英语学习资料(第一期)

危险英语一危险英语一英语中的禁忌语的由来英语中的禁忌语的由来对于有些英语词汇，父母、教师、宗教人士以及教义书籍都会告诫年轻人不要随便说出口。

这种“词汇审查制度”避免了危险词汇可能在公共场合给人带来的紧张。

人们选择发明新词来代替那些不雅的、说不出口的词，可有些时候这些新词最后也会变成禁忌语。

美国社会在20世纪最后30年中发生了很多的变化，现在，很多禁忌词眼通常能够被接受，无论是出现在社团中、女性中还是媒体上，而在以前是绝对不可能耳闻的。

但是在以下场合依旧不欢迎危险词汇：教会学校、祈祷堂、办公室、正式会议、混合了不同年龄层次和性别的聚会、在有老年人和小孩子的地方。

哪些话题是禁忌的些话题是禁忌的？？除了医务所之外，美国人不在正式场合谈论的话题包括：与人体的性器官或性行为有关的与排泄等卫生间内的事务有关的呕吐或者挖鼻屎之类恶心的事情癌症或者死亡之类令人沮丧的事情美国人也尽量避免讨论宗教、政治和种族事件，以防止可能引发的观点冲突。

（当然了，很多的情景剧因为元素的需要，往往刻意制造这些冲突。

）哪些词眼是禁忌的哪些词眼是禁忌的？？Reinhold Aman博士是“坏词”（maledicta）方面的研究专家。

他认为，禁忌词汇可以分三类：淫秽下流的(obscenities)；亵渎上帝的(blash p emies)；诽谤诋毁的(sl ur s)。

OBSCENTITIES是一些粗鄙的词汇，涉及：人体的性部位、性行为、排泄行为。

不过，在几世纪前，这些词例如coc k（JB，其实中文中把JB全拼出来也比较禁忌），fu c k（操），shit（屎）曾可以自由使用。

BL A SPHEMIES是宗教训导们所认为的禁忌，包括G od damn it；g o to H ell；J es u s C h r ist!这些词允许出现在宗教文书中，但仅此而已。

SLU R S是指对他人的国籍、种族带有侮辱性的词眼，像k i k e（犹太佬），w o p（移居美国的南欧人，尤其是意大利人），ni gg e r（黑鬼）都名列于最最危险词汇的榜单上。

分享THE SHARER SIPC&ICCT2009.03（第一期第一期））We learn We share为什么以上这些话题和词眼是禁忌和词眼是禁忌？？禁忌有由来（某些禁忌，也有被解除的一天）。

