The nit-picking glory of The New Yorker's Comma Queen | Mary Norris

譯者: Nan Liu 審譯者: Jin Wu

I have spent the past 38 years trying to be invisible.

我用過去 38 年的時間 試圖將自己隱藏起來。

I'm a copy editor.

我是文字編輯人員。

I work at The New Yorker,

我在《紐約客》工作，

and copyediting for The New Yorker is like playing shortstop

為《紐約客》做文字編輯就像是

在一支職業大聯盟棒球隊中 做游擊手一樣：

for a Major League Baseball team:

every little movement gets picked over by the critics --

每個小小的舉動 都會被評論家挑出來評論──

God forbid you should commit an error.

上帝禁止你犯錯。

Just to clarify: copy editors don't choose what goes into the magazine.

需要解釋一下：文字編輯人員 無權選擇什麼內容會被收入雜誌。

We work at the level of the sentence,

我們專注於句子的修改，

maybe the paragraph,

也可能是段落、

the words, the punctuation.

字詞、標點符號。

Our business is in the details.

我們的工作注重於細節。

We put the diaeresis, the double dot, over the "i" in "naïve."

我們把分音符，那兩個點， 放在單詞 “naïve” 的 “i” 上。

We impose house style.

我們會要求符合雜誌的風格。

Every publication has a house style.

每份出版物都有一種版面風格設計。

The New Yorker's is particularly distinctive.

《紐約客》的設計尤其特別。

We sometimes get teased for our style.

我們有時候因為 我們的風格而被取笑。

Imagine -- we still spell "teen-ager" with a hyphen,

想像一下──我們在拼寫 "teen-ager" 的時候仍帶有連字符，

as if that word had just been coined.

就好像那個單詞剛被創造出來一樣。

But you see that hyphen in "teen-age"

但是當你看見 "teen-ager" 中的連字符，

and that diaeresis over "coöperate,"

和 "coöperate" 中的分音符的時候，

and you know you're reading The New Yorker.

你知道你正在閱讀《紐約客》。

Copyediting at The New Yorker is a mechanical process.

《紐約客》的文字編輯是死板的。

There is a related role called query proofreading,

有一個相關的崗位叫作「詢問校對」，

or page-OK'ing.

或是版面完美化。

Whereas copyediting is mechanical,

雖然文字編輯是機械的，

query proofreading is interpretive.

但是詢問校對是需要靈活應變的。

We make suggestions to the author through the editor

我們通過主編向作者提出建議

to improve the emphasis of a sentence

以便提高句子的重點，

or point out unintentional repetitions

或是指出非刻意的重複，

and supply compelling alternatives.

並且提供「更有說服力的」其它選擇。

Our purpose is to make the author look good.

我們的目的是 讓這個作者看起來完美。

Note that we give our proofs not directly to the author,

請注意我們不是直接 把我們的校對本給作者，

but to the editor.

而是給編輯。

This often creates a good cop/bad cop dynamic

這經常帶來一種「好警察、 壞警察」的動態循環，

in which the copy editor -- I'll use that as an umbrella term --

在這其中，文字編輯人員 ──我將用它做為一個總稱──

is invariably the bad cop.

永遠都是壞警察。

If we do our job well, we're invisible,

如果我們的工作做得好， 我們不會被人察覺，

but as soon as we make a mistake,

但是我們一旦犯錯，

we copy editors become glaringly visible.

我們文字編輯人員就會 格外引人注目。

Here is the most recent mistake that was laid at my door.

這是我最近一次犯的錯。

[Last Tuesday, Sarah Palin, the pre-Trump embodiment

「上個星期二，莎拉裴琳， 這位前川普時代

of populist no-nothingism in the Republican Party,

民粹『不知可論』化身的共和黨員，

endorsed Trump.]

表示支持川普。」

"Where were The New Yorker's fabled copy editors?" a reader wrote.

「《紐約客》著名的文字編輯人員 在哪裡？」一位讀者寫到。

"Didn't the writer mean 'know-nothingism'?"

