Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth

英语He hit the man with a crutch有歧义，既可能是“他用拐杖打了那个人”（with a crutch作状语修饰hit），也可能是“他打了那个拄拐杖的人”（with a crutch作定语修饰the man）。但在汉语中不可能造出兼有这两种意思的歧义语句。

《圣经·马太福音6:19-21》：“不要为自己积攒财宝在地上；地上有虫子咬，能锈坏，也有贼挖窟窿来偷。只要积攒财宝在天上；天上没有虫子咬，不能锈坏，也没有贼挖窟窿来偷。”这段话中，“在地上”和“在天上”是语句的状语，修饰谓语“积攒”。这段话的英语一般是：Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 其中on earth和in heaven既可能是修饰store up的状语，也可能是修饰treasures的定语。哪种理解正确？

查到罗曼语言如法、西、意大利语对这段话的翻译，与英语一样，也无法区分。但德语的翻译可以，如第一句是Ihr sollt euch nicht Schätze sammeln auf Erden。既然auf Erden（“在地上”）与Schätze（“财宝”）分离，前者就不可能是修饰后者的定语。我在脸书Polyglots群问，在其他哪些语言中我们能看出《圣经》这段话的翻译明确地是状语或定语？日语如何？有人指出，日语这段话是

“地上に財宝を蓄えるな”，其中“地上に”是修饰“蓄える”的状语。

那么，我们得知这段话在汉、日、德语中都把“在地上”和“在天上”理解为修饰谓语动词“积攒”的状语，应该不会错了吧？我到一个讨论宗教的论坛问，并且指出这三种语言的翻译都采用了状语理解（没有贴出原文，因为讨论者不大可能懂英语以外的语言），还增加了一点说明：假设“在地上”和“在天上”被理解为定语，那我们凡人怎么能做到积攒天上的财宝？我们还未到天上呢。很快有几个人回复，他们的意见一致，都认为“在地上”和“在天上”是定语，修饰“财宝”，并引用《圣经》中其他段落解释为什么这种理解是正确的。

这就有趣了：至少几个美国（很可能是美国）的宗教人士的理解与圣经的至少三种语言的翻译都不同，要么这几人错，要么这三种翻译错。

[增补]耶稣以阿拉姆语传道。几个美国基督徒对《圣经》一段话的理解与《圣经》的汉、日、德语翻译不同，他们中一人问这段话的阿拉姆语如何？我只搜到公元8世纪的文本： https://theholyaramaicscriptures.weebly.com/mat-6.html，从它严格的英译看，其中“在地上”、“在天上”是修饰“积攒”的状语，不是修饰“财宝”的定语，与汉、日、德语译本一致，与这几人的理解相悖。此时，他们中一人说“谈到语法和上帝的话语时，语法是无用的”（"When it comes to grammar and God's Word, grammar gets a no-go"）。

Questionable English translation of Karl Marx's words

[English version follows]

马克思关于家庭的一段中文翻译：
“那时就可以看出，妇女解放的第一个先决条件就是一切女性重新回到公共的劳动中去；而要达到这一点，又要求个体家庭不再成为社会的经济单位。”（《马克思恩格斯全集·二十一卷·二、家庭》
https://www.marxists.org/chinese/marx-engels/21/005-03.htm

这句话的英译可能有误：
"Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm
其中汉译的“妇女”是英译的wife（妻子），汉译的“个体家庭”是英译的monogamous family（一夫一妻制家庭）。难道恩格斯在主张废除一夫一妻制家庭？多年来，讲英语的网民似乎的确有这样的看法，甚至维基The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State条也有这样的倾向。

看看恩格斯的德语原文：
"Es wird sich dann zeigen, daß die Befreiung der Frau zur ersten Vorbedingung hat die Wiedereinführung des ganzen weiblichen Geschlechts in die öffentliche Industrie, und daß dies wieder erfordert die Beseitigung der Eigenschaft der Einzelfamilie als wirtschaftlicher Einheit der Gesellschaft."
http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me21/me21_036.htm
其中汉译的“妇女”、英译的wife是德语的Frau，这个德语词兼有“妇女”和“妻子”两个意义。虽然在这段以上的文字中可译作“妻子”，但在这句话中译为“妇女”更恰当。更重要的不同之处在于Einzelfamilie，英语直译即single family或individual family、汉语“个体家庭”，但marxists.org网站收录的英译为monogamous family，意思就非常不同了，可以认为是严重的误译。另外，德语Vorbedingung直译是“先决条件”，英译为condition而不是precondition则稍有偏差。至于德语Industrie被汉译为“劳动”还是“事业”无关紧要。

