道怎樣利用可靠工具幫自己做到這一點）之後，你才可以進一步處理一些更高階的課題，例如怎樣從不同角度去豐富自己的寫作。只有到了那個時候，你才算真正有了適當的結構框架，可以在更高層次上，有系統地理解應該怎樣改善自己的寫作。

因此，這個即將推出的 practical writing tips 課程，主要會是為那些已經完成，或者正在修讀我們英文結構基礎課程 Core Concepts of English 的學生而設——因為課程裏很多內容，都會直接建基於你對英文句子如何運作這個整體文法理解上。

如果你有興趣之後以早鳥優惠報讀這個課程，可以在這裏登記：

https://www.mscharlotteacademy.com/10-practical-writing-tips-course-earlybird-interest

有更多資料時，我們會再發送給你。✍🏻

整體英文文法框架如何助你從每一個例子中學習 💯

Because of our recent Chinese New Year sale, I had to explain to many potential students why building an overall grammatical framework for English -- although it is a process that takes more analysis and effort upfront -- is very important for their effective systematic learning going forward, both in terms of consolidating grammatical knowledge as well as learning other things that can only be learned through aware exposure, like words, expressions, or choices of tense forms for different contexts, etc.

In one of these explanations, I happened to use an example involving the verb “dispose” when it expresses the meaning of “處理/扔掉某東西.” I wanted to share the example here with you -- but of course, any example, literally any example from any sentence, works, because the idea is that the framework helps you analyze and learn systematically from any sentence you encounter.

The example is very simple. A student who is not yet enrolled in our foundational course asked me about the verb “dispose”:

He asked me to dispose of his wardrobe.

他叫我處理掉 / 扔掉他的衣櫃

Specifically, he asked why the verb “dispose,” when it expresses this meaning of “throwing something away,” has the word “of” following it -- like “dispose of his wardrobe” here -- instead of just “dispose his wardrobe*” like in the Chinese equivalent.

Well, here’s how an overall grammatical framework for English and a meta-linguistic view of language would help him understand this example and learn systematically from it:

First, if he knew that this is a correct and natural sentence from a credible source, he would not need to ask “why” it is “dispose of his wardrobe” and not “dispose his wardrobe*”-- because he would know that every verb has a specific set of structural requirements and characteristics when it is expressing a specific meaning.

So, looking at this correct sentence, he would simply draw the systematic conclusion that the verb “dispose,” when expressing this meaning of “throwing something away,” does not just have the “thing being thrown away” right after it -- because it is not “dispose the wardrobe*” here.

In the grammatical framework he built, he would know that some English verbs that have “recipients” in meaning express their recipient with a direct object, that is, a noun phrase right after it -- like “fill the cup” -- while others express their recipient in other grammatical ways, including with specific modifier phrases.

He might make a mental note at this point that the verb that expresses the same meaning as “dispose” in Chinese -- “處理掉 / 扔掉” -- does express the recipient as a direct object -- like “處理掉他的衣櫃,” but this would not baffle him, because he would have the meta-linguistic awareness to understand that different languages and their verbs can express the same meanings with different grammatical means.

If anything, he would specifically make a mental note to be aware that the English verb “dispose,” as shown in this correct example, does not express its recipient as a direct object, knowing that this is an easy mistake for Chinese speakers used to the Chinese equivalent. He could make a mental note of not saying “dispose his wardrobe*” just from this example alone.

Then, he can put the sentence into his grammatical framework to analyze in order to learn specific things about this verb from it. Namely, if it does not express its recipient as a direct object, how does it express its recipient structurally?

He asked me to dispose of his wardrobe.

他叫我處理掉 / 扔掉他的衣櫃

If he just analyzed part containing the verb “dispose” -- the infinitive phrase “to dispose of his wardrobe” -- he can already draw the conclusion that the verb “dispose,” when expressing this meaning of “throwing something away,” requires a specific modifier phrase for its “recipient.”

This modifier phrase happens to be a prepositional phrase with the specific preposition “of.”