「難道作者不是想寫 『不可知論』嗎？」

Ouch.

哎呦。

There's no excuse for this mistake.

沒辦法為這個錯誤找藉口了。

But I like it: "no-nothingism."

但是我喜歡這個單詞： “no-nothingism”。

It might be American vernacular for "nihilism."

它可能在美國俚語中代表 「虛無主義。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Here, another reader quotes a passage from the magazine:

有另一位讀者從雜誌上摘錄的語錄：

[Ruby was seventy-six, but she retained her authoritative bearing;

「魯比 76 歲，但是她保持著 權威性的儀態；

only her unsteady gait belied her age.]

只有她不穩的步伐 掩飾了她的年齡。」

He added:

他補充道：

"Surely, someone at The New Yorker knows the meaning of 'belied,'

「當然，在《紐約客》工作的人 知道 ‘belied’ 的意思是什麼，

and that it is the opposite of how it is used in this sentence.

也知道這個句子中用的 應該是和它相反的意思。

Come on! Get it together."

喂，請集中精力！」

Belie: to give a false impression.

Belie：給人錯覺。

It should have been "betrayed."

正確的用詞應該是「暴露」。

E.B. White once wrote of commas in The New Yorker:

艾爾文·布魯克斯·懷特曾經 在《紐約客》中寫過關於逗號的評論：

"They fall with the precision of knives outlining a body."

「它們隨著精準的筆刃紛紛落下。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And it's true -- we get a lot of complaints about commas.

這是真的，我們有太多 關於逗號的抱怨。

"Are there really two commas in 'Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard'?"

「在 "Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard" 這條路名中真的有兩個逗號嗎？」

There may not be on the sign, but yes, that is New Yorker style for "Jr."

在路名後面可能沒有逗號， 但是《紐約客》中的 "Jr." 是有逗號的。

One wag wrote:

有個喜歡開玩笑的人寫道：

["Please, could you expel, or, at least, restrain,

「拜託，可以請你開除， 或者，至少限制

the comma-maniac, on your editorial staff?"]

你們編輯人員中的 逗號狂熱份子嗎？」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Ah, well.

嗯，好吧。

In this case, those commas are well-placed,

在這個例子中，逗號用的很好，

except that there should not be one

除了逗號不應該用在

between "maniac" and "on."

「瘋子」和「之中」之間。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Also, if we must have commas around "at least,"

還有，如果我們必須要在 「至少」前後用逗號，

we might change it up by using dashes around that phrase:

我們可以稍做修改， 在那個短語附近加上破折號：

"... -- or, at least, restrain --"

「……──或，至少，抑制──」

Perfect.

完美。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Then there's this:

然後還有這樣一條留言：

"Love you, love your magazine,

「喜歡你們，喜歡你們的雜誌，

but can you please stop writing massive numbers as text?"

但是可以請你們不再用文字 來表述龐大的數字嗎？」

[two and a half million ...]

「二百五十萬……」

No.

不行。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

One last cri de coeur from a spelling stickler:

最後一份來自一位 拼寫執著者的抱怨：

["Those long stringy things are vocal cords, not chords."]

「那些細長的東西是聲帶， 不是和弦。」

The outraged reader added,

那個生氣的讀者補充道：

"I'm sure I'm not the first to write

「我確信我不是第一個寫信抱怨

regarding this egregious proofreading error,

這個嚴重的校對錯誤的人，

but I'm equally sure I won't be the last.

但是我同樣確信 我不會是最後一個。

Fie!"

太糟糕了！」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

I used to like getting mail.

我曾經喜歡收信件。

There is a pact between writers and editors.

作家和編輯之間有協定。

The editor never sells out the writer,

編輯永遠不會出賣作家，

never goes public about bad jokes that had to be cut

永遠不會讓必須刪減的不良笑話

or stories that went on too long.

或者是太長的故事公佈於眾。

A great editor saves a writer from her excesses.

