金枪鱼
现已禁止
加入时间: 2009/08/21
文章: 744
经验值: 23330
|
|
|
作者：金枪鱼 在 驴鸣镇 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org
去搜了一下，这里的“the sexy"的用法在语法上叫做“名词化的形容词(Substantivized Adjectives)”。这种用法可以指人也可以指形容词所代表的抽象含义。这是对这种语法现象的详细解释：
| 引用: |
1.有些形容词可以和定冠词连用，表示一类人，这可以称为名词化的形容词：
These seats are for the disabled．
这些座位是给残疾人的。
The poor get poorer；the rich get richer．
穷人越来越穷，富人越来越富。
They’re going to build a school for the deaf and the blind．
他们准备盖一所聋哑人和盲人的学校。
She was always good with the unfortunate．
她对不幸的人总是很好的。
2.定冠词还可与-ch、-sh、-ese等结尾表示国家的形容词连用，表示这些国家的人：
The French like to eat well．
法国人喜炊吃得好。
The Chinese were a highly civilized people long before the Europeans were．
早在欧洲人之前中国人己是一个有高度文化的民族。
the Dutch荷兰人 the Spanish 西班牙人
the Welsh 威尔士人 the Burmese 缅甸人
the Japanese 日本人 the Swiss 瑞士人
3.有些形容词还可和the连用，表示抽象的事物：
Don’t expect them to do the impossible．
不要指望他们做不可能的事。
Their aim was to discover the good、the beautiful and the true．
他们的目的是寻求真莆美。
She admired the mystical．
她喜炊那些神奇古怪的东西。
This was nothing out of the ordinary．
这没有什么特别之处。
4.在某些习惯用语中也包含名词化的形容词，如：
Are you leaving the place for good?
你离开这里不再回来了吗?
She took leave of the party in the liveliest of spirits．
她兴致很好地和大家告别了。
I will give you a definite answer on Friday at the latest．
我最迟在星期五将给你一个肯定的答复。 |
根据下面的引文，究竟是指“人”还是指“抽象事物”要根据上下文推测。
| 引用: |
| In English the adjective cannot designate either case, number or gender. That means we are limited in how we can use this handy device. We always designate case in English by position in the sentence. But we have no way of designating the number or the gender of an adjective, except by the noun it agrees with. Therefore, a substantive adjective all by itself in English can only have the number and gender that convention assigns to it, and that USUALLY is the plural of the non-specific gender, or "people." So, when we say "The race is to the swift." We mean "swift people" whether they are women or men. "The wise are careful" means "Wise people are careful people." There is, however, one exception to this practice of always meaning "people" when we use a substantive adjective: certain qualities are designated by a substantive adjective which implies a neuter noun or essence: "We try to understand the good, but we are inevitably seduced by the pleasurable." Here, you might say that "the good" means "the good thing" or "whatever is good." Note that without the last half of the sentence above, if you had just read "we try to understand the good", it could easily have meant "we try to understand good people." Cf. "We try to help the rich because they try to help the poor." -- Source: Ohio State University |
下面的引文表明很多这种语法现象在俄语，德语，法语等语言中都存在。而且有很多单词，如native，relative等的名词词性就是从这种用法演化而来的。哲学中的right，good等的名词词性应该也是从最早的形容词性演化来的。记得在哪里看过"right"应该翻译作"义权”而不是“权利”，我觉得有道理，因为只有用“义”字方能够体现“right”的形容词词性，若翻译成“权利”，原词中的“天然正义”的内涵就丢失了。
| 引用: |
SUBSTANTIVIZATION OF ADJECTIVES
It is common knowledge that adjectives can, under certain circumstances, be
substantivized, i.e. become nouns. This is a phenomenon found in many languages, e.g. in
Russian: compare ученый человек and ученый; рабочий стаж and рабочий. In German,
compare ein gelehrter Mann and ein Gelehrter; in French, un homme savant and tin savant,
etc. The phenomenon is also frequent enough in English, The questions which arise in this
connection are: (a) what criteria should be applied to find out if an adjective is substantivized or
not? (b) is a substantivized adjective a noun, or is it not?
As to the first question, we should recollect the characteristic features of nouns in Modern
English and then see if a substantivized adjective has acquired them or not. These features are,
(1) ability to form a plural, (2) ability to have a form in -s if a living being is denoted, (3) ability
to be modified by an adjective, (4) performing the function of subject or object in a sentence.
If, from this point of view, we approach, for example, the word native, we shall find that it
possesses all those peculiarities, e. g. the natives of Australia, a young native, etc.
The same may be said about the word relative (meaning a person standing in some degree
of relationship to another): my rela-tives, a close relative, etc. A considerable number of other
examples might be given. There is therefore every reason to assert.that native and relative are
nouns when so used, and indeed we need not call them substantivized adjectives. Thus the
second of the above questions would also be answered.
Things, are, however, not always as clear as that. A familiar example of a different kind is
the word rich. It certainly is substantivized, as will be seen, for example, in the title of a novel
by C. P. Snow, "The Conscience of the Rich". It is obvious, however, that this word differs from
the words native and relative in some important points: (1) it does not form a plural, (2) it cannot
be used in the singular and with the indefinite article, (3) it has no possessive form. Since it
does not possess all the characteristics of nouns but merely some of them, it will be right to say
that it is only partly substantivized. The word rich in such contexts as those given above stands
somewhere between an adjective and a noun.
The same may be said of the poor, the English, the Chinese, also the wounded, the accused
(which were originally participles), and a number of other words. We might even think of
establishing a separate part of speech, intermediate between nouns and adjectives, and state its
characteristic features as we have done for parts of speech in general. However, there would
appear to be no need to do so. We shall therefore confine ourselves to the statement that these
words are partly substantivized and occupy an intermediate position.
Sometimes the result of substantivization is an abstract noun, as in the following examples:
The desire for a more inward light had found expression at last, the unseen had impacted on the
seen. (FORSTER) Her mind was focused on the invisible. (Idem) Nouns of this type certainly
have no plural form. |
另外，smart 可以用作名词的。至少是在美国俚语（在你这个英国爵士看来，大概约等于“文盲用语”吧）里。比如说“book smart" , "street smart”等。
作者：金枪鱼 在 驴鸣镇 发贴, 来自 http://www.hjclub.org |
|
|
苦海无边，回头无岸