In his framework, he would already know what prepositions and prepositional phrases are, both structurally and functionally, so he would not need to worry about what “of his wardrobe” is. He would only need to learn from this specific example that the verb “dispose” requires a specific prepositional phrase with “of” to express its recipient for this particular meaning.

He would also not need to ask “why it is ‘of’” and not some other preposition -- because he would know that a lot of English verbs are completed in meaning by specific prepositional phrases – without those prepositions being tied to their respective original meanings.

And, he would know that a preposition forms a prepositional phrase with a noun phrase -- like “of his wardrobe” -- so he can easily understand that, in order to express this meaning with “dispose” accurately going forward, he would only need to form a prepositional phrase with “of” and the noun phrase of the “thing being thrown away” -- like “dispose of the trash,” “dispose of a valuable possession,” or whatever it is.

Everything we have mentioned above can be called “receptive” knowledge, because it involves this student learning the grammatical characteristics of this verb from this example.

Now, he can go one step further to turn this into “productive” knowledge systematically.

For example, next time, if he needs to express this meaning with the verb “dispose,” he would know to form a prepositional phrase with “of” and the “thing being thrown away” to complete it.

From the same framework, he knows how all English noun phrases are formed, and so he is ready to express meaning about “disposing of” virtually anything he needs to express.

For example, “處理掉 / 扔掉我老闆去年買的工作辦公桌” would be:

“...dispose of the desk [ that my boss bought last year ]”

處理掉 / 扔掉我老闆去年買的工作辦公桌

The adjective he needs to describe “the desk” involves an entire action with a subject, so it can only be expressed as a relative clause. From the framework, he would know how to form the relative clause [ that my boss bought last year ] correctly as an adjective to “the desk.”

Then, the whole noun phrase “the desk that my boss bought last year” forms a prepositional phrase with “of” -- “of the desk that my boss bought last year” -- to complete the verb “dispose.”

Then, of course, he would also know how to form whatever sentence he needs in context with his framework. For example:

I disposed of the desk that my boss bought last year.

我已處理掉 / 扔掉我老闆去年買的工作辦公桌

I need to dispose of the desk that my boss bought last year.

我需要去處理掉 / 扔掉我老闆去年買的工作辦公桌

Disposing of the desk that my boss bought last year was very difficult.

處理掉 / 扔掉我老闆去年買的工作辦公桌很困難

With his framework, he would know how to change the verb “dispose” into any finite or non-finite form to form correct sentences to express what he needs to express.

The point is that, with an overall grammatical framework in place, this student could extrapolate all of this knowledge systematically from one single example sentence alone.

I took some time to verbalize every step of the process in this email -- but, in reality, once you have a framework, and after some practice, all of this thinking takes place by default in your head as pretty much a passive, automatic process.

If you want to start building your framework today, you can learn more about our foundational course “Core Concepts of English” here:

由於最近農曆新年優惠的關係，我需要向很多潛在學生解釋，為甚麼建立一個整體的英文文法框架——雖然在一開始需要花較多分析和心力——對他們之後有效而有系統地學習是非常重要的，無論是在鞏固文法知識方面，還是在學習其他只能通過有意識接觸才能學到的東西方面，例如生字、表達方式，或者在不同語境中選擇 tense 字形等等。

在其中一次解釋中，我剛好用了動詞「dispose」在表達「處理／扔掉某東西」這個意思時的一個例子。我想在這裡跟你分享這個例子——但當然，其實任何例子，真是任何一句句子中的任何例子，都可以，因為重點是：這個框架能幫助你有系統地分析並從你遇到的任何一句句子中學習。

這個例子很簡單。一位還未報讀我們概論課程的學生問我有關動詞「dispose」的問題：

He asked me to dispose of his wardrobe.

