Now, have any of y'all ever looked up this word? You know, in a dictionary? (Laughter) Yeah, that's what I thought. How about this word? Here, I'll show it to you. Lexicography: the practice of compiling dictionaries. Notice -- we're very specific -- that word "compile." The dictionary is not carved out of a piece of granite, out of a lump of rock. It's made up of lots of little bits. It's little discrete -- that's spelled D-I-S-C-R-E-T-E -- bits. And those bits are words.
現在,在座哪一位查過這個字呢? 就是那種拿起字典來查?(笑聲)沒錯,我也是這麼想的。 那這個字呢? 現在我來告訴各位它們的字義 字典編纂:匯編字典的過程 注意--我們用精確的字義,使用這個字「匯編」。 字典並不是刻在一片岩石上或是大石頭上, 字典是由許多小部份累積而成的。 這概念是離散的-- ㄌㄧˊ ㄙㄢˋ 的小片段。 而這些小片段就是字。
Now one of the perks of being a lexicographer -- besides getting to come to TED -- is that you get to say really fun words, like lexicographical. Lexicographical has this great pattern: it's called a double dactyl. And just by saying double dactyl, I've sent the geek needle all the way into the red. (Laughter) (Applause) But "lexicographical" is the same pattern as "higgledy-piggledy." Right? It's a fun word to say, and I get to say it a lot. Now, one of the non-perks of being a lexicographer is that people don't usually have a kind of warm, fuzzy, snuggly image of the dictionary. Right? Nobody hugs their dictionaries. But what people really often think about the dictionary is, they think more like this. Just to let you know, I do not have a lexicographical whistle. But people think that my job is to let the good words make that difficult left-hand turn into the dictionary, and keep the bad words out.
作為一個辭典編纂者令人振奮的一點是-- 除了能夠參加TED之外--就是你可以說出一些有趣的單字, 譬如「辭典編纂的」。 「辭典編纂的」這個字有很特別的模式-- 叫做雙重抑楊格(一重音節後兩輕音節)。就在我說「雙重抑揚格」的同時, 我已經把怪人指數推到極限了。 但「辭典編纂的」這個字跟「亂七八糟」這個辭是同樣形式的。 對吧?這真是一個說起來很有趣的字, 且我常有機會說這個字。 身為辭典編纂者的缺點之一是 人們普遍對字典的沒有那種親切、舒適、溫暖的感覺。 是吧?誰會去擁抱字典呢? 但是一說到字典人們往往會這樣想。 跟你們說,我並沒有辭典編纂者口哨。 但是一般人認為我的工作就是讓那些好的字彙 能夠順利編進辭典中, 然後剔除那些糟糕的字。
But the thing is, I don't want to be a traffic cop. For one thing, I just do not do uniforms. And for another, deciding what words are good and what words are bad is actually not very easy. And it's not very fun. And when parts of your job are not easy or fun, you kind of look for an excuse not to do them. So if I had to think of some kind of occupation as a metaphor for my work, I would much rather be a fisherman. I want to throw my big net into the deep, blue ocean of English and see what marvelous creatures I can drag up from the bottom. But why do people want me to direct traffic, when I would much rather go fishing? Well, I blame the Queen. Why do I blame the Queen? Well, first of all, I blame the Queen because it's funny. But secondly, I blame the Queen because dictionaries have really not changed.
然而事實是,我並不想當個交通警察。 其中一個原因是我不喜歡制服。 另一個原因是決定哪些字是優良的 哪些字是劣質的很不容易, 而且不有趣。而且當你工作的某部份既不簡單也不有趣時, 你似乎會去找個理由不要去處理它。 所以如果我必須要找到一種職業, 可以用來比喻我這份工作,我想漁夫應該更恰當。 我想要把我的大網撒進這個充斥英語詞彙的蔚藍大海, 然後看看我能從海底捕到什麼了不起的生物。 但是爲什麼當人們期待我去指揮交通,而我卻更喜歡去捕魚呢? 我想這要怪「皇后」。 為什麼我怪「皇后」呢? 第一,因為怪罪皇后很搞笑。 但更重要的,我怪皇后因為 辭典本身其實沒有改變。
Our idea of what a dictionary is has not changed since her reign. The only thing that Queen Victoria would not be amused by in modern dictionaries is our inclusion of the F-word, which has happened in American dictionaries since 1965. So, there's this guy, right? Victorian era. James Murray, first editor of the Oxford English Dictionary. I do not have that hat. I wish I had that hat. So he's really responsible for a lot of what we consider modern in dictionaries today. When a guy who looks like that, in that hat, is the face of modernity, you have a problem. And so, James Murray could get a job on any dictionary today. There'd be virtually no learning curve.