总之，这段话的汉译高于英译。汉译中唯一可商榷的是头两个字“那时”，也许是“那么”（德语dann，英语then）的笔误。

English version

Frederick Engels' Einzelfamilie was translated as 'monogamous family'. I don't think that's right. The German original is

"Es wird sich dann zeigen, daß die Befreiung der Frau zur ersten Vorbedingung hat die Wiedereinführung des ganzen weiblichen Geschlechts in die öffentliche Industrie, und daß dies wieder erfordert die Beseitigung der Eigenschaft der Einzelfamilie als wirtschaftlicher Einheit der Gesellschaft."

The English translation on the fairly authoritative or at least frequently cited website Marxists.org is

"Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society."

I think the German word Einzelfamilie should be translated simply and literally as 'single family' or 'individual family'. Engels was proposing that we not treat each family as an economic unit. It's possible that a careless English reader of the above translation would focus on just the phrase "abolition of the monogamous family" and assume that Engels was advocating abolition of monogamous families (and therefore calling for polygamy). That would be a gross misunderstanding of Engels. The word 'monogamous' or its noun means something totally different.

Also, the German word Frau in this context means 'woman' more than 'wife'. But that's a minor point.

Correcting a petition

以前写过一篇Incorrect English in a petition to the White House（或见微博），其中我对一篇请愿书做了改病句、改错词。最近读到内容相似的一篇请愿书，英语相对好很多。文章如下，我的评论在括弧中。

Sun is the sole suspect in a notorious （比上一篇请愿书用famous好多了） and high-profile poisoning case in China. In 1994/1995, Tsinghua University （上一篇该词的首字母误写为小写u） student Ling Zhu was repeatedly poisoned with thallium （上一篇该词的首字母误写为大写T） while she was studying at the university. Sun （此处缺逗号） who was （省略who was更好，因为后面主句动词又用了was） Zhu’s roommate in the dormitory, was the only individual with both access to the toxin and a motive. This act resulted in catastrophic consequences for Ling Zhu, leaving her paralysed with brain damage. Zhu has （简单过去式应略去has） died on 22 Dec 2023 （此处缺逗号） which now makes Sun a murder suspect.

Due to Tsinghua University's inaction and Sun's politically powerful family, key evidence vanished, and （此处缺定冠词the） investigation tamed. （暂未搜到tame的这种用法，也许是澳洲英语？我会用stalled） This unsolved case has evoked considerable public outrage and sympathy for Zhu's family over the past 30 years.

Sun later escaped to the U.S and in 2013, following the U.S. Chinese community's discovery of her presence and （and应改为逗号） a petition was launched with over 151,000 people. （people改为signatures或people's signatures更好）

Sun is now residing in Australia with companies and multiple estates jointly owned by her and her husband Feiyu Xie whom she supposedly divorced.

I appeal for a thorough investigation into whether Sun had provided false information when obtaining Australian visa and if （此处缺she） had arranged a fake marriage with Mr. Kosloski to obtain Australian residency. If warranted, Sun should face deportation. Australia is a nation known for its beauty and integrity, it is no long （应为longer） a dumping ground for convicts! We must not allow individual （应为复数individuals） with such a past in our precious country.

As demonstrated by the public’s voice. We （除非是固定惯例，否则句号应为逗号，We应为we） call for Sun to return to China and face justice.

