本文轉自：英語教學與研究
第一封信
My Dear Shu-Wu,
May 14
Your letter gives me a joyful surprise. Your English is astonishingly good. This is not "flannel" nor "butter" but my sincere opinion (my hand upon my heart!). The idea found from your version of Chairman's statement is, to say the least, quite unjust. Perhaps your hand is recovering some of its old cunning momentarily lost through long lack of practice. At any rate, it would be a pity-nay, a sin, a crime -to let your English get rusty & become finally unserviceable.
Yours in haste
By a slip of pen, you wrote "allocation" instead of "Collocation" This is a mere peccadillo. Don't let meticulousness about such trifles cramp your style.
第二封信
My Dear Lin,
May
Excuse this belated reply to your very kind May Day greetings. Its almost literally "a day after the fair". What with fixing the mosquito net, queuing for sweets at the co-op store, fetching & distributing letters, & the thousand and one odds and ends which eat away ones time, the red letter day was over before I know where I was. Well, here go my best wishes in which my wife joins. Your letter makes me ashamed. I feel guilty like a swindler who has won your "gratitude" without doing anything to earn it. Your characteristic generosity has led you to overestimate the aids to study I gave. Yes, vocabulary is important. Pedagogues used to distinguish a pupils active or writing & speaking vocabulary. As you know, the latter is far more extensive than the former. How to turn the supinely passive into the nimbly active—that's the big problem. However, enough of shop talk. Tomorrow to the battle & more power to your elbow!
Yours Sincerely
第三封信
My Dear Lin,
I am deeply grateful, but I have smiting of conscience. As you know, I have my own ration of sugar, & I must not deprive you of yours. As to the dim sum, a healthy young man has more need of them to stay his hunger between the meals--much more that and old man does. So I am returning them with heartfelt thanks--accompanied with a little token of esteem. The latest No. of Broadsheet is worth glancing at.
Your thankfully
我找了五位美國大學人文方面的老教授，蒐集了一下他們的意見。
先說明一下：我們只評價三封信。不談錢老的翻譯和其他的英文寫作。其實信是比較好的材料，能夠看出作者真實的口水文寫作水平到底是什麼樣的，發表後的作品一般都是有人改過的。（很多人提到，這三封信寫於特殊時期1971-1972。對比了一下錢老其他的英文寫作，這三封信確實是非同尋常地繞，有點故意讓人看不懂的意味。大家自己辨別吧。)
把三封錢先生的信發給了五位教授（均任職於美國排名靠前的一所文理學院，年齡都很大了，在各領域聲望都很高，也都是極好的英文寫手，另外都是我最愛的教授們╮(╯▽╰)╭），告訴他們這是錢鍾書的寫作，請他們客觀地評價一下，得到了一些回饋。我下面會挨個詳細說，可以看出來，他們的性格特點和背景，影響了他們對錢老文字的感受和評價：
第一位，不喜歡錢的文字，認為不太地道：英文系教授，男，美國人英文母語，專長是Old and Middle English, 以及中古時期北歐語言研究，平時改作文對語言使用規範的要求度非常高，平日裡對我們的etiquette要求也挺高的。他不喜歡錢先生的文字，覺得只能說是可以理解，但挺蹩腳的，雖然用了很多地道的用法，但還是能看出來是外國人在寫，有一點炫弄的色彩。不是非常差，但只能說是比較“可愛吧cute”，但作者應該是個挺有魅力的外國人。原評價如下：
Well, his letters are understandablein English, but a littleunidiomatic. One can tell that anon-nativespeaker is writing, even though many native expressions are used--like "my hand upon my heart," more power to your elbow," "heartfelt thanks," etc.--almostshowing offa bit perhaps.The first strange sentence is the second one in the letter to Shu-Wu: "This is not 'flannel' nor 'butter' but my sincere opinion (my hand upon my heart!)." I've never seen "flannel" used to mean "soft-stroking," nor "butter" used as a synonym for "flattery," though I know where the writer got the idea--from the expression "to butter someone up," that is, "to flatter," as a verb rather than a noun.
