The Police and the intelligence Agents 　　American TV and movies once gave a tough and brutal picture of the American police, though now there are TV series which have cops as heroes and defenders of society. The police are grateful for the good publicity and their new image, especially in cities where there are black ghettos （聚居区）. White policemen are now careful of how they speak and behave towards their fellow black citizens. 　　The cop, or ordinary policeman, is a city or a State employee. He cannot arrest anyone outside his city or his State. He cannot even cross the border into a neighboring State in pursuit of a criminal. If the does, he can be charged with breaking the law of that State. The police who have to be really tough are those that operate in big cities, like New York, Chicago and Detroit, which have large ghettos and organized crimes. 　　Since the majority of criminals are armed, American cops have to use their guns more often than most policemen in other places and the car chases through the crowded streets of Manhattan, which are a favorite feature of gangster movies （警匪片）, are not so exaggerated. American cops get shot down, run over, stabbed, beaten up, and their wives are in constant fear that one day their men will not come home. 　　Many policemen do a lot to help children whose parents are criminals. They understand better than most citizens the awful misery of the ghettos. They feel sorry for the drug addicts, but often treat roughly the “pushers” who sell the drugs—when they can catch them. They have been accused of making no serious attempt to break up the various drug rings. They claim that such a task would be never-ending. 　　In big cities, the Police Commissioner （Head of the Force） is often appointed by Mayor and therefore senior police officers tend to be too closely linked to politics. Their ambitions sometimes tempt them to turn a blind eye or to accept bribes, which lowers the morale of the ordinary cop. The structure of the many different American police forces is said to be the most varied in the whole world. 　　The city police often come into conflict with the FBI—the Federal Bureau of Investigation. FBI men, who do not wear uniforms, have the right to cross State borders if they are pursuing a suspect. They are responsible to the US Department of Justice, and have their headquarters in Washington, D.C. The head of the FBI is chief domestic intelligence adviser to the President. The FBI men are more concerned with spies and agents hostile to the USA, radicals and Mafia（黑手党） bosses than they are with ordinary criminals, but they do keep a record of all crimes, which city and State police can consult if they wish. The FBI laboratory services, among the best in the world, are also available to local law enforcement agencies. The activities of the CIA—the Central Intelligence Agency—are now well known in every country in the world. The job of the CIA is to keep the Government informed of the activities of foreign agents and the secret preparations of hostile powers. CIA agents also work in countries where if is felt that aid, or the promise of aid, will maintain sympathy for the USA. Sometimes the CIA’s actions do just the reverse, and in many parts of the world including countries friendly to the USA, they are disliked and even feared. However, the CIA is just one of the many secret services which all countries use to protect themselves against possible enemies. 3. City and State police may go to the FBI laboratory services for help.

Forgiveness and Self-respect 　　It isn’t always easy to forgive someone who has wrongfully harmed us. In fact, we are often very reluctant to forgive. Simon Wiesenthal’s book, The Sunflower, presents an interesting case study that illustrates this point. A critically injured Nazi soldier recognizes the magnitude（数量；程度）of his own wrongdoing and seeks forgiveness from a Jewish person so that he can die in peace. He calls a Jewish inmate of a concentration camp（presumably Wiesenthal） into his hospital room, expresses his anguish（痛苦） and repentance（悔悟）, and begs for forgiveness. The Jewish man leaves the room without a word, and later struggles with the question of whether he should have forgiven the soldier. Likewise, we find some survivors of serious childhood abuse reluctant to forgive the perpetrators （犯罪；犯错）of their abuse, once they recognize what has happened to them and how profoundly it has affected their lives. Some therapists argue on their behalf that certain crimes may be unforgivable, and that survivors of this type of abuse need not forgive. 　　What accounts for our reluctance to forgive? Probably a number of factors, but here I want to focus on the factor of self-respect. Any person who wrongfully harms another fails to show sufficient respect for the person he has harmed. Implicit in the act of wrongdoing, then, is the claim that the victim does not deserve a full measure of respect. The Nazi soldier in The Sunflower helped to burn an entire village of Jews alive, and in doing so, he failed to respect the intrinsic worth of the Jewish people. He failed to recognize them as valuable human beings with a moral status equal to his own. And parents who abuse their children fail to respect them as valuable persons and as the bearers of basic human rights. They fail to respect their children’s feelings, and their profound need for a safe and supportive environment. I think many of us believe that if we forgive an offender who is guilty of serious crimes against us（especially an unrepentant offender）, we are essentially agreeing with the claim that we do not deserve a full measure of respect. In effect, we are saying “That’s OK –it doesn’t matter that you mistreated me. I’m not that important.” If this is the case, then our reluctance to forgive may be the result of a healthy desire to maintain our own self-respect. 　　