這種逗號不如餵給熊貓吃掉吧！

范范真是「好範兒」，另一個事業巔峰就是為台灣大眾示範了好何謂言多必失。她日前顯然本想藉著撂英文顯示高尚以博得同情，哪知不自量力的低級英文一po出，成為負面示範，刺激全民探討英文、重拾學英文的樂趣。截圖是 Dub & Ko Language Services（來源：臉書）提供批改范瑋琪英文的範例，造成大轟動，雖然轟動的背後難免有政治立場煽風點火，但就學習語言來說，仍也是極佳的學習範例。祝這個抓緊時事脈動的英文改寫和翻譯服務事業蒸蒸日上。不過，有一個英文寫作規則必須指出。最後一句的改寫：

She who talks much, errs much.

這在今天已經不是好的英文，絕對會被英文編輯和老師視為錯誤。去掉逗點就好了。句子主詞與述詞之間的逗點，歷史上曾經出現，那是至少200年前的寫法，今日不宜，除非你是在直接引述古人的英語，否則請注意不得加逗號，無論主詞多麼長。

以下直接引述兩本權威用法指南供參：

一、Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1989) 262頁

Comma between subject and predicate.

It is no longer cricket 〔按：n. 正人君子之舉；合度的行為〕 to separate the subject and predicate with punctuation. “How,” asks Simon 1980 rhetorically, “can one possibly separate the subject... from the predicate ... by a comma?” The comma between subject and predicate is an old convention that has fallen into disuse and disfavor. It was common in the 18th century:

What Methods they will take, is not for me to prescribe —Jonathan Swift, “A Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue,” 1712

The words for all that, seem too low —Murray 1795

The first thing to be studied here, is grammatical propriety —Murray 1795

This comma is now universally frowned on and tends to be found only as a vice of comic-strip writers, advertisers, and others who are not on their guard. You should avoid the practice.

二、The Sense of Styles, Steven Pinker （有中譯本《寫作風格的意識》）

Still, a few common errors are so uncontroversial—the run-on sentence, the comma splice, the grocer's apostrophe, the comma between subject and predicate, the possessive it's—that they have become tantamount to the confession “I am illiterate,” and no writer should be caught making them. As I mentioned, the problem with these errors is not that they betray an absence of logical thinking but that they betray a history of inattention to the printed page. In the hope that an ability to distinguish the logical and illogical features of punctuation may help a reader master both, I'll say a few words about the design of the system, highlighting the major bugs that have been locked into it.

可是，有幾個常見錯誤不那麼具爭議性，像連寫句（兩個主句間沒有連接詞或誤用標點）、用逗號連接兩個完整句子、複數名詞誤加撇號、主詞和述語之間誤加逗號，以及屬格誤加撇號（例如it’s〔它的〕），假如連這些都用錯了，恐怕就稱不上是個讀書識字的人，任何作者不容許在這裡犯錯。像我曾說的，犯上這種錯誤，問題不在於欠缺邏輯思考，而是對書面文字的歷史漠不關心。我期望能把標點的邏輯與非邏輯元素分開，讓讀者兩者都能掌握；我會談一下標點系統的設計，指出隱藏在系統中的一些缺失。 （江先聲譯）

這種逗號不如餵給熊貓吃掉吧！

范范真是「好範兒」，另一個事業巔峰就是為台灣大眾示範了好何謂言多必失。她日前顯然本想藉著撂英文顯示高尚以博得同情，哪知不自量力的低級英文一po出，成為負面示範，刺激全民探討英文、重拾學英文的樂趣。截圖是 Dub & Ko Language Services（來源：臉書）提供批改范瑋琪英文的範例，造成大轟動，雖然轟動的背後難免有政治立場煽風點火，但就學習語言來說，仍也是極佳的學習範例。祝這個抓緊時事脈動的英文改寫和翻譯服務事業蒸蒸日上。不過，有一個英文寫作規則必須指出。最後一句的改寫：

She who talks much, errs much.

這在今天已經不是好的英文，絕對會被英文編輯和老師視為錯誤。去掉逗點就好了。句子主詞與述詞之間的逗點，歷史上曾經出現，那是至少200年前的寫法，今日不宜，除非你是在直接引述古人的英語，否則請注意不得加逗號，無論主詞多麼長。

以下直接引述兩本權威用法指南供參：

一、Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1989) 262頁

Comma between subject and predicate.

