翻译题
For half a century, language experts have fallen into two camps, with most lexicographers and academic linguists on one side, and traditionalist writers and editors on the other. Should language experts aim to describe the state of the language accurately? Or should they prescribe how the language should be used? 【F1】Over the decades, the two sides have traded insults; prescribers are authoritarians in denial about the real world and describers are random with no standards. Two authors in the past two years have made clear that it is time to move on. Steven Pinker is a describer, a linguist and cognitive scientist. But two years ago he published "The Sense of Style", a guide to good writing that ended with a section of prescriptions: do this, not that. Now come two new books by Bryan Garner, a proud prescriptivist who reaches the same point from the opposite direction. Mr. Garner has tangled with Mr. Pinker and other descriptive linguists. His explicit aim is to tell people what they should and shouldn't do. But he has also called himself a "descriptive prescriber", and this is clearer than ever before in the fourth edition of his masterly usage dictionary and a new book. The conflict between description and prescription should never have become so bitter. Mr. Pinker is a fine English stylist; it is no surprise that he has opinions on whether some words and formations are better than others. And Mr. Garner is a deeply read man and a lawyer, so it should come as no surprise that he gathers evidence. But both camps were ill-served by less thoughtful standard-bearers. 【F2】Many clueless prescribers really did push faulty rules: the ban on split infinitives, the ban on ending sentences with prepositions, the notion that "since" cannot mean "because" and so many more. These were passed down from teachers to students over generations. 【F3】When academic linguists began systematically investigating English by looking at texts and listening to speakers, they found that many such "rules" were anything but, and some began teasing the rule-promoters. In the pushback against a history of prejudices, prescription represented authority and tradition, and description represented democracy and progress. 【F4】But sensible writers on both sides have come to agree, however implicitly, that there is a variety, called standard English, with rules that can be found by looking at large volumes of the stuff. 【F5】The best prescribers are becoming ever more informed, and the describers more comfortable with the idea of giving people "right" and "wrong" judgments on standard English.
【答案解析】①本句虽篇幅较长，实为简单句。主干为主谓宾结构，冒号后引出三个并列的同位语，具体说明faulty rules“错误的规定”的具体内容。②谓语动词push前的助动词did起强调作用，说明prescribers确实推行了某事。③名词短语the ban on sth．是指“对某事物的禁令”，the notion后接that引导的同位语从句，解释说明这个观念的内容是什么。
【答案解析】①本句是主从复合句，包含一个宾语从句和一个定语从句。句子的主干是But sensible writers…have come to agree…，意思是“理智的作家都已经达成共识”。②第一个that引导的从句作主句谓语动词come to agree的宾语，说明达成共识的内容。however implicitly是让步状语，修饰主句的谓语，说明尽管达成共识尚未明晰。③宾语从句是there be结构，主干是there is a variety with rules…，指出有一种语言变体的规则。④第二个that引导的定语从句修饰rules，句末by引导的介词短语作方式状语，说明如何发现这些规则。
【答案解析】①本句为and连接的并列简单句。两个分句分别介绍prescribers和describers的情况。②分句1为主系表结构。表语informed作形容词时意为“见闻广的，消息灵通的”。③分句2中的谓语是be comfortable with sth．结构，原文省略了be动词are，意为“对……感到舒服”。idea后的of介词短语说明idea的具体内容。