Although the desire to maintain our self-respect is certainly important to honor, I believe that it need not lead to a refusal to forgive. In fact I believe that if we truly respect ourselves, we will work through a process of responding to the wrong, and this process will lead to genuine forgiveness of the offender. If we attempt to forgive the offender before we do this work, our forgiveness may well be incompatible with our self-respect. However, once this process is complete, it will be fully appropriate for the self-respecting individual to forgive the offender, regardless of whether the offender repents and regardless of what he has done or suffered. 　　Consider a person who has been seriously wronged. Let’s call this person Simon. After he has been harmed, if Simon respects himself, he will stop and establish for himself that the wrongdoer’s implicit claim about him is false. He will recognize that he is a valuable human being with a moral status equal to everyone else’s, and that he deserves a full measure of respect. At the same time, he will establish for himself that the act perpetrated against him was wrong. He will recognize that in virtue of his status as a person he has certain rights, and anyone who violates those rights wrongfully harms him. （If Simon attempts to forgive the offender before he recognizes these points, his forgiveness will be incompatible with his self-respect. It will also not be genuine forgiveness. It will amount to condoning （宽恕） the wrong rather than truly forgiving the offender for it.）Further, if Simon respects himself, he will acknowledge his grief and anger about the incident, and he will allow himself to experience them in full. He will not discount his own feelings or pretend they don’t exist in an attempt to forgive. Instead he will honor his feelings as important and legitimate. If Simon respects himself, he will also look realistically at the offender’s attitudes and behavior patterns. He will consider what steps he needs to take to protect himself from the offender and whether he wants to redefine his personal relationship with him （if such a relationship exists）. Simon’s self-respect will lead him to honor his own needs for protection and rewarding personal relationships. Finally, if Simon respects himself he will make a thoughtful decision about whether he wants to confront the offender, seek restitution, or press criminal charges. And he will do so with a full appreciation of his own status as a person. 　　Thus self-respect leads us to take certain steps to address the wrong that was perpetrated against us. And these steps pave the way for genuine forgiveness of the offender. As we work through the process described above, it is necessary to look at the incident from our own point of view. We must recognize that the wrongdoer was mistaken about our worth and status as a person, that we felt intense grief and anger about the incident, that we are owed restitution, etc. When we look at the incident from this point of view, we naturally feel resentment towards the wrongdoer. However, once this process is complete, we have done what we need to do for ourselves. Without compromising our self-respect, we can now let go of our egocentric（利己的）perspective on the incident and look at it from a more objective point of view. We can recognize that the offender is a valuable human being like ourselves, who struggles with the same needs, pressures, and confusions that we struggle with. We can think about his circumstances and come to understand why he did what he did. In doing so, we will recognize that the incident really may not have been about us in the first place. Instead it was about the wrongdoer’s misguided attempt to meet his own needs. As we regard the offender from this point of view （regardless of whether he repents and regardless of what he has done or suffered）, we will be in a position to forgive him. 　　By forgiving the offender at this point, are we agreeing with his implicit claim that we don’t deserve a full measure of respect? Clearly not. Consider Simon again. Having completed the process of responding to the wrong, he knows that he is valuable and deserves to be treated well. Further, if he respects himself he will trust his own judgment and be secure in his knowledge of these truths, regardless of what the wrongdoer says or does. He will not need to engage in a power struggle to get the offender to acknowledge his worth. As an individual who respects himself, he does not need this kind of external validation. Instead he will recognize the wrongdoer's confusion for what it is, put it in proper perspective, and go on to more worthwhile pursuits. Thus true self-respect leads to genuine forgiveness of the offender. As we act out of self-respect, our self-respect increases. Therefore every step we take towards forgiveness should increase our self-respect. Our self-respect also will increase after we reach a state of genuine forgiveness. Speaking from my own experience in forgiving my alcoholic father for serious childhood abuse, enormous benefits result from reaching a state of genuine forgiveness. By letting go of my grief and resentment, I opened up space for a whole range of positive emotions（joy, excitement, love, gratitude）, which I now experience on a regular basis. I also have a sense of peace concerning the incidents of abuse. They are truly over for me and no longer ride on my mind. This sense of peace is very valuable in itself, and it also allows me to focus on my own positive pursuits. Increased self-esteem is the inevitable consequence of feeling good and being able to devote all of my attention to the positive aspects of my life——my goals, interests, etc. Further, the process of forgiving has been very empowering. I have a deeper understanding of human nature and feel much less threatened by the wrongful attitudes and behaviors of others. I also have gained an ability to detach from other people' opinions and to trust my own judgment. Finally, forgiveness has brought me the great reward of feeling unadulterated love for my father. These kinds of benefits are available to all of us. They promote self-respect and they are surely worth seeking. Decide the answer that best that best completes the following statements according to the in formation provided in the text. 2. According to this short essay, our forgiveness may well be in conflict with our self-respect if（ ）.

