Уроки английского от Харди
Feb. 18th, 2026 08:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
prof_yura29.8. 1939
Dear Dr. Segre, I have just run through your long Lond. Math. Soc. Paper (the one of 50 pp.) ‘secretarially’. I have made on the MS a considerable number of small corrections of a linguistic or typographical character. The ‘English’ is good for a foreigner, but repeatedly ‘just not’ right. You will of course be able to reconsider anything in the proofs. It is difficult for me to be sure that I am always right. There are one or two ways in which you disregard English idiom rather systematically, and I would suggest that, when you see the proofs (which may, I fear, not be for a considerable time), you should observe carefully where they occur. The points which I noticed particularly were
1.
insertion of commas when there is no logical justification: e.g. ‘The transformations which we made in §20, are …’ [I invent a sentence]. If you put a comma after 20, you must also put one after made. Possibly Italian usage is different. No comma is best in such cases.
2.
Putting qualifying adverbs or phrases before the main verb or statement: ‘we rationally transform the equations (20)’. The ‘rationally’ should follow (20). These are cases of definite error. There are many others in which one cannot say that what you write is wrong, but where the perusal balance of your sentence is obviously ‘un-English’. In such cases it is difficult for a secretary to know what to do, and it is quite likely that I am inconsistent. After all, a secretary’s time is limited.
May I also suggest that, if you make long typewritten copies, you should, if possible, use rather better paper? This MS has to pass through at least 3 hands before it gets to the printer, and the flimsy paper gets gradually into a state of disarray which makes it extremely troublesome to handle. I realize that geometry is more difficult for a foreigner to express than analysis, since the sentences are much less dominated by formulae and tend inevitably to become rather long and complex. Yours sincerely G.H. Hardy
5.9.1939
Dear Dr. Segre, Your result is quite new to me. I have looked into Koksma, but can find nothing like it. But I would advise you to consult Davenport. Your English is, on the whole and in the circumstances, remarkably good: there are very few definite ‘mistakes’, and such ‘un-Englishisms’ as there are, are almost entirely of a few definite types. It is for this reason that I thought it worth writing. It is, I suppose, true that the worst English writer (and we have some pretty bad ones) writes in a way which is at bottom more ‘English’ than the best foreign writer. Yours sincerely G.H. Hardy
Цитируется по книге "The Jewish Mathematical Diaspora from Fascist Italy"
by Erica Luciano
Dear Dr. Segre, I have just run through your long Lond. Math. Soc. Paper (the one of 50 pp.) ‘secretarially’. I have made on the MS a considerable number of small corrections of a linguistic or typographical character. The ‘English’ is good for a foreigner, but repeatedly ‘just not’ right. You will of course be able to reconsider anything in the proofs. It is difficult for me to be sure that I am always right. There are one or two ways in which you disregard English idiom rather systematically, and I would suggest that, when you see the proofs (which may, I fear, not be for a considerable time), you should observe carefully where they occur. The points which I noticed particularly were
1.
insertion of commas when there is no logical justification: e.g. ‘The transformations which we made in §20, are …’ [I invent a sentence]. If you put a comma after 20, you must also put one after made. Possibly Italian usage is different. No comma is best in such cases.
2.
Putting qualifying adverbs or phrases before the main verb or statement: ‘we rationally transform the equations (20)’. The ‘rationally’ should follow (20). These are cases of definite error. There are many others in which one cannot say that what you write is wrong, but where the perusal balance of your sentence is obviously ‘un-English’. In such cases it is difficult for a secretary to know what to do, and it is quite likely that I am inconsistent. After all, a secretary’s time is limited.
May I also suggest that, if you make long typewritten copies, you should, if possible, use rather better paper? This MS has to pass through at least 3 hands before it gets to the printer, and the flimsy paper gets gradually into a state of disarray which makes it extremely troublesome to handle. I realize that geometry is more difficult for a foreigner to express than analysis, since the sentences are much less dominated by formulae and tend inevitably to become rather long and complex. Yours sincerely G.H. Hardy
5.9.1939
Dear Dr. Segre, Your result is quite new to me. I have looked into Koksma, but can find nothing like it. But I would advise you to consult Davenport. Your English is, on the whole and in the circumstances, remarkably good: there are very few definite ‘mistakes’, and such ‘un-Englishisms’ as there are, are almost entirely of a few definite types. It is for this reason that I thought it worth writing. It is, I suppose, true that the worst English writer (and we have some pretty bad ones) writes in a way which is at bottom more ‘English’ than the best foreign writer. Yours sincerely G.H. Hardy
Цитируется по книге "The Jewish Mathematical Diaspora from Fascist Italy"
by Erica Luciano
no subject
Date: 2026-02-19 03:50 am (UTC)