语言与文风2020japanesecomplete.com
逆向拆解日语句子
Reverse Engineering the Japanese Sentence
导读
这篇文章试图用一套自创的框架把日语句子「逆向工程」出来，主张用更直观的方式解释日语语法，但评论者普遍质疑它自造术语、例句不自然，且把语言学习当成规则拼装。对写作者来说，这是一份反面教材：解释复杂体系时，如何命名、如何选例、如何对待读者的真实使用场景。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
自创术语前先想清楚读者已有的认知锚点，把「na-adjective」改叫「na-noun」只会增加翻译成本而非降低理解门槛。
- 02
例句是被读者验证的第一现场，一句不自然的例句会连带动摇整篇方法论的可信度，宁可少举例也要举准例。
- 03
别把讲解写成规则手册：读者要的是能在真实场景里用起来的东西，而不是一套自洽却无法开口的理论。
- 04
批评旧说法之前要先承认它的合理之处，否则读者会觉得你只是在标新立异。
- 05
面向「独自啃书」的读者写作时，要主动提醒他们回到真实语料和真实交流中去检验你的框架。
HN 评论精选
日语学习圈过度理论化，作者应把读者推回真实交流而非自洽体系。
我能理解这种描述的动机：学日语的过程就是不断回头看，发现自己被大约五十个来源善意的谎言骗过，其实有更直观的看待方式。但问题是，其他语言人们通常靠实践学会，日语却吸引大量想孤立学习的学生——靠工具、靠书本。关于「你必须多厉害、必须怎么学」的说教特别多，我学法语或中文时从没这种感觉。大家似乎更热衷于理论化地设计「如何学日语」，而不是真的把日语说到能和人交流。
tidenly查看英文原文
Even if I think it misses the mark, I understand the impetus behind making this kind of description to be honest. Learning Japanese is a big adventure of looking back and realising you were told white lies by about 50 different sources, and that there are much more intuitive ways of looking at the language. The problem is is that compared to other languages, which people often learn through practice, Japanese attracts a lot of students who want to study in isolation, using tools or through books. There is a lot of preachiness about how good you have to be or how you have to study, which I've not felt studying French or Chinese. People seem to care more about theorycrafting how to study Japanese than actually getting good at talking to people with it.
语言不是规则拼装，输入与真人交流才是核心。
恕我吐槽，作为一个热心语言学习者，这类方法让我极其反感。学语言不像学数学：确实有规则，规则学够了，你也能把母语的词逐个翻译再加句法填充造出合法句子，但你并没有真正学会那门语言。语言大于语法与句法的总和。真要学会一门语言，你得大量听真实材料，并开始和真人说、在那个语言和文化语境里建立关系。
zumu查看英文原文
Please excuse the rant, but as an avid language learner, this type of approach bothers me to no end. Learning a language is _not_ like learning math. Yes, there are rules, and if you learn enough of them you can construct valid sentences by translating words from your native language and adding in the necessary syntactic filler, but you will not actually learn that language. Languages are greater than a sum of their syntax and grammar. If you really want to learn a language, you need to listen to A LOT of source material and start speaking it with real people and forming relationships in that language and its cultural context.
为差异化而改术语，可能只是把困惑换了个名字。
这个网站似乎很以不沿用日语语法的标准术语为荣，比如把形容詞叫「na-nouns」而不是「na-adjectives」，把形容動詞叫「i-verbs」而不是「i-adjectives」。我不太明白为什么。只讲英语的人当然会觉得「有些形容词会变位」很怪（akai 红，akakunai 不红），但把这些词叫「动词」恐怕也没什么帮助。
howlgarnish查看英文原文
This site seems to make a big deal about not following standard terms for Japanese grammar, eg. calling 形容詞 "na-nouns" instead of "na-adjectives" and 形容動詞 "i-verbs" instead of "i-adjectives". It's rather unclear to me why? I get that if you only speak English it may seem weird to you that some adjectives are conjugated (akai "red", akakunai not red), but I'm not sure calling them "verbs" is particularly helpful.
例句的时态与语境不严谨，会直接削弱解释力。
这些例句恐怕很怪，英译也别扭。词典形动词如 剃る(soru) 用在句中时，要么指将来的动作（某人会刮），要么指习惯性动作（某人习惯刮，不一定是现在），后者需要 毎日 这类习惯时间词来确认。４月の朝に髭を剃る 是个奇怪的句子，大致意思是「在四月的某个早晨，我会刮胡子」——４月の朝 不构成习惯时间，所以按将来时理解。要表达「四月的早晨我都刮胡子」（贯穿整个四月的习惯），得说 ４月の毎朝髭を剃る。
kazinator查看英文原文
I'm afraid these sentences are weird, and the English translation is awkward. A verb in the dictionary form, like 剃る(soru), when it's used as such in a sentence, either refers to a future action (someone will shave), or to a habitual action (someone shaves habitually, not necessarily now). The latter interpretation needs to be confirmed by the presence of some habitual time like 毎日 (mainichi, everyday). ４月の朝に髭を剃る is a weird sentence which basically means something like "On an April morning, I will shave my beard". ４月の朝 doesn't establish a habitual time, so the future tense interpretation applies. To say something like "On April mornings, I shave my beard" (habitual action taking place throughout every April) would be ４月の毎朝髭を剃る.
同类还值得读
像说话一样写作
Write like you talk
这篇短文主张写作应像说话一样自然、清晰，避免装腔作势的书面腔。
语言与文风2015 · 647 分 · 272 评4 条写作要点编辑精选法律语言难懂源于写作不佳，而非专业概念
Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language
这是一项认知科学研究：法律文本难懂，主要不是因为充斥专业术语，而是因为写作者把句子写得又长又绕、修饰语层层嵌套、回指距离过远。
语言与文风2022 · 559 分 · 322 评5 条写作要点编辑精选写得简单
Write Simply
保罗·格拉汉姆在这篇短文里主张：好文章应该写得简单——用日常词汇、短句、直白的结构，不为显得聪明而堆砌复杂表达。
语言与文风2021 · 484 分 · 330 评4 条写作要点编辑精选Tortured phrases：科学写作中出现的一种可疑文风
Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science
《自然》新闻报道了一种在科学论文中蔓延的怪现象：原本标准的术语被同义替换软件改写成了古怪说法，比如把 "cloud computing" 写成 "haze figuring"。
语言与文风2021 · 329 分 · 256 评4 条写作要点编辑精选乔治·奥威尔 1940 年对《我的奋斗》的书评
George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)
这是奥威尔1940年对《我的奋斗》的书评。
语言与文风2014 · 305 分 · 240 评4 条写作要点编辑精选