自皇后的統治下,辭典這個概念就沒改變過。 維多利亞皇后在現代人的辭典中唯一不會感到有趣的, 就是那些F開頭的髒話了,這些髒字 自1965年出現在美國的辭典中。 維多利亞時代有個人對吧? 叫做詹姆士莫瑞,第一位牛津英文辭典的編纂者。 我沒有那頂帽子,我希望我有。 所以說他必須要為 現今辭典中被認為是現代的東西負責。 當一個戴著這樣的帽子的人 代表現代化,你就有點問題了。 所以,詹姆士莫瑞可以編纂現代的任何一部辭典。 看起來是毫無學習曲線可言。
And of course, a few of us are saying: okay, computers! Computers! What about computers? The thing about computers is, I love computers. I mean, I'm a huge geek, I love computers. I would go on a hunger strike before I let them take away Google Book Search from me. But computers don't do much else other than speed up the process of compiling dictionaries. They don't change the end result. Because what a dictionary is, is it's Victorian design merged with a little bit of modern propulsion. It's steampunk. What we have is an electric velocipede. You know, we have Victorian design with an engine on it. That's all! The design has not changed.
當然有一些人會說「電腦」呀! 電腦! 那電腦呢? 關於電腦這部分是這樣的 - 我熱愛電腦。 我的意思是,我是電腦狂,我熱愛電腦。 如果有人要把Google書籍搜尋功能從我這拿走的話我會絕食罷工。 但是電腦 除了加快字典編纂速度以外別無功能。 電腦不能改變最後的結果。 因為辭典本身就是 維多利亞時代和一些些現代化概念的融合。 如同蒸汽機龐克,我們有的就只是一部電子雛型 維多利亞時代的設計然後裡面有部引擎罷了。 這個設計還沒有改變過。
And OK, what about online dictionaries, right? Online dictionaries must be different. This is the Oxford English Dictionary Online, one of the best online dictionaries. This is my favorite word, by the way. Erinaceous: pertaining to the hedgehog family; of the nature of a hedgehog. Very useful word. So, look at that. Online dictionaries right now are paper thrown up on a screen. This is flat. Look how many links there are in the actual entry: two! Right? Those little buttons, I had them all expanded except for the date chart. So there's not very much going on here. There's not a lot of clickiness. And in fact, online dictionaries replicate almost all the problems of print, except for searchability. And when you improve searchability, you actually take away the one advantage of print, which is serendipity. Serendipity is when you find things you weren't looking for, because finding what you are looking for is so damned difficult.
那麼網路字典呢? 網路字典肯定不同了。 這是牛津英文線上字典,線上最好的字典之一。 順道一提,這個是我最喜歡的一個字: 刺蝟的:指涉刺猬因子遺傳基因;也就是刺猬因子的本質。 很好用的字。現在看看。 網路字典就像把紙本內容丟到螢幕上。 是平面的。看看有多少真的可以點擊的連結,兩個! 對吧?這些小按鈕-- 除了日期表以外我已經全部展開了。 所以事實上並沒有很多。 沒有很多可點擊的東西。 事實上,線上字典 除了容易搜尋外,跟紙本字典有完全相同的問題。 當你增加搜尋效率時, 你事實上拿走另一個好處:意外收穫。 意外收穫是指你找到一些你原本不是要找的東西, 因為要找到你原本想找的東西實在太難了。
So -- (Laughter) (Applause) -- now, when you think about this, what we have here is a ham butt problem. Does everyone know the ham butt problem? Woman's making a ham for a big, family dinner. She goes to cut the butt off the ham and throw it away, and she looks at this piece of ham and she's like, "This is a perfectly good piece of ham. Why am I throwing this away?" She thought, "Well, my mom always did this." So she calls up mom, and she says, "Mom, why'd you cut the butt off the ham, when you're making a ham?" She says, "I don't know, my mom always did it!" So they call grandma, and grandma says, "My pan was too small!" (Laughter)
所以(笑聲)現在,當你想想這個, 我們有個「火腿末端」問題。 大家知道「火腿末端」問題嗎? 一個女人為了一個家庭聚餐準備火腿。 她把火腿末端切掉然後丟掉。 然後她看著那塊火腿想: 這是一塊完全沒有問題的火腿,為什麼要丟掉呢? 她想:喔,媽媽總是把它丟掉。 所以她打電話給媽媽,問道: 「媽,為什麼要把火腿末端切掉呢?」 媽媽說:「我不知道,我媽媽一直都這麼做!」 所以她們打給奶奶,奶奶說: 「我的鍋子太小了!」(笑聲)
So, it's not that we have good words and bad words. We have a pan that's too small! You know, that ham butt is delicious! There's no reason to throw it away. The bad words -- see, when people think about a place and they don't find a place on the map, they think, "This map sucks!" When they find a nightspot or a bar, and it's not in the guidebook, they're like, "Ooh, this place must be cool! It's not in the guidebook." When they find a word that's not in the dictionary, they think, "This must be a bad word." Why? It's more likely to be a bad dictionary. Why are you blaming the ham for being too big for the pan? So, you can't get a smaller ham. The English language is as big as it is.