在历史的某个阶段，某一群体宣布某个词汇或者话题当成为禁忌。

如果这个群体在社会上足够有影响力的话，那么这个禁忌由此而成。

美洲的英语社会于17世纪初开始形成。

来自英格兰的清教徒为寻找信仰自由，乘着五月花移民至美洲。

他们对性方面的戒律甚是严格：性是为了生育孩子，出于其他目的的性行为都是罪，是对上帝的猥亵。

教会还训导众人，任何可能让人们想到性的东西（不仅仅是语言）不应当被暴露于阳光之下，被看到或者听到。

于是，与肉体行为相关的词眼也因此成了禁忌。

到如今，4个世纪过去了，但是美国人依旧受这段早期历史的影响。

大体上可以这么说：当话题涉及到裸体、性以及排泄行为等令他们感到尴尬的事物时，美国人就变得非常清教徒式。

作为基督教的至上之书，《圣经》中有部分思想是基于犹太教经文的。

它训导众人，上帝不许人随便呼G od，否则就是对神不敬，犯了亵渎神灵的罪。

这就是BL A SPHEME 的由来。

美国历史在很长一段时间内种族关系非常恶劣。

从1619至1863年，很多（主要是美国南方）白人土地主把非洲黑人当做奴隶驱使，直到南北战争之后，黑人才得以解放，有了自由之身。

而在之后的一百年，黑人并没有获得公民权，包括所在州的投票权。

同一时期，北美土著居民印第安人在与美国政府的争斗中屡屡失败，加上疾病和饥荒，人口不断减少。

尽管在今日的美国，种族关系得到了改善，但是诸多旧痛并未被遗忘，疑虑感和厌恶感在某些领域依旧存在。

某一族群对另一族群的称呼往往带有贬低冒犯之意。

很多具有良知的人士视之为禁忌，知道这些词眼会伤害他人。

在白人中，NIGGE R 可能是美国英语中最具有禁忌色彩的一个词了。

不同种族的移民群体往往由于语言障碍而不能相互之间很好地沟通，往往一个种族群体对另一个种族群体的称谓就不是那么地尊重。

除了种族问题之外，还有以下这些弱势或者非主流的人群也往往难以获得法定权利或社会地位：女性、同性恋、残障人士、身相劣等（如猪八戒）、儿童、老年人、肥胖者、身高不具优势者、穷人。

对这些人的称呼往往是带有贬义色彩的。

禁忌词汇的作用是什么？禁忌词汇有着它的神奇力量。

叛逆的青春期孩子用禁忌词汇来摆酷或破坏规矩；大声喊出一两个禁忌词汇有助于人释放压力，缓解痛苦；男人之间用禁忌的社交词汇来增进哥们感情；情侣之间使用禁忌的性事词汇来激发快感；而情景喜剧的演员们使用各种各样的禁忌语来达到搞笑的目的。

为什么会有那么多的词汇用来指称性和其他禁忌物呢？禁忌语其实很有意思。

人们也会花大量时间思考和讨论与禁忌有关的话题。

在许多时候，人们用委婉语（e up hemisms）或是平和的（o ff -colo r ,sli g htl y sm u tt y ）俚语来代替禁忌词汇。

所以，尽管英语的普通词汇中说肩膀（sho u lde r ）、耳朵（ea r）和膝盖（k nee）都分别只有一个词，但是当涉及到人体的性部位时，却有上百个的词汇。

