风凝灵

汉语“去方便一下”是一句婉转语，即“去洗手间”。如今在一些正式场合，很少有人会说“去厕所”。在过去，“厕所”本来也是婉辞，原意是“侧面的房子”。（“茅房”过去也是婉辞，因为居住的正房多用瓦盖，而厕所则比较简陋，通常用茅草盖。）

　　英语里表示“厕所”的婉辞更多。在多年前的英语课堂上，我们认识了washroom和WC（water closet的缩略语，原指“盥洗室”）。这两个词如今在美国已很少被使用，现在美国人一般说restroom或bathroom，英国人则多说lavatory（在美语中，只有火车或飞机上的厕所才被叫做lavatory）。此外，英国人常用toilet指厕所或马桶，而美国人则只用其指马桶。

　　一些文化人还给“如厕”起了许多有趣的名称，比如：comfort station， cloakroom， retiring room， public convenience， house of amusement， chamber of commerce， old soldiers' home。

　　在英国，人们有时将“厕所”称为loo，据说由于英国许多门牌号为100号的房屋多为厕所，loo与数字100形似，故而得名。

　　在一些非正式场合，表示“想去方便一下”的说法则更多：

　　男士：I'd like / I want / I am going to go somewhere， to go into retreat， to go to the bank， to go to the john， to

1、两个助词的不同定义由于在句子中「が」和「は」经常处于类似的地位，有些人误认为这两个助词区别不大。孰不知这二者从助词种类上就不属于同一类型。

「が」是主格助词，是格助词的一种；而「は」是提示助词，它不仅可以提示主语，还能够提示宾语、状语，在一定条件下还可以提示各种补语。

因此，它们有时可以起到类似的作用，但有时完全不相同。

2、在主语和谓语的提问中的不同含义 请看下面两个例句（判断句）：

ａ：「ここは教室です。」 ｂ：「ここが教室です。」

这两句话译成中文，都是“这里是教室。”但是，在日语中有着不同的含义。

a句是说明这个地方是教室，而不是别的什么房间，如：不是教员室或实验室等等。是回答「ここはどこですか。」（这是什么地方？）或「ここは何の部屋ですか」（这是什么房间？）的问题的。也就是说已经知道了主语时对谓语提问的回答。

b句是强调说明只有这间是教室，别的都不是教室，如：旁边的或对面的都不是教室。是回答「どこが教室ですか。」（哪里是教室？）的问题的。也就是说已经知道了谓语时对主语提问的回答。为什么形成这样不同的形式呢？从提示助词的特点来看，它只能提示具体的内容，不可能提示疑问词。

因此，当疑问词在主语部分时，只能用「が」提问，而不能「は」提问；回答也是这样。

相反，疑问词在谓语部分时，提示的内容已经明确，所以用「は」，而不用「が」，回答也一样。

所以有一句话说“「が」前「は」后”。这句话在表示疑问词的位置上来说，是可以应用的。

1、a bad apple 坏蛋

A：Oh, my God! What happened? Why are you black and blue?

B：I got beaten by Peter’s brother

A：That’s a bad apple! Let’s think up a way and teach him a lesson

甲：噢，天哪！怎么啦？你身上怎么青一块紫一块的？

乙：彼得的弟弟把我给打了。

甲：这坏蛋，咱们来想个法来教训教训他。

2、a dog in the manger 占着茅坑不拉屎的人；占有有利条件却不会利用的人

A：Give the skates to me!

B：You shut up!

A：If you don’t know how to skate, why don’t you give the skates to me? Don’t be a dog in the manger.

甲：把冰鞋给我！

乙：你闭嘴！

甲：你若不知道怎么滑冰，干吗不把冰鞋给我？别占着茅坑不拉屎了！

3、a gay dog 快活的人

A：It’s strange they should get along so well!

B：That’s nothing unusual.