所以不是我們有優質或劣質的字-- 而是因爲我們的鍋子太小了! 你知道的,火腿末端很好吃的!實在沒有必要把它丟掉。 劣質的字--你想,當有人想要找一個地方 而那個地方沒有在地圖上, 他們會想「這地圖爛透了!」 當他們找到一個不在旅遊手冊上的夜總會, 他們會想「喔,這地方一定很酷!它沒有在旅遊書上。」 當他們在字典上找不到一個字時,他們會想 「這一定是個不好的字。」為什麼?那更有可能是一本爛字典。 為什麼要怪火腿太大呢? 所以你不可能有塊小火腿。 英文這個語言就是這麼大。
So, if you have a ham butt problem, and you're thinking about the ham butt problem, the conclusion that it leads you to is inexorable and counterintuitive: paper is the enemy of words. How can this be? I mean, I love books. I really love books. Some of my best friends are books. But the book is not the best shape for the dictionary. Now they're going to think "Oh, boy. People are going to take away my beautiful, paper dictionaries?" No. There will still be paper dictionaries. When we had cars -- when cars became the dominant mode of transportation, we didn't round up all the horses and shoot them. You know, there're still going to be paper dictionaries, but it's not going to be the dominant dictionary. The book-shaped dictionary is not going to be the only shape dictionaries come in. And it's not going to be the prototype for the shapes dictionaries come in.
所以如果你有個火腿末端問題, 且你正在想這個問題, 結論是無情且反直覺的: 紙是文字的敵人。 這怎麼可能?我的意思是,我愛書。我很愛書。 我一些最要好的朋友都是書。 但書不是字典最好的形式。 現在他們會想「喔不, 不要把我美麗的紙本字典拿走?」 不是的。紙本字典還是會存在。 當我們有車子的時候,當車子成為主要的交通工具時, 我們沒有把所有的馬抓起來殺掉。 你懂的,還是會有紙本字典, 只是不會是主要的形式。 紙本字典不會是字典的唯一形式。 而且字典不會有一個 很制式的形式。
So, think about it this way: if you've got an artificial constraint, artificial constraints lead to arbitrary distinctions and a skewed worldview. What if biologists could only study animals that made people go, "Aww." Right? What if we made aesthetic judgments about animals, and only the ones we thought were cute were the ones that we could study? We'd know a whole lot about charismatic megafauna, and not very much about much else. And I think this is a problem. I think we should study all the words, because when you think about words, you can make beautiful expressions from very humble parts. Lexicography is really more about material science. We are studying the tolerances of the materials that you use to build the structure of your expression: your speeches and your writing. And then, often people say to me, "Well, OK, how do I know that this word is real?" They think, "OK, if we think words are the tools that we use to build the expressions of our thoughts, how can you say that screwdrivers are better than hammers? How can you say that a sledgehammer is better than a ball-peen hammer?" They're just the right tools for the job.