比如，Bu ttoc k s、behind、ass都是指代身体的同一个部位。

Bu ttoc k s （臀部）在正式场合使用，是个“干净的词汇”，behind （后部）更加“干净”，基本在大场合也适用。

而ass （屁股）就是个脏词（di r t y w o r d）了,在非正式场合用得很普遍。

又比如关于p enis就有很多的别称，dic k是其中之一。

但同时，D ic k也是一个非常普遍的男子名，就像B ill是W illiam的昵称一样，D ic k是Richa r d的昵称。

在一个重视礼节的场合，我们可以讨论D ic k这个人，但当dic k指的是“家伙”的时候，就没那个门面拿出来讨论了。

不管怎么说，危险英语真的很危险，因为使用污蔑性的、致怒性的下流语言而遭致杀害并非不曾发生过，所以学好危险英语很重要！（下一章下一章：：你的发音危险吗？）？） The Financial CrisisBad and GettingWorse, but Put Awaythat D-wordIt began as the "subprimecrisis" in 2007, and thenmushroomed into afull-blown global recessionin 2008. And still, despitemammoth governmentintervention, the bad newskeeps getting worse. Are wenow teetering on a precipice,ready to plunge into anotherGreat Depression? Can thelatest proposals pull theeconomy out of its nosedive?There is plenty to worryabout. But while manyexperts say this crisis is theworst since the Depression,that does not mean it will beas bad.Unemployment and othereconomic gauges willcontinue to worsen, butunless governments make amajor misstep, like igniting aworldwide trade war,economies should stabilizeand recover on a "very flatpath" that could take severalyears, says Wharton financeprofessor Marshall E. Blume.Japan went through a similarbank crisis in the 1990swithout tumbling into afull-blown depression, addsWharton finance professorJeremy J. Siegel. "Given thatwe're reacting faster thanJapan, I think you can makea good inference that [adepression is] not going tohappen here," he says.Many estimates call for grossdomestic product in the U.S.to shrink by 2.6% in the firstquarter of 2009, Siegel notes.That's bad, but smallcompared to the 27% declinefrom 1929 through 1933. Adepression is generallydefined as a drop of 10% ormore.Still, there is more bad newsthan good, and the depth ofthe problem can be measuredby the lack of consensus onwhat to do about it. Considerthis gloomy observation in aJanuary 20Wall Street Journal storyabout the Britishgovernment's abrupt decisionto pump billions more intowhat the writer called thecountry's "flagging"financial-rescue plan:"Governments on both sidesof the Atlantic are strugglingto keep up with thedeepening economic crisis --and may be running out ofammunition to battle it."In the U.S., banks continue towithhold loans despite hugeinfusions of government cash,and Goldman Sachsestimates that financialinstitutions will lose $2 trillion on loans, with only half of that realized to date. Banks are even starting to call in loans to borrowers, such as home builders, who have made all their debt payments on time. Troubles are now expanding to commercial real estate firms. The numbers of layoffs, bankruptcies and foreclosures are growing. Household names, such as Circuit City electronics stores, are closing their doors, and problems have worsened at Citigroup and Bank of America despite government help.There is little consensus on how to remedy the problem. Indeed, the U.S. government is again considering buying up toxic assets held by financial firms, a plan adopted last fall and then immediately scrapped in favor of direct cash infusions to banks.The tale of woe and confusion is much the same around the world. The economic slowdown is so steep as to cause oil prices to drop to around $40 a barrel, from more than $140 last summer. Trade is so sluggish that shipping rates have plunged to astonishing lows. The European Commission warned on January 20 that the 27 nations of the European Union are likely toexperience a "deep andprotracted recession."At the request of thenPresident-elect BarackObama, the Senate onJanuary 15 voted to releasethe second half of the $700billion Troubled Asset ReliefProgram. (No action by theHouse is required.)Comments from Obamaadministration officialssuggest much of this $350billion may be used to buy"bad assets" held by financialinstitutions. Those includemortgage-backed securitiesand other holdings that haveplunged in value and becomeall but untradeable. Gettingthese assets off the financialinstitutions' books was at theheart of the TARP programwhen it was proposed inSeptember by TreasurySecretary Henry Paulson andFederal Reserve chairmanBen Bernanke.Paulson and Bernanke saythat removing the toxic assetswould remove uncertaintyabout the banks' health, andencourage the banks toresume lending, seen as thekey to turning the financialcrisis around. But afterCongress approved TARP,Paulson instead pumped themoney directly into troubledbanks, taking some preferredshares and warrants inexchange, arguing the banksneeded quicker help becausethey had turned out to be inworse shape than previouslythought. But the banksremain reluctant to lend, andit is not clear the first half ofthe TARP fund was the goodinvestment Paulson said itwas. The CongressionalBudget Office estimated in aJanuary 16 report thattaxpayers would lose $64billion of the first $247billion in TARP spending.Whether the governmentshould now revive theasset-purchase plan is subjectto debate.Wharton finance professorRichard Marston thinks thedirect infusions will restorebanks' lending ability fasterthan asset purchases would,but the government should inreturn demand a biggerownership stake than it has."The Treasury should find away to inject capital wherethe taxpayer ends up withlarge stakes in the banks --even if they are not formallynationalized. The bank sharesare going to soar withrecovery, and someone isgoing to make a fortune."That should be taxpayers ifthey take on the cost and riskof propping up the