優秀的編輯可以讓作家免於贅述。

Copy editors, too, have a code;

文字編輯人員也有規範；

we don't advertise our oversights.

我們不公布無心的錯誤。

I feel disloyal divulging them here,

我因為在這裡公佈它們 而感到不忠，

so let's have look at what we do right.

所以讓我們看看 我們做過什麼對的事。

Somehow, I've gotten a reputation for sternness.

不知為什麼，我因為嚴苛出名。

But I work with writers who know how to have their way with me.

但是我與那些知道如何 和我相處的作家共事。

I've known Ian Frazier, or "Sandy," since the early 80s.

我從 80 年代初就認識 伊恩‧弗瑞哲了，他又叫「桑迪」。

And he's one of my favorites,

他是我最喜歡的作家之一，

even though he sometimes writes a sentence

儘管他有時會寫

that gives a copy editor pause.

讓文字編輯人員難以抉擇的句子。

Here is one from a story about Staten Island

這有一個關於史坦頓島的故事，

after Hurricane Sandy:

發生在颶風桑迪之後：

[A dock that had been broken in the middle and lost its other half

「一個被攔腰折斷並 丟失了一半的船塢

sloped down toward the water,

滑落到了水中，

its support pipes and wires leaning forward

它的支撐管和電線向前傾斜，

like when you open a box of linguine and it slides out.]

就像是你打開一盒義大利 扁麵條時，麵條滑出來一樣。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

This would never have got past the grammarian in the days of yore.

這個句子在多年以前是 不會被語法學家批准的。

But what could I do?

但是我能做什麼呢？

Technically, the "like" should be an "as,"

嚴格來說，單詞「就像」 應該換成「如同」，

but it sounds ridiculous,

但是那聽起來很荒唐，

as if the author were about to embark on an extended Homeric simile --

就好像作者要使用一個 很長的荷馬式比喻──

"as when you open a box of linguine."

「『如同』當你打開 一盒義大利扁麵條時。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

I decided that the hurricane conferred poetic justice on Sandy

我斷定颶風已經給桑迪 帶來了應有的懲罰，

and let the sentence stand.

並決定讓那個句子保持原樣。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Generally, if I think something is wrong,

通常來說，如果我覺得 有哪裡不對，

I query it three times.

我會詢問三次。

I told Sandy that not long ago in a moment of indiscretion and he said,

不久之前，在一次不審慎的談話中， 我把那個原則告訴了桑迪，然後他說：

"Only three?"

「只有三次？」

So, he has learned to hold out.

就這樣，他學會了不妥協。

Recently, he wrote a story for "Talk of the Town,"

最近，他為「街談巷議」 寫了一個故事，

that's the section at the front of the magazine

那是在雜誌封面的一版，

with short pieces on subjects ranging from Ricky Jay's exhibit

帶有關於一些話題的短文，

從雷基傑伊在 大都會藝術博物館的展覽，

at the Metropolitan Museum

to the introduction of doggie bags in France.

到法國推出食物打包袋。

Sandy's story was about the return to the Bronx

桑迪的故事是關於

最高法院大法官索尼婭·索托馬尼爾 回到布魯克斯拜訪的。

of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

There were three things in it that I had to challenge.

那個故事中有三樣東西 我不得不質疑。

First, a grammar query.

首先，語法的質疑。

The justice was wearing black and Sandy wrote,

那個法官穿著黑色的衣服， 然後桑迪寫道：

[Her face and hands stood out like in an old, mostly dark painting.]

「她的臉和手凸顯出來， 像在一幅老舊、黑暗的畫中。」

Now, unlike with the hurricane,

這次，和颶風那次不一樣，

with this "like," the author didn't have the excuse

使用這個「像」，作者沒有

of describing hurricane damage.

描述颶風災害的藉口了。

"Like" in this sense is a preposition, and a preposition takes an object,

「像」在這裡是一個介系詞， 介系詞後面必須要有受詞，

which is a noun.

也就是一個名詞。

This "like" had to be an "as."