這樣想吧!就像是你有一個人為限制, 這個限制造成 無理曲解和扭曲的世界觀。 如果生物學家只能研究 讓人們看了會覺得可愛的動物? 如果我們對動物的審美標準是 只能研究那些讓我們覺得可愛的? 我們會瞭解很多關於有魅力的巨型動物的事情, 但其他的幾乎一無所知。 且我覺得這是個問題。 我覺得我們應該學習所有的字, 因為當你想文字時,你可以用簡單的字 拼湊成美妙的語句。 辭典編纂事實上是比較材料科學的。 我們正在研究人們 用來組織文章的材料的極限, 包括口頭和紙筆。人們常常這麼跟我說: 「好,我怎麼知道這個字是不是真的?」 他們想:「好,如果我們把文字當作 我們組織語句的工具, 那我們怎麼知道螺絲起子會比榔頭好呢?」 你又怎麼會知道大錘子比小槌子好呢? 那是因工作所需而定的。
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anybody who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it. That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction. It doesn't make a word any more real than any other way. If you love a word, it becomes real. So if we're not worrying about directing traffic, if we've transcended paper, if we are worrying less about control and more about description, then we can think of the English language as being this beautiful mobile. And any time one of those little parts of the mobile changes, is touched, any time you touch a word, you use it in a new context, you give it a new connotation, you verb it, you make the mobile move. You didn't break it. It's just in a new position, and that new position can be just as beautiful.
所以有人問我:「我怎麼知道一個字是不是真的?」 事實上,任何一個看過童話故事書的人 都知道愛會讓事情成真。 如果你很喜歡一個單字,多用它,這樣就會讓它變成一個真的單字了。 被放在字典裡面只是人為的區別罷了。 不會讓一個字更真實。 如果你愛一個字,這就讓它變成真的。 所以當我們不是在煩惱如何指揮交通時, 如果我們超越紙張,如果我們少煩惱一些 關於駕馭的事而多想一些描述, 那麼我們就可以把英文語言 想成一部美麗的轎車。 且每一次轎車中的任一小部份改變時, 每一次你使用一個字, 你以一個新的方式使用它,你賦予它新的意義, 你把它當作動詞,你讓轎車移動。 你不會把它弄壞,只是擺放到不同的地方, 且那新的地方有可能也一樣美麗。
Now, if you're no longer a traffic cop -- the problem with being a traffic cop is there can only be so many traffic cops in any one intersection, or the cars get confused. Right? But if your goal is no longer to direct the traffic, but maybe to count the cars that go by, then more eyeballs are better. You can ask for help! If you ask for help, you get more done. And we really need help. Library of Congress: 17 million books, of which half are in English. If only one out of every 10 of those books had a word that's not in the dictionary in it, that would be equivalent to more than two unabridged dictionaries.
現在,你不再是個交通警察。 交通警察的問題是, 在每個交叉路口上只能有固定數量的交警, 不然車子會更混亂。對吧? 但如果你的目的不是在指揮交通, 而是在數有多少輛車子經過,那麽更多人或許是更好的。 你可以請求協助! 如果你請求協助,你將可以完成更多的事情。我們真的很需要幫忙。 國會圖書館有一千七百萬本書。 其中有一半是英文書。 如果每十本中 有一個不在字典中的字, 那會比兩本未經刪節的字典還多。
And I find an un-dictionaried word -- a word like "un-dictionaried," for example -- in almost every book I read. What about newspapers? Newspaper archive goes back to 1759, 58.1 million newspaper pages. If only one in 100 of those pages had an un-dictionaried word on it, it would be an entire other OED. That's 500,000 more words. So that's a lot. And I'm not even talking about magazines. I'm not talking about blogs -- and I find more new words on BoingBoing in a given week than I do Newsweek or Time. There's a lot going on there.
且我幾乎在每本書中都可以找到一個「沒有在字典中」的字-- 像是「沒有在字典中」就是一個。 報紙呢? 從1759年到現在的報紙, 五千八百一十萬頁。如果每一百頁 有個沒有在字典裡的單字, 那就會是另一本牛津英文字典了。 那是多了五十萬個字。那是很多的。 而且我還沒有討論到雜誌,也沒有談部落格-- 且我每個禮拜在BoingBoing(網站)上看到的新單字 比在Newsweek或時代雜誌多。 那邊真的有很多新事件在發生。
And I'm not even talking about polysemy, which is the greedy habit some words have of taking more than one meaning for themselves. So if you think of the word "set," a set can be a badger's burrow, a set can be one of the pleats in an Elizabethan ruff, and there's one numbered definition in the OED. The OED has 33 different numbered definitions for set. Tiny, little word, 33 numbered definitions. One of them is just labeled "miscellaneous technical senses." Do you know what that says to me? That says to me, it was Friday afternoon and somebody wanted to go down the pub. (Laughter) That's a lexicographical cop out, to say, "miscellaneous technical senses."