他叫我處理掉／扔掉他的衣櫃

具體來說，他問的是：為甚麼動詞「dispose」在表達這個「扔掉某東西」的意思時，後面會跟着 「of」 這個字——就像這裡的 「dispose of his wardrobe」——而不是像中文對應那樣直接說 「dispose his wardrobe*」。

那麼，一個整體的英文文法框架，以及「退後一步」看語言的 meta-linguistic 視角，會如何幫助他理解這個例子，並有系統地從中學習呢？

首先，如果他知道這是一句來自可信來源、正確而自然的句子，那他其實就不需要問「為甚麼」是 「dispose of his wardrobe」而不是 「dispose his wardrobe*」——因為他會知道，每一個動詞在表達某一個特定意思時，都會有一套特定的結構要求和特徵。

所以，看着這句正確的句子，他只需要得出一個有系統的結論：動詞 「dispose」 在表達這個「扔掉某東西」的意思時，不是直接把那個「被扔掉的東西」放在它後面——因為這裡不是 「dispose his wardrobe*」。

在他的文法框架裡，他會知道：有些英文動詞在意思上有對象時，會以 direct object 方式來表達那個對象，也就是直接在後面有一個名詞組——例如 「fill the cup」；但也有些動詞是以其他文法方式來表達其意思上的對象的，包括以特定的修飾語組去表達。

在這個時候，他可能會在腦中記下一點：中文裡表達跟 「dispose」 同樣意思的動詞——「處理掉／扔掉」——是以 direct object 來表達對象的，例如 「處理掉他的衣櫃」；但這不會令他感到困惑，因為他會「退後一步」，以 meta-linguistic 意識理解，明白不同語言及其動詞，是可以用不同的文法方式去表達同一個意思的。（這點我在很多email 中都說過）。

所以在這裡，他反而會特別記下一點：英文動詞 「dispose」，正如這個正確例子所示，並不是以 direct object 方式去表達它的對象——要特別記下是因為他知道，對於習慣了中文對應動詞的中文母語人士來說，這是一個很容易犯的錯誤。單靠這一個例子，他已經可以記住不要說 「dispose his wardrobe*」。

然後，他便可以把這句句子放進自己的文法框架裡再分析，從中學到這個動詞在這個例子中所顯示的具體特徵。也就是說：如果它不是以 direct object 來表達其對象，那它在結構上是怎樣表達這對象的呢？

He asked me to dispose of his wardrobe.

他叫我處理掉／扔掉他的衣櫃

如果他只分析包含動詞 「dispose」 的那一部分——即基本動詞組 「to dispose of his wardrobe」——他已經可以得出結論：動詞 「dispose」 在表達這個「扔掉某東西」的意思時，會需要一個特定的修飾語詞組來表達它的對象。

而這個修飾語詞組，剛好是一個有特定介詞 「of」 的介詞組。

在他的框架中，他已經知道介詞（preposition）和介詞組（prepositional phrase）在結構和功能上是甚麼，所以他根本不需要擔心 「of his wardrobe」 是甚麼。

他只需要從這個具體例子中學到：動詞 「dispose」 在表達這個特定意思時，是需要一個由 「of」開始的特定介詞組，來表達對象。

他也不需要再問「為甚麼是『of』而不是其他介詞」——因為他會知道，很多英文動詞在意思上都是由特定的介詞組來完成意思的，而那些介詞並不是一定跟它們各自原本的意思直接有關。

而且，他也會知道，一個介詞會跟一個名詞組一起組成一個介詞組——例如 「of his wardrobe」——所以他很容易便能明白：如果他之後要準確地以 「dispose」 去表達同樣這個意思，他只需要以 「of」 和那個「被扔掉的東西」的名詞組形成一個介詞組就可以了——例如 「dispose of the trash」、「dispose of a valuable possession」，或任何其他東西。

以上提到的所有東西，都可以稱為 「接收性 receptive」的知識，因為這涉及這位學生從這個例子中學習這個動詞的文法特徵。

然後，他還可以再進一步，把這些接收性知識有系統地轉化成「生產性 productive」的知識。

例如，下次當他需要以動詞 「dispose」 去表達這個意思時，他便會知道要以 「of」 和那個「被扔掉的東西」（的名詞組）去形成一個介詞組來完成它。

從同一個框架中，他也知道所有英文名詞組是怎樣形成的，因此他已經準備好去表達幾乎任何他需要表達的「dispose of 甚麼」。

例如，「處理掉／扔掉我老闆去年買的工作辦公桌」便會是：

“...dispose of the desk [ that my boss bought last year ]”