這裡的「像」應該用「如同」。

"As in an old, mostly dark painting."

「如同一幅老舊、黑暗的畫。」

Second, a spelling issue.

第二，拼寫問題。

The author was quoting someone who was assisting the justice:

作者引用了一位法官助手的語錄：

["It will be just a minute.

「就一分鐘。

We are getting the justice mic'ed,"]

我們會讓公正發聲。」

Mic'ed?

"Mic'ed?" （麥克風）

The music industry spells it "mic"

音樂界把它拼作 “mic”，

because that's how it's spelled on the equipment.

因為設備上就是這麼拼寫的。

I'd never seen it used as a verb with this spelling,

我從未見過這種拼寫 方式作為動詞使用，

and I was distraught to think that "mic'ed"

而且我一想到那個 "mic'ed"

would get into the magazine on my watch.

會出現在我監管的雜誌中就很心煩。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

New Yorker style for "microphone" in its abbreviated form is "mike."

在《紐約客》中， "microphone" 的縮寫是 "mike"。

Finally, there was a sticky grammar and usage issue

最後，有一個棘手的 語法和使用問題，

in which the pronoun has to have the same grammatical number

就是那個代詞必須與它代替的詞

as its antecedent.

在語法上保持數的一致。

[everyone in the vicinity held their breath]

「附近的每個人都 屏住他們的呼吸。」

"Their" is plural and "everyone," its antecedent, is singular.

「他們的」是複數，而它對應的 「每個人」是單數。

You would never say, "Everyone were there."

你從不會說每個人「們」都在那。

Everyone was there. Everyone is here.

每個人都在那。 每個人都在這。

But people say things like, "Everyone held their breath" all the time.

但是人們習於這樣表達： 「每個人都屏住他們的呼吸」。

To give it legitimacy,

為了讓這種表達合理，

copy editors call it "the singular 'their,'"

文字編輯人員把它叫作 單數的「他們的」，

as if calling it singular makes it no longer plural.

就好像把它稱作單數 它就不是複數了。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

It is my job when I see it in print to do my best to eliminate it.

我的工作就是，當我看到這種情況 出現在印刷品中時，我要盡力消除它。

I couldn't make it, "Everyone held her breath,"

我不能把句子改成 每個人都屏住「她」的呼吸，

or "Everyone held his breath,"

或者是每個人都屏住「他」的呼吸，

or "Everyone held his or her breath."

或者是每個人都屏住 「他的／她的」呼吸。

Whatever I suggested had to blend in.

我提出的任何建議 必須具有融合性。

I asked, through the editor,

我通過主編詢問，

if the author would consider changing it

那個作者是否可以考慮把句子改為

to "All in the vicinity held their breath,"

「所有的人」都屏住他們的呼吸，

because "all" is plural.

因為「所有的人」是複數。

Nope.

不行。

I tried again: "All those present held their breath?"

我又試了一次：

「在場的所有人 都屏住他們的呼吸？」

I thought this sounded vaguely judicial.

我認為這個句子 聽起來稍微清楚些。

But the editor pointed out

但是主編指出

that we could not have "present" and "presence"

我們不能讓「在場的」和「在場」

in the same sentence.

出現在同一個句子裡。

When the final proof came back,

當最終的審稿結果出來時，

the author had accepted "as" for "like,"

作者接受把 "like" 換成 "as"，

and "miked" for "mic'ed."

"mic'ed" 換成 "miked"。

But on "Everyone held their breath," he stood his ground.

但是關於「每個人都屏住他們的呼吸，」

他保持自己的立場。

Two out of three isn't bad.

三個問題改了兩個，還不錯。

In the same issue,

在同一期中，

in that piece on doggie bags in France,

在那篇關於法國 食物打包袋的文章中，

there was the gratuitous use of the f-word by a Frenchman.

一個法國人無端地使用了髒話。

I wonder, when the mail comes in,

我想知道當我收到讀者來信的時候，

which will have offended the readers more.

哪種情況會讓他們更惱怒。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）