June 22, 1934
Dear Mr Fowler,
I write chiefly to thank you for the four volumes of Tennyson[1] that you sent me in memory of your brother.It is certainly a source of pride as well as pleasure to think that I now have for my own[2] some books that have long been kept and valued by a great scholar.If they bear some signs of what Charles Lamb[3] called "ragged veterans"[4](Lamb's "Detached Thoughts on Books and Reading"[5]), this only serves to[6] enhance their charm.
Seeing that[7] you are rather old and that you must be very busy compiling the new dictionary, I think I should not trouble you with a long letter.But I am too much interested in your brothers' books to conclude this letter without making a few remarks about them.And I hope that you will have the patience to consider what might be dull enough for one not a lexicographer.[8]
You do not seem to have got my ideas about [ow] and [ir].That ow itself may have either the sound of "boat" or that of "foul" does not affect[9] my question.I am doubtful about [ow] because I believe that the sound in "foul", "fowl", "howl", "jowl", etc.does not begin with [ˇo], but with [ah], and that to use [ow] to represent this sound might lead those who cannot pronounce the sound properly to think that it actually begins with [ˇo].
The question about [ir] is a similar one.I do not mean any word that contains ir, such as "first".I mean those words that contain ere, such as "here", "mere", "sphere", or ear, such as "hear", "clear", "beard".My point is that the correct sound in these words does not have the full value of [ˉe]; that is, the e is so much influenced by the r as to become [ˇ?].So I think that [ˉer] does not serve so well as [ir] would, in representing the sound.
I have recently received a letter from a friend(who is a serious student of English)asking me whether I can enlighten him on the use and omission of the articles in P.O.D.[10] and C.O.D.I have spent an hour or so[11] considering this point, and have now to tell you that the use and omission of the articles in the two dictionaries seem to me to be quite irregular.Please look up "come" in C.O.D.Here we find the three phrases "come into world", "come to an end", and "come to hand".Surely in "come to an end", the "an" is indispensable, and in "come to hand" we should never insert "the" or "a".But I am at a loss to account for[12] the omission of "the" in "come into world".Such notable omissions must be intentional.Perhaps your brothers thought that an intelligent consulter would easily supply the article in such phrases.But I am of opinion that a dictionary-maker should treat every phrase as being entirely unknown to the users of the dictionary.I wonder whether the articles are frequently omitted in your new dictionary, and if you have not yet gone very far, I hope that you will stop to consider[13] whether it would not be desirable never to omit an article where it is necessary.
Yours very sincerely,
Hertz C.K.Kê
注释
[1]Tennyson:丁尼生，即Alfred Tennyson，英国诗人，生于1809年，卒于1892年
[2]have for my own:拥有
[3]Charles Lamb:英国文豪，生于1775年，卒于1834年
[4]“ragged veterans”:衣衫褴褛之老兵（喻旧书）
[5]“Detached Thoughts on Books and Reading”:小品文篇名
[6]only serves to...:适足以……
[7]seeing that...:鉴于……
[8]lexicographer:编字典者
[9]affect:影响
[10]P.O.D.= The Pocket Oxford Dictionary
[11]an hour or so:约一小时
[12]at a loss to account for:不知如何解释
[13]stop to consider:止而思；静思