We mustn t delay any longer...swallowing is difficult...and breathing, that's also difficult. Those muscles are weakening too...we mustn't delay any longer.These were the words of Dutchman Cees Van Wendel de Joode asking his doctor to help him die. Affected with a serious disease. Van Wendel was no longer able to speak clearly and he knew there was no hope of recovery and that his condition was rapidly deteriorating.Van Wendcl's last three months of life before being given a final, lethal injection by his doctor were filmed and first shown on television last year in the Netherlands. The programme has since been bought by 20 countries and each time it is shown,it starts a nationwide debate on the subject.The Netherlands is the only country in Europe which permits euthanasia, although it is not technically legal there. However, doctors who carry out euthanasia under strict guidelines introduced by the Dutch Parliament two years ago are usually not prosecuted. The guidelines demand that the patient is experiencing extreme suffering, that there is no chance of a cure,and that the patient has made repeated requests for euthanasia. In addition to this, a second doctor,must confirm that these criteria have been met and the death must be reported to the police department.Should doctors be allowed to take the lives of others? Dr. Wilfred Van Oijen, Cees Van Wendel's doctor, explains how he looks at the question：“Well,it's not as if I'm planning to murder a crowd of people with a machine gun. In that case, killing is the worst thing I can imagine. But that's entirely different from my work as a doctor. I care for people and I try to ensure that they don't suffer too much. That's a very different thing.”Many people, though, are totally against the practice of euthanasia. Dr. Andrew Ferguson.Chairman of the Organisation Healthcare Opposed to Euthanasia, says that in the vast majority of euthanasia cases, what the patient is actually asking for is something else. They may want a health professional to open up communication for them with their loved ones or family there's nearly always another question behind the question."Britain also has a strong tradition of hospices-special hospitals which care only for the dying and their special needs. Cicely Saunders,President of the National Hospice Council and a founder member of the hospice movement, argues that euthanasia doesn't take into account that there arc ways of caring for the dying. She is also concerned that allowing euthanasia would undermine the need for care and consideration of a wide range of people；"It's very easy in society now for the elderly• the disabled and the dependent to feel that they are burdens, and therefore that they ought to opt out. I think that anything that legally allows the shortening of life does make those people more vulnerable."Many find this prohibition of an individual s right to die paternalistic. Although they agree that life is important and should be respected, they feel that the quality of life should not be ignored. Dr. van Oijen believes that people have the fundamental right to choose for themselves if they want to die"What those people who oppose euthanasia are telling me is that dying people haven't the right And that when people are very ill, we are all afraid of their death. But there are situations where death is a friend. And in those cases, why not?"But"why not?"is a question which might cause strong emotion. The film showing Cees van Wendel's death was both moving and sensitive. His doctor was clearly a family friend;his wife had only her husband's interests at heart. Some, however, would argue that it would be dangerous to use this particular example to support the case for euthanasia. Not all patients would receive such a high level of individual care and attention.When euthanasia is carried out in the Netherlands, the doctor _____.

Welcome to Our Bank 　　“I wish Central Bank would be robbed,” George Pickens said to himself. He had been making this wish daily from the time he had started work as a teller （出纳员） at the bank. 　　All over the country banks were being robbed, George thought. Why not this bank? Were robbers scornful of its four-million-dollar capital? Were they afraid of Mr. Ackerman, the old bank guard, who hadn't pulled out his gun in twenty-two years? 　　Of course George had a reason for wanting the bank to be robbed. After all, he couldn’t simply take the thick bundles of bills that were under his hands all day long. So he had thought of another way to get them. His plan was simple. It went like this: 　　If Bank Robber A holds up Bank Teller B... 　　And if Bank Teller B gives Bank Robber A a certain amount of money... 　　What is to prevent Bank Teller B from keeping all the money left and claiming that it was stolen by Bank Robber A? 　　There was only one problem. Where was Bank Robber A? 　　One morning George entered the bank feeling something was about to happen. “Good morning, Mr. Burrdws,” he said cheerfully. The bank president said something in a low voice and went into his office. 　　At two o’clock Bank Robber A walked in. George knew he was a bank robber. For one thing, he slipped in. For another thing, he wore a mask. 　　“This is a holdup （抢劫）,” the man said roughly. He took a pistol from his pocket. The guard made a small sound. “You,” the bank robber said, “lie down on the floor.” Mr. Ackerman lay down. The robber stepped over to George's cage. 　　“All fight,” he said. “Hand it over.” 　　“Yes, sir,” said George. “ Would you like it in ten- or twenty dollar bills?” 　　“Just hand it over!” 　　George reached into his cashbox and took all the bills from the top section-close to six thousand dollars. He passed them through the window. The robber snatched them, put them into his pockets, and turned to leave. 　　Then, while everyone watched Bank Robber A, Bank Teller B calmly lifted off the top section of the cash and slipped bills from the bottom section into his pockets. 　　The door swung and the bank robber was gone. George fainted. When he woke he smiled up at the worried faces looking down at him. “I’m all right, he said bravely.” 　　“Perhaps you should go home, George,” Mr. Bell, the chief auditor （审计员） said. 　　As soon as he was safely behind his bedroom door, George took the money from his pockets and counted it. He had seven thousand dollars. He was very happy. 　　The next morning when George arrived at the bank, it was not open for business. But everyone was there, helping to examine the bank's records for the special audit Mr. Bell was taking. 　　George was called into Mr. Burrows' office. The bank president seemed strangely cheerful. “George,” he said, “I want you to meet Mr. Carruthers, who used to be president of our bank.” 　　“Good morning, George,”said Mr. Carruthers. “I was sorry to hear you fain yesterday. Are you all right now?” 　　“Yes, sir, just fine, thanks.” 　　“I' m glad to hear it. That was quite an adventure. It just goes to show how easy it is to rob our bank.” 　　“Sir?” said George, confused. 　　“George, I was sorry to give you a hard time yesterday, but with all the banks being robbed these days, I thought it would be a good idea to prove that our little bank can be robbed too. I have retired, but I haven’t stopped thinking. That’s, why I played my little game yesterday, just to keep everybody on his toes.” 　　“I don't understand,” said George. “What game?” 　　The old man laughed and took out a mask. He placed it over his face, and said, “All fight. Hand it over!” Mr. Burrows laughed but George did not. 　　“And the money?” George said in a small voice. 　　“Don't worry,” Mr. Carruthers said. “I put it all back in your cashbox all six thousand. We’re just finishing up the audit now.” George turned cold with fear. 　　Behind them, the door opened and Mr. Bell, the chief auditor, put his head into the room. “Mr. Burrows,” he said gravely, “may I see you a moment?” 1. The bank robber was Mr. Carruthers, former president of Central Bank.

