So far as we can tell, all human languages are equally complete and perfect as instruments of communication: that is, every language appears to be as well equipped as any other to say the things its speakers want to say. It may or may not be appropriate to talk about primitive peoples or cultures, but that is another matter. Certainly, not all groups of people are equally competent in nuclear physics or psychology or the cultivation of rice or the engraving of Benares brass. But this is not the fault of their language. The Eskimos can speak about snow with a great deal more precision and subtlety than we can in English, but this is not because the Eskimo language (one of those sometimes miscalled 'primitive') is inherently more precise and subtle than English. This example does not bring to light a defect in English, a show of unexpected 'primitiveness'. The position is simply and obviously that the Eskimos and the English live in different environments. The English language would be just as rich in terms for different kinds of snow, presumably, if the environments in which English was habitually used made such distinction important.
Similarly, we have no reason to doubt that the Eskimo language could be as precise and subtle on the subject of motor manufacture or cricket if these topics formed part of the Eskimos' life. For obvious historical reasons, Englishmen in the nineteenth century could not talk about motorcars with the minute discrimination which is possible today: cars were not a part of their culture. But they had a host of terms for horse-drawn vehicles which send us, puzzled, to a historical dictionary when we are reading Scott or Dickens. How many of us could distinguish between a chaise, a landau, a victoria, a brougham, a coupe, a gig, a diligence, a whisky, a calash, a tilbury, a carriole, a phaeton, and a clarence ?
1 be后插入 as; 2 their改为its; 3 There改为It; 4 Whereas改为But 5 further 改为much
6 come改为bring; 7 similar改为different; 8 will改为would; 9 as important去掉as; 10 the part去掉the
Friends tend to become more intimated if they have the same interests and temper, they can get along well and keep contacting; otherwise they will separate and end the relationship. Friends who are more familiar and closer can not be too casual and show no respect. Otherwise the harmony and balance will be broken, and the friendship will also be nonexistent any more. Everyone hopes to have his own private space, and if too casual among friends, it is easy to invade this piece of restricted areas, which will lead to the conflict, resulting in alienation. It may be a small matter to be rude to friends; however, it is likely to plant the devastating seeds. The best way to keep the close relationship between friends is to keep contacts with restraint, and do not bother each other.
The important role of a city’s local conditions in the urban design
Recently there is a hot debate on a report that a foreign design company invited by a little-known mountainous area in Guiyang provided a design without paying too much attention to the city’s unique characteristics. Some people appreciate the bold innovation of the design but others do not like it. In my opinion, any urban design should take the city’s original cultural heritage into account. The designers should suit their design to local conditions and try to take advantage of the local resources.
First, a city’s regional characteristics or local cultural heritage are its symbol, its identity. In a mountainous area, too many unconventional, super-futuristic buildings will not be compatible with the city’s landscapes. Without these landscapes, it is just another so called modern city composed of concrete and steel. Take Beijing for example. In the past few years, Beijing has been removing a large number of such alleys traditionally called hutong, in order to make it become a real international city. But without these hutongs can this city still be called Beijing, an ancient capital? The disappearance of hutongs means the disappearance of a period of history, a cordial lifestyle, and even the disappearance of Beijing itself. Then Beijing will lose its uniqueness.
Second, it can help a city save a lot of money by suiting the design to local conditions and try to take advantage of the local resources. This is especially important to small cities, like this one in a mountainous area near Guiyang. We all know Guiyang is a developing city, not very rich. Unconventional, super-futuristic buildings mean large need of money input. Then more burdens may be added to this city, which will run counter to the city’s original purpose of developing itself. Instead, if connections between a city’s culture and the various urban sectors, including housing, infrastructure and governance, are well made, the maximum economic benefits will be achieved.
Besides, the modernization should be a gradual process. More haste, less speed. Nonetheless, it should not be overlooked that the shortcomings of futuristic-style constructing outweigh its advantages brought.
In conclusion, any urban design should take the city’s original cultural heritage into account. The designers should suit their design to local conditions and try to take advantage of the local resources. A scientific city design should be dependent on the city’s regional characteristics, on a case-by-case basis.