處理掉／扔掉我老闆去年買的工作辦公桌

他需要描述 「the desk」 的形容詞，涉及一整個有主語的完整動作（我老闆去年買的），所以一定要由 relative clause 關係子句去表達。透過這個框架，他會知道如何正確地形成 [ that my boss bought last year ]，作為修飾 「the desk」 的形容詞。

然後，整個名詞組 「the desk that my boss bought last year」 便會跟 「of」 一起形成一個介詞組——「of the desk that my boss bought last year」——來完成動詞 「dispose」結構所需和意思。

然後，當然，他也會知道如何利用他的框架，在語境中組成任何他需要的句子。例如：

I disposed of the desk that my boss bought last year.

我已處理掉／扔掉我老闆去年買的工作辦公桌

I need to dispose of the desk that my boss bought last year.

我需要去處理掉／扔掉我老闆去年買的工作辦公桌

Disposing of the desk that my boss bought last year was very difficult.

處理掉／扔掉我老闆去年買的工作辦公桌很困難

透過他的框架，他會知道如何把動詞 「dispose」 變成任何限定或非限定字形，去形成正確的句子，表達他需要表達的意思。

重點是：當一個整體的文法框架已經建立好之後（或在建立的同時），這位學生便可以單憑這一句例子句子，有系統地延伸出以上所有這些知識。

我在這封 email 中花了一點時間，把整個過程的每一步都說出來——但其實，當你有了框架，再加上一定練習之後，這一切思考過程在你的腦中基本上會變成一種被動而自動的過程，預設地發生。

如果你想今天就開始建立你的框架，你可以在這裡進一步了解我們的概論課程 Core Concepts of English：

🎂 星期五的有趣語言小隨想 A fun language musing for Friday

Happy Friday!

Congratulations on almost getting to the weekend after a long work week. 😙

I just want to talk about something light-hearted today.

The other day, I went to a birthday party with my daughter.

The birthday girl has a French mother and Chinese father, so, when it came to singing the birthday song, the guests sang first in English, then in Chinese, and finally in French. 🎂

This reminded me of something fun to share with you.

Remember I mentioned in another email before that, when linguists notice similarities between different languages, they would ask whether those similarities are due to historical relatedness between the languages (as in, did those languages inherit the same characteristic from a common ancestor, which accounts for the modern similarities), whether they are due to borrowing (for example, a language borrowing a characteristic from another one in its development), or whether they are completely coincidental (as in, the languages just happened to develop that characteristic independently.)

Well, it seems that the greeting for “Happy Birthday” in different languages, many of which unrelated, happen to consist of the same number of syllables to fit neatly into the melody of the canonical birthday song. This is probably just a coincidental similarity given how widespread it is.

As with a lot of pop culture, the canonical birthday song is originally English (from the United States). The main melody consists of 6 different notes per line, fitting the English greeting “Happy Birthday to You.” 🎂

Interestingly, the birthday greeting in many other languages -- even ones that are completely unrelated to English, like Chinese -- happen to have the same number of syllables, six.

For example, the Chinese and French versions of the birthday songs we sang at the party also have six syllables per line:

祝你生日快樂 (Chinese)

Joyeux anniversaire (French)

Because of this, the canonical birthday song melody works very well with many languages.

It seems to me that even the languages that have standard “happy birthday” greetings that don’t fit into the melodic line neatly have “workarounds” that still allow the song to sound natural.

For example, the standard “happy birthday” greeting in German is:

Viel Glück zum Geburtstag

(roughly: Lots of luck and happiness for the birthday)

This greeting also contains six syllables, but the syllable/stress distribution happens to not fit the canonical English melody very well, so what the German speakers did was to move the adverb phrase “zum Geburtstag” to the front instead:

Zum Geburtstag viel Glück

(roughly: For the birthday, lots of luck and happiness)

This line then fits the canonical melody very well.