London Art Gallery On the north side of Trafalgar, famous for its Admiral Nelson （“Nelson’s column”）, its fountains and its homes of pigeons, there stands a long, low building in classic style. This is the National Gallery, which contains Britain’s best-known collection of pictures. The collection was begun in 1824, with the purchase of thirty-eight pictures that included Hogarth’ s satirical “Marriage la Mode”series, and Titian’s “Venus and Adonis”. 　　The National Gallery is rich in paintings by Italian masters such as Raphael, Correggio, and Veronese, and it contains pictures representative of all European schools of art such as works by Rembrandt, Rubens, Van Dyck, Murillo, El Greco, and nineteenth century French masters. Many visitors are especially attracted to Velasquez’“Rokeby Venus”and Leonardo da Vinci’s“Virgin of the Rocks”. 　　On sunny days, students and other young people are often to be seen having a sandwich lunch on the portico （门廊；柱廊） of the Gallery overlooking Trafalgar Square. Admission to the Gallery is free, as is the case with other British national galleries and museums, which are maintained by money voted by Parliament. Bequests of pictures have been made to the galleries, at times on a generous scale, by private individuals. 　　Just behind the National Gallery stands the National Portrait Gallery, in which the visitors can see portraits of British monarchs since the reign of Richards II （1377—1399）, and of historical celebrities such as Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Cromwell. Many of the pictures are by well-known artists. 　　The National Gallery of British Art, better known as the Tate Gallery, was given to the nation by a rich sugar merchant, Sir Henry Tate, who had a taste for the fine arts. It overlooks the Thames, not far from the Houses of Parliament. English artists are naturally well represented here, and the Tate also has a range of modern works, including some sculptures, by foreign artists. This, of all the London galleries, is the young people’s gallery. It has been stated that three-quarters of its visitors are under twenty-five. 　　The Wallace Collection at Herford House was formed by Lord Herford and his half brothers, Sir Richard Wallace, who inherited the collection, which was given to the nation in 1897 by Richard’s widow. There is here a very fine display of weapons and armour, of pottery, miniatures（微型画）and sculptures. The first floor of the building contains an admirable assortment of Boucher’s pictures, besides excellent examples of the work of Fragonard, to mention only two artists. 　　On a summer day, a visit to Kenwood House in Kenwood, on the northern side of Hampstead Heath, is well worth while, for here is a small collection of paintings, some by famous painters, that can be viewed in a relatively short time. Afterwards, one can go out into the charming grounds. One may sun oneself on the turf（草皮）of the spacious lawns, or stroll by the lily-pond and then enter the little wood that half surrounds it. Kenwood House is maintained not by the government but by the Greater London Council. 5. In the National Portrait Gallery the visitors can see ( ) .

How did the Days of the Week Get Their Names? There was a time in the early history of man when the days had no names! The reason was quite simple:Man had not invented the week. In those days,the only division of times was the month,and there were too many days in the month for each of them to have a separate name.But when men began to build cities,they wanted to have a special day on which to trade, a market day. Sometimes these market days were fixed at every tenth day,some every seventh or every fifth day. The Babylonians decided that it should be every seventh day. On this day they didn't work, but met for trade or religious festivals. The Jews followed their example, but kept every seventh day for religious purposes. On this day the week came into existence. It was space between market days. The Jews gave each of the seven days a name,but it was really a number after the Sabbath day (which was Saturday). For example,Wednesday was called the fourth day (four days after Saturday). When the Egyptians adopted the seven-day week, they named the days after five planets, the sun and the moon. The Romans used the Egyptian names for their days of the week: the day of the sun, of the moon, of the planet Mars,of Mercury,of Jupiter,of Venus,and of Saturn. We get our names for the days not from the Romans but from the Anglo-Saxons,who called most of the days after their own gods, which roughly the same as the gods of the Romans. The day of the sun became Sannandaeg,or Sunday. The day of the moon was called Monandaeg,or Monday. The day of Mars became the day of the Tiw,who was their god of war.This became Tiwesdaeg,or Tuesday.Instead of Mercury's name,that of the god Woden was given to Wednesday. The Roman day of Jupiter,the thunder,became the day of the thunder god Thor,and this became Thursday.The next day was named for Frigg,the wife of their god Odin,and so we have Friday.The day of Saturn became Saeterndaeg,a translation from the Roman,and then Saturday. A day,by the way,used to be counted as the space between sunrise end sunset. The Romans counted it as from Midnight,and most modern nations this method. Decide whether the following statements are true (T) or false (F) according to the information given in the text. 4. Our present names for the days of the week are mostly named after the gods of the Anglo-Saxons.