且我也還沒討論到一字多意, 就是一個貪心的 有不只一個意思的字。 如果想想英文單字「set」,可以是狗的洞穴, 也可以是伊利莎白式袖口的褶子, 而且在牛津英文字典中還有其他的解釋。 牛津英文字典對「set」這個字有33種解釋。 這麼簡單的一個字,33種意思。 其中一個寫到「雜項技術用語」。 你知道他們跟我說什麼嗎? 他們說,已經是禮拜五下午了且有人想要(下班)去酒吧了。 那是辭典編纂人員的偷懶, 寫說「雜項技術用語」。
So, we have all these words, and we really need help! And the thing is, we could ask for help -- asking for help's not that hard. I mean, lexicography is not rocket science. See, I just gave you a lot of words and a lot of numbers, and this is more of a visual explanation. If we think of the dictionary as being the map of the English language, these bright spots are what we know about, and the dark spots are where we are in the dark. If that was the map of all the words in American English, we don't know very much. And we don't even know the shape of the language. If this was the dictionary -- if this was the map of American English -- look, we have a kind of lumpy idea of Florida, but there's no California! We're missing California from American English. We just don't know enough, and we don't even know that we're missing California. We don't even see that there's a gap on the map.
所以我們有這些字,且我們真的需要幫忙! 而且我們可以請人幫忙, 事實上沒有那麼難。 我的意思是,辭典編纂不是很難的科學。 你看,我才剛給你們一堆字和一堆數字, 這是個圖像的解釋。 如果我們把字典想成英語語言的地圖, 這些亮點是我們已經知道的, 暗點是我們還不知道的。 如果我們看這個美式英語的地圖,我們知道不多。 我們不知道這個語言的形狀。 如果這是字典,如果這是美式英語的地圖, 看,我們有個怪異形狀的佛羅里達, 但沒有加州! 我們在美式英語中忽略了加州。 我們真的知道的太少,而且我們根本不知道我們忽略了加州。 我們根本看不出來地圖上有空隙。
So again, lexicography is not rocket science. But even if it were, rocket science is being done by dedicated amateurs these days. You know? It can't be that hard to find some words! So, enough scientists in other disciplines are really asking people to help, and they're doing a good job of it. For instance, there's eBird, where amateur birdwatchers can upload information about their bird sightings. And then, ornithologists can go and help track populations, migrations, etc.
所以再說一次,辭典編纂不是什麼很難的科學。 但就算它是,現在的前衛科學 往往是需要業餘者的參與。你知道嗎? 找一些單字不難的! 所以,很多在其他領域的科學家 正在請人們幫忙,且他們做得非常好。 舉例來說:eBird是業餘觀鳥者 可以上傳他們看到鳥類的狀況。 然後鳥類學家可由此 瞭解鳥類數目、遷移等資料。
And there's this guy, Mike Oates. Mike Oates lives in the U.K. He's a director of an electroplating company. He's found more than 140 comets. He's found so many comets, they named a comet after him. It's kind of out past Mars. It's a hike. I don't think he's getting his picture taken there anytime soon. But he found 140 comets without a telescope. He downloaded data from the NASA SOHO satellite, and that's how he found them. If we can find comets without a telescope, shouldn't we be able to find words?
還有一個住在英國名叫麥可奧斯的人。 他是一家電鍍公司的老闆。 他發現了超過140個彗星。 為了感謝他在尋找彗星領域的貢獻,有個彗星是用他的名字命名的。 那些彗星比火星遠--需要一些氣力才過得去。 我不認為他可以在不遠的將來可在那邊拍照。 但他並沒有用望遠鏡找到140個彗星。 他下載了NASA和SOHO的衛星資訊, 就這樣找到了彗星。 如果我們可以不需要望遠鏡就可以找到彗星, 那為什麼我們不能找到新的字?
