填空题

There is nothing illogical or synthetic about the humility ( modesty ) of great bookmen in calling attention to the limitations of the book. No book can 1 us to know everything that is to be known, or feel everything that is to be felt. A book is part of life, not a substitute  2 it. It is not a fit 3 for worship or enshrinement. It loses its charm and much of its value when accepted 4 No one would have been more 5 than Aristotle if he could have known of the excessive and 6 veneration that would be given to his ideas in centuries to 7 . When his works became the 8 words of advance knowledge, 9 knowledge became neither advanced nor vital. The particular occasion for these remarks is that there are 10 here and there that some of us in the book world may be 11 ourselves too seriously. In the effort to increase book reading some 12 things are being said about books. It is made to 13 that nothing is happening now that has not happened before, and that the only true approach to understanding is 14 books. We do neither service nor justice to books by 15 upon them such omnipotence and omniscience. Many of the answers we need today are not necessarily to be found between 16 There are elements of newness in the present 17 of man that will not readily be 18 of by required reading or ready reference. Books are not slide rules or blueprints for 19 automatic answers. What is needed is a mighty blend of the wisdom of the ages 20 fresh, razor-edged analytical thought.

【参考答案】

B
热门 试题

填空题
The relation of language and mind has interested philosophers for many centuries. 61 ) The Greeks assumed that the structure of language had some connection with the process of thought, which took root in Europe long before people realized how diverse languages could be. Only recently did linguists begin the serious study of languages that were very different from their own. Two anthropologist-linguists, Franz Boas and Edward Sapir, were pioneers in describing many native languages of North and South America during the first half of the twentieth century. 62) We are obliged to them because some of these languages have since vanished, as the peoples who spoke them died out or became assimilated and lost their native languages. Other linguists in the earlier part of this century, however, who were less eager to deal with bizarre data from exotic language, were not always so grateful. 63)The newly described languages were often so strikingly different from the well studied languages of Europe and Southeast Asia that some scholars even accused Boas and Sapir of fabricating their data. Native American languages are indeed different, so much so in fact that Navajo could be used by the US military as a code during World War II to send secret messages.Sapir’’s pupil, Benjamin Lee Whorf, continued the study of American Indian languages. 64 ) Being interested in the relationship of language and thought, Whorf developed the idea that the structure of language determines the structure of habitual thought in a society. He reasoned that because it is easier to formulate certain concepts and not others in a given language, the speakers of that language think along one track and not along another. 65 ) Whorf came to believe in a sort of linguistic determinism which, in its strongest form, states that language imprisons the mind, and that the grammatical patterns in a language can produce far-reaching consequences for the culture of a society. Later, this idea became to be known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, but this term is somewhat inappropriate. Although both Sapir and Whorf emphasized the diversity of languages, Sapir himself never explicitly supported the notion of linguistic determinism.