Bricks from the Tower of the Babel According to the Bible story, there was a time when the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. But when it occurred to the people to build a tower that would reach unto Heaven itself, the Lord was angry and said, “Let us go down, and there confound their language that they may not understand one another's speech.” And the building was stopped and the people scattered because they could no longer understand one another. 　　Is it possible that the people of the world today could agree upon a single international language that everyone would be able to speak and understand? This has been the dream of many linguists over the centuries, and almost a thousand languages have been invented for this, not to replace the native languages but to provide a second language for worldwide communication. 　　For about a thousand years -- from about the fifth century through the fifteenth -- Latin was the second language of educated people all over Europe and all scholarly works were written in Latin. For, before the invention of the printing press, reading and writing were skills known only to scholars. Most of the scholars were priests and clergymen, and Latin was the language of the church. Latin was a subject required in schools and in colleges, and all educated people had some familiarity with it. 　　The number of people who study Latin has not grown smaller, but proportionately it has become very much smaller. As ordinary people all over the world began to be able to read and write their own languages, and as scientific work of the sixteenth and later centuries came more and more to be written in living languages, a knowledge of Latin was not so essential. Thus, although Latin might once have been claimed as the most suitable of possible international languages （at least for Europeans）, this time has definitely passed. 　　The earliest attempts to invent a simplified language for international use came in the seventeenth century, but it was not until the late nineteenth century that any sizable group of people did actually attempt to speak and write an artificial language. Esperanto, which was published in 1887, was the first language really to take hold. At one time or another as many as eight million people have learned Esperanto. It has been taught in a great many schools and colleges in Europe, and the study of Esperanto was even made compulsory in some high schools in Germany. 　　Five-sixths of Esperanto words have Latin roots; the remainder are Germanic. Verbs are still inflected for tense, and nouns have separate forms for use as subject and object in a sentence. 　　Ido and Interlingua followed Esperanto and improved it, by cutting out some of the cumbersome Latin grammar that still remained. 　　In 1928, Otto Jespersen, the famous Danish linguist who is known as the greatest authority on the English language, put forth a concoction of his own called Novial. It was an improvement on Esperanto but still had the same basic approach. Jespersen thought that the best type of international language was one that offered the greatest ease of learning to the greatest number of people. But when Jespersen thinks of the “greatest number of people” he is referring to Europeans or people of other continents whose language and culture derives from Europe. This completely excludes native populations of the continents of Asia and Africa and of the Pacific Islands, for whom Novial would be totally unfamiliar. 　　Still, if the language is a well-constructed one and not too complicated, perhaps it could nevertheless be adopted by those unfamiliar with its roots and structure. 　　Interglossa, the most recent of the proposed artificial languages, uses basically the Chinese structure, which is that of the isolating language where each word stands alone and there are no inflections at all. The rules of grammar in Interglossa are largely rules of word order, as in English and more strictly in Chinese. The roots are basically Latin and Greek because these have been the roots of most scientific words and are therefore--to some extent—familiar to scientists all over the world. 　　The use to Latin and Greek roots is a big help to readers of Indo-European languages. While this is of no help to the people who speak non-Indo-European languages, the use of Latin roots has at least the advantage of straightforward rules for spelling and pronunciation. The Latin, and all of the sounds of Latin are represented by its letters. 　　Why must an international language necessarily be a made-up language? Why can’t one of the existing languages be chosen as the best one to try to internationalize? 　　In the United Nations, for example, there are five official languages — English, Chinese, Russian, French, and Spanish — and at all official meetings simultaneous translation is carried on, so that it is possible to listen to the speeches in any one of the five languages. If a delegate does not know at least one of these languages, he or she must learn one. How about making one of these into an international language? Of these, Chinese and Russian are not likely to gain many supporters because of the difficulties of these alphabets. The Russian alphabet stems from the Greek but is like that of very few other languages in the world today. The Chinese alphabet is not an alphabet at all. Its characters represent ideas, not sounds, and would therefore require someone to learn two separate languages -- the written and the spoken. The fact that Chinese characters are associated with idea, not sound, would make it a fine written international language, since each reader could apply the symbol to the appropriate word in his or her own language. 　　French was once the language of international diplomats, and a great many people involved in international relations had to learn French. But it has never been a language of science. Its spelling is difficult for foreigners and some of the sounds in French, being unlike those of other Latin-based Languages, are hard for non-French speakers to master. Spanish comes off well in both spelling and pronunciation, for its rules are simple and there are almost no exceptions to those rules, but it is highly inflected and even adds such complications as having two different forms for the verb “to be”, depending upon whether the state of being is permanent or temporary. In simplified form, it might do very well, but no one has tried to promote Spanish as the international language. 　　English, on the other hand, has been worked on for this purpose. C.K. Ogden and I. A. Richards set themselves the task of discovering what is the smallest number of words we need to have in order to be able to define all of the other words in English. They came up with the answer of eight hundred and fifty and made a basic word list of eight hundred and fifty English words, which they named Basic English. These are the only verbs in the entire list: “come, go, get, give, keep, let, do, put, make, say, be, seem, take, see, may, will, have, send.” 　　Writing in Basic English may require you to use a greater number of words -- as in having to say “it came to my ears” instead of “I heard” -- but you can still say anything you want to with just 850 different words and a few suffixes: “-ed, -ing, -ly” and the prefixes “in-, and un-” for “not”. This is a much smaller number of words to have to memorize than is ordinarily offered to the student of a foreign language. 　　