But, of course, for languages with standard birthday greetings that don’t work at all with the canonical melody, they’d use another greeting altogether, sometimes tailor-made for the song.

For example, the standard Italian greeting for “happy birthday” is “buon compleanno” -- but this phrase does not work with the melody, so they use another line that is often said to wish people good wishes on their birthday for the song instead:

Tanti auguri a te

(roughly: Many good wishes to you)

This line then works very nicely. (It still involves squeezing one more unstressed syllable into one of the notes, but this is actually very common with Italian songs, for example in the libretti of Italian opera, so it sounds very natural.)

It is just quite interesting to me that (seemingly) every language either has a standard greeting for “happy birthday” that fits the song as it is, or else has a neat solution for it. Haha.

This is probably the most translated song in the world?

---

Happy Friday!

恭喜你又過了一個漫長的工作週，差不多到週末了。😙

今天我只想說一點比較輕鬆的東西。

前幾天，我和女兒去了一個生日派對。

那位生日的小女孩有一位法國人媽媽和一位中國人爸爸，所以，到了唱生日歌的時候，賓客先用英文唱，然後用中文唱，最後再用法文唱。🎂

這令我想起一件挺有趣、想和你分享的事。

還記得我之前在另一封 email 提過，當語言學家注意到不同語言之間有相似之處時，他們會問：那些相似之處究竟是源於那些語言之間的歷史親緣關係（即那些語言是否從共同祖先繼承了同一個特徵，因而造成今天的相似之處）、還是源於借用（例如一種語言在其發展過程中借入了另一種語言的某個特徵）、還是根本純粹只是巧合（即那些語言只是剛好各自獨立發展出了那個特徵）。

那麼，看來不同語言中的「Happy Birthday」這句祝賀語——當中很多語言彼此其實沒有關係——剛好都有相同數目的音節，因此能夠整齊地放進生日歌的旋律裡。考慮到這個現象這樣普遍，這大概純粹只是一種巧合的相似。

跟很多 pop culture 一樣，我們叫「生日歌」的最通行版本本來是英文的（來自美國）。它每一行的主旋律由 6 個不同音符組成，剛好配合英文祝賀語 「Happy Birthday to You」。🎂

有趣的是，很多其他語言的生日祝賀——甚至包括一些和英文完全沒有關係的語言，例如中文——也剛好有同樣的音節數目：六個。

例如，那天在派對上我們唱的中文和法文版本生日歌，每一行也都有六個音節：

祝你生日快樂（中文）

Joyeux anniversaire（法文）

因此，這首生日歌的旋律和很多語言都配合得很好。

而在我看來，就連那些標準「happy birthday」祝賀語本身不能很整齊地放進那條旋律裡的語言，也似乎都有某些「變通方法」，仍然令這首歌聽起來自然。

例如，德文裡標準的「happy birthday」祝賀語是：

Viel Glück zum Geburtstag

（大概是：祝你生日有很多幸福和好運）

這句祝賀語其實也有六個音節，只是它的音節／重音分佈剛好不太配合那條通行的英文旋律，所以德文人士的做法是，改為把副詞組 「zum Geburtstag」 移到前面：

Zum Geburtstag viel Glück

這樣一來，這一句就和通行旋律非常配合。

但當然，對於那些標準生日祝賀語本身根本完全不能配合那條 旋律的語言，它們便會乾脆用另一句祝賀語，有時甚至是專門為這首歌而設的。

例如，意大利文裡標準的祝賀語是 「buon compleanno」——但這個詞組並不能配合那條旋律，所以他們唱歌時會改用另一句本來也常用來祝別人生日快樂的說話：

Tanti auguri a te

（大概是：送你很多美好的祝願）

這一句就配合得很好（雖然它仍然涉及把多一個非重音音節塞進其中一個音裡，但這在意大利歌中，如歌劇歌詞中，本身很常見，所以很自然）。

我只是覺得挺有趣：看起來，幾乎每一種語言不是本身就有一句標準的「happy birthday」祝賀語剛好配合這首歌，就是另外有一個很好的解決方法。Haha.

這大概是全世界有最多語言版本的一首歌吧？