... If you have additional information and would like to report Sun, you can email andrew.giles.mp@aph.gov.au or via Minster （应为Minister） for Immigration

Oxford comma (牛津逗号)

牛津逗号（Oxford comma），又称连续逗号（Serial comma），是指如果并列三个或更多的名词，在倒数第二个名词之后添加逗号。例如
France, Italy, and Spain
假如省略这个逗号，就写成
France, Italy and Spain
两种写法都不错，但牛津逗号现在越来越流行，尤其是在美国。《牛津书写风格手册》曾建议使用，因此得名。

为什么牛津逗号值得推荐？因为英语里有同位语短语或词组，它与前面的名词也是用逗号与它隔开。同位语词组由两部分组成，中间用一个逗号。有三个或更多的名词时使用牛津逗号有助于将它与同位语词组区分开来。例如
（1）We invited the rhinoceri, Washington, and Lincoln.（“我们邀请了犀牛、华盛顿和林肯。”）
如果不用牛津逗号
（2）We invited the rhinoceri, Washington and Lincoln.（“我们邀请了犀牛，即华盛顿和林肯”，或“我们邀请了犀牛、华盛顿和林肯。”）
语句（2）有两种解读，如果读者习惯了牛津逗号的书写并且以为作者在他的写作中也遵守这个规则，读者就会理解为“我们邀请了犀牛，即华盛顿和林肯”，就是说将Washington and Lincoln（“华盛顿和林肯”）看作是复数的rhinoceri（“犀牛”）的同位词组而对它具体列举说明（好比I have two sons, John and Jack中的John and Jack）。这种理解并非完全无理，因为有可能犀牛饲养员或动物园的确有两只犀牛，还给它们分别取名为“华盛顿”和“林肯”。

但牛津逗号并不解决所有问题，例如
They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid, and a cook.
无论如何这句话都有两种理解：
“他们和贝蒂、一个女佣和一个厨师一起去了俄勒冈州。”
“他们和贝蒂（一个女佣）和一个厨师一起去了俄勒冈州。”
为避免这种语义模糊性，语句必须改写。一个好的作者或作家必须随时提醒自己，写出的语句是否会被误解。当然，故意造成歧义而产生一种特殊的修辞效果则另当别论。

Shall or will?

When I learned English thirty plus years ago in China, we were taught to say "I shall", "we shall", and "you will", "he/she/it will". That is, "shall" for the first-person verb and "will" for the second- and third-person. But coming to the US, I realize "shall" is rarely said. It is said if the speaker intends to emphasize his (her) point and in that case it's not limited to the first person. I just came across the renowned English language linguist David Crystal's The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language where (on p.224) he says "[m]odern usage does not observe this distinction. Indeed, it may never have existed in the language, but only in the minds of grammarians anxious to impose order on a 'messy' area of usage". Wasn't that enlightening, especially the latter statement! I don't know if the English textbooks in China still recommend that usage. It misled a generation of English learners back then. One coworker of mine who came to the US from southern China in the 1970s still says "I / we shall" today, though this is a fellow that couldn't care less about English, judging by his frequent spelling errors and strong accent in spite of his 40+ years living in the US. Fortunately, no other rules made up by the prescriptive grammarians came into the textbooks we were using, such as the no split infinitive rule (i.e. avoid saying "to fully understand"). Apparently the English educators in China did keep an eye on the actual usage of the language in English-speaking countries.

Phonetic symbols /i/ and /u/ in some dictionaries mislead English learners

Many English dictionaries published in China use /i/ and /u/ symbols to represent the sounds /ɪ/ and /ʊ/ respectively. As a result, some learners mistakenly think the vowel in, for example, bit is just a short version of that in beat.

复旦大学葛传椝主编的《新英汉词典》于1975年首次出版，在随后的拨乱反正、科学的春天和改革开放初期发挥了不可估量的作用。随后多次的修订版增删了许多词汇，并对词汇例句做了很大的改变。但词典在词汇注音上没有变化，它采用的注音方式不经意地对学习者造成了一些负面影响。

《词典》声明“用国际音标注音，采用宽式注音法。音标注在本词后，放在方括号内”。所谓宽（broad）、窄（narrow）式注音并无严格的定义，两者分别相当于说宽泛、严格的注音。[1]但《词典》至少有两个元音的标注是误导的，/i/和/u/。

在《词典》中，/i/是比如bit（“一点”；“比特”）的元音，而/i：/是比如beat（“打”）的元音。[2]从符号看，后者似乎只是前者发音的延长。但实际上，bit中元音的发音部位也与beat的元音不同，正确的音标符号是/ɪ/，口腔中比/i：/的发音部位略低、略靠后、嘴形略大，介于/i/与/e/之间。从维基“次闭前不圆唇元音”网页看，上海话“一”即发此音。（会上海话的网友可帮助验证！）