The writing isnot terribly awkward, just rathercute--as by acharming foreigner. I'm not sure I would recognize the author as Chinese, except for the reference to dim sum in the third letter.
Nov 18 補充：錢老太厲害了，雖然這位老師說他從來沒見過“flannel”這麼用，但是 用戶 本人已死 提到，字典裡面對這個詞有這麼一條解釋，“British informal indirect or evasive talk; deceiving flattery”，即“英式口語中，用於隱晦地表達奉承”的意思，用戶 本人已死 也找到了flannel作為“奉承”講的例句。也就是說，錢老並沒有用錯，而我的老師從來沒聽說過這個用法。。
第二位：持保留意見，認為語言風格非常優雅、正式，但對他來說有點浮誇：英文系教授，男，英文母語，應該是美國人，本科畢業於牛津，後就讀於耶魯，專長就是英語文學，改作文對語言規範要求也極其高，但個人比較low key。
I don't know the context of the letters. The style is elegantly formal, perhaps a bit pompousbutnot unidiomatic, with perhaps the exception of "the idea found from" where one might say "your interpretation of" and "a smiting of conscience" where one might say "an uneasy conscience." And there need to be apostrophes before the possessives in "one's" and "pupil's."（這點很有可能不是錢先生的錯，而是typo） Otherwise it'sperfectly good, if not (from my point of view)a little over-elaborate.第三位：喜歡喜歡我就是喜歡這個寫信的人：比較文學系教授，女，早年是東歐難民（精通多門語言，尤其是俄語和英語），大學和碩士在法國完成，後於哈佛攻讀博士學位。改作文時對語言規範不是很嚴苛，至少不會像前兩位教授那樣，在語言不那麼規範的地方，很重地扣分。她非常喜歡錢這個人，覺得他很詼諧，很逗樂，有一點語言不通的地方，但稍微改一改就好了嘛。（好吧，我承認我自己的反應是和這位老師一毛一樣的。）
The writing samples show a writer with a lively and playful mind, willing to experiment with colloquial expressions. Sometimes, the syntax can be a bit awkward but that can be corrected easily. I like the light humor that comes through.第四位：中立，能看出來有英國腔：歷史系教授，男，英聯邦國家出生和接受教育，後來美國任教，英語母語，堅守英式英語書寫風格。他改學生作文，對語言書寫規範非常嚴格，連標點符號、用詞、冠詞、大錯小錯等等，所有的都會改，但是不會拿這些扣分。他說錢的文字非常sophisticated，然後指出了三處錯，最後說的這一句我服了，他說這個人看起來就像是一個熟悉 telegraphic style、上世紀
二三十年代大英帝國的人。telegraphic style 就是為了文法的精巧，故意刪除一些語法上必要的詞，但是總體上句義是清晰的。不愧是歷史系教授，連時間地點都能說出來。。難不成錢先生對英文的使用習慣，是在牛津那兩年固定下來的？這個老師後來找到我，給我指出了幾個其他的小錯誤，我看了一下，都比較像是typo，前面也有教授說到過。但他沒有提冠詞的問題，也沒有提其他的一些用詞。My first reaction is mixed. Some of the writing is quite sophisticatedand solid familiar communication, but three phrases ("The idea found from," "here go my wishes," and "smiting of conscience") ringfalse. Others sound like a Briton of the 1920s or 1930s writing familiar notes in telegraphic style.補充：對“the idea found from” 的一點討論：無論是老師的回覆，還是其他知友的討論，都很多次提到了這個表達，我最初的評價是這樣的，【別再浪費時間爭“the idea found from”這個表達的用法了！！重點不在於idea可以怎麼用，可以表達哪些詞義，而在於這個說法是不是符合語言習慣。舉個例子，有個外國人這麼說中文，“聽到了這個消息，我樹在原地，動彈不得”。“樹”用在這裡不是完全錯的，只不過母語者可能不那麼講的啦。。the idea found from根本就是不地道的！！】但永遠都有討論的空間，米花