Basic English and most of the other languages that have been proposed as international languages have one great disability for their acceptance as a world language: they all assume that the structure of Indo-European languages is　generally understood worldwide. （Interglossa is the only important exception, as it makes the attempt to use Chinese isolating structure instead.） As Benjamin Whorf, an expert on American Indian languages pointed out, "We say ‘a large black and white hunting dog' and assume that in Basic English one would do the same. How is the speaker of a radically different tongue supposed to know that one cannot say ‘hunting a white and black large dog'?” 　　Finally, in considering the merits of any proposed international language it's important to remember what it can and cannot be expected to do. If it is to be used for anything other than basic understanding between people of different nationalities in their daily lives, in international affairs, and in the exchange of scientific information, all proposals are likely to be rejected. If you think of it as a way of internationalizing literature -- especially poetry -- forget it. 　　Admittedly, translations of the “Gettysburg Address”, of “Treasure Island”, “Black Beauty”, and other books of fiction into Basic English came out remarkably well, but no one who could read the original would accept the Basic English version instead. 　　If language were for nothing but the communication of warnings and weather reports, an artificial international language would do nicely. But people have always had a need to do more than simply “tell it like it is”. Language is for reporting not merely one’s work. In our language we define ourselves. For this, a language needs idioms, needs all the oddities of grammar and style that reflect its history and development, all the poetic turns of phrases that have enriched it over the centuries. The language needs these? Well, perhaps not. Does a person need eyebrows? If you were to construct a human being, would you provide eyebrows? Is there some special reason why our lips should be a different color from the rest of our face? Perhaps not, but this is how people — real people — are. Artificial language is recommended highly for artificial people. The computers need it to simplify communication among themselves. For communication between people, languages in all their diversity will remain and grow as mirrors of the growth and soul of the societies that speak them. Decide whether the following statements are true （T） or false （F） according to the information given in the text. 2. In Europe, Latin remains to be the second language of priests and clergymen and other educated people.

Forgiveness and Self-respect 　　It isn’t always easy to forgive someone who has wrongfully harmed us. In fact, we are often very reluctant to forgive. Simon Wiesenthal’s book, The Sunflower, presents an interesting case study that illustrates this point. A critically injured Nazi soldier recognizes the magnitude（数量；程度）of his own wrongdoing and seeks forgiveness from a Jewish person so that he can die in peace. He calls a Jewish inmate of a concentration camp（presumably Wiesenthal） into his hospital room, expresses his anguish（痛苦） and repentance（悔悟）, and begs for forgiveness. The Jewish man leaves the room without a word, and later struggles with the question of whether he should have forgiven the soldier. Likewise, we find some survivors of serious childhood abuse reluctant to forgive the perpetrators （犯罪；犯错）of their abuse, once they recognize what has happened to them and how profoundly it has affected their lives. Some therapists argue on their behalf that certain crimes may be unforgivable, and that survivors of this type of abuse need not forgive. 　　What accounts for our reluctance to forgive? Probably a number of factors, but here I want to focus on the factor of self-respect. Any person who wrongfully harms another fails to show sufficient respect for the person he has harmed. Implicit in the act of wrongdoing, then, is the claim that the victim does not deserve a full measure of respect. The Nazi soldier in The Sunflower helped to burn an entire village of Jews alive, and in doing so, he failed to respect the intrinsic worth of the Jewish people. He failed to recognize them as valuable human beings with a moral status equal to his own. And parents who abuse their children fail to respect them as valuable persons and as the bearers of basic human rights. They fail to respect their children’s feelings, and their profound need for a safe and supportive environment. I think many of us believe that if we forgive an offender who is guilty of serious crimes against us（especially an unrepentant offender）, we are essentially agreeing with the claim that we do not deserve a full measure of respect. In effect, we are saying “That’s OK –it doesn’t matter that you mistreated me. I’m not that important.” If this is the case, then our reluctance to forgive may be the result of a healthy desire to maintain our own self-respect. 　　Although the desire to maintain our self-respect is certainly important to honor, I believe that it need not lead to a refusal to forgive. In fact I believe that if we truly respect ourselves, we will work through a process of responding to the wrong, and this process will lead to genuine forgiveness of the offender. If we attempt to forgive the offender before we do this work, our forgiveness may well be incompatible with our self-respect. However, once this process is complete, it will be fully appropriate for the self-respecting individual to forgive the offender, regardless of whether the offender repents and regardless of what he has done or suffered. 　　Consider a person who has been seriously wronged. Let’s call this person Simon. After he has been harmed, if Simon respects himself, he will stop and establish for himself that the wrongdoer’s implicit claim about him is false. He will recognize that he is a valuable human being with a moral status equal to everyone else’s, and that he deserves a full measure of respect. At the same time, he will establish for himself that the act perpetrated against him was wrong. He will recognize that in virtue of his status as a person he has certain rights, and anyone who violates those rights wrongfully harms him. （If Simon attempts to forgive the offender before he recognizes these points, his forgiveness will be incompatible with his self-respect. It will also not be genuine forgiveness. It will amount to condoning （宽恕） the wrong rather than truly forgiving the offender for it.）Further, if Simon respects himself, he will acknowledge his grief and anger about the incident, and he will allow himself to experience them in full. He will not discount his own feelings or pretend they don’t exist in an attempt to forgive. Instead he will honor his feelings as important and legitimate. If Simon respects himself, he will also look realistically at the offender’s attitudes and behavior patterns. He will consider what steps he needs to take to protect himself from the offender and whether he wants to redefine his personal relationship with him （if such a relationship exists）. Simon’s self-respect will lead him to honor his own needs for protection and rewarding personal relationships. Finally, if Simon respects himself he will make a thoughtful decision about whether he wants to confront the offender, seek restitution, or press criminal charges. And he will do so with a full appreciation of his own status as a person. 　　