语言与文风2015yarchive.net
长句
Long sentences
导读
这篇短文讨论“长句”的用法与滥用：作者似乎有意用长句来示范长句，而评论区则围绕“长句到底是丰富表达还是炫技”展开争论。对写作者来说，值得一读的地方在于它把“句长变化”和“读者负担”这两个写作核心问题摆到了台面上：长句本身不是错，错在没有理由的长句。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
句长要有变化：连续几个短句会变得单调，长短交替才能制造节奏和“音乐感”。
- 02
不要靠分号把两个相关句子硬拼成长句，这种拼接不会提升表达，只会增加读者的解析负担。
- 03
把“写短句”当成经验法则而非绝对教条：推动论证时用短促有力的句子，铺陈描写时不妨放开写绵长流畅的句子。
- 04
用读者做检验标准：如果读者要费很大劲才能拿到你的意思，那么这个句子就该改。
HN 评论精选
句长交替才有节奏，长句要留到读者有余力时再用，用来强调重要内容。
“这个句子有五个词。这里又是五个词。五词句没问题。但几个连在一起就变得单调。听，发生了什么：文字开始无聊，声音在嗡嗡作响，像卡住的唱片。耳朵要求变化。现在听：我改变句子长度，就创造出音乐。音乐。文字在歌唱，有悦耳的节奏、起伏、和声。我用短句，也用中等长度的句子。而有时，当我确信读者已经休息够了，我会用一个相当长的句子抓住他，一个燃烧着能量、像渐强一样层层推进的句子，鼓声隆隆、钹声铿锵——那声音在说：听这个，这很重要。”——加里·普罗沃斯特
Rainymood查看英文原文
“This sentence has five words. Here are five more words. Five-word sentences are fine. But several together become monotonous. Listen to what is happening. The writing is getting boring. The sound of it drones. It’s like a stuck record. The ear demands some variety. Now listen. I vary the sentence length, and I create music. Music. The writing sings. It has a pleasant rhythm, a lilt, a harmony. I use short sentences. And I use sentences of medium length. And sometimes, when I am certain the reader is rested, I will engage him with a sentence of considerable length, a sentence that burns with energy and builds with all the impetus of a crescendo, the roll of the drums, the crash of the cymbals–sounds that say listen to this, it is important.” - Gary Provost
为长而长的长句是炫技，只会增加阅读难度，不增加信息。
作者似乎是在刻意制造长句来证明自己的观点，主要手法是用分号把两个相关的句子硬拼在一起。这对提升理解毫无帮助，代价却是让句子更难解析。这很像人们想显得博学时做出的那种“过度矫正”。
RyanMcGreal查看英文原文
The author seems to be deliberately trying to manufacture long sentences to make his point, mainly by taking two related sentences and pushing them together with a semicolon. It serves no purpose in improving comprehension and comes at the cost of making parsing more difficult. It feels rather like the sort of hypercorrection [1] that people sometimes make when they're trying to sound erudite. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercorrection
短句优先只是经验法则；真正的要求是按目的选工具，论证用短促、描写用绵长。
写作的一条经验法则是：不要让读者费很大劲才能拿到你的意思。简洁带来简单，简单的东西比啰嗦的东西好懂得多。所以以短小易懂的句子为主，本身就是写好文章的一条好法则。但在我看来它只是经验法则；一旦被奉为更高的教条，就可能弊大于利。英语的复杂是一种奇迹，有那么多丰富、多样、多彩的元素，如果你在表达时不给它们充分发挥的空间，吃亏的只有你自己。想推动一个论证？那就用主动动词，以凌厉的节奏敲出短促紧凑的想法。想编织迷人的人物刻画？那就不妨放松一点，像狄更斯那样展开一串绵长流畅的句子，一页接一页地把读者带进奇妙的画面——这些句子恰恰不短、不紧凑、不凌厉。重点不是走哪个极端，而是作为想写好的人，你应当用上手里丰富的工具，而不被任何绝对规则束缚。
grellas查看英文原文
It is a good rule of thumb in writing not to make the reader work hard to get your meaning, to have to blast for it if you will. Brevity promotes simplicity and simple things are much easier to understand than are those that are prolix. So writing in a style consisting primarily of short, easy-to-understand sentences is in itself a good rule of thumb when aiming to write well. But it is only a rule of thumb, as I see it, and when it is enshrined as something more, it can do more harm than good. The English language is a marvel of complexity and has so many rich, diverse, and colorful elements that you cheat only yourself as a writer if you fail to give full scope to such elements in choosing how to express yourself in the written word. You want to make a driving argument? By all means, use active verbs to punch along short, compact thoughts with an aggressive rhythm. Want to weave fascinating characterization? Well, then maybe relax the feel a bit and, with Dickens, unwind a string of long, flowing sentences that carry your reader along into a wonderfully imaginative series of pictures, running page after page, that hardly turn on being short, compact, and punchy - indeed, that are the very opposite. The point is not that you want to go to one extreme or the other. The point is that, as one who seeks to write well, you should avail yourself of the rich set of tools available to you without feeling bound to adhere to any form of absolute rules about how best to use them. So, write away! Go for feel. Go for rhythm. Go for clarity. Go for what best suits your purpose. And, oh, yes, do keep it short and simple, except when you find it doesn't suit your purpose. A rule of thumb is just that. In the end, do what gets your point across for the long-suffering reader who deserves to have it done well.
从非母语读者的角度看，这篇示范长句的文章本身就难读，说明长句没达到沟通目的。
声明：我不是英语母语者。抱歉，我认为作者没能证明自己的观点。这篇文章不好读，也很难跟上作者的思路。所以长句和长段落肯定没有帮助——要么如此，要么我该去查查是不是有多动症了。
smanuel查看英文原文
Disclaimer: I'm not a native English speaker. Sorry but IMO the author has failed to prove his case. The text is not easy to read, and it's hard to follow the author's thought. So long sentences and long paragraphs definitely don't help. It's either that or I should get tested for ADHD.
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