另外，《词典》标记比如book（“书”）的发音为/buk/，boot为/bu：t/，使学习者以为后者中的元音/u：/与前者元音/u/的唯一区别是音长。但事实上，book的正确发音是/bʊk/，其中/ʊ/比/u/发音部位略低、略靠前、嘴形略大。

如果你读book为/buk/，就会给人留下有外国口音的印象。如果读bit为/bit/，在缺乏上下文的情况下还是会被人以为在说beat。[3]只有借助上下文听者才能听懂你说的是bit，但会感觉你有口音。

用/i/代替/ɪ/、/u/代替/ʊ/注音似乎是许多在中国出版的英语词典的惯例。由于这种惯例可能影响学习者对/ɪ/和/ʊ/发音的掌握，词典编撰者有必要纠正。

注：
[1]注意，所谓宽、窄这种分法并不对应音素、语音转录（phonemic / phonetic transcription）注音的区分，后者有严格的定义。
[2]国际音标中有专门的符号表示长元音，这里用冒号代替以便更好在网页中显示。另外这里用斜杠而不用方括弧，但斜杠在此并不代表音素转录。
[3]在英、美英语中，没有唯一通过音长以区别两个词的例子。但在澳洲英语中存在，如full和fool、pull和pool完全靠元音长短区分，见维基Australian English phonology条。

Study time: vocabulary vs. grammar

Steve Kaufmann is an undisputed celebrity in the language study community. According to Wikipedia, "[a]s of 2023, he has an understanding of 20 languages, to varying degrees". In his blog, he says "Vocabulary is much more important than grammar. The grammar you acquire gradually as you become familiar with the language, with the words, but first of all you need words." This caused much debate in the Facebook "Polyglots (The Community)" group. Most comments disagree with him. To find out whether this disagreement is genuine, I started a poll in the same group.

"For all the languages you're studying, given 10 hours dedicated to vocabulary and grammar, what is the average ratio of time of your study in these two areas? It's true that oftentimes there is overlap. What is polled here is a subjective one. So just give a rough estimate."

After a few days, there are 42 votes. The following is the result, shown as ratio of vocabulary:grammar study time, and percent of the responses

8:2  30%
9:1  20%
10:0 15%
7:3  11%
5:5   9%
4:6   8%
1:9, 3:7, 6:4 2%
2:8   1%

We can see that for instance nearly 1/3 of the language learners spend 8 out of 10 hours studying vocabulary and 2 hours studying grammar, while 1% of the people do exactly the opposite. This result shows that the polyglots taking this poll definitely spend more time studying vocabulary than grammar. If this time distribution implies relative importance, it is clearly consistent with Mr. Kaufmann's opinion that vocabulary is more important than grammar.

This poll is followed by 26 comments. Some interesting findings from them are:

(1) If the learner is a beginner in learning a specific language, he or she spends a significant amount of time studying grammar. The vocabulary:grammar study time ratio could be 5:5 or even lower. But as study progresses, the ratio gradually increases.

(2) This poll is about the learner's current state, averaged over all the languages being studied if multiple. One interesting example is a Portuguese learner who says 10:0 when studying Spanish (no need to study grammar as the two languages are so much alike on that), 8:2 when studying English, and 7:3 when studying Swedish. So I did an average for him, which is (10+8+7):(0+2+3)=25:5=8.33:1.67 or about 8:2. He agreed.

(3) Different languages require different ratios. For example, Chinese is generally considered to demand an extraordinary amount of time on vocabulary but very little time on grammar, unlike say Latin, Ancient Greek, or Sanskrit. Since many languages are studied and polled about, there won't be bias introduced by any specific language. And if a learner is studying multiple languages, he's supposed to enter his average.

(4) Some people say they don't study either because their study is completely immersion. That is unusual for an adult learner. But lack of urgency, prioritizing fun well above everything else, and having a childlike curious mind make this option possible.