在評論裡提了一個我覺得比較符合邏輯的說法：【關於“the idea found from”，我有一個猜測，林書武當時可能因為翻譯毛的文章，用詞發生歧義或者誤讀，被理解成抹黑領袖之類，而受到了批評。錢鍾書在此的意思是，你的翻譯讀是不出那層意思的，他們硬要讀出那層意思，是不對的。】按照這個邏輯的話，錢老在這裡的遣詞造句，又沒有什麼問題了。有人或許會說，從語言層面上來講，沒表達清楚意思就是語言不好，但在書信寫作的時候，雙方認為彼此on the same page，是完全合情合理的。補充：第五位：非常厲害的英文。終於等到這位教授的評價了，這位教授是五位中對語言鑑賞最權威的，也最客觀的，他終於給出回覆了！！他的專長就是英語語言研究，是學校writing center裡面最權威的advisor，也是最負盛名的英文寫作老師。他給出的評價很全面，說這些文字看起來有點太正式了，而且現代人可能聽不習慣（即便是英語母語者也會有相同的感覺）。但寫信人對英文的掌握讓人印象深刻。有些不影響理解的小錯，寫信人能非常嫻熟地使用英語習語，行文的節奏聲韻很自然，能夠運用比喻，而且對詞彙的掌握水平很高。這個老師說他個人認為，寫信的人應該是一位很有才華的人。
A very interesting question you pose and it is difficult to evaluate texts such as these with out some sense of the context, but although the writing may seem a bit formal and perhaps stilted to our modern ears (as much English, even of native speakers would I think), I think the control of English language itself is very impressive here. There are, of course, a few spelling errors and a couple missing articles （答主注: 前面幾位老師也有提及這點，這些是因為我直接copy了網站的原文，很難考證這些是錢先生犯的錯還是typo，但我傾向於相信是typo）, but those are merely surface level errors that do not interfere with meaning in any significant way. What is impressive is how well the writer grasps English idiom and is able to reproduce a natural sounding cadence of the English sentence and use figurative language (metaphors and similes e.g. "I feel like a swindler . . "). Also the writing demonstrates a very high level of vocabulary.So I personally would judge this writing to be of a very caliber, and well, you know my reputation.
所以綜合來看，五位教授對錢先生書信中的英文，評價不太一致（第一位教授感覺非常一般，後幾位評價較高）。就從錢先生這三封信來看，錢老的英文寫作流暢度偶有不足，但行文優雅，辭藻華麗，文學修養深厚。（至於讀者喜不喜歡辭藻華麗的文字，仁者見仁智者見智。但用得出用不出，是水平問題。）不能與英文權威相媲美，不太可能不經過外文編輯，出版英文作品。不過，有些人行文規矩不犯錯，或許可以成為學術作文的範本，美國校園這些人不是一抓一大把嘛，但是，沒有深厚的經典薰陶和長年的書寫積累，卻難以做到語出驚人。
以上是基於錢老的三封信，對錢老英文寫作的評價，如果有人稱讚錢老的英文
口語表達，說錢鍾書在美國講學，僅憑其操英語的口才，即令四座吃驚，一位在哈佛大學研究院工作多年的美國學者說，他在美國長這麼大，生平從未聽過像這樣漂亮的英語，算來算去只有哈佛的一位語言學教授的英語水平差堪同錢相媲婉美。應該是可信的。畢竟寫作對語言規範度的要求更高，但口語就沒有那麼嚴苛。以他這幾封信表現出來的英文儲備之深，以他對西學的稔熟，以他一貫喜歡多少有點pompous的風格來看，講學中有人這樣評價錢老的口語，或許有誇張成分，但應該是有可能的。//Nov 18 補充：經後續考證，有人這麼誇錢老，一點不誇張，而且是完全可信的。提個醒，英語學習者，還是要追求語言簡潔正確，邏輯清晰條理。
閱讀更多 翻譯教學與研究 的文章