Thus self-respect leads us to take certain steps to address the wrong that was perpetrated against us. And these steps pave the way for genuine forgiveness of the offender. As we work through the process described above, it is necessary to look at the incident from our own point of view. We must recognize that the wrongdoer was mistaken about our worth and status as a person, that we felt intense grief and anger about the incident, that we are owed restitution, etc. When we look at the incident from this point of view, we naturally feel resentment towards the wrongdoer. However, once this process is complete, we have done what we need to do for ourselves. Without compromising our self-respect, we can now let go of our egocentric（利己的）perspective on the incident and look at it from a more objective point of view. We can recognize that the offender is a valuable human being like ourselves, who struggles with the same needs, pressures, and confusions that we struggle with. We can think about his circumstances and come to understand why he did what he did. In doing so, we will recognize that the incident really may not have been about us in the first place. Instead it was about the wrongdoer’s misguided attempt to meet his own needs. As we regard the offender from this point of view （regardless of whether he repents and regardless of what he has done or suffered）, we will be in a position to forgive him. 　　By forgiving the offender at this point, are we agreeing with his implicit claim that we don’t deserve a full measure of respect? Clearly not. Consider Simon again. Having completed the process of responding to the wrong, he knows that he is valuable and deserves to be treated well. Further, if he respects himself he will trust his own judgment and be secure in his knowledge of these truths, regardless of what the wrongdoer says or does. He will not need to engage in a power struggle to get the offender to acknowledge his worth. As an individual who respects himself, he does not need this kind of external validation. Instead he will recognize the wrongdoer's confusion for what it is, put it in proper perspective, and go on to more worthwhile pursuits. Thus true self-respect leads to genuine forgiveness of the offender. As we act out of self-respect, our self-respect increases. Therefore every step we take towards forgiveness should increase our self-respect. Our self-respect also will increase after we reach a state of genuine forgiveness. Speaking from my own experience in forgiving my alcoholic father for serious childhood abuse, enormous benefits result from reaching a state of genuine forgiveness. By letting go of my grief and resentment, I opened up space for a whole range of positive emotions（joy, excitement, love, gratitude）, which I now experience on a regular basis. I also have a sense of peace concerning the incidents of abuse. They are truly over for me and no longer ride on my mind. This sense of peace is very valuable in itself, and it also allows me to focus on my own positive pursuits. Increased self-esteem is the inevitable consequence of feeling good and being able to devote all of my attention to the positive aspects of my life——my goals, interests, etc. Further, the process of forgiving has been very empowering. I have a deeper understanding of human nature and feel much less threatened by the wrongful attitudes and behaviors of others. I also have gained an ability to detach from other people' opinions and to trust my own judgment. Finally, forgiveness has brought me the great reward of feeling unadulterated love for my father. These kinds of benefits are available to all of us. They promote self-respect and they are surely worth seeking. Decide whether the following statements are true （T） or false （F） according to the information given in the text. 5. When we forgive the wrongdoer, we are in danger of putting our self-respect in doubt.

The English Character 　　The English, as a race, have the reputation of being very different from all other nationalities, including their closest neighbors, the French, Belgians and Dutch. It is claimed that living on an island separated from the rest of Europe has much to do with it. Whatever the reasons it may be fairly stated that the Englishman has developed many attitudes and habits which distinguish him from other nationalities. 　　Broadly speaking, the Englishman is a quiet, shy, reserved person who is fully relaxed only among people he knows well. In the presence of strangers or foreigners he often seems inhibited, even embarrassed. You have only to witness a commuter train any morning or evening to see the truth of this. Serious-looking businessmen and women sit reading their newspapers or dozing in a corner; no one speaks. In fact, to do so would seem most unusual. An English wit, pretending to be giving advice to overseas visitors, once suggested, "On entering a railway compartment shake hands with all the passengers." Needless to say, he was not being serious. There is an unwritten but clearly understood code of behavior which, if broken, makes the person immediately the object of suspicion. 　　It is a well-known fact that the English have an obsession with their weather and that, given half a chance, they will talk about it at length. Some people argue that it is because weather defies forecast and hence is a source of interest and speculation to everyone. This may be so. Certainly Englishmen cannot have much faith in the meteorological experts--the weathermen--who, after promising fine, sunny weather for the following day, are often proved wrong when an anti-cyclone over the Atlantic brings rainy weather to all districts. The man in the street seems to be as accurate--or as inaccurate-as the weathermen in his predictions. This helps to explain the seemingly odd sight of an Englishman leaving home on a bright, sunny, summer morning with a raincoat slung over his arm and an umbrella in his hand. So variable is the weather that by lunchtime it could be pouring. 　　The overseas visitors may be excused for showing surprise at the number of references to weather that the English make to each other in the course of a single day. Very often conventional greetings are replaced by comments on the weather. "Nice day, isn't it?" "Beautiful!" may well be heard instead of "Good morning, how are you?" Although the foreigner may consider this exaggerated and comic, it is worthwhile pointing out that it could be used to his advantage. If he wants to start a conversation with an Englishman （or woman） but is at a loss to know where to begin, he could do well to mention the state of the weather. It is a safe subject which will provoke an answer from even the most reserved of Englishmen. In many parts of the world it is quite normal to show openly extremes of enthusiasm, emotion, passion etc., often accompanied by appropriate gestures. The Englishman is somewhat different. Of course, an Englishman feels no less deeply than any other nationality, but he tends to display his feelings far less. This is reflected in his use of language, imagine a man commenting on the great beauty of a young girl. Whereas a man of more emotional temperament might describe her as "an exquisite jewel", "divine", "precious", the Englishman will flatly state "Um, she's all right". An Englishman who has seen a highly successful and enjoyable film recommends it to a friend by commenting, "It's not bad, you know," or on seeing a breathtaking landscape he might convey his pleasure by saying, "Nice, yes, very nice." The overseas visitor must not be disappointed by this apparent lack of interest and involvement; he must realize that "all right", "no bad", and "nice", are very often used as superlatives with the sense of "first-class", "excellent", "beautiful". This special use of language, particularly common in English, is known as understatement. 1. Which of the following would be the most appropriate reason for the English unique character?