Back to Kaufmann. We can reasonably believe that he is at an advanced stage on all or most of the languages he knows. As said above (see (1)), at this stage, the vocabulary:grammar ratio tends to be high, leading him to make that remark. Why do people show their disagreement with him? It's possible that most people have the tendency to misread "X is more important than Y" as "X is important but Y is not". This tendency is especially common when people read an online article about health or medical science. Secondly, people disagree with somebody else by interpreting the latter's words as a universal rule, to make it more criticizable. If one of the languages you're studying takes more time on grammar than vocabulary, even if you're studying multiple languages for which this ratio is averaged to be in favor of vocabulary instead, you still disagree by ignoring the average.

Grammatical particle 把 in Chinese and word order

According to Wikipedia, 42% of world languages follow the subject-verb-object (SVO) order, and 45% follow the SOV order. In a Facebook group, someone said that Chinese is SVO in general, but changes to SOV if the object is a prepositional object. Two examples are given

(1) 我把手机忘了 ("I forgot the cell phone"; very literally "I 把 the cell phone forgot")
(2) 一本书从桌子掉下来 ("a book falls from the table")

I agree that sentence (1) follows the SOV order, as 把 shifts the object 手机 to before the verb 忘. But 把 is not a prepositon. It is a grammatical particle, which has no meaning whatsoever, unlike a preposition. A grammatical particle, e.g. 把 in Chinese and to (as in to do) in English, only serves certain grammatical purposes and if omitted would render the sentence ungrammatical unless other adjustments are made.

On the other hand, sentence (2) is not SOV, because 从桌子 ("from the table") cannot be the object acted upon by the verb 掉 ("fall"). Instead, it is an adverbial clause. In fact, it is wrong to consider any prepositional object (which may be better called prepositional phrase) an object in a sentence. Contrast that with a noun phrase (NP), which bahaves like a noun and can be the subject or object in a sentence, because the last element of a NP is its "head"; "a big boat" still refers to a boat. But in a prepositional object, neither the preposition nor the noun following it can serve as the "head". Omitting either one would make the sentence ungrammatical and meaningless.

Chinese particle 把 moves the object of a sentence to the position before the verb, but no such construct exists in English. This explains why foreigners learning Chinese say 我拿书过来 ("I bring the book over") more than 我把书拿过来.

(中文版)

Translation of a few function words (几个“虚词”的翻译)

* 作时间副词的“最近”：recently（或lately）仅用于过去。一个较常见的错误是将表示“不远将来”的“最近”也译为recently，此时正确的用词是soon、in the near future、甚至now、currently等，或不译，如“我最近在搬家”（Currently I'm moving），“我最近准备买辆车”（I'm thinking of buying a car），“他最近要结婚”（he's going to get married soon / in the near future；但soon更常见）。更多可见http://yong321.freeshell.org/english4chinese/zuijin-is-not-always-recently.html

* “虽然/尽管”：although和though没有词义上的区别，有文章绞尽脑汁找区别，没必要。它们只在文体上有点区别：前者更正式。另外，in spite of和despite也是“虽然”，但后面接名词而不是从句；despite更正式但稍微更不常见。有文章说in spite of和despite后不能接动名词（如in spite of being a manager），但这常见于英语母语者的文章，包括一些较正式的，因此不能算错，也许有些考试会认为错，建议避免。另外，从句用了although或though，主句起首不能用but（对应汉语的“虽然……但是……”），很多中国人和有些南亚、西亚人常犯这种错误；老式英语中会出现主句以yet起首，可以用，尤其在从句较长时，但不能用but。

* “直到”：until和till没有词义上的区别，有文章绞尽脑汁找区别，没必要。它们只在文体上有点区别：前者更正式。英语是世界上十几大语言中唯一对这个词赋以特殊含义的语言：在until/till的时间点后，语句所述状况翻转而不是维持不变，如The scientists had not found a solution to the problem until 1970意味着科学家在1970年终于发现了这个问题的解决方法，而汉语或其他很多（不敢说所有）语言直译对应的语句“直到1970年科学家没有发现这个问题的解决方法”意味着在1970年他们仍然没有发现。更多可见http://yong321.freeshell.org/english4chinese/whats-special-about-english-untiltill.html

* 做时间副词的“很少”：很多人想到seldom，但据Google ngrams图，这个词两百年来使用频率一直在下降，1950年左右被rarely超过。建议用rarely，或not often，如he rarely goes biking / doesn't go biking that often。注意：如果seldom或rarely用于句首（常见于正式文体），句子要倒装（如rarely / seldom did the parliament elicit sharp reactions from...），但如果后面加个逗号停一下就最好不要倒装了，否则听起来有点哽咽。

