"completely rubbish"
這一段的原文是："I think that is completely rubbish that we have violated civil rights, nor have we violated freedom of speech, because every single activity of the Vice-Premier has been covered by the media."
有網友說唐英年的英文水皮，錯了文法，應該是complete rubbish。
古德明在信報批評：
....第一， completely是副詞（ adverb），副詞怎可以修飾名詞 rubbish？「簡直廢話」英文可說 complete/ utter/ absolute/ pure rubbish等，即「形容詞＋名詞」。當然，說 completely/ utterly nonsensical等也可以，但那是「副詞＋形容詞」。這一點，無非小學英文常識，唐英年請不要再搞錯了......
我的看法有少少不同，可以說他措辭欠慎重和欠文采，不能說他很錯。
誠然，我們是用形容詞來修飾名詞，所以說complete(形容詞) rubbish(名詞)。
副詞是用來修飾動詞和形容詞的，That is completely rubbish 是That is rubbish completely 的倒裝句，這個completely是修飾那個動詞 is ("verb to be")的-----「是」垃圾「是」到甚麼程度呢？「完全是」！
語意和Complete Rubbish是有一點細微的區分，雖然是表達類似的意思。
日常會話之中，說 That is complete rubbish 比 That is completely rubbish 普遍，但不能說後者是一個低級錯誤。我舉另一個說法 That is absolutely rubbish，大家或會覺得通順一點，因為聽得比較多！
唐英年這番話的弱點，我認為是不夠得體兼令自己無彎轉，不是一個政治人物應該說的。
再要挑骨頭的話， I think that is completely rubbish that we have violated civil rights.....的第一個 that 字，用 It 會好一點，不會前一個 that後一個 that。
古德明關於那個 nor 字的分析是對的。
如果有機會再來一次，一定要發惡保留rubbish這個批評 ，這樣說就(在文法上) 對了：
"I think that is complete rubbish! We have not violated civil rights, nor have we violated freedom of speech......"
延伸閱讀：
古德明： http://www.hkej.com/template/forum/php/forum_details.php?blog_posts_id=72141
陳雲： http://life.mingpao.com/cfm/dailynews3.cfm?File=20110825%2Fnclvx001%2Fvx001a.txt
(文章允許轉貼，請具作者名字：梁煥松)
我很懷疑唐某人平日有看英文報章、聽英文電台的習慣嗎？
回覆刪除你修飾過的英文果然順耳很多！建議唐唐盡量不要講英文和普通話了。
回覆刪除Raymond,
回覆刪除有呱....因工作需要，是不是看聽中文較多就不知道了。
May,
回覆刪除公道D評論，不是講母語，對著鏡頭，不是容易的。
不過身為政要，在當時會給人問這個「敏感問題」，亦應有所準備怎樣答，出場前在心中run一次，更不應發老脾。
the better word surely is "complete rubbish"....should a man said that(comptely rubblish} in a pub at 5 pm,i would not challenge the phase.. but not in a mouth of that capacity
回覆刪除還有nor句子前面必须有neither，not，don't等否定語？
回覆刪除wiki,
回覆刪除同意。
May,
回覆刪除是必須的。
要發難就要講 "It is f*cking complete rubbish !"
回覆刪除(外國地方通用)
Chris "條條 fing" 有人譯為 flying organism
夠唔夠貼 ?!
古英文罵人的是廢話是說 "Humbug!"
回覆刪除可能唐官心裡已經大叫 Bullshit，轉口講成Rubbish，以為已經很夠品味。
「條條 fing」更直譯，是 wavering organ！
唐某人的英文造詣可想見了！
回覆刪除咁上下啦。
回覆刪除英文鬧人廢話多數講bullshit，但講rubbish的常不常見。總覺得講rubbish有點Chinglish的感覺，不知是否只是我見識少？
回覆刪除感覺上若不能說bullshit又想講類似意思，用nonsense好似比較有英文味。而competely一字我還是覺得有點兒「中文」，用totally會否好一點？
Rubbish指人講廢話是傳統英語。totally 也可，不過用utter和sheer更好。
回覆刪除謝謝賜教！
回覆刪除傳聞佢要硬起黎俾某國政府睇,證明佢唔係條條fing,係一條硬漢子,等自己黃袍加身既機會大d!
回覆刪除前排搞個車毀人亡英年早逝重未夠，今期又搞個咩completely rubbish。以小弟半桶水嘅英文都知neither/not.. nor...既不...也不...身為政府第二號人物，唐英年你都係返屋企食自己啦
回覆刪除張三
張三 ,
回覆刪除口快快，顯露真性情，Freuden Slip之謂也。
Alan,
回覆刪除諗真董伯都唔錯，起碼慈祥一點。
董伯伯的英文造詣比姓唐的好得多了！
回覆刪除風度好同英文好，兩件事。
回覆刪除英文不好，可以講That is not the case。
他令人憤怒的是他的看不起養著他的人民。
無錯，你是富家子弟，受不慣氣，咪X做都得架！
//「條條 fing」更直譯，是 wavering organ！//
回覆刪除應該用dinky winky﹐音﹑神皆似(笑)
不信﹐有link你睇﹕
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dinky
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/winky
文少得喎！
回覆刪除其實更好笑的是他沒有用 to say ，那麼 it is completely rubbish that we have violated civil rights 不就是承認 we have violated civil rights 而這樣做是 complete rubbish 嗎？正如 it is amazing that we've won!