It is no longer cricket 〔按：n. 正人君子之舉；合度的行為〕 to separate the subject and predicate with punctuation. “How,” asks Simon 1980 rhetorically, “can one possibly separate the subject... from the predicate ... by a comma?” The comma between subject and predicate is an old convention that has fallen into disuse and disfavor. It was common in the 18th century:

What Methods they will take, is not for me to prescribe —Jonathan Swift, “A Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue,” 1712

The words for all that, seem too low —Murray 1795

The first thing to be studied here, is grammatical propriety —Murray 1795

This comma is now universally frowned on and tends to be found only as a vice of comic-strip writers, advertisers, and others who are not on their guard. You should avoid the practice.

二、The Sense of Styles, Steven Pinker （有中譯本《寫作風格的意識》）

Still, a few common errors are so uncontroversial—the run-on sentence, the comma splice, the grocer's apostrophe, the comma between subject and predicate, the possessive it's—that they have become tantamount to the confession “I am illiterate,” and no writer should be caught making them. As I mentioned, the problem with these errors is not that they betray an absence of logical thinking but that they betray a history of inattention to the printed page. In the hope that an ability to distinguish the logical and illogical features of punctuation may help a reader master both, I'll say a few words about the design of the system, highlighting the major bugs that have been locked into it.

可是，有幾個常見錯誤不那麼具爭議性，像連寫句（兩個主句間沒有連接詞或誤用標點）、用逗號連接兩個完整句子、複數名詞誤加撇號、主詞和述語之間誤加逗號，以及屬格誤加撇號（例如it’s〔它的〕），假如連這些都用錯了，恐怕就稱不上是個讀書識字的人，任何作者不容許在這裡犯錯。像我曾說的，犯上這種錯誤，問題不在於欠缺邏輯思考，而是對書面文字的歷史漠不關心。我期望能把標點的邏輯與非邏輯元素分開，讓讀者兩者都能掌握；我會談一下標點系統的設計，指出隱藏在系統中的一些缺失。 （江先聲譯）

有時候教學也是講狀態的，雖然作為專業的英語老師實在不應該把「狀態不好」作為教得差的藉口。

星期一成人班，主題是participial phrase（分詞片語）。有研究過這個grammar item的同學也知道，分詞片語可以幫助我們結合兩句主語一樣的句子，變成一句，令表達更為緊密，邏輯關係也更清晰。

例如本來你要說：

Josiah was walking his dog in the park. He felt relaxed.

用了participial phrase，兩句變成一句：

Walking his dog in the park, Josiah felt relaxed.

當動作是performed in the active sense，也就是說Josiah自己主動做這個動作，而並非被動接受動作，我們在分詞片語中會用到present participle （現在分詞），而並非past participle （過去分詞）。

當動作是performed in the passive sense，例如說將這兩句：

The boss was displeased with my performance. He fired me.

改成一句的話，就會變成：

Displeased with my performance, the boss fired me.

Displease是一個performed in the passive sense的動作，也就是老闆被動接受的動作，在分詞片語中會用到past participle。

Walking和annoyed都是non－finite verb，因為walking和annoyed兩個字都顯示不到時態，道理就和動名詞（gerund）和動形容詞（participle adjective）顯示不到時態一樣。

麻煩來了，我們也可以用分詞片語改寫用完成時寫成的句子，例如

He had been trained as a navy for 5 years, he had no difficulties sailing a ship. 這句話，

可以改寫成：
Having been trained as a navy for 5 years, he had no difficulties sailing a ship.

如果要改寫的句子不是上句，而是

He has been trained as a navy for 5 years, he has no difficulties sailing a ship.的話，

就應該改寫成：
Having been trained as a navy for 5 years, he has no difficulties sailing a ship.

值得留意的是，雖然Having been會讓你知道原本的句子用了perfect 型態（aspect），但Having和been都並非finite verb，因為having和been兩個字都沒有告訴你原本那句句子用的是present還是past tense。

所以，Having been trained as a navy for 5 years這個子句裡面不含finite verb，整句裡面唯一的finite verb是main clause（主要從句）“he had no difficulties sailing a ship” 裡面的had。

話說回來，我說我教得不好，是因為我沒有從兩個句子開始講解participial phrase，而是先從含有participial phrase的一句開始切入講解，finite和non－finite的部分又講解的不清楚，講解了一會之後看見同學一臉茫然，我就知道自己切入點不對，logical flow做得不好，才令同學感到迷茫，實在汗顏。💧

要講解清晰，切入點真的很重要，能合邏輯的一步一步帶領同學推演至他們需要明白的結論，才算真功夫。

下次要做得更好！

====================
➡️ 課程時間表：http://bit.ly/fla-timetable
➡️ 訂閱 YouTube 頻道：http://bit.ly/flayt-sub
➡️ 訂閱電子報：http://bit.ly/fla-nl
➡️ 設定專頁為「搶先看」/ “see first”