* 疑问词“第几”：英语（和其他几种语言）中没有。详见http://yong321.freeshell.org/english4chinese/has-no-english-equivalent.html

* “当然”：英语of course或certainly语气一般较强（如"You can swim?", "Of course [I can]"）。汉语“当然”也常用于语气较弱、较缓和的语句中，如“明天每个人都必须到办公室，当然你事先请假了可以不来”(Everybody must come to office tomorrow. But of course you don't have to come if you asked for leave earlier)，用of course对译不错，但如果语气平和点像汉语那样，可不译或译为obviously，或要正式一点说needlesss to say.

* “很”：汉语中的“很”不一定是英语的very，如“他很好”既可以真是说“他非常好”但也可能是“他好”的一种更通顺的变体。更多可见http://yong321.freeshell.org/english4chinese/empty-word-very.html 英语中用very很多的名人首推特朗普，他还喜欢联用如I will very, very probably do it。但大家知道他的manners of speech are unrefined, uncouth, below standard. Don't learn English from him.

* “曾经”：疑问句、否定句中可用ever，如Have you ever been to New York? I've never been（“你曾去过纽约吗？”“我从未/不曾去过”）。但肯定句中的ever就不是“曾经”了，而是老式英语中的“一直”、“永远”，如it was ever thus（总是如此）。“我曾去过纽约”（I've been to New York / I went to New Work before），英译不能用ever，但可用once，如once I had a car accident.

* last与“上个”：last Thursday字面意思是“上个星期四”，但严格地说它指最近过去的星期四；假如今天星期五，它其实指昨天而不是上个星期的星期四。但如果你问英语母语者，他们有时也觉得含混。建议只在不会有混淆的情况下这样用last，如今天是星期天至四的某一天，否则就分别说Thursday last week、the past Thursday（但今天是星期五的话还不如说yesterday）。详见http://yong321.freeshell.org/english4chinese/last-january-vs-january-last-year.html

Debate about dropping English as a mandatory course

The debate in China about keeping or dropping English as a mandatory course in middle school and high school has been going on for at least two decades. The support of keeping English is based on the fact that English is the de facto lingua franca in the world, although, contrary to a common misconception in China, English is not a mandatory course in all countries; among the 41 where it is not are France, Finland, and Poland. The opposing side claim that some college majors such as Chinese philology or research of ancient Chinese archives require no or very little English in future studies or work. Both sides got the basic facts correct and have strong arguments, leading the debate to a deadlock, while the government takes no action in changing the current policy that happens to be what the supporters want.

In fact, the solution is a simple one: attach a weight that varies between 0 and 100% depending on the major, to the English test score on the college entrance exam. For example, since high-impact work on Chinese philology is still mostly written in Chinese, the Ministry of Education or individual universities or colleges can assign a value of 0 or slightly higher to this weight. (If the weight is only 5%, who is willing to take time to study English? Well, imagine a high school student who grew up bilingual or speaks English as the first language.) For the major of ancient Chinese history, how about 20%? For modern Chinese history, 80%? Obviously, for any major other than these or a specific foreign language other than English (say, Spanish), the weight should be 100% or close to that. Assignment of the weight should be exclusively the work of the professionals and practitioners in this field, free of any lobbying influence from the general public and interference from politicians.

There are still lots of debates or disputes in the world that are zero-sum or nearly zero-sum. A relatively good solution is one that seeks compromises among contenders and balances their degree of satisfaction, to achieve an approximate equilibrium in this satisfaction. The advantage of my solution is that both sides are somewhat satisfying with it and complain the least, and the satisfaction and complaint are about the same in intensity on both sides.

Note: By no means am I suggesting categorically dropping English as a mandatory course. That would lead to total ruin of our future generation. It's the undeniable fact that some Chinese students are so incapable of a foreign language in spite of an extraordinary amount of time of study and that English is truly nearly useless in certain fields of study as of 2022 that prompts me to propose this practical and realistic solution for this year and some years in the future.

(The Chinese version of this article is scattered in Weibo 2022-11-06 and 2022-10-07 postings.)