A：You don’t know much about

ゆっくりと 12月のあかりが灯りはじめ

yu kku ri to zyu u ni ga tsu no a ka ri ga to mo ri ha zi me

缓慢地开始点燃了十二月的烟火

慌ただしく 踊る街を谁もが好きになる  

a wa ta da shi ku o do ru ma chi wo da re mo ga su ki ni na ru

每个人都变的喜欢这忙碌的街道

僕は走り 闭店间际 君の欲しがった椅子を买った

bo ku wa ha shi ri he I te n ma gi wa ki mi no ho shi ga tta I su wo ka tta

我奔跑着 在商店关门之前 买了你想要的椅子

荷物抱え 电车のなか ひとりで幸せだった

ni mo tsu ka ka e de n sya no na ka hi to ri de shi a wa se da tta

还抱着礼物 在电车中 我一个人沉浸在幸福之中

いつまでも 手をつないで いられるよな気がしていた  

I tsu ma de mo te wo tsu na I de I ra re ru yo u na ki ga shi te I ta

曾经有着能够永远牵手走下去的预感

何もかもがきらめいて がむしゃらに夢を追いかけた  

The destiny of wild places in the 21 century can be read in the numbers. The pressure to exploit the world’s remaining wildness for natural resources, food and human habitation will become overwhelming. But bulldozers and chain saws aren’t the only threats. A new menace has emerged from the least likely quarter; in many cases, the very people who care most passionately about empty places are hastening their demise.

Backcountry activities have become extremely trendy in the U.S., a fad that has been eagerly abetted by Madison Avenue. These days it’s impossible to turn on a television or open a magazine without being assaulted by a barrage of ads that use skillfully packaged images of wilderness

The key to understanding the development of the American attitude of the sanctity of the home is to look at how powerful the home is against the desires or even the needs of the government. This amendment (that no soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law) is absolutely clear. No matter how pressing the need is – in peace-time, no solider can be assigned to live in a home by the government without the consent of the owner. This is essence makes the individual owner of an individual home as powerful as the entire government of the United States of America. Think about this. In 1791 when

The line of demarcation between the adult and the child world is drawn in many ways. For instance, many American parents may be totally divorced from the church, or entertain grave doubts about the existence of God, but they send their children to Sunday school and help them to pray. American parents struggle in a competitive world where sheer cunning and falsehood are often rewarded and respected, but they feed their children with nursery tales in which the morally good is pitted against the bad, and in the end the good inevitably is successful and the bad inevitably punished. When American parents are in serious domestic trouble, they maintain a front of sweetness and light before their children.

Americans are grappling with same-sex marriage. The issue threatens to be a defining one in the current U.S. presidential election. Under pressure from his evangelical Christian supporters, President George W. Bush has been dancing around it for months. Although he keeps reiterating his view that marriage should be limited to the union of a man and woman, he has stopped short of a full public endorsement of a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex weddings. Much of the rest of the world is watching America’s struggle with curiosity.

In many places, same-sex marriage is simply a ho-hum issue. Across the world, the old model- marriage and then kids – has given way to a dizzying

A major source of anxiety about the future of the family is rooted not so much in reality as in the tension between the idealized expectation in the culture and the reality itself. Nostalgia for a lost family tradition, which, in fact, never existed, has prejudiced our understanding of the conditions of families in contemporary society. Thus, the current anxiety over the fate of the family reflects not only problems in the family but also a variety of fears about other social problems that are eventually projected onto the family.

The real problem facing American families today are not symptoms of breakdown as is often suggested; rather, they reflect the difficulties of adaptation to recent

　　In some societies people want children for what might be called familial reasons: to extend the family line or the family name, to propitiate the ancestors; to enable the proper functioning of religious rituals involving the family. Such reasons may seem thin in the modern, secularized society but they have been and are powerful indeed in other places.

　　In addition, one class of family reasons shares a border with the following category, namely, having children in order to maintain or improve a marriage: to hold the husband or occupy the wife; to repair or rejuvenate the marriage;  to increase the number of children on the assumption that family happiness lies that way. The point

In men, good looks is a whole, something taken in at a glance. It does not need to be confirmed by giving measurements of different regions of the body, nobody encourages a man to dissect his appearance, feature by feature. As for perfection, that is considered trivial --- almost unmanly. Indeed, in the ideally good-looking man a small imperfection or blemish is considered positively desirable.

在男性那里，好看是一种整体的感觉，是匆匆一瞥留下的印象。它不需要提供身体各部位的尺寸来确认，没有人会鼓励一个男性将自己的外表一点一点地拆分开来考察。至于外表完美，那在人们看来是微不足道的——甚至是缺乏阳刚之气的。实际上，一个男人如果在外表上有一点点瑕疵，或伤痕，反而会被奉为理想的美男子。

To preen, for a woman, can never be just a pleasure. It is also a duty. It is her work. If a woman does real work --- and even if she has clambered