Now, y'all know where I'm going with this. Because I'm going to the Internet, which is where everybody goes. And the Internet is great for collecting words, because the Internet's full of collectors. And this is a little-known technological fact about the Internet, but the Internet is actually made up of words and enthusiasm. And words and enthusiasm actually happen to be the recipe for lexicography. Isn't that great? So there are a lot of really good word-collecting sites out there right now, but the problem with some of them is that they're not scientific enough. They show the word, but they don't show any context. Where did it come from? Who said it? What newspaper was it in? What book?
現在,你們都知道我在想什麼了。 我在想網路,就是大家都在用的。 而且網路是個非常適合蒐集文字的地方, 因為網路上有很多蒐集者。 且這是網路較不為人知的科技面向, 但事實上網路是由文字和熱情編織出來的。 而文字和熱情正是 辭典編纂的元素。這不是很棒嗎? 現在網路上有很多很棒的文字蒐集網站, 但問題在於他們不夠科學化。 他們顯示文字,但沒有內容: 從哪裡來?誰說的? 在哪些報紙當中?哪些書當中?
Because a word is like an archaeological artifact. If you don't know the provenance or the source of the artifact, it's not science, it's a pretty thing to look at. So a word without its source is like a cut flower. You know, it's pretty to look at for a while, but then it dies. It dies too fast. So, this whole time I've been saying, "The dictionary, the dictionary, the dictionary, the dictionary." Not "a dictionary," or "dictionaries." And that's because, well, people use the dictionary to stand for the whole language. They use it synecdochically. And one of the problems of knowing a word like "synecdochically" is that you really want an excuse to say "synecdochically." This whole talk has just been an excuse to get me to the point where I could say "synecdochically" to all of you. So I'm really sorry. But when you use a part of something -- like the dictionary is a part of the language, or a flag stands for the United States, it's a symbol of the country -- then you're using it synecdochically. But the thing is, we could make the dictionary the whole language. If we get a bigger pan, then we can put all the words in. We can put in all the meanings. Doesn't everyone want more meaning in their lives? And we can make the dictionary not just be a symbol of the language -- we can make it be the whole language.
因為文字是古典神物。 如果你不知道神物的出處, 就不是科學,只是一個好看的東西罷了。 所以一個不知道來源的字就像是朵被摘下來的花。 就是看起來很漂亮但過一陣子就死掉了。 它很快就會死亡。 從剛剛到現在我一直說 :「辭典、辭典、辭典。」 不是「一本辭典」或是「數本辭典」。原因是-- 人們把「辭典」當作整個語言的代稱。 人們把它當作一種借代-- 且知道一個像是「借代」這樣的詞 就是你會想要一個用這個詞理由。 所以這整個演講就是製造一個 讓我可以有機會講這個字。 對不起。但當你用東西的一部份-- 就像辭典是語言的一部份, 或是讓國旗代表美國、代表國家-- 那麼你就是在使用借代了。 但問題是,我們可以讓辭典成為整個語言。 如果我們有個大一點的鍋子,我們就可以把所有字放進去。 我們可以讓它有所有的意義。 人們不是總希望人生有更多意義嗎? 且我們可以讓辭典不是只是語言的符號, 我們可以讓它成為整個語言。
You see, what I'm really hoping for is that my son, who turns seven this month -- I want him to barely remember that this is the form factor that dictionaries used to come in. This is what dictionaries used to look like. I want him to think of this kind of dictionary as an eight-track tape. It's a format that died because it wasn't useful enough. It wasn't really what people needed. And the thing is, if we can put in all the words, no longer have that artificial distinction between good and bad, we can really describe the language like scientists. We can leave the aesthetic judgments to the writers and the speakers. If we can do that, then I can spend all my time fishing, and I don't have to be a traffic cop anymore. Thank you very much for your kind attention.
我很希望我的兒子-- 他這個月就要七歲了--我希望他幾乎不會記得 這是以前辭典的形式。 這是以前辭典的樣子。 我希望他把這種辭典就有點像是錄音帶。 就是一種因為不夠常使用而不復存在。 並不是人們真的需要的。 但事實上,如果我們可以把所有的字放進去, 沒有人為的優質劣質間的區分, 我們就真的可以如科學家般解釋語言。 我們可以把美學鑑定的部份讓給作家和演講家。 如果我們可以做到,那們我就可以把所有時間拿來釣魚, 而不用繼續當一個交通警察了。 謝謝各位的注意。