Pandora's Box A very long time ago,in the Golden Age,everyone was good and happy.It was always spring; the earth was covered with flowers,and only gentle winds blew to set the flowers dancing.People lived on mountain strawberries,wild grapes and sweet acorns(橡树上的橡果），which grew plentifully in the oak forests.River flowed with milk and nectar(甘甜的饮品）。Even the bees did not need to lay up honey,for it fell in tiny drops from the trees.There was abundance everywhere. In all the whole world, there was not a sword,nor any weapon by means of which men might fight with one another.No one had ever heard of any such thing.All the iron and the gold were buried deep underground. Besides,people were never ill; they had no troubles of any kind and never grew old. The two brothers,Prometheus and Epimetheus,lived in those wonderful days.After stealing the fire for man,Prometheus,knowing that Zeus would be angry,decided to go away for a time on a distant journey; but before he went,he warned Epimetheus not to receive any gifts from the gods. One day,after Prometheus had been gone for some time,Hermes came to the cottage of Epimetheus,leading by the hand of a beautiful young woman,whose name was Pandora, She was made by Zeus to punish Prometheus for stealing fire to man.Every god contributed something to perfect her.Aphrodite gave her beauty,Hermes persuasion,Apollo music,etc. Hermes presented her to Epimetheus,saying the gods had sent this gift that he might not be lonesome(孤独）。 Pandora had such a lovely face that Epimetheus could not help believing that the gods had sent her to him in a good faith. So he paid no heed to the warning of Prometheus,but took Pandora into his cottage,and found that the days passed much more quickly and pleasantly when she was with him. Soon,the gods sent Epimetheus another gift. This was a heavy box,which the Satyrs brought to the cottage, with directions that it was not to be opened.Epimetheus let it stand in a corner of his cottage; for by this time he had begun to think that the caution of Prometheus about receiving gifts from the gods was altogether unnecessary. Often,Epimetheus was away all day, hunting or fishing or gathering grapes from the wild vines that grew along the river banks. On such days,Pandora had nothing to do but wonder what was in the mysterious box. One day her curiosity was so great that she lifted the lid a very little way and peeped in. The result was similar to what would have happened had she lifted the cover of a beehive(蜂箱）。Out rushed a great swarm of little winged creatures,and before Pandora knew what had happened,she was stung(螯）。She dropped the lid and ran out of the cottage,screaming.Epimetheus,who was just coming in at the door,was well stung,too. The little winged creatures that Pandora had let out of the box were Troubles,the first that had ever been seen in the world. They soon flew about and spread themselves everywhere,pinching and stinging whenever they got the chance. After this,people began to have headaches,rheumatism(风湿），and other illnesses; and instead of being always kind and pleasant to one another,as they had been before the Troubles were let out of the box,they became unfriendly and quarrelsome. They began to grow old,too. Nor was it always spring any longer, The fresh young grasses that had clothed all the hillsides,and the gay-coloured flowers that had given Epimetheus and Pandora so much pleasure,were scorched by hot summer suns,and bitten by the frosts of autumn.Oh,it was a sad thing for the world,when all those wicked little Troubles were let loose! All the Troubles escaped from the box,but when Pandora let the lid fall so hastily,she shut in one little winged creature,a kind of good fairy whose name was Hope.This little Hope persuaded Pandora to let her out. As soon as she was free,she flew about in the world,undoing all the evil that the Troubles had done,that is,as fast as one good fairy could undo the evil work of such a swarm.No matter what evil thing had happened to poor mortals,she always found some way to comfort them.She fanned aching heads with her gossamer(纤薄的）wings;she brought back the colour to pale cheeks; and,best of all,she whispered to those who were growing old that they should one day be young again. So this is the way that Troubles came into the world,but we must not forget that Hope came with them. Decide whether the following statements are true (T) or false (F) according to the information given in the text. 2.The greatness of Pandora's beauty enslaved the heart of Epimetheus who had quite forgotten the warning of Prometheus never to accept anything from Zeus.