回覆刪除我支持 Alex，我認為沒有用 to say 更錯。
刪除詳細唔識，不過認同下面 "wiki下午4:07" 講 成句都係 chinese english，而普通人口中講,一定千箭射背。
講開就唔識都講，chinese english 特色，唔係發音，唔係字彙。因為正如一般括弧咗d implied words， 正常係可以忽略，忽略都可以估到。但係 chinese english 特色係 miss 咗 d subject, object 或者d supplement 用錯 clause 或 phrase，令到句子 break down 唔到 simple sentences, 所以難明。
I think that is completely rubbish that we..., 雖然第一二個 that 都係 saying。但係 第一個 that 係 think 嘅 object (I think the saying is rubbish), 成句完結。第二個 that 係 supplement, supplement subject (the saying is that we have violated civil rights...), object (is rubbish) missed, 不成句. IMHO, native speaker would expect something more to keep going.
為唐唐解脫，也為下些 "英文差" 的人解脫。
刪除一方面中文較不注重主賓語。另一方面 omit implied words 係想加快說話，思想能力強，表達能力追不上。
中文較不注重主賓語，曾經有好心洋人解釋，每當我說，抵！ It worths, 洋人必定引頸以待，等我講嘢，抵乜? 我覺得 stupid 多餘，洋人說講親抵，一定要講抵乜。It's worth the money, It's worth the effort, It's worth trying...唔想晒氣就話 It worths it, It's worth it.
omit implied words，似乎古德明，葉劉，網上一眾有 comment 人士，梁生都認為 (to say) 可以忽略。我唔反對，日常口語，聽得明可以乜都忽略，老婆同老公講搵日不如去咩度搞埋D 咩，好明白，無問題。不過如果真係有時間，又想人明白，又長又 chum.
I think the saying is completely rubbish.
The saying that we have violated civil rights, nor have we violated freedom of speech, is completely rubbish.
It is that because every single activity of the Vice-Premier has been covered by the media.
And because that the media had covered every single activity of the Vice-Premier, there was no violation of civil rights.
所以話，有身份有地位嘅人通常講嘢慢，其實無嘢講。唐唐同好多聰明人一樣，諗嘢快過講嘢，想快D 講完，又可以講第二句，其實無必要。
//「條條 fing」更直譯，是 wavering organ！//
回覆刪除Tong after wanki wanki !! soft and wavering...then became completely rubbish.
Alex,
回覆刪除日常口語，不說 to say that 也不算錯的吧。
wiki,
回覆刪除老兄在英國住過，係得既！
Chris,
回覆刪除但呢個好似唔係口語有否省略嘅問題喎，無咗 to say ，意思相反咗，變咗鬧自己。
It is completely rubbish that we have violated civil rights 意思不正是「我們侵犯民權，真是垃圾」？
講文法就是你對，會話這樣說的都很多的。
回覆刪除對不起，我明白這個論題已經很久，但我還是不明，其實rubbish是可以用complete來形容的嗎???
回覆刪除是英式英語都這樣用法的嗎????
我反而能明白that is completely rubbish. 如你所說，completely 是來形容is 的。
對不起，小人才梳學淺。請大人指教。
用complete這個字比較少，因與語意不合。
回覆刪除中文的「完全」是中性的，「完全是垃圾」、「完全不知所謂」、「完全是傑作」都可以。
但是英文的complete後面，大多是正面的東西，所以說 complete rubbish有點怪，用total, utter, sheer, nothing but....比較常見。
我在外國聽西人說 is absolutely rubbish和 is absolute rubbish就普遍得多。
有網友用google 來搜索看結果，
is completely rubbish--50,000條
is complete rubbish----360,000條
我也搜了一下，
is absolutely rubbish--25,000,000條
is absolute rubbish----21,000,000條
Chris, 恕我直言，你的 Google 搜尋方法與你所說 completely 用來修飾 is 使之變成「完全是」一樣，都是錯的，正確的搜尋結果數量是：
回覆刪除“is absolute rubbish”: 828,000
“is absolutely rubbish”: 244,000
“absolute rubbish”: 1,120,000
“absolutely rubbish”: 292,000
詳情請看:
http://www.englishinyourfavour.com/?p=338
真的懇請各位 Blog 友，澄清一下錯的東西，很多人讀了就信以為真。
我是英語的用家，從日常使用評論，不是專門研究文法的，englishin your favour的版主就是，他和我本來相識，這幾天大家電郵討論了幾次；他剛公幹在外，不能上網，遲下會在網誌裡詳細答你。
回覆刪除個論點就係嗰條友仔講...不涉及gram吾grammer..complete rubbish 同 completely rublish都係chinese english..哈哈..你想英文好..如做鬼佬 !
回覆刪除"Doesn't do to get mixed up with neurotic woman..."若是在HK人口中講,一定千箭射背
cite: Ian Fleming: From Russia with Love.M 對James Bond訓示.
After wanki wanki, not just Tong's little brother was waveringly, even his tongue became pinkie dicky completely.
回覆刪除