banks,Marston argues.According to Blume, there isso much uncertainty that it isimpossible to know whichbank-rescue approach is best. Cash infusions can help very quickly, while the asset purchases take longer. But if direct infusions mean toxic assets are left on the banks' books, doubts about the banks' long-term health will remain. Other institutions would then be reluctant to do business with them, and investors would refuse to provide private capital, which ultimately is key to the banks' return to health. Building a 'Bad Bank'Also under discussion in Washington is the creation of a "bad bank" to buy the toxic assets. This government-run bank, partly owned by the banks that sell it the assets, would hold those assets, sell them or bundle them into securities for sale to investors.A big question: What should the bad bank pay for those assets if there are no recent sales to show what they are worth? FDIC chairman Sheila C. Bair has said the assets could be purchased at "fair value," which is a price the banks set themselves. "The idea of setting up a 'bad bank' in which to transfer bad debt may be a good idea," Marston says. But he finds the price dilemma troubling, since paying fair value could cause the government to pay more than it will eventually recover by reselling theassets. "Do we pay marketprices for the debt, in whichcase it does not help thebanks? Do we payabove-market prices" andtake shares of the banks inexchange?Under yet another approach,modeled on that used forCitigroup and Bank ofAmerica, the governmentwould providetaxpayer-backed insuranceagainst losses in toxic assetsthat stay on banks' books.But that, too, could leave thepublic shouldering the banks'losses. Wharton financeprofessor Franklin Allenargues that the best approachwould be "temporarynationalization" of thosebanks that get public help.That would allow thegovernment to install its ownmanagers, clearing outexecutives who havepresided over so muchtrouble.Controlling TARP"This injection of capitalwithout any [government]control is just not working,"says Allen, noting that thebanks had not resumedlending after the first TARPinfusion. "This [second $350billion in] TARP money isnot going to be used well,and it's going to end up in ablack hole. What keepshappening is they givemoney and then the bankskeep coming back for more."Siegel, too, feels that TARPsupport should have morestrings attached, such as arequirement that banks notcall in loans to borrowerswho are solvent,creditworthy and up to dateon their payments. "I'm notoptimistic about this [secondhalf of the] TARP money.Clearly, the first half didn'tseem to help."Obama administrationofficials also have said theywant to use part of the newround of TARP funding --perhaps as much as $100billion -- to help homeownersavoid foreclosures.Advocates say this is onlyfair, since huge sums havegone to rescue corporations,and many argue thatstemming foreclosures willhelp stop the freefall in homeprices which has been amajor cause of the banks'losses. Hence, attacking theforeclosure problem couldlead to more lending bybanks, giving the economythe fuel it needs to startgrowing again.There are various ways touse government money to puta dent in foreclosures, fromproviding direct assistance tohomeowners to insuringlenders against further lossesif they modify loan terms. It is not yet clear what approach the Obama administration favors.Nor is it a given that reducing the number of foreclosures will have much effect. Allen believes the economic problems are now so widespread that shoringup the housing sector would not help turn things around the way its advocates hope, so that public spending on foreclosures might be wasted. "I think the crisis has moved on from real estate," he says. Allen and Siegel note that some banks already have expanded programs to renegotiate loan terms to help borrowers stay in their homes. Accepting reduced payments can be less costly for the lenders than foreclosure, especially if there are no buyers for foreclosed properties. J.P. Morgan, for example, recently announced a vastly expanded plan to modify loans on its books as well as those among more than $1 trillion in loans sold to investors.Too Many Homes"I think [foreclosures are] a very important problem, but I think it's being worked outby the private sector," Siegel says. The root problem, according to Siegel: There are too many homes and toomany were bought at inflatedprices. "The price of homeshas to fall. There's no way tostop that from happening."Blume, too, doubts thegovernment can effectivelystop the wave of foreclosures.With the economy worseningand unemployment rising,fewer and fewer people canafford the homes they have,and many potential buyerslured by bargain prices can'tfind banks to give themmortgages. "I have not yetseen a plan to help reduceforeclosures that gets to ...the problem ... that peoplebought houses they could notafford. If you reduce theinterest rate a little bit, theystill can't afford them."He concludes that there maybe no alternative but to letthe housing market adjust onits own. "Ultimately, allthese houses will be off themarket," Blume says."Somebody will buy themand then the market willstabilize."But there's no telling, he adds,how long that will take, orhow far home prices willhave to fall.（the WhartonSchool of the University ofPennsylv ania）中国人最易犯错的30句英语句英语注意，以下每组的第一句的句子是错误的或者是不为NativeSpeaker采用的说法）1.I v e r y li k e itI li k e it v e r y m u ch.2. 这个价格对我挺合适的。